Bridging the Border between Work and Family: The Effects of Supervisor-Employee Similarity

BRIDGING THE BORDER BETWEEN WORK AND FAMILY 55Bridging the Border between Work and FamilyThe Effects of Supervisor-Employee Similarity

Idee Winfield College of CharlestonBeth Rushing Georgia College and State University

We examine the relationship between supervisor-employee raceethnicity genderand caregiving similarity and employeesrsquo perceptions that supervisors provide support forbridging the border between work and family life Employees report greater net perceivedsupervisor interactional support but not instrumental support when the immediate super-visor is the same raceethnicity or the same gender as the employee but not when theyhave similar caregiving responsibilities Having a supervisor of the same gender is moresalient for women and raceethnic similarity is more salient for men We also find patternsof difference in the relative salience of gender and raceethnic similarity within raceethnicgender groups

Recently researchers have begun to look more closely at the role thatsupervisors and managers play as keepers of the border between the domains ofwork and family (Blair-Loy and Wharton 2002 Clark 2000 Eaton and Bailyn2000 Hochschild 1997) Supervisors can actively discourage using work-familypolicies or alternatively can permit more flexibility than is formally allowed AsGalinsky Bond and Friedman (1996) note what supervisors do or do not domay be even more important than official company policy The supervisor isoften the first line of contact for an employee who is interested in taking advant-age of family-friendly policies in the workplace Most ldquofamily-friendlyrdquo pro-grams are optional and supervisors can choose whether or not the program willbe implemented and which employees may participate Beyond actual imple-mentation of policies and procedures that accommodate employeesrsquo family orcaregiving needs supervisors also help shape the interactional contextmdashthe normsfor if when and how workers acknowledge and integrate their work and familycaregiving responsibilities We call this bridging the border between work andfamily to capture the sense that workers are people who live in two worlds atthe same time (see Clark 2000) The interactional context of the workplace canbe one that supports a bridge between these domains or one that tightly guardsthe border at the workplace against any intrusion from outside demands

Very little research has systematically examined what factors explaindifferences in supervisorsrsquo border-keeping behavior or what characteristicsof supervisors are most salient to employeesrsquo use of family-friendly policies(but see Blair-Loy and Wharton 2002) This article begins to do so by focus-ing on one aspect of the supervisor-employee relationshipmdashhomophily or socialsimilaritymdashand how it shapes workersrsquo perceptions of supervisor support for

Sociological Inquiry Vol 75 No 1 February 2005 55ndash80copy 2005 Alpha Kappa Delta

56 IDEE WINFIELD AND BETH RUSHING

bridging the border between the domains of work and family Specifically weuse a social relational perspective on the workplace to examine the effects ofsupervisor-employee similarity in raceethnicity gender and caregiving respons-ibilities on employeesrsquo perceptions that their supervisors support both intheir implementation of policies and through their interactions with employeesbridging the border between work and family

Supervisor-Employee Similarity and Bridgingthe Border between Work and Family

Our research is guided by a social relational view of the workplace (Baronand Pfeffer 1994 Martin 1991 McGuire 2002 Wharton and Bird 1996) Thisperspective calls attention to the ways social interactions in the workplacereproduce social inequalities Two assumptions from Baron and Pfefferrsquos (1994)framing of this perspective guide our examination of perceived supervisor sup-port for bridging the border between work and family First ldquopeople perceiveand relate to themselves and others in terms of social categories particularly inorganizations and similar settings in which the amount of detailed interpersonalcontact and information may be limitedrdquo (Baron and Pfeffer 1994193) Peopleuse salient categories to make attributions about one anotherrsquos intentions andactionsmdashjudging those in like categories as more similar and those in differentcategories as more different

A second assumption from the social relations perspective is that ldquosimilarityis an important basis of interpersonal attraction and consequently of socialintegration and cohesionrdquo (Baron and Pfeffer 1994192) This is the homophilyprinciple that socially similar people find each other more attractive find iteasier to communicate and trust one another and develop stronger in-grouprelationships and out-group biases (see McPherson Smith-Lovin and Cook 2001for a general review and Reskin McBrier and Kmec 1999 for a review of theliterature on social similarity and relational demography in organizations)

There is an abundance of empirical evidence that gender race and ethnicstatus similarity with respect to the composition of jobs work groups andorganizations mediate a variety of individual- and organizational-level outcomesin work organizations These include recruiting and hiring (Braddock andMcPartland 1987 Cohen Broschak and Haveman 1998 Mencken and Winfield1999) job assignments (Erickson Albanese and Drakulic 2000) access to pro-motions and job authority (Baldi and McBrier 1997 Cohen et al 1998 Smith2001) job satisfaction and psychological well-being (Fields and Blum 1997Martin and Harkreader 1993 Mueller Finley Iverson and Price 1999 Whartonand Baron 1987 Wharton and Bird 1996) turnover (OrsquoReilly Caldwell andBarnett 1989 Tsui Egan and OrsquoReilly 1992) differentiation and proliferationof job titles (Strang and Baron 1990) and assignment of wages to jobs (Baronand Newman 1989 Bridges and Nelson 1989)

BRIDGING THE BORDER BETWEEN WORK AND FAMILY 57

Quite often the mechanisms offered to explain the compositional effects inthe workplace rely on social categorization and the homophily principle (seeBaron and Pfeffer 1994 Reskin et al 1999) In the gender and work literaturestatistical discrimination and homosocial reproduction arguments both rely onperceptions of difference and preference for those who are socially similar toexplain decisions by supervisors and other gatekeepers about women (Kanter1977) In the literature on race and ethnic discrimination particularistic dis-crimination arguments similarly emphasize that in-group preference reflects realand assumed knowledge of similarity and results in greater reliance on moreobservable and easy-to-measure criteria when making decisions about sociallydissimilar subordinates (Kluegel 1978 Mueller Parcel and Tanaka 1989 Smith2001)

In contrast to the abundant literature on the compositional consequencesof social similarity there is little direct evidence of the effects of supervisor-employee social similarity on employment outcomes let alone bridging theborder between work and family Furthermore the existing research reportscontradictory findings Tsui and OrsquoReilly (1989) found that supervisor-employeedissimilarity in education gender and race was associated with employeesbeing perceived as less attractive by their supervisor receiving an unfavorableperformance evaluation from their supervisor and experiencing greater roleambiguity Similarly Williams (1995) reports that men in traditionally femaleoccupations are more likely to find they have more in common with male super-visors thus they socialize together and consequently are more likely to getpromoted (the glass escalator) In his study of Black Latino and White menSmith (2001) found that White men who have female supervisors are 60 percentless likely than White men with male supervisors to control monetary resourcesin work organizations but in contrast to Tsui and OrsquoReilly (1989) he found noeffect of supervisor-employee raceethnic similarity on male employeersquos controlof monetary resources

