Climate Scale

8/6/2019 Climate Scale

1/17

*' .Academy of Manai^f.'menI Journal2 0 0 1 . Vol . 44. No. 1 . 29-44.

CAREGIVING DECISIONS, WELL-BEING, AND PERFORMANCE:THE EFFECTS OF PLACE AND PROVIDER AS A FUNCTIONOF DEPENDENT TYPE AND WORK-FAMILY CLIMATESELLEN ERNST KOSSEKMichigan State Univers ity

JASON A. COLQUITTUnivers ity of Flor idaRAYMOND A. NOEOhio State Univers ity

This research investigates relationships between caregiving decision s and work-familyoutcomeswell-being, performance in work and family roles, and work-family con-flictoccurring as a fimction of dependent type and work and family climates. Wecompared effects of caregiving decisions regarding place and provider for child andelderly dependents in climates encouraging or discouraging sacrifice and sharingconcerns. Well-being and performance were lowest with in-home elder care by afamily member, in work or family climates that discouraged sharing concerns.

Dnring their careers, most employees will makecaregiving decisions. Caregiving decisions, whichrefer to the selec tion of arrang em ents for the care ofa dependent while the decision maker works, in-volve deciding who provides the care and wherethe care occurs. Caregiving decisions are typicallymade for different types of dependents, snch aschildren and elders. The caregiver role is part ofmost individuals' role repertoires (Barnett, 1998],and the management of dependent caregiving hasheen referred to as the "unexpected career" (Anesh-ensel, Pearlin , Mu llan, Zarit, & Wh itlach, 1995).Just as career management involves making deci-sions and determining how to best operate in one'swork and p ersonal en vironm ents (Hall, 1986), man-aging caregiving involves decision making withinthe parameters of those environments. Researchershave argued that how individuals combine roles isat least as critical an influence on work and familyoutcomes as the num ber of roles they hold (Thoits,1992) and the actual level of demands (Smerglia &Deimling, 1997).Themes prevalent in the work-family literature

The first author wishes to thank Jeff Edwards, NancyRothbard, Leslie de Pietro, and the University of MichiganBusiness School for support of this project while she was avisiting scholar at the Institute for Social Research. AnnMarie Ryan, Linn Van Dyne, Elaine Yakura, and PennyFoster-Fishman of our Michigan State ad hoc research dis-cussion group. Greg Northcraft, and the three anonymoiisreviewers are thanked for their helpful comments.

includ e the im portance of a positive w orkplace cli-mate supporting dependent care arrangements(Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999), the ne ed forstudies to include not only work m easures, but alsofamily measures (Zedeck, 1992), and the belief thatworkers' performance and well-being depend inpart on the nature of dependent care arrangements(Friedman & Galinsky, 1992). Surprisingly, the ef-fects of caregiving arrangements on worker atti-tudes and behaviors have been underexamined(Kossek & Ozek i, 1998, 1999). Moreover, issuessuch as caregiving arrangements, climate, and em-ployee work-family outcomes have received lim-ited empirical integration. The research that hasoccurred has tended to examine these issues inde-pendently, overlooking their interdependence andinteractions.

The purpose of this study was to investigate re-lationships between caregiving decisions and keywork and family outcomes (well-being, perfor-mance in work and family roles, and work-familyconflict) as a function of dependent type and workand family climates. Since well-being and work-family conflict are among the most commonly stud-ied outcomes in the work-family literature (Zedeck,1992), it is imp ortant to better understand how theyrelate to caregiving decisions. In his review, Zedeck(1992) argued for more research examining factorsinfluencing performance in both work and familyroles. Yet only a few studies have been done on thedirect effects of arrangements on job performance,and these have had mixed or null results (e.g., Goff,

29


2/17

M) .'Academy of Management Journal l''ebruar\'Mou nt, & Jamison, 1990; Kossek & Nicho l, 1992).Managerial studies generally have not examinedperformance in the family role, despite its criticalimpact for both home and workplace.Figure 1 shows typical caregiving decisions thatcan be made for two comm on types of depen dents:elders and children. One aspect of a caregivingdecision is choosing where primary care will beprovided (whether in-home or out-of-home). An-other aspect involves w ho prov ides the care (familyor nonfamily). We expected that the effects of care-giving decisions on conflict, performance, andwell-being would d epend on the type of depe ndentcared for. We further expected that relationshipsbetween caregiving decisions and conflict, perfor-mance, and well-being would be moderated by thework and family climates experienced by a care-giver. These climates were also expected to havedirect effects on conflict, performance, and well-being. Below, we further discuss the m ultip le facetsof caregiving decisions, as well as the theoreticalrationale for the relationships shown in Figure 1.

