xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 002001026
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090427s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002541
Explaining the impact of work interference with family :
b the role of work-family psychological contract and cultural values
h [electronic resource] /
by Xian Xu.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 124 pages.
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
ABSTRACT: This study aims to further understand the mechanisms through which work interference with family (WIF) influences important attitudinal, behavioral, and well-being outcomes. First, the study expands the content of employees' psychological contract through creating a measure of Work-Family Psychological Contract Breach (WFPCB). The study also examines the mediating role of WFPCB in the relations between WIF and work-related outcomes. Finally, the study explores potential cultural influences by looking at the moderating role of individualism-collectivism on the relations between WIF and WFPCB as well as between WFPCB and the outcomes. Research was carried out in three stages: 1) telephone interviews were conducted to understand the content of work-family psychological contract; 2) the WFPCB measure was piloted; and 3) a final survey study was carried out to test the main hypotheses. Data were collected in both the U.S.and China, resulting in 20 participants each for the interview study, over 60 participants each for the pilot study and over 200 respondents each for the final stage. Support was found in both samples for the link between WIF and WFPCB, and some of the direct paths with the outcomes, especially the attitudinal variables. Full mediation effect of WFPCB was found for organizational commitment in the U.S. and for job satisfaction in China. Evidence for partial mediation was also found for the other attitudinal variables. The moderating role of individualism-collectivism at the individual level was only found in the Chinese sample for organizational commitment, such that the negative relationship between WIF and commitment was stronger when individualism was high. A country comparison of the hypothesized direct effect was posed as research questions.The present study contributes to the psychological contract and work-family literature by introducing the psychological contract theory and shedding some light on the potential mechanism through which work interference with family affects important outcomes such as employee job attitudes and well-being.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Co-advisor: Walter C. Borman, Ph.D.
Co-advisor: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Explaining the Impact of Work Interference with Fam ily: The Role of Work-Family Psychological Contract and Cultural Values by Xian Xu A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-major Professor: Walter C. Borman, Ph.D. Co-major Professor: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D. Paul E. Spector, Ph.D. Joseph A. Vandello, Ph.D. Alan Balfour, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 26, 2008 Keywords: the psychological contract, work-family c onflict, individualism-collectivism, China, mediation, moderation Copyright 2008, Xian Xu
Love is but the discovery of ourselves in others, a nd the delight in the recognition. ~Alexander Smith Dedication I would like to dedicate this dissertation to a ver y special person in my life, who has made me who I am today, sacrificed all of his own needs, and provided all he had to me. He has supported an d continues to support me with endless patience, encouragement, and love, whatever I chose to do, and wherever I chose to go. I would like to tell h im that: I am finally here! I would have gotten nowhere near here without you, and you deserve recognition for one hundred pe rcent of what I have achieved and what I have written in the following p ages to come. Thank you, Dad! This dissertation and degree is for YOU!
I can no other answer make, but, thanks, and thanks ~William Shakespeare Acknowledgements This has been a long journey for me.. It was not th e easiest path on earth, yet definitely one of the most wonderful learning exper iences I have had, and so many people are there to thank for making this journey p ossible and enjoyable. I would like to start by thanking my co-major profe ssors, Drs. Wally Borman and Tammy Allen. Being my advisor and the perfect e xample of the scientist-practitioner model, Dr. Borman has supported me on all my study, research, and professional development. Dr. Allen has generously lent me her e xpertise on work-family research and has been such a pleasure to work with for all t he projects we had together. I also want to thank the other committee members, Dr. Paul Spec tor (who has always been there for me and all other students of our program), Dr. Jose ph Vendello, and Dr. Alan Balfour, for the time, guidance, and patience they shared with m e. I would also like to thank Dr. Charles Michaels for graciously accepting the invit ation to be my committee chair. I want to take this opportunity to also thank the o ther professors in the USF I/O program, especially Drs. Edward Levine and Mike Bra nnick for sharing great research experiences. Thanks also go to all my fellow studen ts for creating a wonderful environment for learning and growing together. A sp ecial thank you goes to Laura Pierce and Liuqin Yang for all their support getting me th rough the administrative process. I would also like to express my appreciation for Dr. Hongyu Li, Xiaozhuang Wang, Liangsen Xu, and Zhang Longmei for their great help with the data collection, and everyone who took time and effort to participate in my research. Last but not least, thank you, all my friends. I am finally graduating!!!
i Table of Contents List of TablesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ...Â…...iv List of Figures Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…......v AbstractÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â… ...............vi Chapter One: IntroductionÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ...1 Statement of the ProblemÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â….........1 Purpose of the StudyÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… 3 Significance of the StudyÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .....3 Outline of the DissertationÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…...4 Chapter Two: Literature ReviewÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .....5 Work-Family ResearchÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…...5 Work Interference with Family (WIF)..Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… ..7 WIF and Potential ConsequencesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…8 Mediators of WIF-Outcome Re lationshipsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…13 The Psychological ContractÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… ...14 ContentÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ..Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .............15 Psychological Contract BreachÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…..17 The Work-Family Psychological ContractÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â… ....18 Work-Family Psychological Contract Breach (WFPCB)Â…. ..Â…Â…Â…Â… ...22 WIF and WFPCBÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ...24 WFPCB and ConsequencesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ...25
ii WIF, WFPCB and ConsequencesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ......27 WIF, WFPCB and Cultural ValueÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .....28 Cultural Value.Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…...28 Individualism-CollectivismÂ… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ........30 WFPCB, Consequences and Cultural ValueÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â… ..31 Cross-National Comparison: the U.S. and ChinaÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… ..34 Summary of HypothesesÂ…Â…Â…Â… .Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… ...36 Research StrategyÂ…Â…Â…Â… .Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… ..37 Chapter Three: Qualitative: Interview StudyÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .38 MethodÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…...38 ParticipantsÂ…..Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .. 38 MaterialsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… 39 ProcedureÂ…..Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… 39 ResultsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… 40 DiscussionÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .. 41 Chapter Four: Quantitative: Pilot Survey Study....Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ....43 MethodÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ...43 Participants & ProcedureÂ…..Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .43 MaterialsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .....45 ResultsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… 51 Chapter Five: Quantitative: Main Survey StudyÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… 55 MethodÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ... 55 Participants & ProcedureÂ…..Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… .55
iii MeasuresÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ..Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ..........57 AnalysesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… .....60 ResultsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… 62 DescriptivesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ....................................62 Analysis for Direct EffectÂ…...Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ...................66 Hypothesis 1 to 3Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…...66 Mediation AnalysisÂ…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ................70 Hypothesis 4Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… ...70 Moderation AnalysisÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… ..76 Hypothesis 5 and 6Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .................76 Research QuestionsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â… 78 Supplemental AnalysisÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… ...81 Chapter Six: DiscussionÂ…Â… ...Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… ..89 Key FindingsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… ..89 Theoretical and Practical ImplicationsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… ...93 Limitations of the StudyÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… Â….................95 Directions for Future ResearchÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… ..96 ReferencesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… ..98 AppendicesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… ...114 Appendix A: A Sample of Interview QuestionsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… ..115 Appendix B: Employee Survey (English)Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â… 116 About the AuthorÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… End Page
iv List of Tables Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for the Pilot StudyU.S. & China...Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… 51 Table 2 Correlation Matrix for the Main Variables a nd Demographic VariablesU.S. & ChinaÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… Â…53 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for the F inal SurveyU.S. & ChinaÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…63 Table 4 Correlation Matrix for the Main Variables a nd Demographic VariablesU.S. & ChinaÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… Â…Â… Â…64 Table 5a Multiple Regression for WIF and WFPCB on t he OutcomesU.SÂ…Â… ...68 Table 5b Multiple Regression for WIF and WFPCB on t he OutcomesChinaÂ…Â…69 Table 6a Mediation Results Using Sobel (1982) Test: WIF, WFPCB, and OutcomesU.S. Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â….....74 Table 6b Mediation Results Using Sobel (1982) Test: WIF, WFPCB, and OutcomesCNÂ…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ...75 Table 7 Moderated Regression of WFPCB and Individua lism on Organizational Commitment and Supervisor Ratings of CWBChinaÂ…Â…Â…Â… Â… Â…Â… ..77 Table 8 Frequency Analysis Results for the Work-Fam ily Psychological Contract Composite ItemsU.S. & ChinaÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… 83 Table 9a Top Items Expected by the U.S. Participant sÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…...Â…Â… .85 Table 9b Top Items Expected by Chinese Participants Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… Â…Â….....85 Table 10a Top Items Promised by Employers Reported by the U.S. ParticipantsÂ….86 Table 10b Top Items Promised by Employers Reported by Chinese Participants....86 Table 11a Top Items Provided by Employers Reported by the U.S. participantsÂ…..87 Table 11b Top Items Provided by Employers as Report ed by Chinese Participants..87 Table 12 Percentage of Â“PromisedÂ” Items Â“ProvidedÂ” by EmployersU.S. & China Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… .88
v List of Figures Figure 1 Summary of Proposed HypothesesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â….Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… 37 Figure 2 Sample Output for the Mediating Role of WF PCB between WIF and Job SatisfactionÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â… .71 Figure 3 Moderating Effect of Individualism on WFPC B and Organizational CommitmentÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â…Â… ..77
vi Explaining the Impact of Work Interference with Fam ily: The Role of Work-Family Psychological Contract and Cultural Values Xian Xu ABSTRACT This study aims to further understand the mechanism s through which work interference with family (WIF) influences important attitudinal, behavioral, and wellbeing outcomes. First, the study expands the conten t of employeesÂ’ psychological contract through creating a measure of Work-Family Psychological Contract Breach (WFPCB). The study also examines the mediating role of WFPCB in the relations between WIF and work-related outcomes. Finally, the study explores potential cultural influences by looking at the moderating role of ind ividualism-collectivism on the relations between WIF and WFPCB as well as between WFPCB and the outcomes. Research was carried out in three stages: 1) teleph one interviews were conducted to understand the content of work-family psychological contract; 2) the WFPCB measure was piloted; and 3) a final survey study was carrie d out to test the main hypotheses. Data were collected in both the U.S. and China, resultin g in 20 participants each for the interview study, over 60 participants each for the pilot study and over 200 respondents each for the final stage. Support was found in both samples for the link between WIF and WFPCB, and some of the direct paths with the outcom es, especially the attitudinal variables. Full mediation effect of WFPCB was found for organizational commitment in the U.S. and for job satisfaction in China. Evidenc e for partial mediation was also found
vii for the other attitudinal variables. The moderating role of individualism-collectivism at the individual level was only found in the Chinese sample for organizational commitment, such that the negative relationship between WIF and commitment was stronger when individualism was high. A country comparison of the hypothesized direct effect was posed as research questions. The present study cont ributes to the psychological contract and work-family literature by introducing the psych ological contract theory and shedding some light on the potential mechanism through which work interference with family affects important outcomes such as employee job att itudes and well-being.
1 Chapter One Introduction The interaction between the work and family domains has attracted a great amount of research attention over the past decades (e.g. Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1992a; Allen, Herst, Bruck & Sutton, 2000; Witt & Carlson, 2006). On the one hand, various socioeconomic chang es and technological advancement (e.g. increase in the number of dual-earner couples and the Internet) have enabled deeper integration of organizational and personal lives; o n the other hand, the boundaries between the two domains have been blurred further b y expectations for employers to be more involved in employeesÂ’ non-work activities (Mo rishima, 1996, cited in Giga & Cooper, 2005; Friedman, 1990; Zedeck & Mosier, 1990 ). Research has found that the work-and-family interaction can be both positive an d negative, and that interference can flow from work to family or from family to work. Mu ch effort has also been devoted to defining concepts such as work-family conflict and balance (e.g., Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Marks & MacDermid, 1996; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), to examining the antecedents and consequences of work-family conflic t (e.g., Frone, Yardley & Markel, 1997; Greenhaus, Allen & Spector, 2006), and to fin ding ways such as adopting familyfriendly policies to facilitate the work and family integration (e.g., Grover & Crooker, 1995; Hammer, Neal, Newsome, Brockwood & Colton, 20 05). Statement of the Problem
2 Although much is known about work-family issues, mu ch more research needs to be conducted to be able to inform concerned individ uals and organizations. Studies indicate that work interference with family (WIF) i s related to important individual and organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction, withdrawal, and employee health (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). However, to be able to effectively reduce the negative influence of WIF, we need to further under stand the mechanisms through which WIF influences these important attitudinal, behavio ral, and well-being outcomes. Only a few studies have explored mediators of this relatio nship, and they examined variables such as coping (Burley, 1994), spousal social suppo rt (Burley, 1995), and psychological distress, which received support for partial mediat ion (DeMarr, 1996). An interesting potential mediator that has received little attention so far in workfamily literature is the concept of the psychologic al contract breach. The psychological contract concerns expectations of the obligations t hat the employee and employer hold of each other (Rousseau, 1995), and psychological cont ract breach is the perception that the other party fails to fulfill the obligations. On th e employee side, the interference of work into the non-work domain, if perceived as broken pr omises, may lead to a breach of the employeeÂ’s psychological contract. The perception o f breach may in turn affect employeesÂ’ job attitudes, their behaviors at work a nd their well-being. Although the psychological contract research has been gaining mo mentum over the past two decades, it has focused on a narrow range of core content (e.g. pay, training, and promotion) that were considered most essential. The rapidly changin g world we research in, however, calls for expansion of the content of the psycholog ical contract to reflect the most up-todate working life. Therefore, creating a measure of psychological contract breach specific
3 to work-family issues is in order for us to explore the link between work interference with family and its potential consequences. The psychological contract breach and its relations hips with other variables, however, can be culture-bound. According to Thomas, Au and Ravlin (2003), culture may affect the psychological contract breach throug h: 1) the formation of the psychological contract; 2) the perception and attri bution of the contract breach; and 3) responses to the contract breach. Individuals from different cultures may have different levels of tolerance to perceive a breach of the psy chological contract and may have different behavioral and psychological responses to such breaches. Therefore, it is also important to expand research beyond North America a nd study the work-family psychological contract across cultural contexts. Purpose of the Study The objectives of the current study are threefold. First is to expand and update the content of employeesÂ’ psychological contract, and c reate a measure of work-family psychological contract breach (WFPCB). The second o bjective is to examine the mediating role of WFPCB in the relations between WI F and several individual and organizational outcomes. Last but not least, the st udy explores potential cultural influences on the relationships. This includes look ing at the moderating role of individual-level cultural value on the relations be tween WIF and WFPCB and between WFPCB and the outcomes. Specifically, individualism -collectivism was examined. Relationships would also be compared across two cou ntries, namely, the U.S. and China, to obtain some preliminary evidence for the valueÂ’s moderating effect at the country-level. Significance of the Study
4 The present study contributes to the work-family li terature in several ways. First, this research sheds some light on a potential mecha nism through which WIF affects important outcomes such as employee performance and well-being. Second, the explicit use of psychological contract theory adds to the li ttle work that has been done on this important topic in work-family research. Third, the exploration of cultural valuesÂ’ moderating influence helps us better understand cro ss-cultural differences observed in the WIF-outcome relationships. In addition, there have only been a few cross-country comparative work-family studies (e.g. Spector, Coop er, Poelmans, Allen, OÂ’Driscoll, Sanchez et al., 2004; Yang, Chen, Choi & Zou, 2000; Yang, 2005), and therefore, this research can provide more insight into the differen ces in work-family issues across countries. This study also adds to the psychologica l contract literature through expanding its content and examining the relations between bre ach and important and consequences. Outline of the Dissertation There are six chapters in this dissertation. The fi rst chapter gives an introduction to the research problem, the objectives, and signif icance of the study. Chapter two reviews the literature to highlight the potential o f integrating existing research on workfamily and psychological contract in a cultural con text. Hypotheses were proposed based on the theoretical background. Chapter three, four and five summarizes the methods and results for the series of studies conducted includi ng, the qualitative interview study, the pilot study, and the final survey study that tested the main hypotheses linking work interference with family, psychological contract br each and the outcomes. Chapter six concludes the dissertation with a general discussio n on the key findings and their implications, the limitations of the study and dire ctions for future research.
5 Chapter 2 Literature Review Work-Family Research Research on work and family has grown in response t o several changing demographic trends, such as the increasing number o f women as well as a higher percentage of married women in the workforce (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, and Brinley, 2005). Whereas the Â“familyÂ” side of the wo rk-family interactions has been expanded to include other non-work aspects of peopl eÂ’s lives (DeMarr, 1996), this paper will adopt the established Â“familyÂ” terms but to en compass the non-work aspects in general. As the boundaries between work and family blur, different forms of interactions between them occur, including conflict, facilitatio n, and positive or negative spillover. Several theoretical frameworks have been proposed i n the literature to depict these possible forms of interactions between the work and family domains. Segmentation. This framework indicates that work and family doma ins can operate independently. Employees that intentionally maintain the boundaries of the two domains are able to segment work and life time, spa ce and function (Zedeck, 1992). Segmentation has also been referred to in terms suc h as, compartmentalization, disengagement, and detachment (Lambert, 1990; Zedec k, 1992) Spillover. According to the spillover theory, the influence o f work and life can flow over the boundaries resulting in positive or n egative spillover (Grzywacz, 2000).
6 With positive spillover, satisfaction from one doma in can enhance the other (e.g. success at work improves quality of family life). N egative spillover, on the other hand, refers to the negative influences between the domai ns (e.g. fatigue from caring for a sick child can impact performance on the job). Compensation. The compensation model suggests that dissatisfacti on in one domain may be compensated by the other domain (Lamb ert, 1990; Zedeck, 1992). For example, unsuccessful performance at work may be co mpensated by a satisfactory family life. Employees may choose to reallocate their time and resources to focus on the domain that provides satisfaction. Facilitation. Similar to positive spillover and role enhancement this perspective defines facilitation as the extent to which engagem ent in the work or family domain contributes to growth in the other (Grzywacz, Carls on & Kacmar 2007). For example, benefits from work such as tuition assistance can f acilitate family life. Drawing on systems theory, Grzywacz et al. (2007) also details the process of facilitation as including such elements as resource acquisition/drain/enhance ment, and systemic and individual catalyst. Conflict. Much research so far has focused on the conflict b etween the work and family domains based on the role theory or the limi ted resources perspective (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). They indicate that individuals h ave certain number of roles and have limited resources (e.g. time and energy) to perform these roles. According to Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), work-family conflict refers to Â“a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some
7 respectÂ” (p. 77). Demand from one role can lead to diminished performance in the other role (Greenhaus et al., 2006). Work-family conflict can take different forms, incl uding time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1 985). Time-based work-family conflict refers to when time pressure from one role produces a preoccupation or makes it physically impossible to fulfill the other role. Fo r example, working late can prevent an employee from picking up his or her children from s chool. Strain-based conflict, on the other hand, arises when the strain produced by one role makes it more difficult to meet the demands of the other role. An example of this i s that stress from trying to meet a deadline at work may cause an employee to argue wit h their spouse. Although behaviorbased conflict generally refers to when behaviors p rescribed by one role do not fit the other, its definition is less clear than the other two forms of work-family conflict. A possible example may be a policeman brings the beha vior mode from work to home. Work Interference with Family (WIF) In addition to the forms of work-family conflict, r esearch has found that workfamily conflict can also flow in two directions, di stinguishing between work interference with family (WIF, also referred to as work-to-famil y conflict) and family interference with work (FIW, also referred to as family-to-work conflict). This bi-directional nature of work-family conflict has been increasingly recogniz ed by researchers (Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1992b), and evidence for the distinction be tween WIF and FIW can be found in meta-analytic work (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998) as well a s research that found different antecedents and consequences for the two forms of w ork-family conflict (Frone et al., 1992b). As the psychological contract, which is int roduced later in the paper, is about the
8 exchange relationships between the employee and the employer, and this study focuses on the employee side of the contract, only work int erference with family (WIF) was considered. When work interferes with the family domain, it can take away employeesÂ’ time, physical, and emotional resources. When this interf erence exceeds employeesÂ’ expectations and range of tolerance, it may reduce their satisfaction with the job, identification with the organization, and even affe ct their physical and mental health. Past research has found that WIF relates to many importa nt individual and organizational outcomes (Hammer et al. 2005). For example, it has been found to relate negatively to job attitudes (e.g., Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Carlson & Kacmar, 2000) and job performance (e.g., Aryee, 1992; Frone et al., 1997; Witt & Carlson, 2006), and relate positively to intentions to quit (e.g., Aryee, 1992; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999) and distress or burnout (e.g., Frone et al., 1997; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 2002). The following secti on provides more details from these studies on WIF and some of its potential cons equences. WIF and Potential Consequences Job Satisfaction (JS). Job satisfaction is an important outcome in organi zational studies, and is one of the most studied variables i n Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Job satisfaction has been defined in several ways i n the literature (Vroom, 1964; Locke, 1969). Simply put, however, it can just refer to ho w much people like their jobs (Spector, 1997). Job satisfaction can reflect both attitudina l and affective reactions to the job, and measures have been created to gauge both overall jo b satisfactions and facets of job satisfaction such as, satisfaction toward the super visor, coworkers, salary, and benefits.