While there is relatively little empirical evidence about the effects ofsupervisor-employee similarity in work organizations there is a rich literatureon peoplersquos ability to bridge the border between work and family as well asthe effects of social similarity in social life that can inform our social relationalapproach to understanding the effects of supervisor-employee similarity on thepermeability of the border between work and family

Hochschildrsquos (1997) study of ldquoAmericordquo revealed how contemporarywork organizations are fraught with contradictory messages from upper- andmiddle-level managers about how workers are expected to view work and familylife One of the most striking findings in her study concerned middle-levelmanagersrsquo and supervisorsrsquo attitudes about the place of family in workersrsquo livesand the often-punitive ways in which they implemented family-friendly policiesConsistent with this Joan Williams (2000) argues that the ldquoideal workerrdquo is one


who acts as if she or he is unencumbered by family caregiving responsibilitiesOpportunities and rewards go to those who most closely conform to the ldquoidealworkerrdquo norm by compartmentalizing work and familycaregiving so that theyare separate spatially temporally and psychologically Thus even when work-places institute formal family-friendly work policies managers and supervisorsmay discourage their use Not surprisingly this ideal creates pressure onworkers to avoid using family-friendly policies even when they perceive a needto do so (Bailyn 1993 Blair-Loy and Wharton 2002 Fried 1998 Gerstel andMcGonagle 1999 Williams 2000)

Williamsrsquo argument raises questions about how the homophily principlemay affect the permeability of the borders between work and family for workersand supervisors who have differential expectations and needs with regard tofamily and caregiving responsibilities The evidence shows the effects ofhomophily get stronger as more types of relationships exist between two people(see McPherson et al 2001 for a review of this literature) The more ways thatpeople are socially similar the easier it is for them to communicate and trust oneanother Fear of further marginalization in the workplace among those with thegreatest need for supervisor support for bridging the border between work andfamily (women minorities and those with significant caregiving responsibilities)would suggest that the more socially dissimilar the supervisor and employee arethe less likely it is that employees will feel safe bringing their family andcaregiving responsibilities into their relationships with their supervisors Doingso would heighten their distance from the ldquoideal workerrdquo norm

Research Questions

To better understand how homophily in the supervisor-employee relation-ship shapes employeesrsquo ability to bridge the border between work and familywe investigate three research questions First how does supervisor-employeesimilarity affect perceived supervisor work-family support Second is therea cumulative effect of similarity whereby employees who are more similar totheir supervisor in terms of race ethnicity and sex perceive their supervisorsas providing more support for bridging work and family The third questionasks whether there are racialethnic andor gender differences in the effects ofsupervisor-employee similarity Here we examine whether the form of supervisor-employee similarity is differentially salient for women and men of differentracialethnic groups

Data and Methods

To address these questions we use data from the 1997 National Study ofthe Changing Workforce (NSCW) a research program of the Families and WorkInstitute Louis Harris and Associates conducted the telephone survey between


March 14 1997 and July 27 1997 Calls were made to a stratified unclusteredrandom probability sample generated by random-digit-dial methods A regionalstratification variable was used to ensure that the sample distribution acrossregions would be proportional to the population distribution Sample eligibilitywas limited to people 18 years or older who worked at a paid job or operatedan income-producing business were in the civilian labor force and lived in anoninstitutional residence (with a telephone) in the contiguous 48 states A totalof 3739 households contacted were eligible Of these 3552 interviews tookplace resulting in a response rate of 95 percent Of the 3552 sample subjects2877 were wage and salary workersmdashthe others self-employed For furtherdetails see the Families and Work Institute (1999)

We limit our analysis to the 2555 wage and salaried workers in the samplewho have an immediate supervisor After deleting 233 respondents who did notknow if their supervisors have family responsibilities we were left with 2322respondents (before listwise deletion for missing values on the other variables inthe analysis)

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables are two scales of supervisor support for employeesrsquofamilycaregiving responsibilities that reflect two different dimensions ofsupervisor support for bridging the border between work and family (Warrenand Johnson 1995)mdashinteractional support and instrumental support Interactionalsupport was constructed as the sum of responses to three Likert scale questionsldquoMy supervisor is understanding when I talk about personal or family issues thataffect my workrdquo ldquoI feel comfortable bringing up personal or family issues withmy supervisorrdquo and ldquoMy supervisor really cares about the effects that workdemands have on my personal and family liferdquo Cronbachrsquos alpha for the summedscale is 857 Low scores on the scale indicate low perceived supervisor inter-actional support Instrumental support was measured as the sum of responses totwo Likert scale questions ldquoMy supervisor is fair and doesnrsquot show favoritismin responding to employeesrsquo personal or family needsrdquo and ldquoMy supervisoraccommodates me when I have family or personal business to take care ofrdquoCronbachrsquos alpha for this scale is 657 somewhat lower than for interactionalsupport but within the acceptable range for social science research

Independent Variables

Personal attributes To assess the intersection of gender race and ethnicityon perceived supervisor support we included five dichotomous variables forWhite non-Hispanic women Black non-Hispanic women Hispanic women Blacknon-Hispanic men and Hispanic men with White non-Hispanic men as theomitted category It should be noted that Hispanic individuals might be of any


race A small proportion of those self-identified as Hispanic identified their raceas Black or White the majority indicated Other as their race There were too fewAsian Pacific Islander Native American and Native Alaskan respondents to theNSCW (N = 119) to include in the analysis

Supervisor-employee social similarity To examine the effects of thehomophily principle we use three indicators of similarity between respondent(employee) and supervisor each is a dichotomous variable indicating whether ornot the respondent and supervisor are of the same gender the same raceethnicity or both have significant family responsibilities (1 = yes both havesignificant responsibility for children or someone who is elderly or disabled)

Control Variables

We control for several characteristics of individuals jobs work groupsestablishments and workplace culture that are also likely to explain variation inperceived supervisor support for bridging work and family

Respondentrsquos education is expected to influence perceptions of supervisorsupport for familycaregiving responsibilities because the need for and use offamily-friendly workplace supports are tied to socioeconomic position (see Gersteland McGonagle 1999) which is strongly tied to educational attainment Wemeasure respondentsrsquo education with a six-category ordinal scale of educationalattainment less than high school high school diploma or GED some collegeassociates degree four-year college degree and graduate or professional degree