FACETS OF DEPENDENT CAREGIVINGDEOSIONSCaregiving Decisions: Type, Place, and Provider

Caregiving decisions are a fact of life for employ-ees and result in many different arrangements. Forexample, census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 1998a)on the caregiving decisions of employed womenwith children under five years of age show that 33percent of these children are cared for by relativesin the children's homes, 16 percent are cared for byrelatives out of the home, and 5 percent are cared

for by nonrelatives (nannies, babysitters) in thochild ren 's ho mes. Nearly half (46%) receive care bynon relatives in out-of-home locations (such HSchild care centers). Similar variation is also foundfor providers and locations of elder care. Arrange-ments include nursing homes (26%), care b\spouse (15%) or other relative (33%), adult carefacility (12%), and paid nurse or companion (13%)(Kossek, DeMarr, Bac km an, & Kollar, 199 3; U.S.Census Bureau, 1994; 1998b).

These statistics show how much variation occursin the facets of caregiving decisions. Thus, to ac-count for this variation, researchers must distin-guish between types of caregiving decisions by ex-amining potential differences between child andelder care. Moreover, for each type of dependent, i tis critical to examine the effects of variation in theplaces where care occurs, and in the providers ofthat care.Type of dependent: Child or elder. Althoughlittle research has examined how elder and childcare differ in their relations to employee outcomes,managing elder care involves very different deci-sions than managing child care. Elders and chil-dren have reverse caregiving life cycles (Kossek,Noe, & DeMarr, 1999). An elder becomes more;physically dependent as she or he ages, requiringincreased assistance with activities of daily living,such as assistance with eating, dressing, toileting,and bath ing (Stone, Cafferata, & Sangi, 1987 ). El-ders also face rising medical demands and c;risesun til care e nd s wi th death (Sch arlach . Sob el, .


3/17

2001 Kossek. Colquitt. and Noe 31tance with daily activities, and care ends withmaturity.Managing elder care is also more complex thanmanaging child care because it involves the coor-dina tion of man y social services (Friedm an &Galinsky, 1992). Even the caretakers of elders wholive alone in their own homes perform many tasks,involving transportation, finances, doctors, retire-ment decisions, and household duties, for an aver-age of n hou rs a week (Bond, Galinsky, & Swan-berg, 1998). Studies show that those who manageelder care are more likely to experience increaseddepression, anxiety, and poor hea lth (George &Gwyther, 1986; Strawbridge, Wallhagen, Shema, &Kaplan, 1997); family interference with work;stress; and personal and job costs (Gottlieb, Kello-way, & Fraboni, 1994). It is important to note thatmanaging child care has not necessarily been foundto predict negative well-being or harmful work out-comes.Caregiving decisions: Place and provider. Care-giving in the home or by a family member occurswithin an employee's family system and hasunique psychological and behavioral implications.The literature suggests that dependent type willmoderate relationships between work-family out-comes, home/nonhome and family/nonfamily care-giving decisions (Strawbridge et al., 1997).Compared to other arrangements, elder care lo-cated at home or provided by family is likelyto more negatively influence employee outcomes,owing to unpleasant caregiving experiences andstressful family dynamics. As Shonsey observed,"Elder care is not about having babies and raisingchildrenthe positive aspects of life. Elder care isabout the end of life, about aging and dying" (1994:48). Elder care's life cycle should be experiencedmore negatively than the cycle of child care, aselder care culminates in health crises, dying, anddeath. Home- or family-based care (as opposed toarrangements no t involving home or family) makescaregivers less able to separate from the depen-dent's deterioration and emotional or health prob-lems.In many cultures, the prevalent view is that it ishealthy for indiv iduals, as they m ature, to establishseparate identities from their parents. When par-ents become dependent, that clear separation ofidentity is lost (Aneshensel et al., 1995). The em-ployee becomes responsible for managing his/herown w ork and family dem ands , in addition to mak-ing caregiving decisions for parents. This repre-sents a reversal of lifelong patterns of responsibilityand auton om y (Smerglia & Deim ling, 1997), oftenresulting in a loss of self, a decrease in w ell-being,and a decrease in the quality of relations with those