9 As work interferes with family and other aspects of employeesÂ’ personal lives, the values they can obtain from work may be reduced and thus decreasing their job satisfaction. For example, having to work on weeken ds upon supervisorÂ’s request may reduce job satisfaction and especially satisfaction toward the supervisor. Kossek and OzekiÂ’s (1998) meta-analysis examined studies on wo rk-family conflict and job/life satisfaction. Results point to a consistently stron g and negative relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction across al l samples. The relationship is strongest for bi-directional measures of work-family conflict followed by work-to-family conflict (a mean correlation of -.27). Similarly, Allen et a l. (2000) found a correlation of -.23 between WIF and job satisfaction. Furthermore, Hamm er et al. (2005) showed that WIF predicted job satisfaction one year later in a long itudinal study. Organizational Commitment (OC). Organizational commitment reflects employeesÂ’ degree of identification with the organi zation. Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) defines commitment as accepting organization sÂ’ goals and values, willing to put in effort for the organizations, and desiring to ma intain the organizational membership. Meyer and Allen (1991) further differentiate three types of OC, namely, affective, continuous, and normative commitment. Whereas affec tive commitment indicates employee loyalty toward an organization, continuous commitment is based on perceived investment in the organization, and normative commi tment is about a sense of obligation toward the organization. In line with the above def initions, increasing work interference with family is likely to decrease affective reactio ns toward the employer, increase perception of cost relative to investment and reduc e the sense of moral obligation to stay with the organization. Empirical findings have show n support of the negative relationship
10 between WIF and OC although less strong than with j ob satisfaction (e.g. Carlson et al., 2000; Carr, Boyar & Gregory, 2008) Turnover Intention. Turnover intention indicates employeesÂ’ conscious intent to leave their present employment (Tett & Meyer, 1993) It has been found to be the strongest predictor of actual turnover (Carsten & S pector, 1987; Lee & Mowday, 1987), which induces high cost for both the employees leav ing and the organizations they intend to leave. When employee are unable to fulfill both work and family roles and meet both demands, they may be more likely to consider leavin g their current work role to achieve better allocation of resources. A meta-analysis con ducted by Allen et al. (2000) found a correlation of .29 between WIF and turnover intenti ons. Karatepe and Uludag (2008) examined the relationship between work-family confl ict and turnover intentions for a sample of Turkish hotel frontline employees, and fo und a significant positive link (r= .27, p< .05). Interestingly, similar to job satisfaction Spector et al. (2007) found a stronger link between WIF and turnover intention in Anglo co untries than other more collectivistic countries. Psychological Well-being (PWB). Psychological well-being is an overall term that has been operationalized and measured in various wa ys. It may indicate an individualÂ’s general level of satisfaction and mental health con ditions. Research that relate WIF to psychological well-being have looked at variables s uch as, life satisfaction, psychosomatic symptoms, distress, depression, and b urnout. From a limited resources perspective, when work demands compete with family demands, the increased pressure and stress can lead to mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, and burnout (e.g., Frone, 2000; Vinokur, Pierce, & Buck, 1999). Allen et al.Â’s (2000) meta-analysis
11 reported weighted mean correlations of -.28 between WIF and life satisfaction and .32 with depression. In a longitudinal study, Frone et al. (1997) found that WIF related significantly to self-report of depressive symptoms health problems and objective measures of health outcomes. Grandey and Cropanzano (1999) also found support for relationships between WIF and both job and life dis tress. Exploring the impact of hospital restructuring, Burke and Greenglass (2001) found a significant relationship between WIF and psychological well-being with a sample of nursi ng staff in Canada. This relationship carried across with a Turkish sample in Aycan and E skinÂ’s (2005) study for life satisfaction and depression. Job Performance. Job performance is an important outcome variable i n Industrial/Organizational Psychology that can be li nked to organizationsÂ’ bottom lines. The expansion of the performance domain from task p erformance (TP) to include organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and count erproductive work behavior (CWB) also marks important progress in organizational res earch. Whereas TP focuses on behaviors and activities directly related to creati ng products and services, OCB generally refers to more discretionary behaviors that contrib ute to the social psychological environment of the organization (Organ, 1997; Borma n and Motowidlo, 1997). CWB, on the other hand, are behaviors that go against organ izational goals (Fox & Spector, 1999). According to Lambert (1990), employees may try to l imit their involvement in work to accommodate their family demands. On the ot her hand, employees with high WIF may also be more likely to focus on seeking sat isfaction from the family domain resulting in reduced TP and OCB. It is also possibl e that time pressure and role conflict can make it difficult to go above and beyond (Bragg ar, Rodriguez-Srednicki & Kutcher,
12 2005). The direction of the relationship, however, is not clear for performance, as it is possible that increased TP and OCB can lead to incr eased WIF as well. Using a sample of teachers, Braggar et al. (2005) found support for W IFÂ’s negative contribution to OCB above and beyond job satisfaction and organizationa l commitment. Bolino and Turnley (2005), on the contrary, found a significant positi ve relationship between the individual initiative type of OCB and WIF. However, their resu lts may be specific to the initiative type of OCB. For increased WIF to take away resourc es for OCB seems more likely than increased OCB to consistently result in more WIF, b ecause employees have more control over the more discretionary OCB. Similarly for CWB, it is likely for WIF to result i n higher CWB as a means of alleviating the impact of WIF, or retribution again st the organization. There has been little research that directly linked work-family co nflict with general measures of CWB, however, research on WIF and non-attendance behavio rs (e.g. leaving early, tardiness, and absence) seem to point out a positive relations hip between them (Hammer, Bauer & Grandey, 2003; Boyar, Maertz & Pearson, 2005). Ther efore, we also hypothesized a positive link between WIF and CWB. This study includes the attitudinal variables of jo b satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention; psychological w ell-being; and the behavioral variables of task performance, organizational citiz enship behavior, and counterproductive work behavior. The outcome variables sel ected here are by no means comprehensive, but they are the ones that have been researched most, and are representative of the range of impact WIF exerts. B ased on previous findings, it was hypothesized that:
13 Hypothesis 1: Work interference with family will re late negatively to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychological well-being OCB, and task performance; and relate positively to turnover intention and cou nterproductive work behavior. Mediators of WIF-Outcome Relationships There has been little research on the mediating fac tors between WIF and the outcomes. Most work and family research in IO/OB th at included mediation analysis examined work-family conflict itself as a mediator (Eby et al., 2005). Burley (1995) studied a sample of psychologists, and found both d irect and indirect effect of workfamily conflict on marital adjustment, and that the indirect effect may be attributed to the mediating role of spousal social support. In additi on, there is some evidence for the mediating role of social support and negative commu nication skills on the relationship between WIF and domestic violence (i.e. psychologic al aggression to partner and psychological aggression to self; Trachtenberg, 200 8). On the other hand, domain specific satisfaction such as family satisfaction a nd work satisfaction has also been found to partially mediate the relationships between WIF and the global life satisfaction (Treistman, 2005). In a study that explored genderrole conflict and menÂ’s body esteem, Schwartz and Tylka (2008) found that self-assertive entitlement was a mediator of the relationship between work-family role conflict and body esteem. Although the outcome of body esteem is quite different from the outcomes included in the present study, it is interesting to note the potential mediating role of entitlement, defined as Â“an individualÂ’s attitude about what he or she has the right to expe ct from othersÂ” (p. 68), which relates to what people do expect from others. The concept of e xpectation is related to the promise-
14 based psychological contract, and the following sec tion provides definitions and a literature review of the psychological contract. The Psychological Contract Definition. The concept of the psychological contract can be t raced back to as early as BarnardÂ’s (1938) equilibrium theory and ot her important writings from Argyris (1960) and Schein (1965; see also Conway & Briner, 2005). However, it did not really take off until RousseauÂ’s (1989) work that revived and promoted research in this area. Although the concept evolved over time, most curren t research is based on RousseauÂ’s conceptualizations. The psychological contract has been used as a framework to explain employment relationships (Shore & Tetrick, 1994) as according to Rousseau (1995), it refers to individualsÂ’ perceptions of the promises made of the exchanges between their organizations and themselves. RousseauÂ’s definition characterizes the psychological contract as promissory, subjective, reciprocal and dynamic. It distinguishes itself from earlier definitions by emphasizing the Â“promissoryÂ” aspect of the contract. In this sense, the psychological contract differs from Â“expectatio nsÂ” in that it is about beliefs of obligations or perceived promises (Robinson & Rouss eau, 1994). The psychological contract can contain not only explicit promises (ar ising from verbal or written agreements), but also implicit promises (arising fr om perceptions of patterns of past behaviors; Conway & Briner, 2005). The psychological contract is an important concept because it can help us understand and predict employeesÂ’ attitudes and beh aviors (Robinson, 1996). Although psychological contracts are not usually communicate d or negotiated formally, they can provide the employee with a sense of predictability on the one hand, and help the
15 employer obtain desired behaviors without close sur veillance on the other hand (Shore & Tetrick, 1994). Content. Past research on the psychological contract has fo cused on two areas, that is, its content and the influences of psycholo gical contract breach on employee attitudes and behaviors (Conway & Briner, 2005). Th e content of the contract can include expectations for compensation, job security, traini ng, and career development (Rousseau, 1989). Herriot, Manning and Kidd (1997) probably co nducted the most comprehensive study of the content so far (Conway & Briner, 2005) They used the critical incident technique to capture cases when either the employer or the employee failed to meet or exceeded expectations. Results indicate that what e mployees in UK expect most from the organization include a good work environment, equit able pay, fairness in selection and other procedures, and adequate training. The organi zation most expects workers to work contracted hours, do a good job, and be honest. It was also found that the organization and the employee differed in their perceptions of t heir obligations. Specifically, employees perceived more promises in the traditiona l aspects of work, whereas the organization perceived more relational aspects. Sim ilar findings were obtained by Guest and Conway (1998) who used a sample of 1000 UK work ers. However, as the psychological contract may change over time (Sutton & Griffin, 2004), so may the content of the contract. According to Conway and Br iner (2005), most researchers of this topic have focused on a limited subset of the conte nt that is assumed to be the most important. Therefore, more research is needed to up date the content of the psychological contract in order to reflect the current socio-econ omic changes, such as the increase in the number of dual-earner couples in the workforce. Wit h changes in the structure of the
16 workplace and technology advancement that blur the boundaries between work and life, employees and employers may come into psychological agreement about employer assistance of non-work activities in additional to the traditional core content of the psychological contract. Previous research has identified two major types of psychological contracts, namely, the transactional contract and the relation al contract. The former puts more emphasis on Â“specific, short-term, monetary obligat ionsÂ” whereas the latter is more about Â“broad, long-term, socio-emotional obligationsÂ” (Th omas et al., 2003, p.452). Transactional contracts tend to have a narrow scope the terms and conditions are usually publicly available, and can be explicitly negotiate d. Relational contracts, on the other hand, are broader and more open-ended, usually subj ectively understood, and negotiated implicitly (Conway & Briner, 2005). Although the di stinction between transactional and relational contracts is not entirely clear, some ev idence on factor structure and their different causes and consequences suggest that the transactional and relational contracts may be two independent dimensions (Rousseau, 1990; Conway & Briner, 2005). In addition, Rousseau (2000) proposed a third type of contract, that is, a balanced psychological contract, which includes both transac tional and relational aspects. The three factors of transactional, relational and bala nced contracts have been found in Singapore, China, and Latin America using RousseauÂ’ s (2000) Psychological Contract Inventory (PCI; Hui, Lee & Rousseau, 2004). It is a lso interesting to see whether these different types of contracts are relevant in the wo rk-family context as well. It is possible that terms such as providing specific childcare or flexible work schedule programs may
17 constitute transactional contract whereas promise o f a general supportive environment and reasonable workload may be terms of a relationa l contract. Psychological Contract Breach. As mentioned earlier, psychological contracts can evolve over time along with individualsÂ’ expect ations. Due to the subjective nature of the contracts, the employee and the employer do not have to agree on the same terms. As a result, misunderstandings can arise as the psycho logical contract of the two sides develops at different paces (Conway & Briner, 2005) A psychological contract breach occurs when one party perceives that the promised o bligations have not been met (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Although the terms Â“vi olationÂ” and Â“breachÂ” have been used interchangeably in most research, Morrison and Robinson (1997) made a distinction between the two. They point out that Â“breachÂ” occur s Â“when one party in relationship perceives another to have failed to fulfill promise d obligationsÂ” (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). The opposite of breach, therefore, is fulfil lment. Â“ViolationÂ”, however, is the extreme affective or emotional reactions toward bre aches. Based on these definitions, the term Â“breachÂ” is adopted in this study. Research on the antecedents of psychological contra ct breach has identified several factors, such as inadequate human resource management practices, lack of support from the organization or the supervisor, an d outside-organization factors. Most empirical studies, however, have focused on the con sequences of psychological contract breach. It has been found to relate to employee wel l-being, job attitudes, organizational attitudes, turnover, job performance and organizati onal citizenship behavior. Specifically, the relationship between psychological contract bre ach and outcomes may be explained by several mechanisms including, unmet expectations perceived inequity, and goal
18 frustration (Conway & Briner, 2005). For example, i t may be reasoned that perceptions of a breach of psychological contracts can result in a sense of betrayal that will in turn reduce job satisfaction, lower organizational commi tment, or lead to various forms of counter-productive work behaviors (McLean Parks & K idder, 1994). Therefore, breaching psychological contracts may influence emp loyee attitudes, behaviors, as well as their well-being. Despite the extensive research on psychological contract breach and its potential consequences, few studies have explor ed moderators of the relationship. What have been examined include perceived importanc e of broken promises (Conway & Briner, 2002), attribution of the causes of breach (deliberate or accidental, within or outside organizational control; Turnley & Feldman, 1999; Turnley, Bolino, Lester & Bloodgood, 2003), and perception of fairness (distr ibutive, procedural, or interactional). Although much has been done on the psychological co ntract over the past two decades, little attention has been directed to it i n the work-family literature. This concept, however, is useful in that it can help us understan d employeesÂ’ expectations of their benefits and support entitlements related to work-l ife balance (Smithson & Lewis, 2003). Meeting or failing to meet such perceived obligatio ns can have important implications for individual and organizational outcomes, and therefo re, may serve as a potential link between WIF and its consequences. Smithson and Lewi s (2003), in their entry on the psychological contract for the Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia call for more consideration of the work-family aspects in psychol ogical contract research as well as more explicit use of psychological contract theory in work-family studies. The present study, therefore, is an attempt to answer their cal l. The Work-Family Psychological Contract
19 The psychological contract, being implicit and unwr itten, can change over time due to changes in individual and organizational exp ectations (Borrill & Kidd, 1994). TodayÂ’s world with dynamic socio-cultural condition s as mentioned above may very well affect employeesÂ’ expectations for the organization and vice versa. Researchers and practitioners generally agree that contract content has transformed along with organizational changes (Anderson & Schalk, 1998). H owever, Conway and Briner (2005) pointed out that past research on psychological con tracts has focused on certain core items of the exchange relationships, and has neglec ted a diverse range of other possible aspects in the working life. Whereas the contract o n the employee side may have in the past focused on work achievement needs, such as com pensation, opportunities for growth, and feedback on work performance (Manning, 1993, ci ted in Borrill & Kidd, 1994), the changing workforce is adding more aspects to the ps ychological contract, such as an appreciation of employeesÂ’ family responsibilities and other employee needs outside the workplace. According to Giga and Cooper (2005), when the emplo yment relationship matures and the Â“employer and employee enter adult contracts focusing on mutual benefits, work-life balance issues may be brought t o the forefrontÂ” (p. 432). The rise of the importance of work-family research itself attes ts to the dynamic environment surrounding such issues. The economic, social, tech nological, legal, and cultural influences constitute a shifting environment that m ay indeed intensify work-family conflict (Joplin, Francesco, Shaffer & Lau, 2003). As a result, thereÂ’s need for increasing employer and employee effort to balance and integra te work and family responsibilities. Whereas employees demand more resources to Â“maintai n an equilibrium between work
20 and non-work lifeÂ” (p.433), employers also realize the importance of developing capabilities in understanding and resolving work-li fe issues to be able to attract highquality employees (Giga & Cooper, 2005). In an effort to expand employeesÂ’ psychological con tracts to include work-family related aspects, Scandura and Lankau (1997) examine d a specific family-friendly policy, that is, flexible work hours. They argue that emplo yee perceptions of flexible work hours may lead to the perception that the organization ca res for both work and family; an overall favorable employee perception of the organi zation; increased feelings of control; and it may help in cases of social comparison with those that do not have flexible work schedules. Indeed, perceiving more flexible work ho urs was found to relate positively to job satisfaction and organizational commitment espe cially for women (Scandura & Lankau, 1997). With an increasing number of organiz ations offering flexible work schedules, it may become part of the obligations em ployees perceive as constituting their psychological contract. Besides flexible work hours, employers provide asso rtments of many other benefits intended to enhance work-life balance. The se benefits may also become the potential content of a work-family psychological co ntract. An examination of the literature reveals several categories of such benef its: 1) work schedule (e.g., flextime, flexplace, compressed work week, and job sharing); 2) dependent care (e.g., onsite childcare, eldercare, and childcare/eldercare refer ral services); 3) employee well-being (e.g., wellness programs, employee assistance progr ams, and retirement planning); 4) convenience services (e.g., dry cleaning, banking, groceries, and transportation) (Allen, 2001; Butler, Gasser & Smart, 2004; Thomas & Ganste r, 1995; & Roberts, Gianakis,
21 McCue and Wang, 2004). Based on what is communicate d to them by the organization, their observations of how others are treated in the organization, and their individual beliefs, different employees may form idiosyncratic psychological contracts that include expectations for different benefits and support. In addition to family-friendly benefits, superviso r and organizational support for work and family as perceived by the employees are a lso related to work-family conflict and important work outcomes (Allen, 2001). Supervis or support is particularly important because they serve as the agents for carrying out o rganizational benefits and policies. Allen (2001) pointed out that lack of supervisor su pport can discourage employees from using the benefits provided by the organization. Fo r example, employees may not use flex-place arrangements (e.g., work from home) for fear of negative performance review if face time is used by the supervisor as a major e valuation criterion. It is reasonable to think that if employees expect a benefit, they are likely to expect organization and especially supervisor support for using the benefit as well. Therefore, the work-family aspect of the psychological contract might also ref lect employee expectations for workfamily support from the supervisor. As increase in the number of dual-earner couples an d other socioeconomic changes have raised the prominence of work-family i ssues in the workplace, more research attention needs to be paid to studying the work-family related psychological contract. The present study attempts to further the effort of Scandura and Lankau (1997) in updating the content of the psychological contra ct and explore the role it plays in work-family research. Instead of adding items to th e existing measures of psychological contracts, a new inventory was created in this stud y to reflect employeesÂ’ work-family
22 needs in specific. In this way, the influence of wo rk interference with family and the relevant outcomes can be related to a context-speci fic psychological contract. Work-Family Psychological Contract Breach (WFPCB). As indicated previously, a psychological contract breach occurs when one par ty of the contract perceives that what is promised to them have not been fully met (Robins on & Rousseau, 1994). Similarly, a breach to the employeeÂ’s work-family psychological contract would refer to an employee perception that the organization fails to fulfill i ts obligations in helping with the work and family integration. For example, if employees belie ve that they are promised flextime, however, they cannot use it (e.g., to leave early t o pick up their children) due to a lack of support from their direct supervisors, they may per ceive a breach to their work-family psychological contract. As there are no readily available measures for work -family specific psychological contract breach, scales developed for general psych ological contract breach are consulted. Three types of measures have been found. The first type is referred to as Â“composite measureÂ” by Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski and Bravo (2007 ). This type of measure (e.g., Kickul, Lester & Finkl, 2002) asks participants to check from a list, things that they believe the organization has promised to provide. T hey are then asked to indicate to what extent the organization has fulfilled these obligat ions checked. The scores are reversed and aggregated to indicate the degree of psychologi cal contract breach. Example items (and they are relevant to the work-family context) include Â“flexible work scheduleÂ” and Â“a reasonable workloadÂ”. Related to the Â“composite measureÂ” is the Â“weighted measureÂ” (Zhao et al., 2007), where importance ratings are u sed to weight the various content items of the psychological contract (e.g. Turnley & Feldm an, 1999). The third type of measure,
23 referred to as the Â“global measureÂ” (Zhao et al., 2 007; e.g. Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Tekleab & Taylor, 2003) asks the participants to in dicate overall, how well their employer has fulfilled their obligations without as king for ratings on specific content items. An example item is Â“My employer has broken m any of its promises to me even though IÂ’ve upheld my side of the deal.Â” Most resea rch on the psychological contract has employed the Â“composite measureÂ” or the Â“global mea sureÂ” (Zhao et al., 2007). Whereas the first type of measure is helpful in rev ealing the specific content of the psychological contract and how each term has been f ulfilled, the third type of measure reflects an overall employee perception and evaluat ion of how the organization did in keeping the perceived agreement. Research on overal l job satisfaction and facets of job satisfaction indicates that facet measures in thems elves are not sufficient for gauging overall job satisfaction (Ferratt, 1981). Similarly different strategies can be used to combine dimension ratings into overall performance ratings (Sackett & Hakel, 1979). Indeed, according to Zhao et al. (2007), composite measures of breach run the risk of content deficiency in that they may not be able to capture all relevant content items for various employment settings. Therefore, an average rating of all items may not represent employee evaluation of the contract breach accurate ly. This concern applies to a workfamily specific contract breach measure as well. Ho wever, because this contract measure is for a new context and includes new content, it m ay be a good idea to incorporate both Â“compositeÂ” and Â“globalÂ” types of items to be able to gather a fuller initial picture of the work-family psychological contract. By including bo th item formats, we can capture the detailed content of the contract as well as the ove rall evaluation, and it is possible to examine the relative effectiveness of these items i n predicting relevant outcomes.