Characteristics of jobs Characteristics of jobs are likely to influenceperceptions of supervisor support for familycaregiving responsibilities becauseaccess to family-friendly programs varies across types of jobs (Glass and Estes1997) and the working conditions of jobs shape the need for family-friendlyprograms We include a dichotomous variable indicating whether the respond-entrsquos job is in a professionalmanagerial occupation because jobs in professionaland managerial occupations generally place greater demands on workersrsquo timeWe also include a measure of job demands which we measured as the sum ofthree Likert scale questions ldquoMy job requires that I work very fastrdquo ldquoMy jobrequires that I work very hardrdquo and ldquoI never seem to have enough time to geteverything done on my jobrdquo Cronbachrsquos alpha for this scale is 50 and lowscores represent lower levels of job demands Whether the job is covered by aunion contract (1 = yes) is included because unions have not traditionally beensupportive of family-friendly workplace policies for fear that these policies willbe used by management to divide workers based on their family responsibilitiesand because unions have a history of inattentiveness to what are often seenas the ldquospecial needsrdquo of women and minorities (Williams 2000) Conversely


workers in more autonomous jobs often have greater flexibility in how theycombine work and family responsibilities We measure job autonomy with threeLikert scale questions ldquoI have the freedom to decide what I do on my jobrdquo ldquoItis basically my own responsibility to decide how my job gets donerdquo and ldquoI havea lot of say about what happens on my jobrdquo Cronbachrsquos alpha for this scale is70 and low scores represent lower levels of autonomy

Characteristics of work group In addition to supervisor-employee simi-larity we also include an indicator of the degree to which the respondentrsquoscoworkers are like the respondentmdashthis measure asks the respondent to estimatethe percentage of coworkers who are of the same gender and raceethnicity asthe respondent Responses were coded into six ordinal categoriesmdash0 percentgreater than 0 but less than 26 percent 26 to 50 percent 51 to 75 percentgreater than 75 but less than 100 percent and 100 percent While it would benice to have more detailed measures this is the only item of this type included inthe NSCW We include coworker similarity because of the well-documentedhomophilic effects of work group composition on employeesrsquo perceptions andbehaviors (see Reskin et al 1999 for a review)

Characteristics of establishments The industry measure indicates whetheror not the respondent is employed in an establishment in the service sectorbroadly defined (the omitted category is manufacturing construction and agri-culture forestry fishing and mining) Using data from the National Organiza-tions Survey Ingram and Simons (1995) reported that a higher proportion ofestablishments in many of the service sector industries offered either dependentcare services or flexible work arrangements or paid parental leave while agreater proportion of establishments in the other industries offered no or onlyldquowindow dressingrdquo type benefits such as information about child care in thecommunity or unpaid parental leave In addition employment sector defined interms of whether a worker was employed in a public (1 = yes) or private estab-lishment is included in the analysis because public sector establishments wereamong the first to promote work-family initiatives (Goodstein 1994) and arethought to be more responsive to social welfare concerns because of their mis-sion and because they are not held to strictly economic standards of performance(Oliver 1991) We also take into account establishment size because large estab-lishments which are more visible and receive more attention from the mediaand the public have been found to be more responsive to work-family issues(Goodstein 1994 Kamerman and Kahn 1987 Morgan and Milliken 1992)Establishment size is coded as an ordinal variable less than 25 employees 25 to49 50 to 74 75 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 1000 to 5999 6000to 9999 and 10000 or more employees


Workplace culture A supervisorrsquos behavior takes place within the largercontext of an organizationrsquos culture We include two measures of workplaceculture that frame how employees perceive their supervisorrsquos support for bridg-ing the border between work and family The first variable taps the extent towhich the respondentrsquos establishment is supportive of employeesrsquo family respon-sibilities Cronbachrsquos alpha for this measure is 74 and it has three Likert scaleitems ldquoThere is an unwritten rule at my place of employment that you canrsquot takecare of family needs on company timerdquo ldquoAt my place of employment employeeswho put their family or personal needs ahead of their jobs are not looked onfavorablyrdquo ldquoIf you have a problem managing your work and family respons-ibilities the attitude at my place of employment is lsquoYou made your bed now liein itrsquordquo Low scores on this scale represent a workplace that is not supportive ofemployeesrsquo familycaregiving responsibilities Another measure of workplaceculture is an indicator of values compatibility This is measured with a singleLikert scale item that asked respondents whether they agree or disagree that ldquoOnmy job I have to do some things that really go against my consciencerdquo Thismeasures captures the extent to which respondentsrsquo work environment is com-patible with their own value systems

Results

Descriptive Analyses

We begin with descriptive analyses of supervisor-employee similarity re-ported in Table 1 Men of all raceethnic categories are much more likely to havea male supervisor than women are to have a female supervisor slightly morethan half of women in each raceethnic category have a female supervisor whilebetween three-quarters (Black men) and 89 percent (Hispanic men) of men havea male supervisor In contrast a relatively small percentage of employees andsupervisors both have significant family responsibilities Indeed it is rare forHispanic men in our sample to have significant family responsibilities and evenrarer that they have a supervisor who also has significant family responsibilitiesWhen we consider the intersection of raceethnicity and gender it becomes evenclearer that the likelihood of an employee working with a supervisor who issimilar on multiple status dimensions is a reflection of horizontal and verticalsegregation within and across establishments (Bayard Hellerstein Neumarkand Troske 1999) and the propensity for homosocial reproduction (Kanter 1977)Seventy-seven percent of White men and 46 percent of White women have asupervisor of the same race and gender after which the percentages drop offprecipitously Black men are least likely to have a Black male supervisor Wealso note however that compared to Black men and women there is a some-what greater propensity for Hispanic women and men to have a supervisor of the

BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

63

Table 1Distribution of Supervisor-Employee Similarity across Race Ethnicity and Gender

White Black White BlackNon-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Hispanic

Women Women Women Men Men Men

Same gender 490 77 33 765 72 71520 517 550 852 742 888

Same race 830 41 26 810 24 28880 275 433 902 247 350

Both have family 92 16 9 79 13 3responsibilities 98 107 150 88 134 38

Same gender and race 435 25 13 688 13 26461 168 217 766 134 325


Table 2Least Square Means by Race Ethnicity and Gendera

Interactional Support Instrumental Support

1 White non-Hispanic women 9692345 69623

2 Black non-Hispanic women 872146 67214

3 Hispanic women 8951 65614

4 White non-Hispanic men 93412 69723

5 Black non-Hispanic men 8851 6746 Hispanic men 9402 693All 941 692

aSubscripts indicate which means comparisons are significantly different fromone another (p le 10)

same raceethnicity and gender This again most likely reflects racialethnic andgender segregation across establishments and within jobs

To examine the degree to which perceptions of supervisor support for bridg-ing the border between work and family differ simultaneously by raceethnicityand gender we estimated least square means and tested for significant differencesbetween the means (Table 2) There are several interesting patterns of differenceWhite women report on average significantly more interactional support fromsupervisors compared to all other groups except Hispanic men as well as moreinstrumental support than Black or Hispanic women This may reflect the privi-leged position of White non-Hispanic women in the United States with respectto resources to meet family and caregiving responsibilities as well as supervisorsrsquopositive bias toward the caregiving responsibilities of White non-Hispanic womenGerstel and McGonagle (1999) report that African-American men and womenare more likely than White men and women to report needing leave from workfor family and caregiving responsibilities but even net of income African Ameri-cans are the least likely of any racial group to take leave from work Unfortu-nately they did not examine the intersection of race and gender but their findingstogether with ours suggest a need to examine more closely whether supervisor-employee similarity accounts for these differences