who figure prominently in one's life, such as par-ents (Skaff & Pearlin, 1992). Care in the home or bya family member likely exacerbates these negativeeffects because the employee is an integral part ofthe family system or residence. The greater prox-imity to the dependent's life descent should mag-nify depressing psychological effects, leading toespecially high levels of conflict and especially lowlevels of well-being (George & Gwyther, 1986) andperformance in work and family roles.In contrast, home or family-based child care doesnot involve increased exposure to death or reverselife cycle dynamics. In fact, many workers experi-ence it positively. Research suggests that most em-ployees perceive home and family-based care to beless potentially harmful than other arrangements,as studies historically contrast "children reared athome" with those "reared in child care" (Galinsky& Friedman, 1988). Although not scientifically sup-ported, a pervasive societal myth is that day careposes a risk to healthy child development. Manyemployed parents, especially mothers, experiencetremendous fear that they are harming their chil-dren (Lerner, 1994). Home or family-based care canpartly alleviate th is negative affect by e nabling chil-dren to be cared for within the parents' familyenvironment.Employees using home or family-based care arealso likely to have greater involvement in the na-ture and structuring of caregiving activities thanthose using care not involving home or family.Greater involvement is likely to be experienced asmore positive for child care than for elder care.Most parents want to have authority over the waytheir children are reared throughout the workday(Lerner, 1994). In contrast, caregiving fox elders isnot a role that many employees have anticipated,and a lack of perceived competence in managingelder care is a common problem that m any considerstressful (Aneshensel et al., 1995). Consequently,some indiv iduals may believe that elder care is bestprovided by a professional expert or facility. Forexample, one study found that nearly half of theadults surveyed stated that the experience of caringfor parents made them not want their families tocare for them as depe nd ent s (W allhagen & Straw-bridge, 1995).Care for elders located in the home or the familymay also be more costly for elders than is such carefor children. The economic reality is that home orfamily-based elder care often demands major ex-penses associated with life decay (Abel, 1987).Common expenses include home modificat ions,such as adding barrier-free entrances, special show-ers/baths, elevators, or ground floor bedroom s, andbuying medical equipment (Day, 1985). Thus, se-


4/17

.\(ridernv of Management lournnllecting elder care in the family or home domaincorrelates with decreased well-being, social partic-ipation, and financial resources and with less fa-vorable attitudes about managing work and eldercare demands (Kossek et al., 1993).Taken together, the differences discussed in thissection suggest that the relationship between whoprovides care, where care is provided, and em-ployee well-being, conflict, and performance mayvary by type of dependent.

HypotJjesis 1. Type of dependent will moderatethe relationship between a home and a non-home caregiving decision and employee out-comes (work-family conflict, performance inwork and family roles, and well-being). A homecare arrangement will be more detrimentalwhen the dependent is an elder than when thedependent is a child.Hypothesis 2. Type of dependent will moderatethe relationship between a family and a non-familv caregiving decision and emplovee out-comes (work-family conflict, performance inwork and family roles, and well-being). A fam-ily care arrangement will be more detrimentalwhen the dependent is an elder than w hen thedependent is a child.

THE ROLE OF WORK AND FAMILY CLIMATES

Caregiving decisions represent situational stres-sors that must be examined in an employee's largercontext (Smerglia & Deim ling, 1997). One impor-tant aspect of that context is climate. An employ-ee's work or family climate should impact the con-sequences of caregiving decisions both directly andindirectly (Kossek et al., 1999). Unfortunately, cli-mate has received little attention in the work-family literature. However, Parker and Hall notedthat culture and climate are "ideas that almost begto be used in work-family inqu iry" (1992: 443).Climate is a person-oriented concept that reflectsshared perceptions of "the way things are aroundhere" (Ostroff, 1993; Reichers & Schn eider, 1990).Investigating how an employee's work climate forfamily issues affects outcomes associated withcaregiving decisions is critical, because most em-ployers operate under the assumption that work isthe primary priority in employees' lives (Allen,Parker, & Kourpounadis, 1998), Work-family bene-fits may create new ways of working, but employ-ees who utilize such programs may be negativelyaffected if the climate still encourages old ways ofworking (Perlow, 1995; Thompson et al., 1999).Similarly, investigating the family climate for work

concerns may he critical. Employees need to per-

ceive that their family environments enhance theireffectiveness in managing work and caregiving re-sponsibilities, though little work has been done onthe influences of family climate.Recent research has treated climate as a "content-free" construct that is referenced to the researchquestio n of interest (e.g., Schne ider & Reichers.1983). Researchers speak less of "the climate" andmore of "the climate for something." We exploredcritical dimensions of both work climate and fam-ily climate as direct influences on caregiving deci-sion outcomes. We also explored climates as mod-erators of the effects of dependent caregivingdecisions. Reviewing the climate and work-familyliteratures, we examined a climate for sharing con-cerns (e.g., Thomas & Ganster, 1995) and a climatefor makin g sacrifices (e.g., Kofodimos, 1993).A climate for sharing concerns encourages em-ployees to share concerns about one role whileworking in the other. More specifically, a workclimate for sharing concerns is one where employ-ees can discuss family concerns with supervisorsand peers. A family climate for sharing concerns isone where employees can discuss work concernswith family members. The ability to share concernsabout managing multiple roles helps individualsget feedback on developing caregiving strategiesthat facilitate work-family integration and effectivejoint enactment of roles (Kofodimos, 1993). Onuwould expect that climates allowing individuals to