24 WIF and WFPCB. Research indicates that the employee is likely to perceive a psychological contract breach when an organization fails to realize an obligation whether or not it is recognized by both parties (Robinson & Morrison, 2000; Sutton & Griffin, 2004). However, according to Thomas et al. (2003), unmet terms are perceived as contract breach Â“only when they indicate an imbalan ce in the exchange relationship that is sufficiently unfavorable to exceed a perceptual thresholdÂ” (p.460). The reasoning behind this is that cognitive bias may direct peopl e to confirming rather than disconfirming information, and that perception can be dominated by this bias until new information becomes too inconsistent to be integrat ed into the existing framework (Robinson, 1996). In this sense, if the unfulfille d obligation does not cross the threshold of being Â“unfavorable,Â” it may not be perceived as a psychological contract breach. This also highlights a difference between the psychologi cal contract and the traditional written employment contract that one signs upon entering an organization, that is, Â“the perceptual and idiosyncratic nature of the psychological contr actÂ” as underlined by recent research in this area (Thomas et al., 2003, p.452). As it follows from work on the general psychologica l contract breach, WFPCB may occur if the organization breaks what employees perceive as promised to them regarding work-family assistance. However, failing to meet a term does not necessarily result in psychological contract breach. It is poss ible that only when the unmet condition is so unfavorable (e.g., resulting in work interfer ence with family) that a perception of WFPCB will occur. As mentioned earlier, past resear ch has found several factors that may lead to a psychological contract breach includi ng, inadequate human resource management practices and lack of support from the o rganization or the supervisor
25 (Conway & Briner, 2005). Therefore, not providing a dequate work-family benefits or supervisor support for using the benefits are not i n themselves psychological contract breach, but are rather, the possible antecedents of psychological contract breach. For example, an organization allows compressed work wee k, but the director of a particular department discourages the employees to use it. Dis couraging using the benefit may intensify work-family conflict, which may then resu lt in an employee perception of WFPCB. It may then be reasoned that the more work i nterferes with family, the more likely the unmet obligation crosses the Â“unfavorabl eÂ” threshold, and the more likely for the employee to perceive a greater degree of WFPCB. It was thus hypothesized that: Hypothesis 2: Work interference with family will re late positively to work-family psychological contract breach. WFPCB and Consequences. Most research that empirically examined psychological contract breach has focused on its co nsequences. It is reasoned that breaching a psychological contract can exert negati ve influences on the outcomes through several theoretical routes. Broken promises can lea d to unmet expectations, reduced trust, perceived inequity, or goal frustration (Conway & B riner, 2005), any combination of which can result in negative individual and organiz ational consequences. For example, Robinson and Rousseau (1994) point out that breakin g a promise can lead to feelings of betrayal that may result in employee withdrawal or counterproductive work behaviors, such as theft, harassment and sabotage (McLean Park s & Kidder, 1994). Such feelings of betrayal may also result in distress, anxiety and n egative emotions, and reduce voluntary behaviors that benefit the organization, that is, O CB. In addition, breach in the
26 psychological contract has been found to relate neg atively to job satisfaction (Sutton & Griffin, 2004). In sum, among the outcome variables researched, the ones that have been studied most include such attitudinal variables as job sati sfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to quit; and such behavioral variables a s task performance, OCB, and actual quitting. Conway and BrinerÂ’s (2005) review shows t hat based on 13 cross-sectional studies, the average correlation between contract b reach and job satisfaction is -.46. With the 9 studies on breach and organizational commitme nt, the average correlation is -.32. In addition, breach had an average correlation of .33 with intent to quit based on 15 studies. They also report the average effect size to be -.20 for the relations between contract breach and OCB, and -.19 for overall performance. A lthough the studies included in Conway and BrinerÂ’s (2005) review may not be compre hensive, and these numbers are only approximations, they indicate that psychologic al contract breach is a relatively strong predictor of attitudes though may be less so of behavior. A more recent meta-analysis on psychological contra ct breach and eight workrelated outcomes was conducted by Zhao et al. (2007 ) based on a total of 51 studies. Psychological contract breach was found to relate s ignificantly and highly to the attitudinal variables of job satisfaction (-.54), o rganizational commitment (-.38), and turnover intentions (.42). Breach also related sign ificantly to the behavioral outcomes of OCB (-.14) and in-role performance (-.24). Their fi ndings lend support to the range and degree of impact psychological contract breach has on important work-related outcomes. As breach of a specific psychological contract, WFP CB may relate to similar consequences as found for the breach of a general p sychological contract. WFPCB
27 reflects a perceived broken promise related to work -family issues. As work-family psychological contracts may contain obligations suc h as family-friendly benefits and supervisor support, failure to meet these expectati ons may lead to a decrease in the corresponding aspects of job satisfaction or other attitudes and behaviors. Based on previous research on the psychological contract and its consequences, it was hypothesized that: Hypothesis 3: WFPCB will relate negatively to job s atisfaction, organizational commitment, psychological well-being, OCB, and task performance; and relate positively to turnover intentions and CWB. WIF, WFPCB and Consequences. It was hypothesized earlier that WIF will relate to several outcome variables, that WIF will relate to WFPCB, and that WFPCB will relate to these same set of outcome variables. It m ay be reasoned that the relationships between WIF and those individual and organizational outcomes are mediated by perceptions of breach to the work-family psychologi cal contract. It is possible that greater amount of work interference with family can result in employee perception of a higher degree of work-family psychological contract breach which may in turn, lead to the potential attitudinal, behavioral and well-being ou tcomes. When work takes away too much time and resources away from family or other n on-work aspects of life, and therefore breach the terms in employee work-family psychological contract, it may then trigger the mechanisms of unmet expectations, feeli ngs of unfairness, or goal frustration, and negatively affect employee satisfaction, perfor mance and psychological health. Specifically, this mediation may be illustrated usi ng job satisfaction as an example. Mobley and Locke (1970) suggest that job satisfacti on occurs when the outcomes
28 correspond with the values, and that dissatisfactio n arises from the discrepancy between the two. It has also been found that value attainme nt partially mediated the relationship between workÂ–family conflict and job satisfaction ( Perrew, Hochwarter & Kiewitz, 1999). It is possible that breaching the work-famil y psychological contract undermines the value attainment for the employees and therefor e, leading increased WIF to decreased job satisfaction. It was thus hypothesized that: Hypothesis 4: The relationships between WIF and the outcomes (of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover i ntentions, psychological wellbeing, OCB, task performance, and CWB) are mediated by WFPCB. WIF, WFPCB and Cultural Value According to Rousseau (1995), informal and unwritte n agreement between the employee and the employer create practical and emot ional expectations that constitute psychological contracts. In line with this, the psy chological contract may also be seen as a Â“largely informal and unwritten Â‘understandingÂ’ o f the culturally based expectations of the employee and the organizationÂ” (Maurer & Li, 20 06, p. 31). Because the concept of the psychological contract is culture-bound, it is therefore important to examine the above hypothesized relationships among WIF, WFPCB a nd the outcomes with culture in mind. Cultural Value. Much research on cultural differences has focused o n cultural values, because they are the fundamental ideas that people share about what is good, right, and desirable in a society (Williams, 1970). Cultur al values are important to study for the current topic because they not only shape beliefs a nd attitudes but also shape expectations of othersÂ’ behaviors within the same cultural conte xt. Therefore, one way to understand
29 the influence of culture on the psychological contr act may be through an examination of how culture values shape individual expectations, w hich can be as powerful as antecedents to behaviors (Schein, 1965). For exampl e, cultural values may define the work-family psychological contact through shaping e mployee expectations of what the organization is obligated to provide in terms of wo rk-family benefits and support. In addition, Â“cultural values affect the meaning of pr omissory contractsÂ” because the meaning of promise can also vary across cultures (R ousseau, 1995, p. 22). In addition to shaping expectations, Thomas et al. (2003) suggest that cultural influences can be exerted through two mechanisms, c ognitive and motivational. Cognitively, there can be cultural differences in h ow people perceive and interpret the messages sent by the organization, as well as the n orms that regulate their relationships with the organization. Motivationally, people with different cultural values may vary in the outcomes they prefer and the desirable ways to achieve these outcomes. More specifically, Thomas et al. (2003) propose that cul ture and cultural values can affect three aspects of the psychological contract via the two m echanisms: 1) formation of the psychological contract; 2) perception and attributi on of a breach to the psychological contract; and 3) responses to the breach. The first aspect implies that the specific content of the psychological contract may vary across cultu res. The second aspect indicates that there may be cultural variations in terms of whethe r an unmet obligation is perceived as a breach of the contract or not, and that individuals from different cultures may attribute the breach to different causes. In addition, even w hen a contract breach is perceived, people may react differently toward it according to the third aspect. As a result, culture
30 may influence the content of the psychological cont ract, the relationship between WIF and WFPCB, as well as the relations between WFPCB a nd the outcomes. Individualism-Collectivism. Among the values identified in the various cultural value taxonomies, individualism-collectivism as pro posed by Hofstede (1980) has been the most extensively researched in cross-cultural l iterature and organizational research in general. Individualism reflects a tendency to focus on oneself as independent of others with an emphasis on pursuing oneÂ’s own well-being ( Schimmack, Oishi & Diener, 2005). Collectivism, on the other hand, reflects a tendenc y to focus on the in-group and view oneself as interdependent of others. There is a str onger emphasis on norms and obligations, and a focus on group goals even when t here is little benefit to the self. As individualism-collectivism is about individualsÂ’ re lationship with the self, others and groups, and the relative importance one places on e ach, it has a natural connection with the concept of Â“expectationsÂ” and the psychological contract, which regulates the relationship between the employee and the employer. Despite the measurement issues that clouded the validity of individualism-collecti vism (Spector, Cooper & Sparks, 2001), the current study focused on this cultural value fr om a theoretical perspective (and the chosen measure is discussed in the Method section o f Chapter Five). Thomas et al. (2003) argue that because people ten d to focus on information that confirm rather than disconfirm their prior cognitio ns, such bias can affect the threshold for perceiving a contract breach for individualists versus collectivists. Because individualists and collectivists may differ in thei r perception and attribution of a breach, the link between WIF and WFPCB may vary for them as well. It was hypothesized in Thomas et al. (2003) that collectivists will have a higher threshold for perceiving an
31 overall contract breach than individualists. Collec tivists not only tend to expect longerterm employment or other relationships, but they al so tend to have stronger desires to maintain these relationships, and have closer ties with their organizations. In this sense, collectivists may be more tolerant, at least initia lly, of obligations unfulfilled by the organization. Individualists, however, would percei ve the unmet obligations as contract breach more immediately. Therefore, we may expect a weaker correlation between WIF and the overall WFPCB for collectivists, and a stro nger correlation for individualists. It was hypothesized that: Hypothesis 5: The relationship between WIF and WFPC B will be moderated by individualism-collectivism such that the relationsh ip will be stronger for those with higher individualism/lower collectivism than t hose with lower individualism/higher collectivism. WFPCB, Consequences and Cultural Value Whereas the moderating effect of individual differ ences, organizational practices, and labor market factors have been explored related to how employees react to perceived psychological contract breach (Turnley & Feldman, 1 999), cultural value has not been explicitly examined as a moderator of the relations between contract breach and its consequences. Thomas et al. (2003) point out that o ne of the ways that culture may impact the psychological contract is affecting the reactions to contract breach. Cognitively, people with different cultural values may vary in their responses to contract breach as different norms and scripts guide behavio rs to be culturally acceptable. Motivationally, cultural values prescribe individua lsÂ’ needs, and the desirable ways to meet these needs (Erez & Earley, 1993).
32 Regarding individualism-collectivism, employees wit h different levels of this value may vary in how they view their relationships with the organization. Compared to individualists, collectivists view the exchange rel ationship between the organization and themselves as longer-term, and have more trust that the organization will take care of them (Hofstede, 1980). There may be expectations th at obligations will be met eventually, even if it is currently not fulfilled. Specifically collectivists will be less likely to attribute unmet obligations to causes that are within the org anizationÂ’s control (Thomas et al., 2003). In contrast, individualists tend to trust the organ izations less in meeting their obligations. Emphasizing independence, particularly in making judgment and decisions (Schimmack et al., 2005), employees higher on indiv idualism are more likely to perceive contract breach as within the organizationÂ’s contro l. For example, when facing discouragement from supervisors for using flextime, individualists may attribute it to the supervisorÂ’s inconsideration or not being supportiv e, whereas collectivists may attribute it to the necessity of doing so to maintain a cohes ive work group. In line with this reasoning, it may be argued that WFPCB is more like ly to affect the work attitudes and behaviors of individualists who tend to attribute t he contract breach to the organizationÂ’s fault. Collectivists, on the other hand, may take i nto considerations situational and external influences that can prevent the organizati on from fulfilling their obligations, and may be more tolerant of a contract breach. Therefor e, WFPCB may be more likely to translate into negative attitudes and behaviors for those higher rather than lower on individualism. It is thus hypothesized that:
33 Hypothesis 6a: The relationship between WFPCB and e mployee attitudinal/behavioral outcomes (i.e. job satisfact ion, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, task performance, OCB, and CWB ) will be moderated by individualism-collectivism such that the relationsh ip will be stronger for those with higher individualism/lower collectivism than t hose with lower individualism/higher collectivism. It was reasoned previously that collectivists may h ave a higher level of tolerance for psychological contract breach, because they may be less equity sensitive in in-group situations and are more likely to make attributions to external influences outside organizational control. This does not mean, however that WFPCB will have less negative impact for collectivists on all outcome va riables. Thomas et al. (2003) suggest that although, initially, collectivists may be more tolerant of contract breach, there can be more serious psychological implications in these ca ses once a breach is perceived. As collectivists view the self as interdependent with others, they tend to prefer unconditional relationships and thus trust in the organization. T hey may be more likely than individualists to attribute unmet obligations to ou tside factors, but once they do consider them to be within the organizationÂ’s control, there can be stronger reactions such as feelings of betrayal and distress. The contract bre ach may Â“cause concomitant psychological reactions of stress, tension, and int ernal conflictÂ” (Thomas et al., 2003, p.462), and thus affect the employeesÂ’ psychologica l well-being. Therefore, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 6b: The relationship between WFPCB and e mployee psychological well-being will be moderated by individualism-colle ctivism such that the
34 relationship will be stronger for those with lower individualism/higher collectivism than those with higher individualism/l ower collectivism. Spector, Allen, Poelmans, Lapierre, Cooper, OÂ’Drisc oll et al. (2007) explored the moderating effect of culture on the relationship be tween WIF and the attitudinal outcomes of job satisfaction and turnover intention s. They found that the variable of country cluster moderated the relations between WIF and job satisfaction, and WIF and turnover intentions such that the relationships wer e stronger in Anglo countries. The moderating hypotheses proposed in the present study are therefore in line with Spector et al.Â’s (2007) findings, in that Anglo countries tend to be higher on individualism than other country clusters, and it is possible that the cultural influence found was exerted through its impact on the work-family psychological contract. Specifically, employees that vary on individualism-collectivism may have di fferent perceptions and reactions to the work-family psychological contract. Cross-national Comparison: the U.S. and China. The hypotheses proposed previously examined the cultural value of individua lism-collectivism at the individuallevel of value endorsement. It would certainly be i nteresting to study the influence of the value at the country-level as well. However, in ord er to do so properly, analyses need to be conducted using the hierarchical linear modeling technique, which would require data from a minimum of 25 countries (Snijders & Bosker, 1999; cited in Huang & Van de Vliert, 2003). Due to the limited scope of the pres ent paper, data were only collected from the U.S. and China. These two countries were c hosen not only for convenience, but also because they have been found to score high and low on individualism-collectivism respectively. Oyserman, Coon and KemmelmeierÂ’s (200 2) meta-analysis on
35 individualism-collectivism across nations and withi n the U.S. found that Americans tend to have higher individualism and lower collectivism than Asians, but particularly than those with Chinese origin. In addition, previous wo rk-family research supports the generalizability of work interference with family t o China (Yang et al., 2000; Spector et al., 2004; Yang, 2005). Hui et al. (2004) also foun d that the concept of the psychological contract is applicable to the two independent Chine se samples employed in their study. Due to their different standing on individualism-co llectivism, the U.S. and China would be compared on correlations between WIF and WFPCB, and between WFPCB and the outcomes in order to provide some initial evidence for the country-level effect. Based on previous reasoning, the following research question s were posed: Research question 1: Will the correlation between W IF and WFPCB be stronger in the U.S. than in China? Research question 2a: Will the correlation between WFPCB and the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (i.e. job satisfaction, org anizational commitment, turnover intentions, task performance, OCB, and CWB) be stro nger in the U.S. than in China? Research question 2b: Will the correlation between WFPCB and psychological well-being be stronger in China than in the U.S.? Because of the various factors the two countries di ffer on such as economic and social conditions, there are many competing hypothe ses to explain any observed differences between the means and correlations foun d in the two samples. Liu, Spector and Shi (2007) point out that the U.S. and China di ffer greatly in terms of economic status, for example, unemployment rate, which is an indicator of social security that may influence societyÂ’s openness to change. Therefore, the cultural value of individualism-
36 collectivism is only one potential explanation for any differences observed. However, results from such comparison could still provide so me initial indication of country-level differences in the relationships studied, and add t o the existing cross-national comparative studies in work-family research. Summary of Hypotheses Figure 1 graphically summarizes the hypotheses prop osed by this study. It was hypothesized that WIF will relate to several outcom es, however, their relations may be mediated by WFPCB. It is also hypothesized that the cultural value of individualismcollectivism will moderate both the link between WI F and WFPCB as well as the link between WFPCB and the outcomes.
37 Figure 1. Summary of Proposed Hypotheses Research Strategy This dissertation research was conducted in three s tages. During the first stage, 20 full-time employees from the U.S. and China respect ively were interviewed over the telephone about their perceptions of the kinds of o bligations organizations hold regarding work-family related issues. Their responses were co ntent analyzed and draft items were developed for the Work-family Psychological Contrac t Breach (WFPCB) measure. During the second stage, the WFPCB measure was pilo ted along with other criteria measures with over 60 employees from each country. As the WFPCB measure showed reasonable reliability and demonstrated expected re lationships with other variables, the final main survey study was carried out in the thir d stage to test the proposed hypotheses. Considering participant feedback about the length o f the survey, and the format and scale of the WFPCB measure, the new measure was modified for the final stage of data collection. The following chapters describe in deta ils the methodology used and results obtained from these three stages of research. Response to breach Perception and attribution of breach H5 H6 WIF Outcomes Attitude (JS, OC, TI) Behavior (OCB, CWB, TP) Well-being (Psychological) WFPCB H1 (Direct) & H4 (Indirect) H2 H3 Individualism Collectivism
38 Chapter Three Qualitative: Interview Study Due to the novel nature of applying the psychologic al contract theory to workfamily research, and the need to construct a new me asure, this research started with the qualitative method of interviewing. The advantage o f qualitative methods is providing rich and complex data by emphasizing the descriptio n, understanding, and interpretation (Parkes, 1985) of respondent feedback. It is also i mportant to conduct interviews in both the U.S. and China as we cannot assume that the sam e contract terms apply to both countries. Method Participants Participants were invited from personal and profess ional networks that represent a range of industries and demographic characteristics Twenty interviewees each from the U.S. and China participated in the study. For the U .S., the participants include 45% female, 60% married, and 35% with children. Their a ge range from 27 to 60 with a mean of 37.5, and they have been with their organization for an average of 36 months. All participants work five days a week with an average of 46-48 hours. For ethnicity, White (70%), Asian/Pacific Islander (30%.). For education 15% of the interviewees have bachelorÂ’s degree, 35% have masters and 50% have do ctoral degree. Participants came from a wide range of industries.
39 The Chinese interviewees include 55% female, 75% ma rried, and 50% with children. Their age range from 26 to 60 with a mean of 35, and they have been with their organization for an average of 69 months. It seems more common among the Chinese interviewees to have overtime, as 35% of them work on weekends. The average weekly work hours are 48-52 hours. In terms of the type of organizations they work for, 50% work for foreign-owned enterprises, 40% work for st ate-owned enterprises, and 10% work for private-owned enterprises. For education, 15% of the interviewees have middle school degree, 10% with professional school degree, 40% have bachelors, 30% have masters and 5% have doctoral degree. Participants a lso came from a wide range of industries (e.g., Accounting, Manufacturing, and He althcare) with a variety of job titles (e.g., auditor, insurance agent, and HR manager). Materials The interviewees were asked a similar set of core questions, although the order varied, and the follow-up questions varied for diff erent interviewees in response to their answers. Sample questions asked include: What is th e general culture regarding work-life balance in your organization? What benefits do you expect to obtain from your employer? What has your employer promised to you regarding as sisting your work-life balance? Have these promises been kept? (For a more detaile d list of the questions asked in the interviews, see Appendix A). Procedure An e-mail invitation was sent to potential intervie wees to invite them to participate in the study. Interviews were then sche duled for those agreed to participate. The interviews were conducted over the phone, and r ecorded on a digital recorder for
40 transcription and content analyses. Interviews were conducted in English for interviewees in the U.S., and in Mandarin Chinese for the Chines e interviewees. The interviews were later transcribed in their respective languages. Th e transcription was then content analyzed. Results Whereas the interviews included a wide range of que stions related to the topic of work-life balance, only the results of those direct ly related to creating the Work-family Psychological Contract Breach measure are presented here. Regarding the work-family supportive culture in general, the majority of the U.S. interviewees (70%) indicated that their organizations are supportive of work-life bal ance. However, the degree of supportiveness varies from providing a full range o f family-friendly benefits and supportive leadership, to a general supportive cult ure but lack of execution or role modeling. Participants also indicated that there is much variance across departments and groups within the organizations. In China, on the o ther hand, the organizational culture regarding work-life balance seems to largely depend on the type of enterprise one works at (whether it is foreign-owned, state-owned or pri vately owned). Based on feedback from both the U.S. and Chinese re spondents, the types of benefits currently provided by organizations were g rouped into six categories including, general work/leave benefit, flexible work schedule, dependent care, employee wellness programs, convenience services, and other. Several benefits that are rather unique to Chinese companies are included in the Â“otherÂ” categ ory such as company sponsored trips. These categories are in line with past literature t hat reveals four major groups of worklife benefits (work schedule, dependent care, emplo yee well-being, and convenience
41 services; Allen, 2001; Butler et al., 2004; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Roberts et al., 2004). The interviews also reveal that overall U.S. employ ers provide more formal programs such as flextime than Chinese employers. Also, empl oyee wellness programs in the U.S. are mostly individual-based whereas they are more g roup/company-based in China. For example, more U.S. companies provide on-site gyms o r gym memberships, whereas more companies in China rent space for employees to play sports together. Discussion Findings from these initial interviews reveal both similarities and differences between the U.S. and Chinese employees and employer s. Some of the basic employee expectations such as, reasonable workload and trave l time carry across the countries, whereas other family-friendly benefits such as flex ible work schedule are more common in the U.S. or foreign-owned companies in China. Th e differences in the type and nature of employer assistances offered in the U.S. and Chi na also hint at the cultural differences between the two countries. As mentioned above, empl oyee wellness programs in China are more collective in nature than those in the U.S The China-specific benefit of company organized travel reflects the same tendency Employers in both the U.S. and China are careful ab out making promises, especially explicit promises, about what they can p rovide to assist with the work and nonwork aspects of their employeesÂ’ lives. Promises, i f perceived by the employees, are more likely in the implicit form, through observing what other employees in the organization get. However, results also show that e mployer promises often fall short of employeesÂ’ expectations. The Chinese interviewees a lso seem to have lower expectations than interviewees from the U.S.