There are no significant gender differences in either indicator of supervisorwork-family support between Black men and women or between Hispanic menand women although minority women do report less support than minoritymen1 This may reflect the fact that both minority women and men are much


more likely to have a White supervisor than a minority supervisor In contrastminority women report they receive significantly less support from their super-visors compared to both White men and White women Black women report lessinteractional support and Hispanic women report less instrumental support

Effects of Supervisor-Employee Similarity on Perceived Supervisor Support

To examine the degree to which supervisor-employee similarity explainsthese differences in perceived supervisor work-family support we estimated thenet effects of supervisor-employee similarity in raceethnicity gender and familycaregiving responsibilities as well as their cumulative effects on perceivedsupervisor interactional and instrumental support Table 3 reports the findingsfor perceived supervisor interactional support Table 4 reports the effects forperceived instrumental support

We find partial support for the homophily principle Employees whosesupervisor is of the same gender or the same raceethnicity view their super-visors as being more supportive of workplace interactions that bridge work andfamily (Table 3 Model 2) The same does not hold true for employeesrsquo reportsthat supervisors provide instrumental support by accommodating their need toattend to familycaregiving responsibilities (Table 4 Model 2) Surprisinglythere is no net effect of supervisor-employee similarity in caregiving respons-ibilities When employees and supervisors both have significant familycaregivingresponsibilities those employees are not significantly more positive in theirappraisal of supervisor interactional or instrumental support

We find no support for the cumulative homophily argument for eitherinteractional support or instrumental supportmdashestimates for the joint effects ofsimilarity in raceethnicity gender and familycaregiving in Model 3 and Model4 add almost nothing to the explained variance for perceived interactional andinstrumental support The lack of support for the cumulative effects argument isin part a reflection of the limited number of employees who work with a super-visor of the same race ethnicity gender and family responsibilities especiallyfor Hispanic men Only 48 percent of all respondents in the analysis (106 of2227) report that their supervisor is of the same raceethnicity gender and thatboth have significant family responsibilities

Given the extensive literature on relational demography and the homophiliceffects of social similarity in work groups we also wanted to examine how thework group context affects employeesrsquo perceptions of supervisor support Onepossibility is that the composition of the work group modifies the effects ofsupervisor-employee similarity another possibility is that supervisor-employeesimilarity mediates the effect of work group composition By comparing theeffect of coworker similarity in Model 1 with Model 2 we see that supervisor-employee similarity does indeed have a mediating effect on supervisor

66ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G

Table 3Ordinary Least Square Regression Estimates for Perceived Supervisor Work-Family Interactional Support N = 2209

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

White non-Hispanic women 244 429 432 433Black non-Hispanic women minus385 004 008 004Hispanic women minus059 266 272 267Black non-Hispanic men minus062 335 365 367Hispanic men minus016 204 244 241Education minus109 minus103 minus103 minus104Professionalmanagerial job minus182 minus203 minus198 minus198Union job minus366 minus345 minus353 minus361Job demands minus044 minus044 minus043 minus044Job autonomy 826 837 837 837Establishment size 0005 003 001 001Service industry sector 354 352 352 351Public sector 251 225 222 227Org workfamily culture 247 248 248 248Values compatibility 171 174 174 172Coworker similarity 103 054 052 051

BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

67Supervisor-employee similaritySame gender 477 373 416Same raceethnicity 394 337 372Both have caregiving responsibilities 175 860 1146

Cum effects for supervisor-employee similaritySame raceethnicity and gender 182 127Same raceethnicity and caregiving resp minus540 minus909Same gender and both have caregiving resp minus405 minus828Same raceethnicity gender and caregiving 549

Intercept 4308 3631 3659 3640R-Square 209 211 211R-Square Change 201 008 002 000

p le 05 p le 01 p le 001

68ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G

Table 4Ordinary Least Square Regression Estimates for Perceived Supervisor Work-Family Instrumental Support N = 2227


White non-Hispanic women minus022 004 002 002Black non-Hispanic women minus094 minus050 minus059 minus061Hispanic women minus290 minus257 minus261 minus265Black non-Hispanic men 098 123 143 144Hispanic men minus038 minus008 minus002 minus004Education minus051 minus050 minus051 minus052Professionalmanagerial job minus071 minus074 minus068 minus069Union job minus198 minus198 minus201 minus207Job demands minus019 minus019 minus019 minus019Job autonomy 409 408 408 407Establishment size 023 024 024 023Service industry sector 114 113 114 113Public sector minus016 minus025 minus022 minus019Org workfamily culture 149 149 149 150Values compatibility 183 186 186 185Coworker similarity 024 017 016 016

BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

69Supervisor-employee similaritySame gender 071 minus004 026Same raceethnicity 041 minus052 minus027Both have caregiving responsibilities 157 230 431

Cum effects for supervisor-employee similaritySame raceethnicity and gender 124 minus151Same raceethnicity and caregiving resp 108 minus526Same gender and caregiving responsibilities minus231 085Same raceethnicity gender and caregiving 383

Intercept 4251 4163 4221 4208R-Square 228 230 231 231R-Square Change 001 001 000

p le 05 p le 01 p le 001


interactional support (Table 3) The more similar onersquos coworkers in termsof raceethnicity and gender the more positive is the appraisal of supervisorinteractional support The effect however is halved and becomes nonsignificantonce supervisor-employee similarity is taken into account We also tested theeffects of the interaction of coworker similarity with supervisor-employeegender and raceethnic similarity (not presented here but available from the firstauthor) the effects were not significant and they did not add to the explainedvariance for Model 2 Coworker similarity does not affect appraisal of super-visorrsquos instrumental support for bridging the border between work and familyIndeed it is clear from the analysis that social similarity in general is moreconsequential for interactional support than for instrumental support

Although the net effects of supervisor-employee similarity in raceethnicityand gender help to explain perceived interactional support it is important to notethat several other characteristics of the work environment have much strongereffects on how supportive employeesrsquo perceive their supervisors to be Workingin an establishment that has a ldquofamily-friendlyrdquo culture and in a job that providesautonomy have the strongest positive effects on the probability that employeesperceive their supervisors as supportive of interactions in the workplace thatbridge the borders between work and family life and also that supervisors pro-vide instrumental support to accommodate familycaregiving responsibilities2

