Positive and Negative Spillover from Work to Home: The Role of Organizational Culture and Supportive Arrangements
| Author | Jenny Sok,Debbie Tromp,Rob Blomme |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12058 |
| Published date | 01 July 2014 |
| Date | 01 July 2014 |
Positive and Negative Spillover from Work
to Home: The Role of Organizational
Culture and Supportive Arrangements
Jenny Sok, Rob Blomme1and Debbie Tromp
Hotelschool The Hague, Brusselselaan 2, 2587 AH The Hague, The Netherlands, and 1Nyenrode Business
University, Straatweg 25, 3621 BG Breukelen, The Netherlands
Corresponding author email: j.sok@hotelschool.nl
For today’s managers, striking a sound work−home balance is an important matter. In
this paper we investigate the relationship between organizational culture and work-to-
home spillover. Two types of organizational culture, supportive and innovative, were
compared with regard to work-to-home spillover. We measured work-to-home spillover
with the help of positive and negative work−home interference measures: negative work−
home interference was divided into strain-based negative work−home interference and
time-based negative work−home interference. A total of 418 alumni of two Dutch
business schools completed a questionnaire. The data were analysed by means of con-
firmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Findings showed that a
supportive culture explained most of the variance in positive work−home interference and
strain-based negative work−home interference. The relationships between a supportive
culture and positive and strain-based negative work−home interference were fully medi-
ated by flexible work−home arrangements. Flexible work−home arrangements explained
the variance in time-based negative work−home interference, while no relationship was
found between supportive culture and time-based negative work−home interference.
Innovative culture was positively related to positive work−home interference and time-
based negative work−home interference. The outcomes suggest that a supportive culture,
expressed in flexible work−home arrangements, can enhance positive spillover from the
work domain to the home domain and diminish negative spillover. We suggest that
improving the work−home interface may attract and retain valued managers.
Introduction
Work−home balance has become a primary
concern to employers and policy makers in
western industrial societies (Barnett, 2005;
Blomme, van Rheede and Tromp, 2010; Kossek,
Baltes and Matthews, 2011), especially with
regard to highly educated employees (Guest,
2002). As we define it, the term ‘highly educated’
applies to employees who have completed a
higher education programme at Bachelor’s or
Master’s level (Blomme, 2006; Reijnders, 2003)
and who hold a supervisory or management posi-
tion (Blomme, van Rheede and Tromp, 2010).
From an employee perspective, the term work−
home balance refers to striking and maintaining a
balance between responsibilities in the profes-
sional work arena and in the home environment
(De Cieri et al., 2005; Guest, 2002). In this respect,
it should be borne in mind that in the literature
the terms work−family, work−home and work−
life tend to be used interchangeably. In fact,
Kossek, Baltes and Matthews emphasize that the
term work−family should be ‘defined broadly,
and not used simply to refer to nuclear families,
but to the nonwork and personal roles of all
employees’ (2011, p. 354). Therefore, in this paper
The Stichting Mobiliteits Fonds HBO and Hotelschool
The Hague supported this study financially.
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Management, Vol. 25, 456–472 (2014)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12058
© 2014 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4
2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
we use the term ‘home’ instead of ‘family’ and
‘life’, because the definition of home covers a
variety of possible home activities, including
family, community and leisure activities (cf. De
Cieri et al., 2005; Guest, 2002; Ten Brummelhuis
et al., 2013). Because work−family, work−home
as well as work−life literature tends to include all
activities outside work, we shall use these inter-
changeable terms to refer to work−home issues
(cf. Guest, 2002; Lewis and Cooper, 1995;
Poelmans, O’Driscoll and Beham, 2005).
Over the past 60 years, both the work and the
home domains have undergone profound
changes. Balancing work and home life has
become increasingly difficult for employees and
private individuals (Barnett, 2005; Kossek, Baltes
and Matthews, 2011), especially for those holding
management positions (Guest, 2002). With regard
to the work−home interface, several intercon-
nected developments have taken place. One of the
most significant changes is the growing labour
force participation of women since the 1950s and
1960s (Bianchi and Raley, 2005; Kossek, 2005;
Kossek, Baltes and Matthews, 2011). The
growing number of dual-earner couples, single
parents, co-parenting individuals and individuals
who care for elderly relatives has brought about a
dramatic shift in the allocation of time and energy
devoted to the work and the home domains. Fur-
thermore, authors seem to agree that work
demands have grown excessively (e.g. Allen,
O’Donnell and Peetz, 1999; Guest, 2002). Glo-
balization, in combination with increasing com-
petitive pressures on businesses, has resulted in
increased ‘work intensity’ (Guest, 2002, p. 257),
leading to more exhaustion, stress-related prob-
lems and work−home conflict (Allen, O’Donnell
and Peetz, 1999; Guest, 2002). In addition, the
increasing need of earning two incomes, com-
bined with the growing need to remain employ-
able, adds to the difficulty of balancing work and
home life (Forrier, Sels and Stynen, 2009; Kossek,
2005; Kossek, Baltes and Matthews, 2011;
Musson and Tietze, 2009).
We studied the positive and the negative spillo-
ver from work to home: positive and negative
work−home interference. Negative work−home
interference is experienced when pressures from
the work and home domains are mutually incom-
patible (Bellavia and Frone, 2005). We make a
distinction between time-based and strain-based
negative work−home interference, which will be
further explained below. We follow Hanson,
Hammer and Colton (2006), who define positive
work−home interference as the transfer of posi-
tively valenced affect, skills, behaviours and
values from the originating domain to the receiv-
ing domain.
Although the importance of organizational
culture as a precursor for work−home interference
has been emphasized in the literature (e.g.
Kinnunen et al., 2005), only few studies have
actually been conducted on this relationship (e.g.
Xiao and O’Neill, 2010). Some studies have exam-
ined a work−home or family-friendly culture, in
relation to work−home interference. For example,
an organization with work−family policies has
been found to relate to higher job satisfaction and
commitment levels and to lower levels of physical
complaints (Mauno, Kinnunen and Ruokolainen,
2006), lower levels of psychosomatic strain and
reduced levels of negative work−home interfer-
ence for women (Beauregard, 2011). Hence, it
may be concluded that the positive influence of a
supportive work−home working environment (cf.
Bailyn, 1997; Beauregard, 2011; Clark, 2001) has
been widely recognized.
However, when looking at the definitions and
operationalization of ‘culture’ in these studies, we
can argue that the measures used are narrower
than what is generally considered to be an ‘organi-
zational culture’. To illustrate the point: Chen,
Cheung and Law (2012) indicate that different
forms of culture exist, such as ideologies (beliefs,
basic assumptions and shared core values) and
observable cultural artefacts (norms and prac-
tices). Additionally, Pizam’s ‘hierarchy of cul-
tures’ (1993) explains that definitions of culture
are used on different levels, ranging from national
cultures to organizational cultures and, finally,
attitudes and practices. Chen, Cheung and Law
(2012) categorize the latter as facets of culture,
or ‘subcultures’. We argue that organizational
culture refers to a form of culture on an organi-
zational level which includes core values and con-
sensual interpretations about the way things are
and that work−home culture or family-friendly
culture refers to a facet of culture on the level of
attitudes and practices, and thus that these can be
modified more easily, based on newly acquired
information. To our knowledge, however, the
relation between organizational culture and
work−home interference has scarcely been exam-
ined (cf. Blomme, Sok and Tromp, 2013). This is
Positive and Negative Spillover from Work to Home 457
© 2014 British Academy of Management.
To continue reading
Request your trial