42 The interviewees also responded to questions as to when they perceived broken promises and their reactions toward it. They report ed a variety of reactions ranging from disappointment, distress, and dissatisfaction, to i ntentions to leave the current organization or find another job. This provided pre liminary anecdotal evidence of the potential links between work-family psychological c ontract breach and outcomes such as employee well-being and turnover intention.
43 Chapter Four Quantitative: Pilot Survey Study During the second stage of the research, the WorkFamily Psychological Contract Breach (WFPCB) measure was constructed and piloted with samples from both the U.S. and China. This step was taken to ensure the reliab ility of the new measure and that it worked in the way it was intended. Details of the m easure are included below in the Â“MeasuresÂ” section. Methods Participants & Procedure Participants from the U.S. were invited through th e snowball sampling strategy. E-mails containing a link to the web survey were se nt out to invite participation in the pilot study. Employed individuals from the authorÂ’s personal and professional network were invited to participate in the study, and they were encouraged to forward information about the study to their friends and colleagues. On e participant forwarded the invitation e-mail through an alumni listserv. Only employed in dividuals (excluding selfemployment) were invited to participate. Pilot data from China were collected through both an online survey on the same survey website th at hosted the U.S. survey, as well as paper-and-pencil format of the same survey administ ered in China by a focal contact to employees from several organizations.
44 The U.S. data downloaded from the survey website in cluded 116 cases. The number of missing core items were counted, and 29 r espondents were excluded for missing more than one third of the core items (most of those only completed the first five items). Next, two participants with Chinese and one with Israeli citizenship were also excluded from analyses. Outlier analyses were then performed by visually examining scatter plots of predictor-outcome pairs, and check ing values for CookÂ’s D, Studentized residuals, and leverage values (for details on thes e diagnostics, see Chapter Five Method section). After identifying five outlying cases, th eir item scores were carefully examined. Four cases were excluded for random responding (two answered most items in the same way, and two answered reverse-coded items the same way as positively-worded items). The above data cleaning resulted in a final set of 80 cases. For China, combining online and paper-and-pencil da ta resulted in 81 cases. Similar data cleaning procedures as for the U.S. we re applied. Thirteen respondents were excluded for missing more than one third of the cor e items (again, most completed the first five items). Next, outlier analyses were cond ucted via scatter plots and checking the diagnostics. Two outlying cases were identified, bu t were not excluded for lack evidence of random responding. The above data cleaning resul ted in 68 cases. Of the U.S. participants that reported gender, 54% are female and 57% are married. Participant age ranges from 22 to 51 with a mean of 32. Of those with partner/spouse, 75% of their partners/spouses work full-time, 12.5% work part-time, and 12.5% do not work. Participants have 0 to 3 childre n, with a mean of .5. Participant education levels include secondary (1%), some unive rsity (4%), university (18%), masters (74%), and doctorate (3%). As for work hou rs, 62% indicated that they have the
45 number of hours they wish to work, 31% more than th ey wish to work, 7% fewer than they wish to work. Participants also reported their ethnicity as 22% Asian or Pacific Islander, 6% Black, 2% Hispanic, and 71% White. On average, they work 5 days per week, ranging from 3 to 6. They also work 41 hours per week on average, ranging from 8 to 80 hours. Participants have also been with their organization for an average of 43 months. In the Chinese sample, 51% of the participants are female and 75% are married. Participant age ranges from 23 to 54 with a mean of 32. Among participantsÂ’ partners/spouses, 77% work full-time, 8% work parttime, and 15% do not work. The number of children they have ranges from 0 to 2 wit h a mean of .58. ParticipantsÂ’ education levels are: secondary (12%), some univers ity (29%), university (47%), master (10%), and doctoral (2%). Whereas 38% of the partic ipants indicated that they have the number of hours they wish to work, 49% indicated mo re than they wish to work, and 14% fewer than they wish to work. On average, the C hinese respondents work 5.3 days (range from 5 to 7), and 44 hours (range from 35 to 70 hours) per week. Also, the participants have been with their organization for an average of 64 months. Materials The measures were administered in English and Manda rin respectively for the U.S. sample and the Chinese sample. Where Chinese t ranslations were not available from existing research, the measures in English were tra nslated into Chinese by the author and back-translated (BrislinÂ’s, 1986) into English by a nother bilingual researcher independent of this study.
46 Work-Family Psychological Contract Breach (WFPCB). As described above, WFPCB was assessed with a new measure created for t he present study. The design of the measure was based on two types of most commonly used measures for the general psychological contract breach. As mentioned previou sly, one type is the composite measures that typically include a checklist of cont ent items of the contract. The other type is global measures that ask for overall perceptions of contract breach. A decision was made to integrate both types of items to be able to identify both the content of the workfamily psychological contract and the degree of con tract breach. The composite part of the items was based on both l iterature review and results from the preliminary interviews. The interview find ings revealed six categories of employer assistance provided to help employees with balancing work and non-work aspects of their lives. Four of the six categories overlap with those identified from past research on family-friendly benefits and policies. The final measure includes a checklist of 27 items representing six groups: general work/l eave benefit, flexible work schedule, dependent care, employee wellness programs, conveni ence services, and other. Modeled after Kickul et al. (2002), participants were asked to check those items that their employers have promised and then rate the degree of fulfillment of the promises on a 1-3 scale (1= not at all fulfilled, 3= very much fulfil led). Example items include, Â“a reasonable workload,Â” Â“work from home,Â” and Â“paid m aternity leave.Â” The higher the total score across the items indicates higher fulfi llment of the contract. The items were reverse scored and averaged to form the final score of WFPCB. Alpha coefficient for the overall scale was .93 (U.S.) and .96 (China), but o f course the large number of items could be an influencing factor here. Alpha reliabil ity for the categories was (first number
47 for the U.S. and second for China): general work/le ave benefit (.74/.62), flexible work schedule (.76/.95), dependent care (.89/.96), emplo yee wellness programs (.88/.91), and convenience services (.72/.87). The global part of the WFPCB measure was from Robin son and Rousseau (1994), and was adapted for the work-family context. Partic ipants were asked to consider the promises their employers have made regarding assist ing with their work-life balance, and then indicate their agreement with five statements on a 1-5 scale (1=strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). Three items need to be reverse cod ed (e.g. Â“Almost all the promises made by my employer during recruitment have been ke pt so far.Â”) to indicate contract breach, whereas two do not (e.g. Â“My employer has b roken many of its promises to me even though IÂ’ve upheld my side of the deal.Â”) The alpha coefficient for the items was .91 for the U.S. and .89 for China. Item analyses indic ated that all item-total correlations were above .68 for the U.S. and above .80 for China Work Interference with Family (WIF). WIF was measured using the five workfamily conflict items from Netemeyer, Boles and McM urrian (1996). Participants were asked to rate on 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strong ly agree), indicating their agreement with the statements. Higher scores indicate higher levels of WIF. A sample item is Â“The demands of my work interfere with my home family li fe.Â” The measure has been found to have respectable reliabilities, with coefficient al phas ranging from .88 to .89 across samples (Netemeyer et al., 1996). In the current s ample, coefficient alpha was .94 for the U.S. and .89 for China. Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was assessed with three items fro m Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979), which is a subs cale from the Michigan
48 Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Participan ts rated on a 1 to 6 scale, with 1= disagree very much, and 6= agree very much. Higher scores reflect higher levels of job satisfaction. A sample item is Â“All in all, I am sa tisfied with my job.Â” Reliability coefficients were .91 (U.S.) and .87 (China). Organizational Commitment. The nine-item shortened version of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowda y, Steers & Porter, 1979) was used to reflect attitudinal or affective commitment A 1 to 7 scale is used (1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree). Higher total score s indicate higher levels of organizational commitment. Â“I am proud to tell othe rs that I am part of this organizationÂ” is a sample item from the measure. Previous researc h indicates that this shortened version of OCQ measure has reasonable coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. In the present study, alpha coefficients were .92 (U.S.) and .94 ( China). Turnover intentions. This was measured with a single question that asked about intentions to quit oneÂ’s job, that is, Â“How often h ave you seriously considered quitting your jobÂ” (Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988). Participan ts were asked to rate from 1 to 6 (1= never and 6= extremely often). For the U.S., the pe rcentage for each response option were: never (25%), rarely (32%), sometimes (25%), s omewhat often (10%), quite often (4%), extremely often (4%). For China, the percenta ges were: never (31%), rarely (19%), sometimes (34%), somewhat often (6%), quite often ( 5%), extremely often (5%). OCB. The OCB scale from Williams and Anderson (1991) was used in the U.S., which includes items on OCB directed toward individ uals (OCBI) and OCB directed toward the organization (OCBO). Sample items includ e Â“Helps others who have heavy work loadsÂ” (OCBI) and Â“Conserves and protects orga nizational propertyÂ” (OCBO).
49 Three reverse coded items for OCBO were not include d as they are similar to some items in the CWB measure. The alpha reliability for the o verall measure was .63, with .75 (OCBI) and .63 (OCBO). Item analyses indicated that the OCBO items did not relate very well to the whole measure, possibly because th e OCBO items are more about adhering to rules and norms rather than going above and beyond, and may relate closer to in-role performance. The Williams and Anderson (199 1) scale also includes seven items on task performance, but the two reverse worded ite ms were not included. For the present study, alpha coefficient was .83. For China, the PeopleÂ’s Republic of China Organizat ional Citizenship Behaviors (PRC-OCB; Farh, Zhong & Organ, 2004) was used. This measure includes 33 items rated on a 5 point scale. For the current study, only the 18 items on interpersonal (OCBI) and organizational (OCBO) OCB were included. CronbachÂ’s alpha was .93 for the overall measure, .89 for OCBI, and .85 for OCBO. CWB. CWB was measured using the 19-item measure from Ben nett and Robinson (2000). A frequency scale was used to indicate how often employees engage in certain behaviors, and it ranges from 1 to 7 (1= never, 7= daily). Among the items, seven of them measure CWB directed toward individuals, and a samp le item is Â“Made fun of someone at work.Â” The other 12 items are about CWB directed toward the organization and a sample item is, Â“Took property from work without pe rmission.Â” Reliability coefficient for the overall measure was .84 (U.S.) with .79 (CW BI) and .78 (CWBO); on the other hand, it was .84 (China) with .81 (CWBI) and .82 (C WBO). Psychological Well-being. The 12-item mental well-being scale from the Occupational Stress Indicator-2 (OSI2; Williams & C ooper, 1996) was used for the U.S.
50 The measure reflects symptoms of anxiety and depres sion, such as feeling miserable, upset, and worried. The items each had six response choices, which varied across items. For example, the item Â“concerning work and life in general, would you describe yourself as someone who is bothered by their troubles or a Â‘ worrierÂ’?Â” had choices that range from definitely yes to definitely no Alpha coefficient in the current study was .84. For China, the 13-item measure on emotional strain was used (Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison & Pinneau, 1980). It includes three sub-dimensions: anxiety (four items), depression (six items) and irritation (thre e items). The scale had four response choices ranging from 1 (Never or a little) to 4 (Mo st of the time). A sample item is "I feel sad." Higher scores for this scale indicate higher emotional strain. Alpha coefficient was .88 in the current sample. Individualism-Collectivism. The Cultural value of individualism-collectivism w as measured with items from the Dimensions of Culture Questionnaire (DCQ; Dorfman & Howell, 1988). Using a 1 to 5 scale (1= strongly di sagree, 5= strongly agree) participants rated on the six items on individualism-collectivis m. The items in DCQ are approximately the same as the ones in the GLOBE cul ture scale, except that the latter has nine dimensions (personal communication, Dorfman, N ovember 22, 2004). Alpha coefficients were .65 (U.S.) and .92 (China). Item analysis revealed that one item had a low item-total correlation (< .30) for the U.S. sam ple, that is, Â“Being accepted by the member of your workgroup is very important.Â” The di fferent alphas may in itself be an indicator of the cultural differences between the U .S. and China.
51 Results As shown above, the majority of the measures inclu ded in the pilot study showed reasonable reliabilities. For the new WFPCB measure both the composite part and the global part of the measure had respectable alpha le vels. The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 1 for the main study variables both for the U.S. sample and the Chinese sample. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Main Variables of th e Pilot StudyU.S. & China U.S. China N Mean SD N Mean SD 1 WIF 80 19.48 7.97 68 18.69 7.21 2 WFPCB (global) 80 11.52 4.11 64 12.58 3.58 3 WFPCB (composite) 71 28.21 17.08 68 12.75 12.79 4 Job Satisfaction 79 14.22 3.60 66 14.03 2.58 5 Organizational Commitment 79 42.94 11.79 63 43.97 9.82 6 Psychological Well-being 75 48.15 9.64 65 44.05** 5.44 7 Individualism 73 16.95 3.41 63 11.98*** 4.36 8 OCB 71 63.54 4.96 60 72.00*** 11.18 9 CWB 69 33.36 11.80 61 27.54** 8.19 10 Age 69 32.12 8.02 67 31.99 7.34 11 Number of children 62 0.48 0.76 53 0.58 0.54 12 Tenure (in months) 67 42.54 58.52 66 63.53 65.17 13 Work hours (per week) 69 40.59 12.58 65 44.09 7.38 14 Work days (per week) 69 4.84 0.61 65 5.31*** 0.64 Note: Different scales were used in the U.S. and Ch ina for OCB; Â‘*Â’= significant difference between the U.S. and China means; p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001 In evaluating the composite and the global part of the WFPCB measure, correlation results (Table 2) indicate that the glo bal evaluation part of the WFPCB measure had stronger relationships with other varia bles than the composite part. This is in line with findings from Zhao et al.Â’s (2007) meta-a nalysis on psychological contract breach and work-related outcomes, where they tested the moderating effect of measure type on the breach-outcome links. They found that t he global measures of breach had larger effect sizes than the content-specific compo site measures. Zhao et al. (2007)
52 pointed out that the different performance of compo site and global measures may be due to three reasons: 1) global measures do not limit t he content of the psychological contract; 2) global measures do not assume equal weights for all the content items as composite measures do; 3) some composite measures use differe nce scores that can be problematic. Regarding support for the proposed hypotheses, hypo thesis 1 was partially supported as WIF related significantly to job satis faction ( r = -.25, p < .05) and psychological well-being ( r = -.31, p < .01) in the U.S., and to organizational commitmen t ( r = -.28, p < .05), psychological well-being ( r = -.48, p < .01), and OCB ( r = -.27, p < .05) in the Chinese sample. All relationships except for OC B in the U.S. sample were in the expected direction, and there might have been more significant relationships with a larger sample size. WIF and the global measure of WFPCB co rrelated positively and significantly in both the U.S. ( r = .28, p < .05) and Chinese ( r = .30, p < .05) samples, therefore supporting hypothesis 2. In terms of hypo thesis 3 regarding the relationship between WFPCB and the outcomes, the global measure of WFPCB related significantly with job satisfaction (U.S. r = -.47, p < .01; China r = -.59, p < .01), organizational commitment (U.S. r = -.52, p < .01; China r = -.67, p < .01), and turnover intentions (U.S. r = .47, p < .01; China r = .36, p < .01). In addition, the link between WFPCB and psychological well-being ( r = -.59, p < .01), and OCB ( r = -.57, p < .01) was significant in the Chinese sample. The mediation and moderating hy potheses were not tested with the pilot data due to the relatively small sample size. However, the significant relationships observed among the variables seem to warrant furthe r investigation of the proposed hypotheses with a larger sample using the measures piloted.
53 Table 2. Correlation Matrix for the Main Variables and Demog raphic VariablesU.S. & China 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 WIF 1 .300* 0.095 -0.207 -.281* 0.156 -.479** 0.227 -.265* 2 WFPCB (global) .275* 1 0.031 -.594** -.671** .355** -.591** .608** -.566** 3 WFPCB (composite) 0.01 -0.09 1 -0.143 -0.189 0.236 -.340** .290* -0.174 4 Job Satisfaction -.252* -.473** 0.12 1 .740** -.449** .503** -.463** .593** 5 Organizational Commitment -0.094 -.516** .308** .706** 1 -.486** .691** -.716** .557** 6 Turnover Intention 0.202 .470** -0.113 -.556** -.551** 1 -.398** .274* -0.153 7 Psychological Well-being -.311** -0.113 0.128 .232* 0.067 -0.15 1 -.615** .607** 8 Individualism 0.154 0.054 -.290* -0.087 -0.206 0.157 -0.122 1 -.482** 9 OCB 0.089 0.123 0.045 0.089 0.073 0.079 -0.054 -0.028 1 10 CWB 0.005 0.049 -0.237 -0.026 -0.145 0.045 -0.016 0.185 -0.059 11 Gender -0.038 -0.039 0.02 0.04 0.07 -0.01 0.009 .244* -0.075 12 Age 0.14 0.033 0.19 0.004 0.057 0.107 0.11 0.055 -0.08 13 Marital status -0.047 -0.049 -0.036 0.002 0.046 -0.186 -0.063 -0.172 0.107 14 Children 0.17 -0.073 0.087 -0.006 -0.005 0.05 0.07 .290* -0.191 15 Education 0.005 -0.143 0.011 0.139 0.133 -0.072 -0.073 0.186 0.205 16 Tenure (in months) 0.137 0.089 0.154 -0.032 0.045 0.105 -0.098 0.103 -0.054 17 Work hours (per week) .486** .262* 0.081 -0.139 0.051 0.215 -0.149 0.142 0.191 18 Work days (per week) .367** 0.076 0.226 0.045 0.118 0.077 -0.101 0.077 0.147 19 Workload (wish) -.530** -0.189 0.056 0.151 -0.011 -0.128 0.093 -0.125 -0.117 Note: p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001; U.S.: below the diagonal; China: above the diagonal
54 Table 2. Correlation Matrix for the Main Variables and Demog raphic VariablesU.S. & China (Continued) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 WIF 0.145 0.002 .251* -0.195 0.064 .264* 0.223 .255* 0.026 -0.002 2 WFPCB (global) 0.233 -0.007 0.037 -0.004 -.380** 0.087 0.046 0.105 0.088 -0.065 3 WFPCB (composite) .466** -0.086 -0.202 0.035 -0.163 0.183 -0.116 0.013 -0.169 0.125 4 Job Satisfaction -.300* -0.144 0.225 -0.238 .484** 0.077 0.233 -.249* -0.178 0.125 5 Organizational Commitment -0.232 -0.118 0.169 -0.195 .454** -0.173 0.222 -0.046 0.019 -0.024 6 Turnover Intention 0.13 0.214 0.011 0.11 -0.202 0.032 0.08 -0.104 -0.118 0.149 7 Psychological Well-being -0.217 -0.112 0.018 -0.11 .420** -.356** 0.002 -0.021 0.127 -0.151 8 Individualism .339** 0 -0.179 0.121 -.511** 0.148 -0.216 0.009 -0.04 0.07 9 OCB -.470** 0.081 0.106 0.079 .427** -0.16 0.186 -.302* -0.192 0.185 10 CWB 1 -0.053 -0.119 -0.064 -0.257 0.043 -0.102 0.186 0.122 -0.04 11 Gender -.263* 1 0.051 0.026 -0.128 -.419** 0.108 -0.076 0.026 0.064 12 Age -.262* -0.202 1 -.484** .609** -0.041 .682** -0.069 -0.008 0.017 13 Marital status 0.191 0.054 -.622** 1 -.533** 0.139 -.362** -0.194 -.290* .339** 14 Children -0.165 -0.084 .638** -.508** 1 -0.138 .432** -0.039 0.003 -0.24 15 Education 0.018 .328** -0.194 0.107 -0.068 1 -0.04 -0.235 -.475** .281* 16 Tenure (in months) -0.067 -0.195 .586** -.323** .418** -0.242 1 0.024 0 -0.111 17 Work hours (per week) -0.099 -0.1 .270* -0.208 0.121 -0.002 0.216 1 .707** -.452** 18 Work days (per week) -0.102 -0.149 .260* -0.204 0.052 -0.126 0.195 .703** 1 -.363** 19 Workload (wish) 0.029 0.03 -.247* 0.152 -0.148 0.01 -0.15 -.442** -.318** 1 Note: p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001; U.S.: below the diagonal; China: above the diagonal
55 Chapter Five Quantitative: Main Survey Study Based on the interview results from the first rese arch stage, a measure of workfamily psychological contract breach (WFPCB) was cr eated and piloted in the second research stage. In this final stage of the disserta tion, a modified version of the piloted survey was administered to larger samples from the U.S. and China. Effort was also made in obtaining other report of the behavioral outcome s (i.e. task performance, OCB and CWB) to supplement the self-report. The research me thods and findings for the main survey study are reported in the following section. Method Participants & Procedure U.S. An online survey was administered to the U.S. sampl e. Participants were recruited using two strategies: continue tapping in to personal and professional networks, and seek help from the alumni network of a liberal arts college in the Midwest of the U.S. Messages that explained the purpose of the study wi th the link to the online survey were sent to members of the alumni network. Again, only employed individuals (excluding self-employment) were invited to participate. Those invited were also encouraged to forward the link of the survey to their friends and colleagues to take advantage of the snowball sampling strategy.