Race-Ethnicity-Gender-Specific Effects of Supervisor-Employee Similarity

To address our third question whether the form of supervisor-employeesimilarity is differentially salient for women and men of different race andethnicity we estimated regression equations separately for each of the six raceethnicgender groups Given the lack of effects of supervisor-employee similarityfor perceived instrumental support we limit our analysis to the differential effectsof supervisor-employee similarity on interactional support3 The regressionresults are presented in Table 5

Looking first at the effects of supervisor-employee gender and raceethnicsimilarity we find gender differences in the salience of supervisor-employeesimilarity for employeesrsquo perception of supervisor support for bridging work andfamily Having a female supervisor is salient for Black and White women bothreport significantly more supervisor interactional support when the supervisor isthe same gender For Hispanic women supervisorsrsquo gender and raceethnicityjointly shape how much interactional support they receive from their super-visors The 22 percent of Hispanic women who report having a female supervisorof the same raceethnicity are significantly more likely to feel they receiveinteractional support from their supervisors but the 18 percent of Hispanicwomen who have a male supervisor of the same raceethnicity perceive theirsupervisors as significantly less supportive In contrast having a male supervisor

BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71

Table 5Ordinary Least Square Regression Estimates for Perceived Supervisor Interactional Support by RaceEthnicityGender


Variable Women Women Women Men Men Men

Education minus071 minus254 295 minus135 046 minus198Profman job minus355 893 minus682 minus10 minus433 minus160Union job minus625 031 1364 112 minus1046 minus1887Job demands minus021 minus076 minus133 minus024 minus357 196Job autonomy 788 923 349 940 545 1801Estab size 010 039 minus403 minus011 059 021Service sector 271 minus347 minus496 196 1974 752Public sector 144 minus513 854 408 minus837 1008Workfamily culture 251 291 374 249 169 108Values compatibility 158 152 101 153 105 444Coworker similarity 140 minus038 487 minus017 068 027Supervisor-employee similarity a

Same gender 568 1238 063 059 160 100Same raceethnicity 093 949 minus2505 462 743 539Both have caregiving responsibilities 498 minus109 181 minus404 2036 mdashb

Same gender and racec 3210Constant 3864 2956 4443 4271 4492 3242Adjusted R-Square 215 193 288 172 189 245N 937 145 60 893 96 78

p le 10 p le 05 p le 01 p le 001aCoeffcients significant at p le 10 are included due to small subsample sizebThe variable is not included in the model for Hispanic men due to poor distributioncThe interaction of supervisor-employee similarity on gender and race is included when the F-test shows a significantincrement in explained variance compared to the model without the interaction effect


does not significantly affect menrsquos reports of supervisor interactional supportand supervisor raceethnicity appears to be more salient Although the effectof same raceethnicity approaches statistical significance only for White men(p = 09) the coefficients are positive and larger than the effects of supervisorgender

Supervisor-employee similarity in caregiving responsibilities has signific-ant effects on perceived interactional support only for White women and Blackmen (see Table 5) The effect is marginally significant for women and not asstrong as the effect of having a supervisor of the same gender In contrast thehomophily principle seems to work quite differently for Black men comparedto any of the other racegender groups similarity in familycaregiving respons-ibilities is most salient to Black menrsquos perception that their supervisors provideinteractional support for crossing the border between work and family

To further explore these patterns of gender and raceethnic difference in thesalience of supervisor-employee similarity we calculated the estimated per-ceived supervisor interactional support based on supervisor-employee similaritynet of the effects of the other variables in the model and rank ordered these ineach of the six raceethnicgender groups (see Table 6) The ranked estimatedinteractional support shows more clearly that gender homophily is more salientfor women and race homophily is more salient for men Women regardlessof race and ethnicity perceive greatest interactional support from female super-visors who are of the same raceethnicity followed by female supervisors of adifferent raceethnicity White and Black women view White male supervisorsas least supportive but as noted above Hispanic women perceive Hispanicmale supervisors as significantly less supportive than all other supervisorsMen regardless of race and ethnicity perceive greater interactional supportfrom supervisors of the same raceethnicity with male supervisors of the sameraceethnicity ranking higher than female supervisors of the same raceethnicityFurthermore when the supervisor is not of the same raceethnicity gender isdifferentially salient for White men compared to minority men For White menif their supervisor is not a White man the next best thing is a White woman butnon-White male supervisors are perceived as more supportive than non-Whitefemale supervisors In contrast when Black and Hispanic men have a supervisorwho is not the same raceethnicity gender homophily does not appear to besalientmdashfemale supervisors of a different raceethnicity are perceived as moresupportive than male supervisors of a different raceethnicity Although most ofthe rank ordered effects are not statistically different the patterns reveal interest-ing gender and raceethnic differences in the salience of supervisor gender andraceethnicity that deserve further exploration with data that allow for morerobust estimates of the joint effects of supervisor-employee gender and raceethnic similarity

BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73

Table 6Rank Order for Estimated Perceived Supervisor Interactional Support by Race Ethnicity and Gendera


Rank Women Women Women Men Men Men

1 White female Black female Hispanic female White male Black male Hispanic male2 non-White female non-Black female non-Hispanic female White female Black female Hispanic female

non-Hispanic male non-Hispanic female3 non-White male Black male non-White male non-Black female4 White male non-Black male Hispanic male non-White female non-Black male non-Hispanic male

aWe calculated the estimated perceived supervisor support from the regression analysis that includes supervisor-employee similarityon raceethnicitygender for each of the race ethnic and gender groups


Discussion

Several insights about the significance and effects of social homophily inthe workplace can be learned from this analysis At a minimum our resultsshow that homophilyrsquos effects on workersrsquo perceptions of support from super-visors for work-family issues are complex and contingent This is particularlytrue of interactional support that is the degree to which workers feel comfort-able talking with supervisors about their family concerns Among our findingsare the following

With respect to our first research question we indeed find some evidencethat supervisor-employee similarity has net effects on perceived supervisor supportfor bridging work and family boundaries Race ethnic and gender homophilyhave a positive effect on perceived interactional support workers whose super-visors were similar with respect to gender or raceethnicity reported higherlevels of interactional support compared to workers whose supervisors weredissimilar These results show that both gender homophily and raceethnichomophily can create an interactional context that helps workers bridge theboundaries between work and family Similar conclusions cannot be made aboutsupervisorsrsquo provision of instrumental support however

Our results for perceived instrumental support from supervisors fail to showany net effect of supervisor-employee homophily We are unsure what thismeans Certainly supervisors will find it easier to provide interactional supportfor bridging the border between family and work than to provide employeeswith the concrete instrumental means to do so Yet the communication and trustthat may build up around interactional support may be a critical first step inhelping to make the boundaries between work and family more permeable Thelack of significant effects of homophily on instrumental support could howeveralso reflect measurement problems Instrumental support was measured withonly two items Moreover one of those items may conflate perceptions aboutfairness generally with perceptions about support for bridging the border betweenwork and family (ldquoMy supervisor is fair and doesnrsquot show favoritism in respond-ing to employeesrsquo personal or family needsrdquo) Assuming that measurement erroris not the explanation our results suggest that workers who are socially similarto their supervisors will receive no more instrumental support for bridging theboundaries between work and family than will workers who are socially dis-similar We cannot know if this is because of supervisorsrsquo unwillingness orinability to provide material support or to some other dynamic such as theorganizational power of the supervisor (see Blair-Loy and Wharton 2002)

