Work–family conflict and happiness: the moderating role of national culture
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-01-2021-0001 |
| Published date | 14 March 2022 |
| Date | 14 March 2022 |
| Pages | 293-311 |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
| Author | Manli Gu,Chee Meng Tan,Yee Sen Ho,Li Liu |
Work–family conflict and
happiness: the moderating role
of national culture
Manli Gu
School of Management and Marketing, Taylor’s University –Lakeside Campus,
Subang Jaya, Malaysia
Chee Meng Tan
Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham Malaysia,
Semenyih, Malaysia, and
Yee Sen Ho and Li Liu
School of Management and Marketing, Taylor’s University –Lakeside Campus,
Subang Jaya, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose –This study aims to demonstrate how national culture, as measured using the Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions, moderates the relationship between work–family conflict (WFC) and individual-level subjective
well-being (SWB).
Design/methodology/approach –Usinga two-level hierarchical linear model, thisstudy analysed data from
the “Familyand Changing Gender Roles IV”survey from the InternationalSocial Survey Programme’s (ISSP). A
total of 33,044 participantsacross 41 countries in 2012 were interviewed, but this investigationwas limited to
23,277individuals across 37 countries when allthe necessary variables used in this analysiswere accounted for.
National cultural indicators(the moderators) were measured using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions,which are
individualism–collectivism,masculinity–femininity, uncertainty avoidance andindulgence–restraint.
Findings –This study presented two main results. Firstly, although family-to-work conflict has an overall
negative impact on SWB, this negativity is stronger among participants from individualistic cultures.
Secondly, just like family-to-work conflict, work-to-familyinterference has an adverse impact on workers’well-
being as well, though this effect is more prominent in indulgent cultures.
Originality/value –This paper is novel on two accounts. Firstly, it is one of the few articles that investigates
the impact of WFC on SWB using a large multi-country dataset, which allows us to generalize results across
multiple cultures. This is unlike many papers in the literature that presented findings from single-country
sources, which contextualizes outcomes to a single nation. Secondly, to the best of the authors’knowledge, the
article is the first in examining the role played by the Hofstede’s indulgence–restraint dimensionin moderating
the effect of WFC on SWB.
Keywords Happiness, National culture, Subjective well-being, Work–family conflict,
Hofstede’s cultural model
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
1.1 Work–family conflict and its relation to well-being
Work and family were traditionally perceived to be two separate aspects of life (Edwards and
Rothbard, 2000). However, recent changes to work and family structures have blurred the
boundary between both domains (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000;Gragnano et al., 2020;Guest,
2002;Sousa et al., 2018). Technological advancements, such as cloud-based connectivity and
Moderating
role of national
culture
293
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or
publication of this article. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for thoughtful and constructive
comments on early drafts.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2049-3983.htm
Received 1 January 2021
Revised 8 June 2021
15 November 2021
6 February 2022
Accepted 22 February 2022
Evidence-based HRM: a Global
Forum for Empirical Scholarship
Vol. 10 No. 3, 2022
pp. 293-311
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2049-3983
DOI10.1108/EBHRM-01-2021-0001
smartphones, have obscured the delineation further between work and family obligations
(Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2019). Ironically, even as the obfuscation of work–family boundaries
has afforded increasing flexibility for employees in managing their vocational roles, it has
also hindered work-life balance (Kossek, 2016). As an example, the transformation of
demographic trends such as the rising number of working mothers has clouded traditional
gender roles and created new challenges in fulfilling work–family obligations (Borgmann
et al., 2019;Marks, 2006).
Research has shown that work–family conflict (WFC) undermines individual well-being
(Aycan, 2008;Grant-Vallone and Ensher, 2001). Well-being, which is a scientific term for
happiness, is a multidimensional construct that captures the quality of an individual’s
physical, mental and social experience and functioning (Diener, 2000;Fisher, 2010;Grant
et al., 2007;Liu, 2018). Empirical studies have repeatedly reported a positive association
between WFC and poor physical and mental health such as obesity, feelings of depression
and burnout, which often lead to lower life satisfaction (Allen et al., 2000;Borgmann et al.,
2019;Neto et al., 2018;Symoens and Bracke, 2015).
1.2 The influence of national culture on work–family interface and well-being
While it is generally established that WFC takes a toll on well-being, less is known on whether
this pattern is culture-specific. Past studies show that cultural environments not only
influence individual behaviour (Choi and Choi, 1994;Markus and Kitayama, 1991) but also
shape an individual’s work–family experience (Annor, 2016;Le et al., 2020). Powell et al. (2009)
argue that most key concepts examined in work–family literature such as role expectations
and conflict have a cultural underpinning. For example, culture may determine what people
consider a “good”worker, husband or wife (Allen et al., 2000) and may also influence priorities
assigned to work versus family roles (Yang, 2005). Research also suggests that individuals in
Asian cultures (vs Western cultures) perceive work and family roles as compatible and not as
competing forces that vie for one’s energy (Aycan, 2008).
A recent review on the cross-cultural impact on work–family relations by Shockley et al.
(2017) finds that culture is primarily treated as a predictor of work–family experience, with
divergent results reporting on whether certain cultural contexts are positively or negatively
related to WFC (Ruppanner and Huffman, 2014;Van der Lippe et al., 2006). A second
approach treats culture as a moderator between an antecedent and WFC. Substantially fewer
studies investigate how cultural values moderate the relationship between WFC and its
theoretical outcomes, according to a meta-analytic work by Allen et al. (2020).
Another aspect worth highlighting is that the study of culture and WFC has largely been
focused on turnover intentions and job satisfaction (Jin et al., 2013;Spector et al., 2007;Wang
et al., 2004), but more scarcely with other forms of well-being as outcomes. Examples that do
comprise of Aryee et al. (1999), which suggest that the nature and effects of WFC on employee
well-being vary across cultures. Using a sample of Hong Kong Chinese employees, they find
that work is often seen as a means of enhancing the family’s economic well-being and that
pouring more time into work is not necessarily in conflict with family activities among the
Chinese workers. More recently, Haar et al. (2014) study depression and life satisfaction in
seven distinct populations and conclude that WFC is positively associated with anxiety for
individuals in gender-egalitarian cultures.
1.3 The present study
This paper aims to explorehow national culture moderates the relationship betweenWFC and
subjective well-being (SWB), which is a measure of happiness. Our study is different from
previous research in three ways:Firstly, we examine nationally representative data collected
from the International Social Survey Project (ISSP), a large-scale global survey program
covering various topics in different countries. Previous cross-national studies oftencompare
EBHRM
10,3
294
To continue reading
Request your trial