56 Because the objective of this study was to understa nd the psychological contract in the work-family context and explore the relation s among WIF, WFPCB and the outcomes, a sample from a variety of industries and organizations (a likely outcome of the snowball sampling) was suitable and desirable. To gather Â“otherÂ” report of performance ratings, a link to the supervisor/cowor ker survey and a sample email invitation was included at the end of the employee survey, for the employees to forward. The employees were also asked to create a unique co de (at least eight characters in length) and include the code in the invitation e-mails to t heir supervisors or coworkers. In terms of the demographics of the U.S. sample, 57 % of the respondents are female and their age ranges from 23 to 67 with a me an of 38. Of those 64% that are married and have partner/spouse, 72% of their partn er/spouse work full-time, 11% work part-time, and 17% do not work. The number of child ren they have range from 0 to 5, with a mean of .88. ParticipantsÂ’ education level a ttained is: secondary (1%), some university (1%), university (43%), masters (34%), d octorate (20%). In terms of ethnicity, 3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 1% Black, 2% Hispanic 88% White, and 6% prefer not to answer. On average, participants have been with th eir organization for 67 months. As for work hours, 53% indicated that they have the number of hours they wish to work, 43% more than they wish to work, 4% fewer than they wis h to work. On average, the participants work 5.15 days per week, ranging from 3 to 7, and they work 46 hours a week, ranging from 12 to 80 hours. Participants wer e from a wide range of industries including, consumer goods, hospitality, education, media, government and financial services.
57 China. A combination of online survey and paper-and-penci l format was again adopted for the Chinese sample, because some of the potential participants did not have easy access to computers. Participants were recruit ed using the snowball sampling strategy for the online survey. At the same time, p aper-and-pencil versions of the same survey were administered to Chinese employees from a variety of organizations. Participants were mainly those that work in the fiv e cities of China, namely, Beijing, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Shanghai, and Tianjin, which a re mostly large metropolitan areas in China. Therefore, the representativeness of the sample of the Chinese employed population at large may be limited in this sense an d needs to be borne in mind when interpreting the results. In terms of the demographics of the sample, 39% of the respondents are female and their age ranges from 23 to 57 with a mean of 3 3. Of those 71% that are married and have partner/spouse, 80% of their partner/spouse wo rk full-time, 16% work part-time, and 4% do not work. The number of children they hav e range from 0 to 2, with a mean of .84. ParticipantsÂ’ education level attained is: secondary (13%), some university (28%), university (43%), masters (13%), doctorate (1%), an d other (2%). On average, participants have been with their organization for 82 months. As for work hours, 67% indicated that they have the number of hours they w ish to work, 22% more than they wish to work, 11% fewer than they wish to work. On average, the participants work 5.15 days per week, ranging from 5 to 7, and they work 4 2 hours a week, ranging from 8 to 70 hours. Participants were from a variety of industri es including, manufacturing, services, finance, insurance and hospitality. Measures
58 As most of the measures remained the same as those from the pilot study, only the ones that were modified at this stage are presented below. The means and standard deviations are reported together with the scale and number of items for each variable in Table 3 below. Work-family Psychological Contract Breach (WFPCB). As described previously, WFPCB was assessed with a newly developed measure t hat consisted of both a composite part and a global rating part. Results fr om the pilot study indicated that the global measure performed better in terms of relatin g to the other variables, whereas similar findings were reported in Zhao et al.Â’s (20 07) meta-analysis of psychological contract breach in general. Therefore, only scores from the global measure were used in the subsequent final analyses. The composite measur e, however, was still included in the survey with some modifications to provide us with a glimpse of the content of workfamily psychological contract. Although the list of content items may not be comprehensive, it was based on qualitative intervie ws conducted both in the U.S. and China. Based on feedback from some participants in the pil ot study, indicating difficulty of correctly understanding and answering the compos ite items, they were revised from asking about the degree of fulfillment, to reportin g employersÂ’ actual provision of the various types of work-family assistance. Participan ts were first asked to check the items that their organization promised to them, and were then ask to check in a second column (1=checked, 0=not checked), the items that were act ually provided by the organizations (1=checked, 0=not checked). Making the question mor e objective can reduce the cognitive burden on the participants. It was possib le to code the results such that
59 participants reporting Â“not checkedÂ” for promise an d Â“checkedÂ” for actual provision as Â“1= exceeding promise.Â” Similarly, a combination of Â“1/1Â” and Â“0/0Â” can be coded Â“2=meet contract,Â” and a combination of Â“1/0Â” can b e coded Â“3=breaching contract.Â” In this case, higher scores would indicate greater deg ree of breach of the work-family psychological contract. However, due to concern for such transformation of scores and reasons outlined by Zhao et al. (2007) for composit e measures, an average score from this part of the measure was not used for testing the hy potheses for WFPCB. Instead, frequencies were run to show potential content of t he contract, and the total score from the global measure was used to represent WFPCB in o ther analyses. Organizational Commitment. For the final survey, four items from the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowda y, Steers & Porter, 1979) were selected out of the nine-items included in the pilo t study. The items were selected based on item analyses conducted with both the U.S. and C hinese samples from the pilot study. Based on information such as, item-total correlatio ns and alpha-if-item-deleted, the four items retained were the best performing items for b oth samples. Again, a 1 to 7 scale was used (1= strongly disagree; 7= strongly agree), wit h higher scores indicating higher organizational commitment. Psychological Well-being. The 13-item measure on emotional strain was used (Caplan et al., 1980) for both the Chinese sample a nd the U.S. sample this time. The Mandarin and English version of the measure was adm inistered respectively. The 12-item scale from the Occupational Stress Indicator-2 (OSI 2; Williams & Cooper, 1996) was not administered for the U.S. sample again due to sever al concerns although it showed reasonable reliability with the pilot sample from t he U.S. First, it is more time consuming
60 than (Caplan et al., 1980) due to longer and more c omplicated item stems. Second, its rating scale only indicates an anchor for the lowes t point and highest point of a six point scale, leaving interpretation of the middle more di fficult. Finally, although all items are on the six point scale, the anchors vary from item to item, making it more difficult for the participants. Therefore, the alternative measure of Caplan et al. (1980), which demonstrated respectable reliability with the Chine se sample, was used in both the U.S. and China for the final study. As a reminder, this scale has four response choices ranging from 1 (Never or a little) to 4 (Most of the time). A sample item is "I feel sad." Higher scores for this scale indicate higher emotional str ain. Analyses Analyses overview. Several types of analyses were conducted at this f inal stage of research. First, scale equivalence was tested as us ually recommended for cross-national research that uses measures in different countries. Following Spector et al. (2004), the four-phase procedure recommended by Riordan and Van denberg (1994) and Schaffer and Riordan (2003) was used. Results of this step can i nform the degree of comparison possible between the U.S. and Chinese findings. Sec ond, correlations among WIF, WFPCB, and the outcome variables were obtained sepa rately for the U.S. and China, and additional multiple regressions were conducted for Hypotheses 1 to 3. Next, mediation analysis was conducted using the Sobel test with bo otstrapping to examine the mediating role of WFPCB between WIF and each of the outcomes for Hypothesis 4. In addition, moderated regressions were performed f or Hypothesis 5 and 6 to explore the moderating effect of the cultural value of individualism-collectivism, on both the links between WIF and WFPCB, and between WFPCB and the outcomes. Finally,
61 correlations were to be compared across the two cou ntries (if reasonable measurement invariance was achieved for the measures) as explor atory analyses to shed light on the research questions about the effect of individualis m-collectivism at the country level. Data cleaning & preparation. Similar to what was described for the pilot study, data from the U.S. were downloaded from the survey website and imported into SPSS. Online data from China were also downloaded from th e same website and merged with the paper-and-pencil data. After checking the data range for potential errors from data entry and merging of the data, several steps were c arried out for further data cleaning. First, valid respondents were identified as having answered at least one third of the core items. For the U.S., out of the core items (on WIF, WFPCB, JS, OC, TI, PWB, TP, OCB, CWB, IC), those that missed more than 49 i tems were excluded from analyses, resulting in the removal of 12 cases, and a sample size of 305. Next, responses to the country of citizenship questions were checked to ex clude cases from outside the U.S., and 18 cases were excluded. Analysis that identifies outliers was then conducte d on the remaining 287 cases. Orr, Sackett and Dubois (1991) surveyed I/O psychol ogists and conducted analyses on test validation data. They found that there was a g reat deal of variation in treatment of outliers among organizational researchers. Visual e xamination of data were used more frequently than numeric techniques, and outlier rem oval may affect individual studies but not so much for a large test validity data set. Alt hough their study was not intended to point out what should be done, they called for more awareness of the iss ue and proper documentation of outlier treatment. For the present study, scatter plots of predictoroutcome pairs were examined in combination with thr ee diagnostics: the studentized
62 residuals, leverage values, and CookÂ’s D (which wer e also the ones examined in Orr et al., 1991). Responses of the three outlying cases identi fied were then examined to see if they may be invalid answers (e.g. random responding as d emonstrated by the same score for all items within the same measure and across measur es). Answers to reverse-coded items were also used for evidence of random responses. As a result, one outlier was flagged and excluded from further analyses. The final dataset w as therefore 286 for the U.S. sample. The same data cleaning procedures were applied to t he Chinese data. Out of the 233 cases, two cases were excluded for missing more than one third of the core items. Next, four outlying cases were identified based on scatter plots and the diagnostics, and three were excluded from analyses. This resulted in a final sample size of 228 for the Chinese data. Results Descriptives Table 3 displays the means and standard deviations for the main variables and several demographic variables for the U.S. and Chin ese sample, and Table 4 shows the correlation matrix of these variables. The numbers below the diagonal are results for the U.S. sample, whereas the numbers above the diagonal represent findings from the Chinese sample. The numbers on the diagonal represe nt the alpha coefficients for each of the measures.
63 Table 3. Variable Descriptive Statistics for the Final Surve yU.S. & China U.S. China N Mean SD Scale Item N Mean SD 1 WIF 284 21.15 7.74 1-7 5 225 14.40*** 7.63 2 WFPCB (global) 243 10.86 4.39 1-5 5 216 12.65*** 2. 37 3 Job Satisfaction 243 14.40 3.56 1-6 3 223 14.53 1.8 8 4 Org Commitment 243 19.61 5.91 1-7 4 224 20.67* 3.44 5 Turnover Intention 180 2.57 1.49 1-6 1 219 1.94*** 1.11 6 Psychological Well-being 275 41.40 5.88 1-4 13 224 44.23*** 6.26 7 Individualism 247 16.97 3.66 1-5 6 225 12.43*** 4.1 4 8 Collectivism 247 19.03 3.66 225 23.57*** 4.14 9 Task Performance (other) 66 19.73 2.10 1-7 3 179 20 .23 3.18 10 OCB (self) 235 64.97 6.26 1-7/1-5 11/18 222 67.44** 9.89 11 OCB (other) 65 66.95 8.19 196 65.77 10.44 12 CWB (self) 222 31.99 8.89 1-7 19 218 29.93* 9.12 13 CWB (other) 62 24.73 6.89 193 32.45*** 11.21 14 Age 237 38.31 10.27 NA 1 219 32.99*** 7.10 15 Children 218 0.88 1.15 NA 1 138 0.85 0.38 16 Tenure (in months) 236 67.01 77.17 NA 1 220 82.30* 81.70 17 Work hours (per week) 238 46.14 11.02 NA 1 222 41.66*** 6.27 18 Work days (per week) 237 5.15 0.74 NA 1 221 5.15 0. 42 Note: Different scales were used in the U.S. and Ch ina for OCB; Â‘*Â’= significant difference between th e U.S. and China means; p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001
64 Table 4. Correlation Matrix for the Main Variables and Demog raphic VariablesU.S. & China 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 WIF (.94/.97) .244** -.227** -0.087 .301** -.576** .215** .267** -0.037 0.107 -.302** 2 WFPCB (global) .288** (.92/.75) -.364** -.353** .210** -.383** .371** .204** -.140* -0.082 -0.119 3 Job Satisfaction -.248** -.542** (.90/.89) .517** -.374** .376** -.306** -0.078 .194** 0.025 0.02 4 Organizational Commitment -.216** -.581** .741** (.89/.86) -.373** .239** -.234** 0.085 .247** .237** -.215** 5 Turnover Intention .303** .448** -.640** -.648** NA -.326** 0.097 0.018 -0.104 0.005 -0.008 6 Psychological Well-being -.363** -.385** .608** .458** -.454** (.87/.92) -.226** -.435** 0.015 -.190** .295** 7 Individualism -0.016 -0.012 -.139* -.178** 0.121 -0.012 (.74/.91) .149* -.145* -0.134 -0.007 8 Task Performance 0.11 -0.216 0.218 -0.081 0.208 0.011 -0.069 (.94/.89) .208** .343** -.478** 9 OCB (self) 0.021 -.193** .184** .241** -0.106 .161* -.180** -0.024 (.79/.91) .440** -.390** 10 OCB (other) 0.017 -.359** .308* 0.139 -0.021 -0.066 -0.122 .674** 0.193 (.88/.95) -.376** 11 CWB (self) 0.043 .148* -.145* -.161* 0.084 -.339** 0.028 0.023 -.210** 0.121 (.73/.87) 12 CWB (other) 0.078 0.125 -0.153 -0.061 0.189 -0.238 0.24 -0.088 0 -0.192 .321* 13 Gender 0.05 0.097 -0.101 -0.095 0.143 -0.074 0.103 -0.057 0.01 -0.172 -0.085 14 Age 0.069 -0.083 .129* 0.089 -0.036 .165* 0.032 0.068 0.076 0.099 -.235** 15 Marital status -0.008 .143* -0.069 -0.079 0.068 0.035 0.065 0.048 -0.035 0.088 .184** 16 Children 0.018 -0.13 .150* 0.132 -0.105 .166* 0.024 0.11 0.104 0.032 -.291** 17 Education .131* 0.025 0.023 0.005 0.082 -0.034 -0.079 -0.012 -0.059 -0.148 0.037 18 Tenure (in months) 0.031 -0.084 .135* 0.062 -0.064 0.125 0.022 0.073 0.087 0.038 -.193** 19 Work hours (per week) .359** 0.104 -0.007 -0.017 0.025 -0.052 -0.089 0.083 0.084 0.002 -0.069 20 Work days (per week) .218** 0.05 -0.024 0.03 0.061 -0.108 -0.112 -0.024 -0.021 0.01 0.019 21 Workload (wish) -.436** -.236** .195** .221** -.206** .285** 0 -.321** -0.039 -0.222 0.075 Note p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001 U.S.: below the diagonal; China: above the diagona l
65 Table 4. Correlation Matrix for the Main Variables and Demog raphic VariablesU.S. & China (Continued) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 WIF -.358** .153* 0.125 0.128 -.240** .143* 0.044 .456** .182** -.530** 2 WFPCB (global) -0.116 0.065 .181** 0.135 -.271** 0.128 .158* .256** 0.011 -.356** 3 Job Satisfaction 0.109 -0.101 -.143* 0.004 0.128 -.196** -.144* -0.119 -.144* .177** 4 Organizational Commitment -.202** 0.078 -0.037 -0.025 0.154 -0.109 0.054 -0.072 -0.008 .212** 5 Turnover Intention -0.04 0.092 -0.107 0.061 -0.005 .181** -0.133 0.132 .174* -.152* 6 Psychological Well-being .500** -.164* -.205** -.143* 0.161 -.287** -.194** -.372** -.244** .460** 7 Individualism -0.042 0.004 0.105 0.054 -.171* .147* 0.072 0.03 -0.065 -.237** 8 Task Performance -.570** .202** .311** -0.006 -0.136 0.121 .362** .197** 0.1 -.310** 9 OCB (self) -.338** .147* .155* -.157* -0.074 0.066 .154* 0.105 0.016 -0.085 10 OCB (other) -.595** .165* 0.087 0.058 -0.125 0.081 .200** .302** .152* -.167* 11 CWB (self) .757** -.280** -.345** 0.043 0.045 -.157* -.358** -.228** -0.076 .311** 12 CWB (other) (.72/.92) -.347** -.308** -0.048 0.139 -.185* -.431** -.225** -0.107 .360** 13 Gender -0.005 NA .143* 0.084 0.012 0.025 .166* -0.072 -0.068 -0.098 14 Age -0.209 -0.096 NA -.349** .229** .224** .809** .155* 0.086 -.171* 15 Marital status -0.081 0.055 -.146* NA -.555** -0.083 -.241** 0.127 -0.045 -0.104 16 Children -.312* -.250** .461** -.274** NA .174* .202* -.186* 0.081 .213* 17 Education 0.005 0.006 0.033 -0.011 -0.041 NA .282** 0.109 .273** 0.008 18 Tenure (in months) -0.107 -0.046 .560** -.179** .258** -0.082 NA 0.048 0.077 -0.125 19 Work hours (per week) 0.025 -.207** -0.004 0.008 0.015 0.067 0.051 NA .311** -.410** 20 Work days (per week) 0.061 -.231** 0.041 0.058 -0.015 -0.035 -0.008 .561** NA -0.048 21 Workload (wish) 0.016 -0.006 -0.039 -0.001 -0.036 -0.062 -0.105 -.450** -.297** NA Note p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001 U.S.: below the diagonal; China: above the diagona l
66 Analysis for Direct Effect Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1, which proposed significant relations hips between work interference with family (WIF) and the set of outcomes, was partially supported. In the U.S. sample, WIF related, as hypothesized, sign ificantly and negatively with job satisfaction (=-.213, p < .001) and psychological well-being (=-.375, p < .001), and positively with turnover intention (=.247, p < .001). In the Chinese sample, WIF related significantly and negatively with psychological wel l-being (=-.368, p < .001) and the self-report of OCB (=-.27, p < .05), and positively with turnover intention (=.275, p < .05). Hypothesis 2. The relationship between work interference with fa mily and the proposed mediator, work-family psychological contra ct breach (WFPCB) was supported in both the U.S. sample (=.278, p < .001), and the Chinese sample (=.244, p< .001). Hypothesis 3. This hypothesis looks at the direct relationship b etween the proposed mediator WFPCB and the set of outcome vari ables. This hypothesis was almost fully supported in the U.S. sample except for the o utcome of CWB. WFPCB related as hypothesized significantly and negatively with job satisfaction (=-.479, p < .001), organizational commitment (=-.543, p < .001), and psychological well-being (=-.263, p < .001), and positively with turnover intention (=.422, p < .001). As for the behavior outcomes, there were significant findings for the s elf-report of OCB (=-.178, p < .05), and the other (coworker) report of OCB (=-.378, p < .05) and task performance (=-.366, p < .05). Less support was received in the Chinese sample, WF PCB related significantly with job satisfaction (=-.407, p < .001), organizational commitment (=-.436, p < .001),
67 and positively with turnover intention (=.356, p < .001). In terms of the behavior outcomes, significant results were only found for t he self-report of OCB (=-.267, p < .01).