The second research question asks whether there is a cumulative effect ofsupervisor-employee similarity on supervisor support We might anticipate suchcumulative effects since people who are alike on several different characteristics


might be more inclined to trust one another and to communicate However withone exception that we discuss further below our analyses do not generally findbenefits to having a supervisor who is both of the same gender and the sameraceethnicity While this lack of finding may be due to the fact that relativelyfew respondents to the NSCW had supervisors with the same gender and raceethnicity even when we look at White non-Hispanic men and women (who aremost likely to have supervisors of the same gender and raceethnicity) we findno significant cumulative effect on supervisor support

Our final research question addressed whether there are raceethnicity orgender differences in the effects of supervisor-employee homophily Our findingshere have substantial implications for understanding workplace social relationsin that gender homophily appears to be more salient for women while raceethnic homophily is more salient for men As noted despite small numbers thatprevent statistical significance our results suggest some intriguing workplacerelational dynamics Women supervised by women perceived greater interactionalsupport for bridging the boundaries between work and family this was trueregardless of raceethnicity Because women are the primary caretakers of homeand family perhaps women supervisors are thought to understand and sym-pathize more with women employees relative to family-related problems Import-antly both White and Black women perceived White men supervisors as leastsupportive However Hispanic women reported that Hispanic men supervisorswere least supportive of their family-related concerns Thus the one finding insupport of the cumulative effects question appears for Hispanic women whoperceive women Hispanic supervisors as the most supportive

For men raceethnicity was more important than gender in accounting forperceived interactional support from their supervisors Men of all raceethnicgroups perceived more support from a supervisor of their own raceethnicitythan from a supervisor of a different raceethnic group However gender doesmatter to men for example men reported more perceived support from a super-visor who is a man of their own raceethnicity than from a supervisor who isa woman of their own raceethnicity White men preferred a White womansupervisor to a minority man and a non-White female supervisor least Gendermatters in a different way to Black and Hispanic men If they do not have asame-race-ethnic supervisor they perceived that a woman of any raceethnicityprovided more interactional support than a man of a different raceethnicity didThese complex results confirm claims by Patricia Hill Collins (1990) amongothers of the importance of positionality and intersectionality in understandingexperience as well as perceptions (including consciousness)

Other findings are also noteworthy For instance we found a positivesignificant effect of caregiver homophily for only two groups White non-Hispanic women and Black non-Hispanic men One of the reasons we found


few significant effects of caregiving homophily on either interactional or instru-mental support has to do with the fact that so few workers with caregivingresponsibilities have a supervisor with similar caregiving responsibilities (forchild or elder care) Overall only 95 percent of our worker-supervisor dyadshad this responsibility in common despite the fact that 46 percent of the super-visors reported they had family responsibilities Nonetheless the effects ofcaregiver homophily deserve further research attention

We also found that White non-Hispanic women perceived significantlymore interactional support from their supervisors than White non-Hispanic mennet of all other influences including the effects of homophily This may reflectthe greater responsibility and legitimacy women have for homefamily obliga-tions Whites comprise the large majority of our sample 42 percent (N = 937)are White women and 43 percent (N = 893) are White men (based on listwisedeletion on all variables in Table 5) Because of these large subsamples theeffects of gender among White people may show up more clearly than they canin our smaller subsamples of Black people (111 percent) and Hispanic people(63 percent)

We find also that more highly educated workers and those working inunionized jobs reported less interactional support from supervisors On the posi-tive side we find workers perceived greater supervisor support for bridging theborder between work and family when they have more job autonomy and workin establishments in the public sector where the work culture is supportive ofworkersrsquo family issues and the values of the establishment are compatible withtheir own values These effects are robust furthermore and hold up with allother variables including homophily controlled One interpretation of ourresults is that while supervisor-employee homophily is important particularlyrelative to the level of interactional support workers receive from supervisors itis not an overriding influence Many other conditions including job autonomyand workplace culture are of equal or greater significance

Research that can further address the questions we raised would be usefulfor furthering our understanding of the effects of relational dynamics in theworkplace on workersrsquo ability to bridge the border between work and familyFor example why are some forms of homophily more salient than others Whyis gender homophily more important for women and race homophily more im-portant for men when explaining the kind of support one receives from a super-visor for bridging work-family boundaries One can intuitively understand whywomen would think women supervisors would be more supportive but why menfind that a same-race-ethnic supervisor is more supportive is puzzling Do menassume that talking across race-borders is threatening As White non-Hispanicmen and White non-Hispanic women are the large majority of supervisors incontemporary workplaces what are the implications of such findings for the


people they supervise Results in Table 1 show that three-quarters of White non-Hispanic men have supervisors of the same race and gender Thus White menhave had so little experience with being supervised by men or women of otherraceethnic groups that they may be leery of them White Black and Hispanicwomen are supervised almost equally by women and men thus they speak withconsiderable authority about what it is like to be supervised by a woman or aman This is more generally true of superior-subordinate relations in general wherepeople in the subordinate group must work harder to understand the dominantgroup One of the invisible privileges of being in the dominant group is thatmembers do not have to think about any other experience besides their own

This paper contributes to the literature on the importance of the interactionalcontext of the workplace for workersrsquo ability to bridge the border between workand family Worker-supervisor homophily is one feature of the interactionalcontext that deserves more attention We have focused here on the effect ofsupervisor-employee homophily on perceptions of supervisor support it remainsto be seen whether and how homophily can help us understand more fully thedynamics of bridging the border between work and family

ENDNOTES

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the SouthernSociological Society Baltimore MD We want to thank Patricia Yancey Martin for her helpfulsuggestions Please address all communication to Idee Winfield Department of Sociology andAnthropology College of Charleston 66 George St Charleston SC 29424 or via e-mail towinfieldicofcedu

1The difference is rather large between Hispanic women and men but the relatively small sizeof the two groups in the sample requires a greater difference to achieve statistical significance