share concerns from other life domains would \wassociated with less conflict, better performance inwork and family roles, and improved well-being(Adams, King, & King, 1996).A climate for sacrifices encourages employees inone role to make sacrifices to support the other.More specifically, a work climate for making sacri-fices is one in which employees are expected tusacrifice family performance for the sake of workperformance. A family climate for sacrifices is unin which employees are expected to sacrifice workperformance for the sake of family duties. Many

organizations have internal cultures that signal(through values, rewards, and norms) that emplo\ ees should devote increasing time and energy towork, even if such devo tion results in their neglect-ing family life (Kofodim os, 199 3; Th om pso n ot al..1999). Employees are typically expected to restruc-ture family to accommodate work and to leave fam-ily con cerns at hom e wh ile at work. Similarly, fam-ily environments may also vary in the degree towhich members feel able to make family sacrificeir-to support work. We expected that the less an em-ployee's climates required such sacrifices, thulower the levels of work-familv conflict (Adams ti


5/17

2001 Kossek. Colquitt. and Noe 33al., 1996) and the higher the work and family per-formance and well-being.It is important to note that we do not necessarilyexpect levels of the climate dimensions of sharingconcerns and making sacrifices to be in oppositedirections, as the two are different constructs. Peo-ple can feel free to share concerns without neces-sarily expecting to make sacrifices. Indeed, in somecases, people may need to share more concernswhen a climate is making them sacrifice, as thatdemand creates concerns in and of itself.

Hypothesis 3. Work and family climates forsharing concerns will be negatively related towork-family conflict and positively related toperformance in work and family roles andwell-being.Hypothesis 4. Work and family climates forma king s acrifices will be positively related towork-family conflict and negatively related toperformance in work and family roles andwell-being.Although the above section concerns the directeffects of work and family climates, we furtherexamined whether climate moderated the relation-ships between caregiving decisions and key out-comes. Examining climate as a moderating influ-ence is consistent with the fundamental notion thatindivid ual outcomes are a function of person, con-text, and the interaction of the two (Roberts, Hulin,& Rou sseau, 197 8). Research sh ows ca regiving de-cisions are linked to lower levels of well-being andhigher conflict when they are not congruent wdthfamily or work environments (Kossek et al., 1999;Smerglia & Deimling, 1997).Despite their intuitive importance, person-context interaction effects are rarely examined inthe work-family literature. However, two of themost common types of interaction effects in thelarger organizational behavior literature are "en-hancer" effects and "neutralizer" effects (e.g.. How-ell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986; Kerr & Jermier, 1978).Enhancers are moderators that increase the rela-

tionship between an independent variable (such ascaregiving decisions) and a dependent variable(such as well-being). Neutralizers are moderatorsthat decrease the relationship between an indepen-dent and a dependent variable.A critical issue in this study was therefore toexamine the degree to which work and family cli-mates for sharing concerns and making sacrificeswere enhancers or neutralizers. As noted above,home and family-based caregiving decisions differfrom nonhome and nonfamily decisions in manyways, from affective ramifications to involvement

and cost. These differences are less likely to ad-versely affect work-family outcomes when the em-ployee who is making the decisions has the abilityto share concerns and to work through any prob-lems involved in his or her care choices. Thiswould suggest that a climate for sharing concernswould neutralize the effects of caregiving deci-sions. In contrast, such differences seem morelikely to adversely affect outcomes when the em-ployee is expected to make sacrifices in one liferole to fulfill another. Such an individual lackssupport from role stakeholders for working throughdifficulties in enacting the realities of the care de-cisions. This observation suggests that a climate forsacrifices would enhance the effects of caregivingdecisions and thus that the expected negative effectof home care choice and care by a family memberon conflict, performance, and well-being would bestronger under higher levels of sacrifice climates.