68 Table 5a. Multiple Regression for WIF and WFPCB on the Outcom esU.S. Predictor Variable WFPCB JS OC TI PWB Step 1 Gender -0.071 -0.068 0.114 0.003 Age -0.012 -0.016 0.054 0.09 Marital Status 0.026 -0.036 0.065 0.133* Children 0.065 0.053 -0.001 0.138 Tenure 0.120 -0.013 -0.023 0.064 Work hours 0.113 0.076 -0.119 0.112 R2 (0.064)* (0.045) (0.052) (0.059) Step 2 WIF 0.278*** -0.213*** -0.108 0.247*** -0.375*** WFPCB -0.479*** -0.543*** 0.422*** -0.263*** R2 (0.061) (0.304)*** (0.317)*** (0.256)*** (.227)*** R2 total 0.113 0.368 0.362 0.308 0.286 Adjusted R2 0.082 0.342 0.336 0.272 0.256 Overall F 3.639*** 14.322*** 13.989*** 8.413*** 9.655*** Note. p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001; N range from 54 to 205 s are standardized regression weights Table 5a. Multiple Regression for WIF and WFPCB on the Outcom esU.S. (Continued) Predictor Variable TP OCB (self) OCB (other) CWB (self) CWB (other) Step 1 Gender 0.082 0.048 -0.106 -0.195** -0.109 Age 0.096 -0.023 0.111 -0.081 -0.023 Marital Status 0.144 0.011 0.137 0.138 -0.267 Children 0.074 0.119 -0.01 -0.249** -0.357* Tenure 0.050 0.06 0.004 -0.057 -0.069 Work hours 0.038 0.102 -0.095 -0.16* -0.037 R2 (0.035) (0.029) (0.065) (.157)*** (0.152) Step 2 WIF 0.181 0.016 0.229 0.119 -0.033 WFPCB -0.366* -0.178* -0.378* 0.076 0.129 R2 (0.102) (0.029) (.114)* (0.021) (0.012) R2 total 0.137 0.058 0.179 0.178 0.164 Adjusted R2 -0.007 0.019 0.04 0.142 0.016 Overall F 0.951 1.476 1.283 4.984*** 1.105 Note. p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001; N range from 54 to 205 s are standardized regression weights
69 Table 5b. Multiple Regression for WIF and WFPCB on the Outcom esChina Predictor Variable WFPCB JS OC TI PWB Step 1 Gender -0.11 0.111 0.002 -0.007 Age 0.05 -0.112 -0.06 0.031 Marital Status 0.126 0.243* -0.183 0.017 Children 0.059 0.115 0.166 0.006 Tenure -0.13 0.193 -0.162 -0.259* Work hours -0.008 0.003 0.051 -0.281** R2 (0.085) (.103)* (0.089) (0.369)*** Step 2 WIF 0.244*** -0.088 -0.071 0.275* -0.368*** WFPCB -0.407*** -0.436*** 0.356*** -0.126 R2 (0.013) (0.141)*** (.159)*** (0.163)*** (0.099)*** R2 total 0.223 0.226 0.262 0.252 0.467 Adjusted R2 0.177 0.172 0.212 0.198 0.431 Overal F 4.851*** 4.189*** 5.159*** 4.679*** 12.727*** Note. p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001; N range from 99 to 125 s are standardized regression weights Table 5b. Multiple Regression for WIF and WFPCB on the Outcom esChina (Continued) Predictor Variable TP OCB (self) OCB (other) CWB (self) CWB (other) Step 1 Gender 0.175 0.066 0.105 -0.171* -0.165 Age -0.005 0.131 -0.309 -0.299* 0.081 Marital Status 0.246* -0.025 0.172 -0.129 -0.278** Children -0.016 -0.282* -0.077 0.066 0.065 Tenure 0.367 0.123 0.467** -0.187 -0.556*** Work hours 0.031 0.183 0.198 -0.094 -0.079 R2 (.285)*** (0.050) (0.147)** (.303)*** (.402)*** Step 2 WIF 0.055 -0.27* -0.078 0.016 -0.054 WFPCB 0.067 -0.267** -0.152 0.013 0.073 R2 (0.006) (.106)*** (0.023) (0.000) (0.006) R2 total 0.291 0.156 0.171 0.303 0.408 Adjusted R2 0.229 0.096 0.106 0.254 0.361 Overal F 4.628*** 2.629* 2.628* 6.152*** 8.613*** Note. p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001; N range from 99 to 125 s are standardized regression weights
70 Mediation Analysis Hypothesis 4 states that the work-family psychologi cal contract breach serves a mediating role between WIF and the outcomes. As var ious tests for mediation effect are available, decisions were needed as to which method was most appropriate and applicable. Wood, Goodman, Beckman and CookÂ’s (2008 ) most recent review of mediation testing and results reporting was therefo re consulted. Wood et al. (2008) recommended that: 1) when using Baron and KennyÂ’s ( 1986) causal steps approach, all four conditions need to be examined; 2) this should also be supplemented with Â“a test of differences in coefficients or products of coeffici ents, such as the Sobel (1982) testÂ” (p.291). Whereas the Sobel test requires a relative ly larger sample, the bootstrap technique can be applied to moderate or small sampl e size (e.g. 20Â–80 cases; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Based on the above recommendations from Wood et al. (2008), the Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure in combination with the Sobe l test and bootstrapping procedures were used to test the mediation effect of WFPCB on the relations between WIF and the outcomes. Specifically, a SPSS macro provided by Ha yes ( http://www.comm.ohiostate.edu/ahayes/sobel.htm ) aided the mediation test. Dr. HayesÂ’ website prov ides download of the SPSS macro as well as instructions for using it. Following the instructions, the macro was downloaded and executed in SPSS, resulting in a new SPSS syntax command, SOBEL, available for later use. To run mediation, the following command was used: SOBEL y= yvar /x= xvar /m= mvar /boot= z
71 ( yvar is the dependent variable (DV), xvar is the independent variable(IV), mvar is the proposed mediating variable, and z specifies the number of bootstrap re-samples neede d, in increments of 1000 up to a maximum of 1,000,000; The bootstrapping module is deactivated, when z is set to 0 or any number less than 1000; listwise deletion is applied). According to the instructions, requesting a bootstr apped estimate when the original sample is very small can result in error, but the m acro usually worked with a minimum n of 25. Therefore, the macro should work for the cur rent study with samples of more than 200 participants, and z was specified to be 1000 for the current study (eno ugh to achieve stable estimates for the study). The output from the SPSS macros provides unstandard ized coefficients for the regression equations discussed by Baron and Kenny ( 1986) as required to test mediation. Figure 2 provides an example of the output from the SPSS macro for the outcome variable of job satisfaction. Figure 2. Sample Output for the Mediating Role of WFPCB betwe en WIF and Job Satisfaction -----------------------------------------------------------------------------DIRECT AND TOTAL EFFECTS Coeff s.e. t Sig(two) b(YX) -.1206 .0287 -4.2083 .0000 b(MX) .1520 .0351 4.3267 .0000 b(YM.X) -.4120 .0463 -8.8914 .0000 b(YX.M) -.0580 .0258 -2.2503 .0254 INDIRECT EFFECT AND SIGNIFICANCE USING NORMAL DISTR IBUTION Value s.e. LL 95 CI UL 95 CI Z Sig(two) Sobel -.0626 .0162 -.0943 -.0309 3.8708 .0001 BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECT Mean s.e. LL 95 CI UL 95 CI LL 99 CI UL 99 CI Effect -.0627 .0161 -.0972 -.0329 -.1073 -.0236 SAMPLE SIZE 234
72 NUMBER OF BOOTSTRAP RESAMPLES 1000 -----END MATRIX -----------------------------------------------------------------------------According to Preacher and Hayes (1994), b ( YX ) is the total effect of the IV on the DV; b ( MX ), is the effect of the IV on the proposed mediator ; b ( YM X ), is the effect of the mediator on the DV, controlling for the IV; and b ( YX M ) is the direct effect of the IV on the DV, controlling for the mediator. Baron and Ken ny (1986) suggested that a full mediation effect would require significant results from the first three steps and nonsignificant results from the last step; a partial m ediation effect, on the other hand, would result in a retained significant relationship betwe en the IV and DV after controlling for the mediator, yet with reduced coefficients. Table 6a and 6b show the results from the Sobel (19 82) test using the SPSS macro with bootstrapping. Hypothesis 4 proposed a mediati ng role of WFPCB between WIF and all the outcome variables studied, which was pa rtially supported in the U.S. sample. Whereas significant direct relationships were found for the attitudinal outcome variables of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention, as well as psychological well-being, there were no significant direct path between WIF and the behavioral outcomes of task performance, OCB and CW B. Therefore, the requirement of a significant direct relationship between IV and DV for mediation was not met for the behavioral variables (although some argue against t his requirement; see Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Table 6a indicates, however, that the relati onship between WIF and organizational commitment was fully mediated by WFPCB. The coeffic ient was no longer significant when controlling for WFPCB, and the Sobel Z is also significant (p< .001). In addition,
73 partial mediation effect was revealed for job satis faction, turnover intention, and psychological well-being. Their coefficients were r educed in size when counting for WFPCB, although still significant. Table 6b indicat es that in the Chinese sample, the Sobel (1982) test was significant for three variabl es. Full mediation was supported for job satisfaction, and partial mediation for psychologic al well-being. For organizational commitment, the direct path from WIF was not signif icant, and therefore, failing to support the mediating role of WFPCB.
74 Table 6a. Mediation Results Using Sobel (1982) Test: WIF, WFP CB, and OutcomesU.S coefficient s.e. t sig (two) Sobel Z Job Satisfaction N=234 b(YX) -0.1206 0.0287 -4.2083 0.0000 b(MX) 0.152 0.0351 4.3267 0.0000 b(YM.X) -0.412 0.0463 -8.8914 0.0000 b(YX.M) -0.058 0.0258 -2.2503 0.0254 -3.8708*** Organizational Commitment N=234 b(YX) -0.1686 0.0483 -3.4899 0.0006 b(MX) 0.1496 0.0351 4.2608 0.0000 b(YM.X) -0.763 0.0754 -10.1248 0.0000 b(YX.M) -0.0545 0.0418 -1.3021 0.1942 -3.911*** Turnover Intention N=174 b(YX) 0.0609 0.0141 4.3086 0.0000 b(MX) 0.1419 0.0405 3.5068 0.0006 b(YM.X) 0.1399 0.0245 5.7149 0.0000 b(YX.M) 0.0411 0.0134 3.053 0.0026 2.9562** Psychological Well-being N=232 b(YX) -0.2565 0.0444 -5.7745 0.0000 b(MX) 0.1591 0.0359 4.4309 0.0000 b(YM.X) -0.3964 0.0774 -5.1184 0.0000 b(YX.M) -0.1934 0.0439 -4.4031 0.0000 -3.3141*** Task Performance (other report) N=64 b(YX) 0.0328 0.0357 0.9198 0.3612 b(MX) 0.2146 0.0634 3.384 0.0012 b(YM.X) -0.1584 0.0691 -2.2922 0.0254 b(YX.M) 0.0668 0.0376 1.7787 0.0803 -1.8434 OCB (self report) N=228 b(YX) 0.0186 0.0526 0.3535 0.7241 b(MX) 0.1523 0.0356 4.2762 0 b(YM.X) -0.3065 0.0964 -3.1799 0.0017 b(YX.M) 0.0653 0.0537 1.2168 0.225 -2.5079* OCB (other report) N=56 b(YX) 0.0039 0.1378 0.0285 0.9773 b(MX) 0.2107 0.0638 3.3052 0.0016 b(YM.X) -0.8352 0.2574 -3.2448 0.0019 b(YX.M) 0.1799 0.1392 1.2928 0.201 -2.2633* CWB (self report) N=214 b(YX) 0.0444 0.078 0.5687 0.5702 b(MX) 0.1629 0.0366 4.4456 0 b(YM.X) 0.3049 0.1451 2.1014 0.0368 b(YX.M) -0.0053 0.0809 -0.0654 0.948 1.8617 CWB (other report) N=60 b(YX) 0.0619 0.1156 0.5355 0.5943 b(MX) 0.2397 0.0661 3.628 0.0006 b(YM.X) 0.1547 0.2307 0.6703 0.5054 b(YX.M) 0.0248 0.1286 0.1929 0.8477 0.6362 Note: X= Work Interference with Family (WIF) M= Work-Family Psychological Contract Breach (WFPC B) p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .001
75 Table 6b. Mediation Results Using Sobel (1982) Test: WIF, WFP CB, and OutcomesCN coefficient s.e. t sig (two) Sobel Z Job Satisfaction N=211 b(YX) -0.0464 0.0163 -2.8421 0.0049 b(MX) 0.0882 0.0237 3.729 0.0002 b(YM.X) -0.2294 0.0452 -5.0805 0.0000 b(YX.M) -0.0262 0.016 -1.6419 0.1021 -2.9690** Organizational Commitment N=212 b(YX) -0.0292 0.0312 -0.936 0.3503 b(MX) 0.087 0.0238 3.6589 0.0003 b(YM.X) -0.4553 0.0852 -5.3403 0.0000 b(YX.M) 0.0104 0.0303 0.3422 0.7326 -2.9830** Turnover Intention N=206 b(YX) 0.0395 0.0093 4.2328 0.0000 b(MX) 0.0861 0.0237 3.6347 0.0004 b(YM.X) 0.0598 0.0273 2.1892 0.0297 b(YX.M) 0.0343 0.0095 3.6001 0.0004 1.8253 Psychological Well-being N=212 b(YX) -0.4639 0.0461 -10.0695 0.0000 b(MX) 0.088 0.0232 3.7851 0.0002 b(YM.X) -0.541 0.1319 -4.1015 0.0001 b(YX.M) -0.4163 0.0459 -9.0665 0.0000 -2.7380** Task Performance (other report) N=169 b(YX) 0.1257 0.0363 3.4662 0.0007 b(MX) 0.0516 0.0311 1.6623 0.0983 b(YM.X) 0.2179 0.089 2.4477 0.0154 b(YX.M) 0.1144 0.036 3.1766 0.0018 1.3027 OCB (self report) N=211 b(YX) -0.0435 0.0897 -0.4843 0.6287 b(MX) 0.0794 0.0231 3.4388 0.0007 b(YM.X) -0.4993 0.2673 -1.8678 0.0632 b(YX.M) -0.0038 0.0917 -0.0417 0.9668 -1.5902 OCB (other report) N=186 b(YX) 0.1032 0.1054 0.9793 0.3287 b(MX) 0.08 0.0271 2.9508 0.0036 b(YM.X) -0.3761 0.286 -1.315 0.1902 b(YX.M) 0.1333 0.1077 1.2383 0.2172 -1.1474 CWB (self report) N=207 b(YX) -0.3548 0.0789 -4.4957 0.0000 b(MX) 0.0824 0.0235 3.5069 0.0006 b(YM.X) -0.195 0.2348 -0.8306 0.4072 b(YX.M) -0.3387 0.0813 -4.1658 0.0000 -.7788 CWB (other report) N=183 b(YX) -0.5377 0.108 -4.9772 0.0000 b(MX) 0.0743 0.027 2.7565 0.0064 b(YM.X) -0.2284 0.2982 -0.766 0.4447 b(YX.M) -0.5208 0.1104 -4.7166 0.0000 -.6967 Note: X= Work Interference with Family (WIF) M= Work-Family Psychological Contract Breach (WFPC B) p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .001
76 Moderation Analysis For hypothesis 5 and 6 regarding the moderating ef fect of the cultural value of individualism-collectivism (IC; individualism was u sed in the analyses, which was reverse coded from collectivism), they were tested using multiple regressions. Hypothesis 5 stated that IC moderated the relationship between WIF and WFPCB such that the relationship would be stronger with higher individu alism. Therefore, the interaction term of WIF and IC was created. For Hypothesis 6, which looks at the moderating effect of IC on WFPCB and the outcomes, the interaction term of WFPCB and IC was created. After entering the demographic variables of gender, age, marital status, number of children, tenure and work hours into the regression equation as Step 1, WIF, IC and their interaction term were entered at Step 2. Similarly, WFPCB, IC and their interaction term were entered in Step 2 for testing hypothesis 6a an d 6b. The same steps were repeated for the different outcome variables. Results from the multiple regression analyses indi cated that none of the interaction term was significant for the U.S. sampl e. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 and 6a and 6b were not supported in the U.S. sample. For the C hinese sample, IC and WFPCB had a significant interaction effect in the expected dire ction for the outcome variable of organizational commitment ( =-.307, p< .001), such that the relationship between WFPCB and organizational commitment was stronger fo r those higher on individualism than those lower on the value. In addition, the int eraction term approached significance for the other (supervisor) report of CWB. These res ults for the Chinese sample are shown in Table 7 below. Also, Figure 3 illustrates the in teraction effect between WFPCB and IC on organizational commitment.
77 Table 7. Moderated Regression of WFPCB and Individualism on Organizational Commitment and Supervisor Ratings of CWBChina Predictor Variable WFPCB (N=124) CWB (other) (N=108) Step 1 Gender 0.036 -0.196* Age -0.004 0.134 Marital Status 0.288** -0.248* Children 0.11 0.098 Tenure 0.094 -0.613*** Work hours -0.126 -0.161 R2 (0.121)* (.412)*** Step 2 WFPCB -0.532*** -0.011 Individualism (IND) -0.094 0.063 WFPCB*IND -0.307*** -0.159Â† R2 (0.244)*** (0.024) R2 total 0.365 0.436 Adjusted R2 0.315 0.385 Overall F 7.291*** 8.435*** Note. Gender: Male=1 Female =2; Marital Status: 1=Married /Cohabiting, 2=Unmarried/Separated; Â† p < .10; p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001 s are standardized regression weights Figure 3. Moderating Effect of Individualism on WFPCB & Organ izational Commitment 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 WFPCB (Low)WFPCB (High) Work-Family Pscyhological Contract Breach Organizational Commitment Individualism(Low) Individualism(High)
78 Research Questions In addition to the hypotheses, research questions were also posed regarding crosscountry comparisons. Based on theoretical reasoning for the potential moderating effect of individualism-collectivism: 1) Will we find stro nger correlation in the U.S. than China for WIF and WFPCB; 2) Will we find stronger correla tion in the U.S. than China for the relationships between WFPCB and the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes; and 3) Will the correlation between WFPCB and psychological wel l-being be stronger in China than in the U.S.? Measurement equivalence. To better answer these questions, analysis for checking measurement equivalence of the scales used in the U.S. and China was first conducted, and the four-phase procedure outlined in Riordan and Vandenberg (1994) was followed. In phase 1, the null hypothesis of equal variance-covariance matrices for the U.S. and Chinese samples was examined. In case that significant difference was found, the factor structure from both samples was then com pared in the second phase. If the null hypothesis from phase 2 was accepted, the factor lo adings could then be compared in a third phase. If the null hypothesis of equal factor loadings was further supported, the mean difference tests could be carried out in the f ourth and final phase. LISREL 8.8 (Jreskog & Srbom, 2006) was used to co mpare the variancecovariance matrices from the U.S. and Chinese sampl es for each measure respectively. Based on the variance-covariance matrices that have been input, LISREL outputs a series of indices to help researchers determine the fit be tween the variance-covariance matrices from different groups. Because the chi-squares are known to be very sensitive to differences between the matrices especially when sa mple size is large, other indices
79 should be examined as well. Based on survey results from Coovert and Craiger (2000), SEM researchers consider the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980) and the comparative fit index (CFI; B ollen, 1989) the most important. Therefore, these two indices were examined together with the normed fit index (NFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980) and the nonnormed fit index (NNFI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973) in the current study. There are some general rules for evaluating the above mentioned indices. For RMSEA, a value of .05 or less is gener ally considered a close fit (up to .08 represent reasonable errors of approximation; Brown e & Cudeck, 1993). The CFI, NFI, and NNFI values can range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating better fit. Values above .90 are generally considered satisfactory (Ho yle, 1995). During phase 1, significant chi-squares and RMSEA v alues larger than .08 were found for most of the measures, with the exception of the measure for job satisfaction. Most measures showed reasonable (above .90) values for CFI, NFI and NNFI, however, as chi-squares and RMSEA are considered the most im portant indices of fit, the results seem to point out potential differences between the measures administered in the U.S. and in China. Therefore, the second phase of checki ng the factor structure equivalence was conducted as the next step. Results from the se cond phase revealed again significant chi-square values and unsatisfactory RMSEA values, despite satisfactory CFI, NFI, and NNFI values for most measures. Measurement equivale nce analysis was thus stopped at the second phase, and the results brought caution a bout the measurement invariance across the two samples. A t-test was conducted comparing the U.S. and Chine se sample on the means of the main study variables. Significant differences w ere indeed found between the two
80 samples for all the main variables, except for job satisfaction, task performance and the other ratings of OCB. A comparison of the correlati ons among the variables between the two samples also supported what was proposed in the research questions (correlations were stronger in the U.S. for WIF and WFPCB, for WF PCB and the attitudinal/behavioral outcomes, and weaker for WFP CB and psychological well-being). However, because of the concern for potential measu rement variance, the differences in means cannot be interpreted to indicate difference in the actual level of the constructs measured, and the pattern of correlations cannot be inferred as providing evidence for the research questions. Differences in the demographic variables were furth er examined. Significant results were found for age ( t =6.5, p <.001), and the number of work hours per week ( t =5.5, p <.001), with the U.S. participants being older and work more hours. Chi-square tests conducted also show statistically significant diffe rences between the two samples for gender, education, whether their spouse work, and t he comparison between their current work hours and the number they wish to work (more t han, the same, or fewer than I wish to work). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) reve aled that several of the demographic variables had direct effect on the main variables and some had interaction effect with the country variable (U.S.=1 and China= 2). For example, age and work hours had significant interaction effect with country on psychological well-being. Based on the above analyses on the demographics, it is possible that differences in the sample demographic characteristics might have c ontributed to the potential measurement variance between the two samples, which needs to be determined by further analysis. Although efforts were spent on recruiting participants from a wide range of
81 industries and organizations to seek better represe ntation of the countriesÂ’ populations in general, future research may benefit from gathering data from a single organization across the countries to be able to better match the samples in terms of their demographic characteristics. Supplemental Analysis This section presents a more detailed look at the findings from the composite part of the WFPCB measure. Again, the composite measure consists of a list of 27 items related to work-family benefits and support employe rs have been providing (according to literature review and results from the interviews). The composite measure results were not used for testing the hypotheses, because both m eta-analytic review in the literature (Zhao et al., 2007) and results from the pilot stud y point to the relatively smaller effect sizes that can be achieved when composite measures of contract breach are used. As mentioned above, reasons for the smaller effect siz es include incomplete content items and assumption of equal weightings for all items. H owever, the WFPCB composite measure was still included in the final survey stud y to gather more insights into employee expectations of work-family assistance from the emp loyers, their perception of the promises made by employers, and the actual provisio n of assistance from the employers. Table 8 to 12 below present a series of frequency a nalyses conducted to show the expectation, promise and usage of each item on the measure. Table 8 presents a general view of the results for both the U.S. and China. In line with results from the interviews and the pilot stud y, the percentage of participants that perceived an item to be Â“promisedÂ” is smaller than the percentage Â“expectedÂ” across the items for both countries. Interestingly, for the U. S. sample, the percentage of participants
82 that indicated an item to be actually Â“providedÂ” is generally higher than the percentage Â“promised.Â” This may indicate that employers of thi s sample are careful about making promises. It could also mean that the participants were only reflecting on written or more explicit promises, although the scale instructions direct respondents to think about both explicit and implicit agreement.