2The characteristics of jobs and establishments have stronger effects on perceived supervisorsupport than do employeesrsquo attributes Raceethnicity and gender have limited net effects onperceived supervisor support White non-Hispanic women are the only group significantly morelikely than White men to feel their supervisor provides interactional support for crossing the bordersbetween work and family Minority women and men perceive less interactional support from theirsupervisors compared to White men but the effects do not reach statistical significance Educationhas a significant negative effect on both perceived supervisor interactional and instrumental supportand the effect is not mediated by supervisor-employee similarities In analyses not reported here weincluded household and caregiving characteristics but they had no effect and were subsequentlydropped from the models In a study of the determinants of using family-friendly policies Blair-Loyand Wharton (2002) found that household and caregiving characteristics had no significant effect onuse of flextime or telecommuting but did affect use of family-care policies such as taking paid orunpaid leave

3We did run the analyses for instrumental support and again found no effects for raceethnic orgender similarity


REFERENCES

Bailyn Lotte 1993 Breaking the Mold Women Men and Time in the New Corporate World NewYork The Free Press

Baldi Stephane and Debra B McBrier 1997 ldquoDo the Determinants of Promotion Differ forBlacks and Whites Evidence from the US Labor Marketrdquo Work and Occupations 24478ndash97

Baron James N and Andrew E Newman 1989 ldquoPay the Man Effects of Demographic Composi-tion on Prescribed Wage Rates in the California Civil Servicerdquo Pp 107ndash29 in Pay EquityEmpirical Inquiries edited by Richard T Harrington Heidi Hartmann and Brigid OrsquoFarellWashington DC National Academy Press

Baron James N and Jeffrey Pfeffer 1994 ldquoThe Social Psychology of Organizations and InequalityrdquoSocial Psychology Quarterly 57(3)190ndash209

Bayard Kimberly Judith Hellerstein David Neumark and Kenneth Troske 1999 ldquoWhy Are Racialand Ethnic Wage Gaps Larger for Men than for Women Exploring the Role of SegregationrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No w6997 Available online lthttppapersnberorgpapersW6997gt

Blair-Loy Mary and Amy S Wharton 2002 ldquoEmployeesrsquo Use of Work-Family Policies and theWorkplace Social Contextrdquo Social Forces 80(3)813ndash45

Braddock Jomills H and James M McPartland 1987 ldquoHow Minorities Come to Be Excluded fromEqual Employment Opportunitiesrdquo Journal of Social Issues 435ndash39

Bridges William P and Robert L Nelson 1989 ldquoMarkets in Hierarchies Organizational andMarket Influences on Gender Inequality in a State Pay Systemrdquo American Journal of Sociology95616ndash58

Clark Sue Campbell 2000 ldquoWorkFamily Border Theory A New Theory of WorkFamily BalancerdquoHuman Relations 53(6)747ndash70

Cohen Lisa E Joseph P Broschak and Heather A Haveman 1998 ldquoAnd Then There Were MoreThe Effects of Organizational Sex Composition on Hiring and Promotionrdquo American Socio-logical Review 63711ndash27

Eaton Susan C and Lotte Bailyn 2000 ldquoCareer as Life Path Tracing Work and Life Strategies ofBiotech Professionalsrdquo Pp 177ndash98 in Career Frontiers New Conceptions of Working Livesedited by Maury Peiperl Michael Arthur Rob Goffee and Tim Morris New York OxfordUniversity Press

Erickson Bonnie Patricia Albanese and Slobodan Drakulic 2000 ldquoGender on a Jagged EdgeThe Security Industry Its Clients and the Reproduction and Revision of Genderrdquo Work andOccupations 27294ndash318

Families and Work Institute 1999 National Study of the Changing Workforce Guide to Public UseFiles New York Families and Work Institute

Fields Dail L and Terry C Blum 1997 ldquoEmployee Satisfaction in Work Groups with DifferentGender Compositionrdquo Journal of Organizational Behavior 18(2)181ndash96

Fried Mindy 1998 Taking Time Parental Leave Policy and Corporate Culture PhiladelphiaTemple University Press

Galinsky Ellen James T Bond and Dana E Friedman 1996 ldquoThe Role of Employers in Address-ing the Needs of Employed Parentsrdquo Journal of Social Issues 52(3)111ndash36

Gerstel Naomi and Katherine McGonagle 1999 ldquoJob Leaves and the Limits of the Family andMedical Leave Actrdquo Work and Occupations 26(4)510ndash34

Glass Jennifer and Sarah Beth Estes 1997 ldquoThe Family Responsive Workplacerdquo Annual Review ofSociology 23289ndash314


Goodstein Jerry 1994 ldquoInstitutional Pressures and Strategic Responsiveness Employer Involve-ment in Work-Family Issuesrdquo Academy of Management Journal 37330ndash82

Hill Collins Patricia 1990 Black Feminist Thought Knowledge Consciousness and the Politics ofEmpowerment Boston Unwin Hyman

Hochschild Arlie 1997 Time Bind New York MetropolitanIngram Paul L and Tal Simons 1995 ldquoInstitutional and Resource Dependence Determinants of

Responsiveness to Work-Family Issuesrdquo Academy of Management Journal 381466ndash82Kamerman Sheila B and Alfred J Kahn 1987 The Responsive Workplace Employers and a

Changing Labor Force New York Columbia University PressKanter Rosabeth Moss 1977 Men and Women of the Corporation New York Basic BooksKluegel James R 1978 ldquoThe Causes and Cost of Racial Exclusion from Job Authorityrdquo American

Sociological Review 43(3)285ndash301Martin Patricia Yancey 1991 ldquoGender Interaction and Inequality in Organizationsrdquo Pp 208ndash31

in Gender Interaction and Inequality edited by Cecelia L Ridgeway New York Springer-Verlag

Martin Patricia Yancey and Steve Harkreader 1993 ldquoMultiple Gender Contexts and EmployeeRewardsrdquo Work and Occupations 20296ndash336

McGuire Gail M 2002 ldquoGender Race and the Shadow Structure A Study of Informal Networksand Inequality in a Work Organizationrdquo Gender amp Society 16(3)303ndash22

McPherson Miller Lynn Smith-Lovin and James M Cook 2001 ldquoBirds of a Feather Homophilyin Social Networksrdquo Annual Review of Sociology 27415ndash44

Mencken F Carson and Idee Winfield 1999 ldquoEmployer Recruiting and the Gender Composition ofJobsrdquo Sociological Focus 33201ndash20

Morgan Hal and Frances J Milliken 1992 ldquoKeys to Action Understanding Differences in Organ-izationsrsquo Responsiveness to Work and Family Issuesrdquo Human Resource Management 31(3)227ndash48

Mueller Charles W Ashley Finley Roderick D Iverson and James L Price 1999 ldquoThe Effectsof Group Racial Composition on Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment and CareerCommitment The Case of Teachersrdquo Work and Occupations 26187ndash219

Mueller Charles W Toby I Parcel and Kazuko Tanaka 1989 ldquoParticularism in Authority Outcomesof Black and White Supervisorsrdquo Social Science Research 181ndash20

Oliver Christine 1991 Strategic Responses to Institutional Processesrdquo Academy of ManagementReview 46(1)145ndash79