Hypothesis 5. Work-family climates will mod-erate the relationship between a home and anonhome caregiving decision and work-familyconflict, performance in work and family roles,and well-being. A home care choice will bemore detrimental where low levels of climatesfor sharing concerns or high levels of climatesfor making sacrifices exist.Hypothesis 6. Work-family climates will mod-erate the relationship between a family and anonfamily caregiving decision and work-family conflict, performance in work and fam-ily roles, and well-being. A family care choicewill be more detrimental where low levels ofclimates for sharing con cerns or high levels ofclimates for making sacrifices exist.We have argued that a home- or a family-basedcaregiving decision will have detrimental relation-ships with conflict, performance, and well-beingwhen the dependent is an elder. We have furtherargued that a home or a family-based caregivingdecision w ill be especially damaging whe n the car-egiver's climates do not encourage sharing con-

cerns but do encourage making sacrifices. Parkerand Hall noted that "by definition, work-familyconcerns are intrinsically concerns about complexperson-situation interactions" (1992; 443). To fur-ther test our predictions, we examined the possi-bility that the combination of a home de cision or afamily care decision, an elderly dependent, and a"bad" climate would be associated with especiallylow levels of performance and well-being and es-pecially high levels of conflict.Hypothesis 7. There will be a three-way inter-action between a home versus a nonhome care-


6/17

34 ot Manaf^emrnt Journalgiving decision, the type of dependent, andwork-family climates. The lowest levels of per-formance in work and family roles and well-being (and the highest levels of work-familyconflict) w ill exist w ith the com bination of ahome decision, an elderly dependent, and ei-ther low climates for sharing concerns or highclimates for sacrifice.Hypothesis 8. There will be a three-way inter-action between a family versus a nonfamilycaregiving decision, the type of dependent, andwork-family climates. The lowest levels of per-formance in work and family roles and well-being (and the highest levels of work-familyconflict) will exist w ith the com bination of afamily decision, an elderly dependent, and ei-ther low climates for sharing concerns or highclimates for sacrifice.

METHODSSample

The final sample for this study consisted of 490employees of a public midwestern university. Thedata were derived from a larger study that exam-ined many facets of work-family issues, such asperso n-env ironm ent fit (cf. Edw ards & Rothbard,1999). Seventy percent of the sample had only chil-dren as depende nts, and 18 percent had only eldersas dependents. Surveys were distributed to a ran-dom sample of 20 percent of the workforce. Thesample was stratified according to age, gender, andjob type. Survey adm inistration yielded a responseof about 30 percent. Respondents ranged in agefrom 21 through 69 years and averaged 40 years.)ust over 66 percent were women, and 85 percentwere Caucasians, with the remainder distributedabout evenly among African Americans, Asians,and a category combining Hispanic, Native Ameri-can, and other ethnicities. Approximately 94 per-cent had completed high school; 64 percent heldbachelor's degrees, and 34 percent had earned ad-vanced professional degrees. Respondents in-cluded professional and administrative workers(28%), clerical workers (18%), faculty members(12%), graduate assistants and postgraduate fel-lows (8%), and hospital ph ysicians, ad ministrators,technicians, and employees holding other miscel-laneous positions (10%). Comparing the initialstatified sample to the final sample showed that theaverage age was about two years higher, the prop or-tion of women was higher, and positions held pri-marily by women (such as clerical jobs) wereslightly overrepresented in the final sample.

The study was conducted in a setting w'here

good-quality child care was available. Thn univer-sity suppo rted an aw ard-winning on-site child caiccenter and had had a manager of family CHri; rrsources for many years. In tho local area, tho cost nicare at a childcare center ranged from S2.8rithrough $5.00 per hour. For eldor care. th(^ avorygchourly cost of a home health care workor raiigiuifrom S13.5O through $15.00. .'Vdult day caro programs wore available.

MeasuresDependent caregiving decision. Caregiving de-cisions for children were assessed with the follow-ing question; "What is the primary' child care ar-rangement for each of your children? By primarywe mean where the child spen ds the most time (notincluding school)." Respondents placed a checkmark next to the option that best described thoirprimary caro arrangement. Options coded as homo-iamily decisions, [n = 197). which described careat home with a family member as the caregivor.included "spouse/partner," and "older sibling ofyour child cares for child," followed up by a ques-tion about whether the older sibling was living inthe home. Options coded as home-nonfamily [n ~31 ; home location, nonfamily caregiver) included"unrelated person comes to your home." Optionscoded as nonhome-family [n 73; outside of home,family member is the caregiver) included "adult

relative cares for child," followed up by a questioninsuring that the caro did not occur in the home.Options coded as nonhome-nonfamily [n 223;outside of home, nonfamily caregiver) included"unrelated provider in their homo," "licensed childcaro center/preschool," and "before/after schoolprogram."Caregiving decisions for elders were assessedwith the following question: "What is the primarytype of eldor caro/disablod caro arrangement youuse?" Options coded as home-family decisions (n -'54) included "adult member of your household

c:ares for oldor." Options coded as homo-nonfamily[n 8) includod "somoono comes tcj caro for ol-derly person in your home," followed up by a ques-tion asking whether the person was or was not LIrelativo. All rospondonts who checked this optionindicated that no rolativos offorod carogiving assis-tanco. Options codod as "nonhomo-family" [n19) included "someone comes to care for elder intheir home," followed up by a question chockingwhether relatives wore the caregivers. Optionscoded as nonhome-nonfamily {n - 85) includod"adult day care center," "nursing home or fosterf;Hro homo," and "someone conies to care tor eldor