83 Table 8. Frequency Analysis Results for the Work-Family Psyc hological Contract Composite ItemsU.S. & China US China Expected Promised Provided Expected Promised Provided A reasonable workload 73.4% 35.3% 42.7% 84.1% 73.8% 71.7% Reasonable amount of business travel 49.7% 26.9% 46.2% 35.6% 23.2% 22.7% Reasonable amount of vacation time 65.7% 47.6% 67.8% 80.3% 75.5% 72.5% Reasonable amount of paid leave 61.5% 42.3% 58.7% 54.9% 28.8% 31.8% Flextime (flexible start and end time) 48.6% 34.3% 61.9% 60.1% 28.8% 26.6% Work from home 32.5% 21.0% 44.8% 37.8% 11.2% 8.2% Work from a mobile office 15.7% 10.5% 22.7% 27.5% 11.2% 5.2% Compressed work week 14.3% 6.3% 16.8% 30.0% 10.3% 2.1% Job-sharing 8.7% 3.8% 10.5% 35.2% 11.6% 3.9% Part-time 10.1% 8.0% 15.4% 26.6% 10.3% 2.1% Paid maternity leave 37.1% 22.0% 36.7% 20.6% 16.3% 20.6% Paid paternity leave 30.4% 16.4% 26.6% 19.3% 13.7% 13.7% Onsite childcare 12.6% 3.1% 5.9% 26.2% 7.3% 3.4% Childcare referral 13.6% 4.5% 10.8% 22.3% 6.9% 2.6% Eldercare referral 11.9% 3.8% 8.0% 23.6% 7.3% 2.1% Onsite gym 19.9% 12.2% 30.1% 61.4% 11.6% 5.2% Gym membership/discount 20.3% 10.5% 23.4% 48.1% 13.3% 8.2% Annual physical exam 19.2% 8.0% 16.4% 73.8% 63.1% 73.0% Onsite physician 8.0% 4.2% 8.4% 23.6% 13.7% 12.4% Other health-promoting initiatives 23.1% 11.5% 29.0% 24.5% 14.2% 14.6% Transportation/Parking 40.9% 24.1% 51.4% 76.8% 57.5% 58.4% Food services/Cafeteria 24.5% 15.4% 36.0% 79.4% 52.4% 52.8% Other services (haircut, laundry, car wash, and etc .) 8.4% 2.4% 7.3% 42.9% 16.3% 12.0% After-work activities (social clubs, sports events, outings, etc.) 19.2% 7.7% 25.9% 65.7% 59.7% 62.2% Organization sponsored trips 14.3% 6.6% 17.5% 71.2% 67.4% 74.7% Overtime compensation (pay, reimbursement for taxi, meals, etc.) 36.4% 16.1% 33.6% 59.7% 48.9% 51.1% Supervisor support for using the above-mentioned be nefits 32.2% 14.0% 30.8% 36.9% 27.0% 28.8% Note: Expected= Employee expects it; Promised= Empl oyer has promised it; Provided= Employer actually p rovides it
84 When comparing across the two samples, there are bo th similarities and clear difference in what was Â“expected,Â” what was Â“promis ed,Â” and what was Â“provided.Â” In Table 9 to 11, the percentages were ordered and the top ten items were presented for each sample. Summarizing across Table 9 to 11, four item s make it into the top ten list for both countries for most expected, most promised, an d most provided, and they are Â“a reasonable workload,Â” Â“reasonable amount of vacatio n time,Â” Â“transportation/parking,Â” and Â“overtime compensation.Â” Therefore, employees a nd employers seem to be on the same page regarding these items. The most expected items also include Â“flextimeÂ”, the most promised items also include Â“flextimeÂ” and Â“re asonable amount of paid leaveÂ”, and the most provided items also include Â“food services /cafeteria.Â” Although not presented here, analyses also show tha t for the bottom ten items, and therefore, the least expected, least promised, and least provided, items that make it into the bottom ten list for both countries include five items, namely, Â“compressed work week,Â” Â“onsite childcare,Â” Â“childcare referral,Â” Â“e ldercare referral,Â” and Â“part-time.Â” Â“Onsite physicianÂ” and Â“work from a mobile officeÂ” were also on the least expected list. Further analysis was also conducted to see for eac h item, among those that perceived it to be Â“promised,Â” what is the percenta ge of them that also reported the item to be Â“providedÂ” by their employers. Higher percent age would indicate higher fulfillment and vice versa. As shown in Table 12, four items ar e most fulfilled across the two samples, namely, Â“annual physical exam,Â” Â“transport ation/parking.Â” Â“food services/cafeteria,Â” and Â“overtime compensation.Â” O n the other hand, the least fulfilled/most breached items include Â“work from ho me,Â” work from a mobile office,Â” Â“job-sharing,Â” Â“onsite childcare,Â” and Â“eldercare r eferral.Â”
85 Table 9a. Top Items Expected by the U.S. Participants U.S. China U.S. Order China Order A reasonable workload 73.4% 84.1% 1 1 Reasonable amount of vacation time 65.7% 80.3% 2 2 Reasonable amount of paid leave 61.5% 54.9% 3 11 Reasonable amount of business travel 49.7% 35.6% 4 16 Flextime (flexible start and end time) 48.6% 60.1% 5 9 Transportation/Parking 40.9% 76.8% 6 4 Paid maternity leave 37.1% 20.6% 7 26 Overtime compensation (pay, reimbursement for taxi, meals, etc.) 36.4% 59.7% 8 10 Work from home 32.5% 37.8% 9 14 Supervisor support for using the above-mentioned be nefits 32.2% 36.9% 10 15 Note: The items in bold are the ones that are top t en items for both the U.S. and Chinese participants Table 9b. Top Items Expected by the Chinese Participants China U.S. China Order U.S. Order A reasonable workload 84.1% 73.4% 1 1 Reasonable amount of vacation time 80.3% 65.7% 2 2 Food services/Cafeteria 79.4% 24.5% 3 12 Transportation/Parking 76.8% 40.9% 4 6 Annual physical exam 73.8% 19.2% 5 16 Organization sponsored trips 71.2% 14.3% 6 19 After-work activities (social clubs, sports events, outings, etc.) 65.7% 19.2% 7 17 Onsite gym 61.4% 19.9% 8 15 Flextime (flexible start and end time) 60.1% 48.6% 9 5 Overtime compensation (pay, reimbursement for taxi, meals, etc.) 59.7% 36.4% 10 8 Note: The items in bold are the ones that are top t en items for both the U.S. and Chinese participants
86 Table 10a. Top Items Promised by Employers Reported by the U.S Participants US China US Order China Order Reasonable amount of vacation time 47.6% 75.5% 1 1 Reasonable amount of paid leave 42.3% 28.8% 2 9 A reasonable workload 35.3% 73.8% 3 2 Flextime (flexible start and end time) 34.3% 28.8% 4 10 Reasonable amount of business travel 26.9% 23.2% 5 12 Transportation/Parking 24.1% 57.5% 6 6 Paid maternity leave 22.0% 16.3% 7 13 Work from home 21.0% 11.2% 8 21 Paid paternity leave 16.4% 13.7% 9 16 Overtime compensation (pay, reimbursement for taxi, meals, etc.) 16.1% 48.9% 10 8 Note: The items in bold are the ones that are top t en items for both the U.S. and Chinese participants Table 10b. Top Items Promised by Employers Reported by the Chi nese Participants China US China Order US Order Reasonable amount of vacation time 75.5% 47.6% 1 1 A reasonable workload 73.8% 35.3% 2 3 Organization sponsored trips 67.4% 6.6% 3 20 Annual physical exam 63.1% 8.0% 4 17 After-work activities (social clubs, sports events, outings, etc.) 59.7% 7.7% 5 19 Transportation/Parking 57.5% 24.1% 6 6 Food services/Cafeteria 52.4% 15.4% 7 11 Overtime compensation (pay, reimbursement for taxi, meals, etc.) 48.9% 16.1% 8 10 Reasonable amount of paid leave 28.8% 42.3% 9 2 Flextime (flexible start and end time) 28.8% 34.3% 10 4 Note: The items in bold are the ones that are top t en items for both the U.S. and Chinese participants
87 Table 11a. Top Items Actually Provided by Employers Reported b y the U.S. Participants US China US Order China Order Reasonable amount of vacation time 67.8% 72.5% 1 3 Flextime (flexible start and end time) 61.9% 26.6% 2 11 Reasonable amount of paid leave 58.7% 31.8% 3 9 Transportation/Parking 51.4% 58.4% 4 6 Reasonable amount of business travel 46.2% 22.7% 5 12 Work from home 44.8% 8.2% 6 19 A reasonable workload 42.7% 71.7% 7 4 Paid maternity leave 36.7% 20.6% 8 13 Food services/Cafeteria 36.0% 52.8% 9 7 Overtime compensation (pay, reimbursement for taxi, meals, etc.) 33.6% 51.1% 10 8 Note: The items in bold are the ones that are top t en items for both the U.S. and Chinese participants Table 11b. Top Items Actually Provided by Employers Reported b y the Chinese Participants China US China Order US Order Organization sponsored trips 74.7% 17.5% 1 18 Annual physical exam 73.0% 16.4% 2 20 Reasonable amount of vacation time 72.5% 67.8% 3 1 A reasonable workload 71.7% 42.7% 4 7 After-work activities (social clubs, sports events, outings, etc.) 62.2% 25.9% 5 15 Transportation/Parking 58.4% 51.4% 6 4 Food services/Cafeteria 52.8% 36.0% 7 9 Overtime compensation (pay, reimbursement for taxi, meals, etc.) 51.1% 33.6% 8 10 Reasonable amount of paid leave 31.8% 58.7% 9 3 Supervisor support for using the above-mentioned be nefits 28.8% 30.8% 10 11 Note: The items in bold are the ones that are top t en items for both the U.S. and Chinese participants
88 In line with the interview and pilot results, where as a higher percentage of the U.S. sample report provision of benefits in general, esp ecially for flexible work schedule and dependent care, a higher percentage of the Chinese sample reported more provision of Â“annual physical exam,Â” Â“after-work activitiesÂ” and Â“company organization sponsored trips,Â” which may to some extent, reflect the resid ual influence of practices from stateowned companies. Table 12. Percentage of Â“PromisedÂ” Items Â“ProvidedÂ” by Employ ersU.S. & China US China US Order China Order 1 A reasonable workload 56.4% 86.5% 25 5 2 Reasonable amount of business travel 75.3% 58.5% 20 13 3 Reasonable amount of vacation time 84.6% 83.9% 12 8 4 Reasonable amount of paid leave 84.3% 71.2% 14 10 5 Flextime (flexible start and end time) 87.8% 68.2% 9 11 6 Work from home 57.1% 24.0% 24 20 7 Work from a mobile office 76.7% 15.4% 19 25 8 Compressed work week 83.3% 16.7% 15 24 9 Job-sharing 63.6% 22.2% 23 22 10 Part-time 82.6% 12.5% 17 27 11 Paid maternity leave 52.2% 64.9% 27 12 12 Paid paternity leave 85.1% 41.9% 10 16 13 Onsite childcare 55.6% 29.4% 26 18 14 Childcare referral 84.6% 25.0% 13 19 15 Eldercare referral 72.7% 23.5% 22 21 16 Onsite gym 91.4% 14.8% 6 26 17 Gym membership/discount 90.0% 16.7% 8 23 18 Annual physical exam 91.3% 91.0% 7 3 19 Onsite physician 83.3% 43.8% 16 15 20 Other health-promoting initiatives 93.9% 37.5% 4 17 21 Transportation/Parking 92.8% 91.7% 5 2 22 Food services/Cafeteria 97.7% 85.1% 2 7 23 Other services (haircut, laundry, car wash, and etc .) 100.0% 52.6% 1 14 24 After-work activities (social clubs, sports events, outings, etc.) 81.8% 86.1% 18 6 25 Organization sponsored trips 73.7% 92.3% 21 1 26 Overtime compensation (pay, reimbursement for taxi, meals, etc.) 95.7% 86.6% 3 4 27 Supervisor support for using the above-mentioned be nefits 85.0% 74.2% 11 9 Note: Items in bold are the ones that are top ten f ulfilled items for both the U.S. and Chinese participants; items in italics are the ones that ar e bottom ten fulfilled/top ten breached items for both the U.S. and Chinese participants
89 Chapter Six Discussion Key Findings The current study employed both qualitative and qua ntitative methods to explore the role employee psychological contract plays in w ork-family issues in a cross-national context. Research was carried out in two countries and in three stages, with a preliminary interview study, a pilot survey study and a final f ull-scale survey study. Results from the series of studies highlight the relevance of the ps ychological contract construct in work and family research, provide evidence for the utili ty of the newly created measure of Work-Family Psychological Contract Breach (WFPCB), and revealed interesting differences between the U.S. and China both in the relationships among the variables and the measurement of these variables. This final chap ter of the dissertation offers a summary of the major findings, discusses the theore tical and practical implications of the findings, and points out some limitations of the st udy and directions for future research. Interview Study. Whereas the interviews conducted with the U.S. and Chinese participants provided rich information regarding wo rk-life balance issues, their main contribution to the current study was identifying t he item content for the work-family psychological contract. The interviews confirmed th e categories of benefits found in past research including, flexible work schedule, depende nt care, employee wellness programs and convenience services, but also uncovered some u nique benefits offered in China such as company organized trips and outings, which are m ore of a collective nature.
90 Pilot Study. During the second stage of research, the WFPCB sca le was created with both a composite measure and a global measure. With samples of over 60 participants from the U.S. and China, pilot study r esults show reasonable reliabilities for all the measures tested. The WFPCB scale worked wel l and more so for the global measure, which not only had good alpha reliability but also significant relationships with several outcome variables in both samples. Therefor e, larger samples were collected for the main survey study to use these measures to test the hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 to 3 Findings from the final study, which had over 200 participants from each country, provided partial support for the direct relationships among the variables. The direct path between WIF and outcomes was found to be significant for job satisfaction, psychological well-being and turnover intention for the U.S.; and for psychological well-being, turnover intention and OC B (self report) for China. WIF also correlated significantly and positively with the pr oposed mediator, WFPCB, in both samples. As for WFPCB and the outcomes, all links w ere significant (except CWB) in the U.S. sample and all three of the attitudinal va riables plus OCB (self report) for the Chinese sample. In sum, there is strong although in complete support for the direct relationships hypothesized, especially for the atti tudinal variables, thus paving the road for potential mediating effect of WFPCB. Such resul ts also reflect the potential impact WIF and WFPCB may have on important individual and organizational outcomes. Hypothesis 4. To test the hypothesis of a mediating role of WFPC B between WIF and the outcome variables, the Sobel (1982) test in combination with Baron and KennyÂ’s (1986) procedures were conducted using a SPSS macro with bootstrapping. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported, with evidence for full med iation of the link between WIF and
91 organizational commitment in the U.S. sample, and o f the WIF-job satisfaction link in the Chinese sample. Partial mediation effect was reveal ed for job satisfaction, turnover intention, and psychological well-being for the U.S and for psychological well-being alone for China. There are several cases where the Sobel (1982) test was significant, against results from the Baron and KennyÂ’s (1986) condition testing Preacher and Hayes (2004) point out that the latter method has been found to suffer from low statistical power, whereas the former has been found to have greater power than ot her formal methods. They therefore proposed a strategy for determining mediation to on ly require that there is an effect to be mediated, and that the indirect effect is statistic ally significant in the hypothesized direction. In some other cases, the direct path between the pr edictor WIF and the outcome was not significant in the first place despite a si gnificant decrease in coefficients after controlling for the mediator WFPCB. Although the ge neral assumption of an established mediation is a significant link between IV and DV, Shrout and Bolger (2002) argue that if the process to be mediated is theoretically distal, then testing the IV to DV relation may not be a prerequisite. In line with this reasoning, if the relationship between WIF and the behavioral outcomes is distal in the first place, t esting the direct path may not be necessary for determining WFPCBÂ’s mediating role. In sum, the current study provides some evidence fo r full and partial mediation of WIF and the attitudinal outcomes through WFPCB. It is likely that the accumulating influence of work interfering with family on employ eesÂ’ satisfaction, commitment and withdraw intentions is exerted through breaking the terms in employeesÂ’ work-family
92 psychological contract. However, it is also importa nt to keep in mind that finding statistically significant mediation effect does not in itself imply causation (Preacher & Hayes, 1994). Hypothesis 5 and 6. The moderating effect of the cultural value of indi vidualismcollectivism was tested with hypothesis 5 and 6. No significant interaction effect was uncovered with the U.S. sample. However, individual ism was found to moderate the WFPCB-organizational commitment link such that the relationship was stronger for those higher on individualism than those lower on the val ue. This is in accordance with Thomas et al.Â’s (2003) theoretical reasoning that i ndividualists and collectivists may react differently toward breach of the psychological cont ract. Individualists, being more concerned about self and their own wellbeing may ha ve stronger initial reactions to contract breach. Additional analyses on the U.S. an d China combined sample revealed significant interaction effect of WIF and IC on WFP CB, however, this cannot be interpreted due to insufficient evidence for measur ement equivalence. This also leads to difficulty in answering the research questions that require cross-national comparisons. Test of measurement equivalence using LISREL causes concerns for the potential differences in the measurement of the variables in the U.S. and Chinese sample. Overall, results from the current study were gener ally supportive of the reliability of the WFPCB global measure, and the direct relatio nships and mediation hypotheses proposed, especially for the attitudinal outcomes i ncluding, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions ( thus providing criterion validity evidence for the WFPCB measure as well). On the oth er hand, further research can help
93 evaluate the moderating influence of individualismcollectivism both at the individual level and the country level. Theoretical and Practical Implications A theoretical contribution of this research is to unite the burgeoning research on the psychological contract theory and research on w ork and family. Despite growing interest and research effort in both areas, little has been done to bring them together. However, the concept of promise and breach of promi se can be applied to work-family issues as well, in addition to the more traditional contract terms such as, pay, promotion and career development. This is particularly import ant in light of the rapid changes in work force composition, technology advances and soc ietal trends. On the one hand, the traditional terms of the psychological contract hav e matured. On the other hand, the increasing workload and need for flexibility that f ollows global competition and collaboration, and the blurring of the boundaries b etween work and non-work aspects of life have raised both employee and employer awarene ss of work-family/life issues. This study, therefore, provides a first look at a new as pect of the psychological contract, the work-family psychological contract (and breach of t he contract), and has shown evidence of its relationships with WIF and important work-re lated outcomes. The current study is also in sync with resent devel opment in psychological contract research that focuses on Â“i-dealsÂ” (Rousse au, 2005; Rousseau, Ho & Greenberg, 2006). Â“I-dealsÂ” or idiosyncratic psychological con tract is particularly relevant in the work-family context. Employees of various ages, mar ital status, family situation, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds can have very diffe rent needs and expectations on how to best balance their work and life. By linking the psychological contract theory to WIF
94 and employee job attitudes, behaviors and well-bein g, this study helps lay the theoretical and empirical ground for further research on idiosy ncratic work-family contracts. In addition to the implications for research, findi ngs from the study can also inform practice. The direct and mediating effect fo und for the work-family psychological contract breach on several outcomes, and its relati onship with WIF indicates that employees not only form expectations and enter into tacit agreement with their employers regarding work-family issues, but may also be negat ively influenced when the perceived promises are broken. The potential reduction in sat isfaction with the job, commitment to the organization and increased intention to leave m ay in turn affect employersÂ’ bottom line. Therefore, it is important for both employees and organizations to be aware of, to better understand, and to honor the terms establish ed in their work-family psychological contracts. For the employees, it can mean taking fu ll advantage of existing work-family benefits and support, or negotiating with their emp loyers when the terms are breached, or when a new contract is needed. A recent study on Â“i -dealsÂ” has shown with a sample of German employees from a government agency that pers onal initiative relates positively to Â“i-dealÂ” negotiations (Hornung, Rousseau & Glase r, 2008). For the employers, they need to understand the kind s of work-family agreement formed with their employees, provide relevant famil y/non-work-friendly benefits and support that meet employee expectations, and be wil ling to negotiate idiosyncratic deals with individuals. The afore mentioned study on Â“i-d ealsÂ” (Hornung et al., 2008) also found that idiosyncratic deals on flexible work arr angements related to work-family conflict and overtime work. Furthermore, to prevent work-family psychological contract breach, employers need to readily adapt the terms a s the psychological contract changes
95 over time due to changes in employee needs (e.g. mo ve on to different stages of life), in organizational structure (e.g. mergers and acquisit ions), or in societal trends (e.g. more women entering the workforce). This is obviously no t an easy one-time effort, but requires a great deal of flexibility, and constant and persistent effort on the employer side. Whereas direct influence and indirect role of WFPCB was found with both the U.S. and Chinese samples, the observed pattern and strength of the relationships differ. Although concerns for measurement invariance cautio ns against further interpretation of such findings, it nevertheless highlights the impor tance of employers being sensitive to potential cultural influences on the impact of work interference with family and on breach of the psychological contract. This is relev ant not only for multinational and global companies but also for organizations with em ployees of diverse backgrounds. Limitations of the Study One limitation of the interview study conducted is that the interviews might have raised the awareness of the interviewees regarding work-life issues and benefits provided by their employers. Employees do not necessarily th ink about their expectations and organizational promises consciously. Their post-hoc recall of expectations and promises might have been affected by the recalling process i tself. However, the rich data from the interviews not only provided anecdotal evidence and textual support for the proposed hypotheses, but also informed the creation of the W FPCB measure. In terms of the survey study, the cross-sectional d esign limits the ability to draw causal inferences, and as Preacher and Hayes (2004) cautioned, evidence for mediation does not equal evidence for causation. Therefore, i t is possible for the relationships to
96 flow in the direction opposite to what was hypothes ized, and further research is needed to establish more evidence for the causal relations am ong the variables. There is also some limitation to the data collected in that although effort was made to collect other ratings of performance to red uce mono-method bias, there was only a relatively small sample from the U.S. Also, most U.S. participants chose to provide coworker report whereas supervisor ratings of perfo rmance were available with the Chinese sample. The researcher was told that for Ch inese employees, it is within the supervisorsÂ’ role to provide performance ratings bu t not the peers, which is in accordance with a more collectivistic and hierarchical culture On the other hand, results also show statistically significant differences in several de mographic variables (e.g. gender, age, education, and tenure) that may have affected the e quivalence of the samples. Directions for Future Research Future research can improve on the current study by taking into consideration the above mentioned study limitations. More equivalent samples that match participants on demographics (e.g. from the same organization that operates across countries) need to be obtained to facilitate cross-national comparisons. Larger samples are also needed for performance ratings from the coworkers or superviso rs, but can also help with power to detect indirect and moderating effect. The Work-Family Psychological Contract Breach measu re created for this study also needs to be further researched and refined. It may also be interesting to adapt it and integrate the categories from the composite measure with the global measure. For example, items can be created to reflect the degree of breach on flexible work schedules or dependent care, and participants can be asked to indicate agreement with statements
97 such as, Â“Almost all promises on providing flexibil ity in work arrangements have been fulfilled by my employer.Â” Although the specific an d detailed content of the composite measure would be partly lost in this format, it can be an improvement on the global measure, and a tool of practical length for researc h. Future research may also examine other important ou tcomes such as employee physical well-being and health indicators. It may a lso be interesting to extend the application of psychological contract from the work place to family and the self, and explore whether there are tacit work-family agreeme nt with oneÂ’s family and oneself, whether they relate to work-family conflict, and wh at are the consequences of fulfilling or breaching such contracts. More research is also needed to understand the cult ural influences on work interference with family and the psychological cont ract at the individual and national level. Studies of work-family psychological contrac t in different countries and across the countries can provide insights for employees and or ganizations that operate in an ever rapidly changing global environment.