OrsquoReilly Charles A III David F Caldwell and William P Barnett 1989 ldquoWork Group Demo-graphy Social Integration and Turnoverrdquo Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1)21ndash37

Reskin Barbara F Debra B McBrier and Julie A Kmec 1999 ldquoThe Determinants and Con-sequences of Workplace Sex and Race Compositionrdquo Annual Review of Sociology 25335ndash61

Smith Ryan Alan 2001 ldquoParticularism in Control over Monetary Resources at Work An Analysisof Racioethnic Differences in the Authority Outcomes of Black White and Latino MenrdquoWork and Occupations 28(4)447ndash68

Strang David and James N Baron 1990 ldquoCategorical Imperatives The Structure of Job Titles inCalifornia State Agenciesrdquo American Sociological Review 55479ndash95

Tsui Anne S Terri D Egan and Charles A OrsquoReilly III 1992 ldquoBeing Different RelationalDemography and Organizational Attachmentrdquo Administrative Science Quarterly 37(4)549ndash80

Tsui Anne S and Charles A OrsquoReilly III 1989 ldquoBeyond Simple Demographic Effects The Import-ance of Relational Demography in Superior-Subordinate Dyadsrdquo Academy of ManagementJournal 32(2)402ndash24


Warren J A and P J Johnson 1995 ldquoThe Impact of Workplace Support on Work-Family RoleStrainrdquo Family Relations 44163ndash69

Wharton Amy S and James N Baron 1987 ldquoSo Happy Together The Impact of Gender Segrega-tion on Men at Workrdquo American Sociological Review 52574ndash87

Wharton Amy S and Sharon Bird 1996 ldquoStand by Your Man Homosociality Work Groups andMenrsquos Perceptions of Differencerdquo Pp 97ndash114 in Masculinities in Organizations edited byCliff Cheng Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Williams Christine 1995 Still a Manrsquos World Men Who Do Womenrsquos Work Berkeley Universityof California Press

Williams Joan 2000 Unbending Gender Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do about ItNew York Oxford University Press


bridging the border between the domains of work and family Specifically weuse a social relational perspective on the workplace to examine the effects ofsupervisor-employee similarity in raceethnicity gender and caregiving respons-ibilities on employeesrsquo perceptions that their supervisors support both intheir implementation of policies and through their interactions with employeesbridging the border between work and family

Supervisor-Employee Similarity and Bridgingthe Border between Work and Family

Our research is guided by a social relational view of the workplace (Baronand Pfeffer 1994 Martin 1991 McGuire 2002 Wharton and Bird 1996) Thisperspective calls attention to the ways social interactions in the workplacereproduce social inequalities Two assumptions from Baron and Pfefferrsquos (1994)framing of this perspective guide our examination of perceived supervisor sup-port for bridging the border between work and family First ldquopeople perceiveand relate to themselves and others in terms of social categories particularly inorganizations and similar settings in which the amount of detailed interpersonalcontact and information may be limitedrdquo (Baron and Pfeffer 1994193) Peopleuse salient categories to make attributions about one anotherrsquos intentions andactionsmdashjudging those in like categories as more similar and those in differentcategories as more different

A second assumption from the social relations perspective is that ldquosimilarityis an important basis of interpersonal attraction and consequently of socialintegration and cohesionrdquo (Baron and Pfeffer 1994192) This is the homophilyprinciple that socially similar people find each other more attractive find iteasier to communicate and trust one another and develop stronger in-grouprelationships and out-group biases (see McPherson Smith-Lovin and Cook 2001for a general review and Reskin McBrier and Kmec 1999 for a review of theliterature on social similarity and relational demography in organizations)

There is an abundance of empirical evidence that gender race and ethnicstatus similarity with respect to the composition of jobs work groups andorganizations mediate a variety of individual- and organizational-level outcomesin work organizations These include recruiting and hiring (Braddock andMcPartland 1987 Cohen Broschak and Haveman 1998 Mencken and Winfield1999) job assignments (Erickson Albanese and Drakulic 2000) access to pro-motions and job authority (Baldi and McBrier 1997 Cohen et al 1998 Smith2001) job satisfaction and psychological well-being (Fields and Blum 1997Martin and Harkreader 1993 Mueller Finley Iverson and Price 1999 Whartonand Baron 1987 Wharton and Bird 1996) turnover (OrsquoReilly Caldwell andBarnett 1989 Tsui Egan and OrsquoReilly 1992) differentiation and proliferationof job titles (Strang and Baron 1990) and assignment of wages to jobs (Baronand Newman 1989 Bridges and Nelson 1989)









Research Questions


Data and Methods





Dependent Variables







Control Variables










Results



BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

63




Same gender 490 77 33 765 72 71520 517 550 852 742 888

Same race 830 41 26 810 24 28880 275 433 902 247 350






















66ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001

68ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001







BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71












BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES























































Research Questions


Data and Methods





Dependent Variables







Control Variables










Results



BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

63




Same gender 490 77 33 765 72 71520 517 550 852 742 888

Same race 830 41 26 810 24 28880 275 433 902 247 350






















66ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001

68ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001







BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71












BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES


















































Dependent Variables







Control Variables










Results



BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

63




Same gender 490 77 33 765 72 71520 517 550 852 742 888

Same race 830 41 26 810 24 28880 275 433 902 247 350






















66ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001

68ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001







BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71












BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES


















































Control Variables










Results



BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

63




Same gender 490 77 33 765 72 71520 517 550 852 742 888

Same race 830 41 26 810 24 28880 275 433 902 247 350






















66ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001

68ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001







BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71












BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES





















































Results



BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

63




Same gender 490 77 33 765 72 71520 517 550 852 742 888

Same race 830 41 26 810 24 28880 275 433 902 247 350






















66ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001

68ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001







BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71












BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES















































BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

63




Same gender 490 77 33 765 72 71520 517 550 852 742 888

Same race 830 41 26 810 24 28880 275 433 902 247 350






















66ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001

68ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001







BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71












BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES


































































66ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001

68ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001







BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71












BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES















































BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001

68ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001







BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71












BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES















































68ID

EE

WIN

FIE

LD

AN

D B

ET

H R

US

HIN

G




BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001







BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71












BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES















































BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY




p le 05 p le 01 p le 001







BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71












BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES





















































BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

71












BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES



















































BR

IDG

ING

TH

E B

OR

DE

R B

ET

WE

EN

WO

RK

AN

D F

AM

ILY

73








Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES
















































Discussion


















ENDNOTES






REFERENCES




























































ENDNOTES






REFERENCES
















































REFERENCES















































Bridging the Border between Work and Family: The Effects of Supervisor-Employee Similarity

Documents

Transcript of Bridging the Border between Work and Family: The Effects of Supervisor-Employee Similarity