7/17

2001 Kossek. Colquitt. and Noe 35in their hom e," followed u p by a question checkingwhether nonrolatives were tho caregivers.Type of dependent. Children were coded 1, andelders were coded 2.Work climate for family role. The level of awork climate for sharing family concerns that wasprosont was assessed with three items (1, "stronglydisagree," to 7, "strongly agree") stating "In mydepartment, it is generally accepted that people:""Might share concerns about their family," "Cantalk about family problems," and "Can got adviceon how to deal with family issue s." A work climatefor making family sacrifices was also assessed withthree item s, stating "In my department, it is gener-ally accepted that people:" "Must take time awayfrom their families to get their work done," "Haveto put their families second to their jobs," and"Need to make work their top priority."

Family climate for work role. To assess the levelof a family climate for sharing work concerns, w-oused three item s (1, "strongly d isagree," to 7,"strongly agree") stating "In my family, it is gener-ally accepted that people:" "Might share concornsabout thoir jobs," "Can talk about work problems,"and "Can get advice on how to deal with workissues." A family climate for work sacrifices wasassessed with "In my family, it is genera lly ac-cepted that people:" "Must take time away fromtheir jobs to spend time w ith the family," "Have toput thoir work second to their families," and "Needto make family their top priority."

Climate Is ofton measured by aggregating indi-vidu als' climate perception s to a higher level, suchas a group or organization level. Although aggrega-tion was possible for work climate, it was not pos-sible for family climate. We therefore kept bothvariables at tho individual level of analysis to keepthem more com parable. It should also be noted thatit is each individual's own perception of tho cli-mate that most influences his or her behavior.Work-family conflict. Wo assessed work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict usingtwo 4-item scales developed by Gutek, Searlo. andKlepa (1991). Work-to-family conflict items in-cluded "After work I come home too tired to dosome of the things I'd like to do." Family-to-workconflict items included "I'm often too tired at workbecause of the things I have to do at home."' (1,"strongly disagree," to 7, "strongly agree").Performance. Family performance was assessedusing a five-item scale (1 , "strongly disagre e," to 7,"strongly agree"). Sample items includod "I amviewed by my family as doing an exceptional job athom e," and "My family thinks w hat I do at home isoutstanding." Work performance was also assessedusing a similar five-item scale with the same an-

chors; sample items included "I am viewed by mysupervisor as an exceptional performer" and "Mysupervisor thinks my work is outstanding." Thework performance items have been validated else-wh ere (see Ashford, Rothba rd, Piderit, & Dutton ,1998) .Well-being. WoU-being was assessed using a 28-item scale reflecting levels of anxiety, irritability,depression, and somatic symptoms (Caplan, Cobb,French, Harrison, & Pinne au, 1980). Items began"How often have you experienced each of theseduring the past month?" (1 , "never," to 7, "almostalways"), and sample items included; "You feltnervous" (assessing anxiety); "You got aggravated"(irritability); "You felt sad" (depression); and "Youwero bothered by your heart beating hard " (somaticsymptoms).Control variables. Demographics were gatheredfor uso as controls. Rospo ndonts in dicate d age, gen-der, marital status, and the number of childrenliving in the home.

RESULTSTho moans, standard deviations, and zero-ordercorrelations for all variables are shown in Table 1.Internal consistencies are show n on the diagonal ofthe correlation matrix. Table 1 shows that a homecare decision was more common among married,male employees with more children at home. Afamily care decision was more common among

younger members of tho same group. Table 1 alsoshows that home and family caro decisions woremoro prevalent for children than for elders.We tested the study's hypotheses using hierar-chical m ultiple regression analysis; Tables 2, 3, and4 show results. Control variables were entered inthe first step of the regressions. The second andthird stops oxamined direct effects of home andfamily caregiving decisions and direct effects ofdepe nden t type . Caregiving decisions had no directeffects, but employees with elderly depen den ts hadsignificantly lower work performanco than employ-ees with child dependents (/3 = -0.17).The fourth step of the regressions examined theextent to which type of dopondont moderated theeffects of caregiving decisions and was used totest Hy poth eses 1 and 2. Resu lts suggest that th erelat ionship botwoen both home and family care-giving decisions and family porformance is mod-orated by type of dependent, as is the relation-ship between the two carogiving docisions andwell-being. The plots of the interactions suggestthat home- and family-based carogiving decisionsare more likely to be associated with lower familyperformance and lower well-being when the do-