98 References Allen T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 414-435. Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., & Bruck, C. S. (2000 ). Consequences associated with workto-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278-308. Anderson, N., & Schalk, R. (1998). The psychologica l contract in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 637-647 Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behavior. Oxford, England: Dorsey. Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of workfamily conflict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations 45 813-837. Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executi ve. Cambridge, MA, U.S.: Harvard University Press. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatorÂ– mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategi c, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Developme nt of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and workfamily conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740-748.
99 Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index f or general structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303Â–316. Borman W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection re search. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109. Borrill C., & Kidd, J. M. (1994). New parents at work: Job s, families and the psychological contract. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 22(2), 219231. Boyar, S. L., Maertz, C. P. Jr., Pearson, A. W. (20 05). The effects of work-family conflict and family-work conflict on nonattendance behaviors Journal of Business Research, 58(7) 919-925. Bragger, J. D., Rodriguez-Srednicki, O., Kutcher, E J. (2005). Work-family conflict, work-family culture, and organizational citizenship behavior among teachers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 303-324. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research (pp. 137Â–164) W. J., Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L ., & Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of po wer distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300-315.
100 Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative way s of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136Â–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Burley, K. A. (1994). Gender differences and simila rities in coping responses to anticipated work-family conflict. Psychological Reports, 74(1), 115-123. Burley, K. A. (1995). Family variables as mediators of the relationship between workfamily conflict and marital adjustment among dual-c areer men and women. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(4), 483-497. Butler, A., Gasser, M., Smart, L. (2024). A socialcognitive perspective on using familyfriendly benefits. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 57-70. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conflict in the organization: Do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26(5), 1031-1054. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2 000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-fa mily conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249-276. Carr, J. C., Boyar, S. L., Gregory, B. T. (2008). T he moderating effect of work-family centrality on work-family conflict, organizational attitudes, and turnover behavior. Journal of Management, 34(2), 244-262.
101 Carsten, J. M., Spector, P. E. (1987). Unemployment job satisfaction, and employee turnover: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky mod el. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 374-381. Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). A daily diary s tudy of affective responses to psychological contract breach and exceeded promises Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 287-302. Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical evaluation of theory and research. New York, NY, U. S.: Oxford University Press. Coovert, M., & Craiger, P. (2000). An expert system for integrating multiple fit indices for structural equation models. New Review of Applied Expert Systems and Emerging Technologies, 6, 39Â–56. Demarr B. J. (1997). The role of stress in employee prefer ences for family-friendly benefits: Testing an integrated model. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 58(1-A), 0310. Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns. In R.N. Farmer & E. G. McGoun (Eds.). Advances in international comparative management, Vol. 3, (pp. 127-150). London: JAI Press. Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and revi ew of the literature (19802002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 124-197.
102 Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanism s linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 178-199. Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-ide ntity and work. New York: Oxford University Press. Farh, J. .L., Zhong, C. B., Organ, D. W. (2004). Or ganizational Citizenship Behavior in the People's Republic of China. Organization Science, 15(2), 241-253. Ferratt, T. W. (1981). Overall job satisfaction: Is it a linear function of facet satisfaction? Human Relations, 34(6), 463-473. Friedman, D. E. (1990). Work and family: The new st rategic plan. Human Resource Planning, 13(2), 79-89. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992a). Prevalence of work-family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically perme able? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(7), 723-729. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992b). Antecedents and outcomes of workfamily conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65-78. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997 ). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior 50 145-167. Fox, S., Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work fru stration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6), 915-931.
103 Giga S. I., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The development of psychosocial capital in organizations: Implications for work and family lif e. In E. E. Kossek & S. J., Lambert (Eds.). Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural and individual perspectives (pp. 429-443) Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conser vation of resources model applied to work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior 54 350-370. Grant, D. (1999). HRM, rhetoric and the psychologic al contract: A case of Â“easier said than doneÂ”. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 327-350. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources and conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (2002). The all ocation of time to work and family roles. In D. L., Nelson, R. J., Burke (Eds). Gender, work stress, and health (pp. 115-128) Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Associ ation. Greenhaus J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: a th eory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31 (1), 72-92. Greenhaus, J. H., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2 006). Health consequences of workfamily conflict: The dark side of the work-family i nterface. In P. L. Perrew, D. C. Ganster (Eds). Employee Health, Coping and Methodologies: Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, Vol. 5 (pp. 61Â–99). Amsterdam; Boston; London: Elsevier Ltd.
104 Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreci ates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly po licies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 271-288. Grzywacz, J. G. (2000). Work-family spillover and h ealth during midlife: Is managing conflict everything? American Journal of Health Promotion, 14(4), 236-243. Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M. (200 7). A multi-level perspective on the synergies between work and family. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 559-574. Guest, D., & Conway, N. (1997). Employee motivation and the psychological contract. IPD Research Report. London: IPD. Guest, D., & Conway, N. (1998). Fairness and the ps ychological contract. IPD Research Report. London: IPD. Guest, D., & Conway, N. (2004). Employee well-being and the psychological contract. CIPD Research Report. London: CIPD. Hammer, L. B., Neal, M. B., Newsom, J. T., Brockwoo d, K. J., & Colton, C. L. (2005). A longitudinal study of the effects of dual-earner co uplesÂ’ utilization of familyfriendly workplace supports on work and family outc omes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 799-810. Herriot, P., Manning, W. E. G., & Kidd, J. M. (1997 ). The content of the psychological contract. British Journal of Management, 8, 151-162. Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences i n workrelated values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
105 Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 655-664. Huang, X., & Van de Vliert, E. (2003). Comparing wo rk behaviors across cultures: A cross-level approach using multilevel modeling. International Journal of CrossCultural Management, 3(2), 167-182. Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychol ogical contract and organizational citizenship behavior in china: Investigating genera lizability and instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 311-321. Joplin, J. R. W., Francesco, A. M., Shaffer, M. A., & Lau, T. (2003). The macroenvironment and work-family conflict: Development o f a cross cultural comparative framework. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(3), 305-328. Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Struct ural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Softw are. Karatepe, O. M., Uludag, O. (2008). Affectivity, co nflicts in the work-family interface, and hotel employee outcomes. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(1), 30-41. Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., Finkl, J. (2002). Promis e breaking during radical organizational change: Do justice interventions make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(SpecIssue), 469-488.
106 Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). WorkÂ—family conf lict, policies, and the jobÂ—life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behaviorÂ— human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 139-149. Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work and f amily: A critical review and research agenda. Human Relations, 43(3), 239-257. Lee, T. W. & Mowday, R. T. (1987). Voluntarily leav ing an organization: An empirical investigation of Steers and MowdayÂ’s model of turno ver. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 721-743. Liu, C., Spector, P. E., Shi, L. (2007). Cross-Nati onal Job Stress: A Quantitative and Qualitative Study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 209-239. Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple r oles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 58(2), 417-432. Maurer S. D., & Li S. (2006). Understanding expatriate manager perfor mance: Effects of governance environments on work relationships in relation-based economies. Human Resource Management Review, 16(1), 29-46. McLean Parks, J. M., & Kidder, D. L. (1994). 'Till death us do part . .': Changing work relationships in the 1990s. In C. L. Cooper, D. M. Rousseau (Eds). Trends in organizational behavior, Vol. 1 (pp. 111-136). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Con vergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: A metaanalytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215-232.
107 Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-compon ent conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89. Mobley, W. H., & Locke, E. A. (1970). The relations hip of value importance to satisfaction. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 5(5), 463-483. Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. 1995. Individualis m-Collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16(2), 127-142. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When emp loyees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226-256. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979 ). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002) Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3Â–72. Parkes, K. R. (1985). Stressful episodes reported b y first-year student nurses: A descriptive account. Social Science & Medicine, 20(9), 945-953. Perrew, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Kiewitz, C. (1 999). Value attainment: An explanation for the negative effects of work-family conflict on job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(4), 318-326. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and S AS procedures for estimating indirect effects
108 in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36 717-731 Roberts, G. E., Gianakis, J. A., McCue, C. (2004). Traditional and family-friendly benefits practices in local governments: Results fr om a national survey. Public Personnel Management, 33(3), 307-330. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The deve lopment of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 525-546. Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violatin g the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259. Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psy chological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574-599. Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied c ontracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121-139. Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of the ir own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(5), 389-400. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understan ding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Rousseau, D. M. (2000). Psychological Contract Inve ntory: Technical report (Tech. Rep. N-. 2). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
109 Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-Deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. Armonk, NY, US: M. E. Sharpe, Inc. Rousseau, D. M., Ho., V. T., Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31(4) 977-994. Sackett, P. R., Hakel, M. D. (1979). Temporal stabi lity and individual differences in using assessment information to form overall rating s. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 23(1), 120-137. Scandura T. A., & Lankau M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family resp onsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitmen t and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 377-391. Schwartz, J. P., Tylka, T. L. (2008). Exploring ent itlement as a moderator and mediator of the relationship between masculine gender role c onflict and men's body esteem. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9(2), 67-81. Schein E. H. (1965). Organizational psychology. Oxford, E ngland: Prentice-Hall, 1965. Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2005). Indi vidualism: A valid and important dimension of cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 17-31. Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psycholo gical contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In C. L., Cooper, D. M., Rousseau (Eds). Trends in organizational behavior, Vol. 1 (pp. 91-109) Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Shrout, P. E., Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in expe rimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445.
110 Smithson, J., & Lewis, S. (2003). The psychological contract, a Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia entry. http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=2 50&area=academics Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). The relationship of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comp arison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology 73 11-19. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sparks, K. (2001). A n international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Surv ey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(2), 269-281. Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S., Allen, T. D., OÂ’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., Siu, O. L., Dewe, P., Hart, P., Lu, L., de Moraes, L. F. R., Ostrognay, G. M., Sparks, K., Wong, P., & Yu, S. (2004). A cross-nati onal comparative study of work/family stressors, working hours, and well-bein g: China and Latin America vs. the Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119-142. Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S., Lapierr e, L. M., Cooper, C. L., OÂ’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., Abarca, N., Alexandrova, M., Beham, B., Brough, P., Ferreiro, P., Fraile, G., Lu, C. Q., Lu, L., Moreno-Velzquez, I. Pagon, M., Pitariu, H., Salamatov, V., Shima, S., Simoni, A. S., Siu, O. L. & Widerszal-Bazyl, M. (2007). Cross-national differences in relationships of work demands, job
111 satisfaction and turnover intentions with work-fami ly conflict. Personnel Psychology, 60(4) 805-835. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. (1980, July). Statistically based tests of the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psycho metric Society, Iowa City, IA. Sutton, G., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Integrating ex pectations, experiences, and psychological contract violations: A longitudinal s tudy of new professionals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholo gy, 77(4), 493-514. Thomas, L., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of fam ily-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspec tive. Journal of Applied Psychology 80 6-15. Thomas, D. C., Au, K., & Ravlin, E. C. (2003). Cult ural variation and the psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 451-471. Trachtenberg, J. V. (2008). Work-home conflict and domestic violence: A connection. ; Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Hum anities and Social Sciences, 68(8-A), pp. 3611. Treistman, D. L. (2005). Work-family conflict and l ife satisfaction in female graduate students: Testing mediating and moderating hypothes es. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineer ing, 65(7-B), pp. 3730. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). A discrepa ncy model of psychological contract violations. Human Resource Management Review, 9(3), 367-386. Turnley W. H., Feldman D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52, 895Â–922.
112 Turnley W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloo dgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performan ce of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187-206. Williams, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Occupational Stress Indicator Version 2.0 Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job sati sfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizens hip and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. Williams, R. M. Jr. (1970). American Society: A sociological interpretation (3rd Ed.). New York: Knopf. Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). The work-fami ly interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceiv ed organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4), 343-357. Wood, R. E., Goodman, J. S., Beckman, N., Cook A. ( 2008). Mediation testing in management Research: A review and proposals. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 270-295. Yang, N., Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Zou, Y. (2000). Sources of work-family conflict: A Sino-U.S. comparison of the effects of work and fam ily demands. Academy of Management Journal 41 113-123. Yang, N. (2005). Individualism-collectivism and wor k-family interfaces: A sino-U.S. comparison. In S. A. Y. Poelmans (Ed). Work and family an international research perspective (pp. 287-318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
113 Zedeck, S., Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the famil y and employing organization. American Psychologist, 45(2), 240-251. Zedeck S. (1992). Introduction: Exploring the domain of w ork and family concerns. In S. Zedeck (Ed). Work, families, and organizations. San Francisco, CA, US: JosseyBass, 1-32. Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outco mes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647Â–680.
115 Appendix A A Sample of Interview Questions 1. Can you tell me a little bit about your work and the current organization you work for? For example, the industry you are in, what yo u do, how long you have been with this organization, and the general culture of the o rganization regarding work and family. 2. Are there things you expect your employer to pro vide to help you manage work-life balance issues? 3. Are there things you believe your employer has p romised to provide to you to help you manage work-life balance issues? 4. If so, is it communicated to you through written documents, intranet communications, verbally, or just based on your observation of what others get? 5. Are there any instances where you believe your e mployer has broken their promises to help you with work and family issues? If so, how did you feel when that happened? What wa s your reaction toward it? If not, what has your employer done to keep the pro mises? How do you feel about them keeping their promises? Thank you so much again for your help!
116 Appendix B Employee Survey WFPCB (Final Version) For the following questions: Please check in the 1s t column the items that you EXPECT your employer to provide to assist your worklife balance. Please check in the 2nd column the it ems that your employer has PROMISED to provide to a ssist your work-life balance. It may have been communicated to you explicitly (ve rbally or in writing) or implicitly (implied throug h other statement or behaviors, or treatment toward other employees). Please check in the 3rd column the items that your employer actu ally PROVIDES to assist your work-life balance. Instructions adapted from Kickul et al. (2002) I Expect It Employer Promised It Employer Provides It 1 A reasonable workload 2 Reasonable amount of business travel 3 Reasonable amount of vacation time 4 Reasonable amount of paid leave Flexible work schedule 5 Flextime (flexible start and end time) 6 Work from home 7 Work from a mobile office 8 Compressed work week 9 Job-sharing 10 Part-time Dependent care 11 Paid maternity leave 12 Paid paternity leave
117 Appendix B (continued) 13 Onsite childcare 14 Childcare referral 15 Eldercare referral Employee wellness program 16 Onsite gym 17 Gym membership/discount 18 Annual physical exam 19 Onsite physician 20 Other health-promoting initiatives (corporate athlete, weight-watcher, etc.) Convenience service 21 Transportation/Parking 22 Food services/Cafeteria 23 Other services (haircut, laundry, car wash, and etc.) Other 24 After-work activities (social clubs, sports events, outings, etc.) 25 Organization sponsored trips 26 Overtime compensation (pay, reimbursement for taxi, meals, etc.) 27 Supervisor support for using the above-mentioned benefits Regarding the work-life balance related promises your employer has made to you: (1 = strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree; : reverse coded) 1. Almost all the promises made by my employer during recruitment have been kept so far. 2. I feel that my employer has come through in fulfill ing the promises made to me (explicitly or implicit ly). 3. So far my employer has done an excellent job of ful filling its promises to me. 4. I have not received everything promised to me in ex change for my contributions. 5. My employer has broken many of its promises to me e ven though IÂ’ve upheld my side of the deal. Items were from Robinson and Rousseau (1994)
118 Appendix B (continued) Work interference with family (WIF): Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of the following questions: Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Neutral Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life 2. The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities 3. Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me 4. My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill family duties 5. Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activities Job Satisfaction: To what extent do you agree or disagree with each o f the following statements? Disagree Very much Disagree moderately Disagree slightly Agree slightly Agree moderately Agree Very Much 1. In general, I don't like my job 2. All in all, I am satisfied with my job 3.In general, I like working here
119 Appendix B (continued) Psychological well-being: This section focuses on feelings and how these are affected by the pressure you perceive in your job. Please use the scale to answer each question by cir cling the relevant number. Consider the questions with re ference to how you have felt over the last three mo nths. Never or a little Some of the time A good part of the time Most of the time 1. I feel sad 1 2 3 4 2. feel unhappy 1 2 3 4 3. I feel good 1 2 3 4 4. I feel depressed 1 2 3 4 5. I feel blue 1 2 3 4 6. I feel cheerful 1 2 3 4 7. I feel nervous 1 2 3 4 8. I feel jittery 1 2 3 4 9. I feel calm 1 2 3 4 10. I feel fidgety 1 2 3 4 11. I get angry 1 2 3 4 12. I get aggravated 1 2 3 4 13. I get irritated or annoyed 1 2 3 4 Turnover Intention: How often have you seriously considered quitting yo ur current job over the past 6 months? ( ) Never ( ) Rarely ( ) Sometimes ( ) Somewhat often ( ) Quite often ( ) Extremely often
120 Appendix B (continued) OCB & Task Performance Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. Helps others who have been absent. 2. Helps others who have heavy work loads. 3. Takes time to listen to co-workersÂ’ problems and worries. 4. Goes out of way to help new employees. 5. Takes a personal interest in other employees. 6. Passes along information to co-workers. 7. Assists supervisor with his/her work (when not asked). 8. Attendance at work is above the norm. 9. Gives advance notice when unable to come to work 10. Conserves and protects organizational property. 11. Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order. 12. Adequately completes assigned duties. 13. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description. 14. Perform tasks that are expected of him/her. 15. Meets formal performance requirements of the jo b. 16. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance.
121 Appendix B (continued) CWB Please use the following scale to rate how often yo u have engaged in the following behaviors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Once a year Twice a year Several times a year Monthly Weekly Daily How often have youÂ… 1. Made fun of someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Said something hurtful to someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark at w ork 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Cursed at someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Played a mean prank on someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Acted rudely toward someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Publicly embarrassed someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Taken property from work without permission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming i nstead of working 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on a business expense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Taken an additional or longer break than is acc eptable at your workplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Come in late to work without permission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Littered your work environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Neglected to follow your bossÂ’ instruction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Put little effort into your work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Dragged out work in order to get overtime 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
122 Appendix B (continued) Organizational Commitment: Listed below is a series of statements that represe nt possible feelings that individuals might have ab out the company or organization for which they work With respect to your own feelings about the particular o rganization for which you are now working, please i ndicate the degree of your agreement or disagreemen t with each statement by checking one of the seven alterna tives beside each statement. 1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort be yond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I talk up this organization to my friends as a g reat organization to work for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I would accept almost any types of job assignmen t in order to keep working for this organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I find that my values and the organizationÂ’s val ues are very similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I am extremely glad that I chose this organizati on to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I really care about the fate of this organizatio n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. For me, this is the best of all possible organiz ations for which to work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
123 Appendix B (continued) Cultural Values: Dimensions of Culture Questionnaire In the questionnaire items below, please indicate t he extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. For example, if you strongly agree with a particular statement, you would circle the 5 next to that statement. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither agre e nor disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree 1 Group welfare is more important than individual rew ards. 1 2 3 4 5 2 Group success is more important than individual suc cess. 1 2 3 4 5 3 Being accepted by the members of your workgroup is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 4 Employees should only pursue their goals after cons idering the welfare of the group. 1 2 3 4 5 5 Managers should encourage group loyalty even if ind ividual goals suffer. 1 2 3 4 5 Individualism/ Collectivism 6 Individuals may be expected to give up their goals in order to benefit group success. 1 2 3 4 5 Demographics: 1. Your gender: ( ) Male ( ) Female 2. Your age: _____ years 3. Your country of citizenship: _______________ 4. Your country of birth (if different from citizen ship): ________________ 5. Your marital status: ( ) Married/Cohabiting ( ) Unmarried or separated
124 6. If married/cohabitating, does your spouse/partne r work? ( ) Yes, fulltime ( ) Yes, part-time ( ) No, does nÂ’t work ( ) No spouse/partner 7. How many children do you have? ____________ 8. Educational level reached: ( ) Secondary education (highest grade completed) ____ ( ) Some university ( ) University degree ( ) MA/MSc ( ) PhD or Doctorate ( ) Other (please specify) ________________________ __________ 9. How long have you been with the present organiza tion: _____ years and _____ months 10. Your job title is: _______________ 11. List your industry sector. ( ) Manufacturing (1) ( ) Hospitality (2) ( ) Service (3) ( ) Educat ion (4) ( ) Finance (5) ( ) Enterta inment (6) ( ) Medical/Social service (7) ( ) Security/protect ion (8) ( ) Government (9) ( ) Military (1 0) ( ) Other (please specify) _______________ (11) 12. How many hours do you work in a typical week? _____________ hours 13. How many days per week do you work in a typical week? __________ days 14. Do you work more or fewer hours than you wish t o work each week? ( ) More ( ) Number I wish to work ( ) Fewer 15. Ethnicity: ( ) Asian or Pacific Islander (1) ( ) Black (2) ( ) Hispanic (3) ( ) White (4) ( ) Other (please specify) _______________ (5) Thank you for your participation!
About the Author Xian Xu graduated in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts i n English from Fudan University, Shanghai, China. In 2004, Xian received her Master of Arts in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the Unive rsity of South Florida. Xian has worked with colleagues to contribute a book chapter in the Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach has created technical reports, and presented at national conferences such as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psycholog y and the Academy of Management In addition to research on work and family, her research interests also include organizational citi zenship, emotions in the workplace, and cross-cultural research.