8/17

.-Academy of Management Journal KebruarvTABLE 1Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for All Variables"

Variable Mea n s.d. 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Dependent

variables1. Work -tamily 4.41 1.26 .70conflict2. F


9/17

2001 Kossek. Colquitt. and NoeTABLE 2Results of Regression Results for Conflict"

D 37

Work-to-Family ConflictStep

1

234

56

7

VariableA geFemale genderSingleLiving togetherNumber of children at homeHome decisionFamily decisionDependent typeHome decision x typeFamily decision X typeFamily climate for sharingFamily climate for sacrificeWork t;limate for sharingWork climate for sacrificeH o m e H e r i . s i o n X f a m i l v r l i i

Family-to-Work Conflict

. 0 1

. 0 0

. 0 0

. 0 0

.0 1

.14*

.02*

. 0 0

.0 0

.0 0

.0 1

.0 1

P

0.030.01-0 .0 80.000.00-0 .0 1-0 .0 3-0 .0 8

0.080.01-0 .0 10.10*0.000.38*-0 . 73*-0 .0 90.170.020.060.00-0 .2 50.05-0.250.12-0 .1 8-0.21-0 .2 8-0 .5 80.911.24-1 .1 00.610.980.04

.05*

. 0 0

.0 0

. 0 0

.01*

.03*

. 0 1

.0 0

.01*

.01*

. 0 0

. 0 0

-0 .2 1 *0.020.04-0 .0 60.060.00-0 .0 2-0 .040.26-0 .0 8

-0 .0 40.12*-0 .020.17*0.070.06-0 .4 5-0 .1 0-0 .14-0 .0 70.260.130.25-0 .3 9 *-0 .50*-0 .1 7

-0 .7 50.15-0 .1 00.09-0 .4 10.520.60-0 .1 7

910

11

12

Total R'

Home decision x family climate for sacrificeFamily decision X family climate for sharingFamily decision x family climate for sacrificeHome decision x work climate for sharingHome decision x work climate for sacrificeFamily decision x work climate for sharingFamily decision x work climate for sacrificeType X family climate for sharingType X family clima te for sacrificeI'ype X work climate for sharingType X work clim ate for sacrificeHome X typo x family climate for sharingHom(! X type x family climate for sacrificeFamily x type x family climate for sharingFamily x type x family climate for sacrificeHome X type x work climate for sharingHome X type x work climate for sacrificeFamily X type X work climate for sharingFamily X type x work climate for sacrifice

.19* .13 *' After listwise deletion, n = 490.* p < .05

tively related to family performance (/3 = -0.15), andnegatively related to well-being (/3 = -0.11). Thus,Hjrpotheses 3 and 4 received partial support.The seventh and eighth steps of the regressionsexamined the extent to which family and workclimates respectively moderated the effects of care-giving decisions. T hese steps w ere used to test Hy-potheses 5 and 6. Results showed that the relation-ships between a home caregiving decision andwork-to-family conflict and well-being were mod-erated by a family climate for sharing work con-cerns. In addition, the relationship between a fam-ily caregiving decision and well-being was alsomoderated by a family climate for sharing work

concerns. No interactions wero obsorved with afamily climate for work sacrifice or with eitherwork climates. The plots of the significant interac-tions were as predicted, with sample plots shownin Figure 3. A home or a family care decision wasless likely to result in increased work-to-familyconflict or decreased well-being when high shar-ing-concerns climates existed. Thus, Hypotheses 5and 6 received some support.The 9th and 10th stops of the regressions ox-amined interactions between type of dependentand cl imate. Such interactions were not the sub-ject of any explici t hypotheses, but we needed toinclude them in the regression before testing the


10/17

Acadeniv of Management lournal

TABLE 3Results ofRegression Analyses for Performance^

step VariableWork

.0;)*

.0 0

. 02*

.0 0

. 02*

.0 1

.0 1

.0 1

. 0 0

. 02*

.0 1

Performanceli

0.01O.lfi*0.040.000 . 0 8 '0.04O.OS0 . 1 7 *0.200.2(1O.IS*

0.020.24*

0.01- o . 4 ? r0.120.5:)0.14

0.47*-0.11

0.070.12

0 . 3 2

o.2;i-0.02

2.17-1.72*0..581.64*1.28

-0.491.92*O.bO

Family

.03*

.0 0

.0 0

.02*

.11-

.02-

.0 1

. 0 1

. 01 '

.02*

.0 1

. 02-

PerformancKti

().0(>0.10'0.07o.o:i0.070.020.040.030.40*

0.39*0.29*0.14*0.040.1."^*0.120.1.T0.290.3H0.300.2.5

0.030.29'

0 . 1 20.39*O.OH0 . 6 2 'l.f.10.451.B3'U.Of)

0 . 7 11.99*1.01O.B.-)

91 0

1 1

1 2

Total R-

AgeFemale genderSingleLiving togetherNumber of c;hildren at homeHome decisionFamily deri.sionDependent typeHome decision x typeFamily decision x typeFamily climate for sharingFamily climate for sacrificeWork climate for sharingWork climate for sacrificeHome decision K family climate for sharingHome deci.sion X family climate for sacrificeFamily decision x family climate for sharingFamily decision ;< family climate for sacrificeHome decision x work climate for sharingHome decision x work climate for sacrificeFamily decision x work climate for sharingFamily decision x work climate for sacrificeI ype X family climate for sharingType X family climate for sacrificeType X work climate for sharingType X work climate for sacrificeHome X type x family climate for sharingHome X type x family climate for sacrificeFamily x type K family climate for sharingFamily x type x family climate for sacrific:eHome > type x work climate for sharingHome X type x work climate for sacrificeFamily x type X work climate for sharingFamily x type x work climate for sacrifice

.18* . 2 0 *' After list wise deletion, n = 490.

^ p


11/17

2001 Kossak. Colquitt. and Noa 3 9TABLE 4Results of Regression Analyses for Well-Being"

Step Variable Aff P1

234

56

7

8

91 0

1 1

1 2

Total

AgeFemale genderSingleLiying togetherNumher of chi ldren at homeHome decisionFamily decisionDependent t ypeHome decision x typeFamily decision x typeFamily climate for sharingFamily climate for sacrificeWork cHniate for sharingWork climate for sacrificeHome decision x family climate for sharingHome decision x family climate for sacrificeFamily decision x family climate for sharingFamily decision x family climate for sacrificeHome decision x work cl imate for shar ingHome decision x work climate for sacrificeFamily decision x work cl imate for shar ingP'amily decision x work climate for sacrificeTyp e X family clim ate for sharingType X family climate for sacrificeType X work cl imate for shar ingType X work climate for sacrificeHom e X type x family climate for sharingHo me X type x family climate for sacrificeFamily x type x family climate for sharingFamily X type x family clim ate for sacrificeHome X type x work cl imate for shar ingHom e X type x work clim ate for sacrificeFamily x type x work cl imate for shar ingFamily x type x work climate for sacrifice

" Af ter l i s tw i se de l e t i on , n = 4 9 0 .+ p < .10* p < .05

.03*

.0 1

.0 0

.02*

.02*

.06*

.02*

.0 1

.0 0

.0 0

.02*

.02*

.18*

0.07- 0 . 1 2 *0.01

- 0 . 1 0 *0.010.07

-0 .09^- 0 . 0 7- 0 . 4 1 *- 0 . 5 4 *

0.13*-0.07+

0.19*- 0 . 1 1 *- 0 . 4 5 *- 0 . 1 3

0.59*0.24- 0 . 0 6- 0 . 2 4

0.200.17

- 0 . 0 50.100.220.062.19*

- 0 . 4 1- 2 . 6 6 *

0.84- 0 . 0 2- 0 . 7 2- 1 . 7 4 *

1.12

bination of a home or family choice, an elderlydependent, and low (rather than high] cl imatesfor sacrifice.DISCUSSION

The goal of this study was to examine changes inthe relationships betwee n key outcomes of caregiv-ing decisions, such as well-being, performance inwork and family roles, and work-family conflict,occurring as a function of depe nden t type and workand family climates. We found that caregiving de-cisions related to the place and provider of care do,in some circumstances, have important effects onoutcomes traditionally studied by work-family re-

FIGURE 2Samp le Plots of Interactions between CaregivingDecisions and Type of Dependent6.00-1

5.75 -FamilyPerform- 5.50 -ance

5.25

5.U0

-Elder-Child

Noiifamilv Care Family Care5.75 1

5.50

Weil-Being 5.255.00

4.75 Nonhom e Care Home Care

searchers. Specifically, home and family care decisions were more likely to be detrimental (in termsof a caregiving employee's overall performance andwell-being) when the dependent was an elder thanwhen the dependent was a child. We also showedthat home and family care decisions were moredetrimental to work-to-family conflict and well-being when the employee lacked a family climatefor sharing concerns. Moreover, our results suggested that the combination of an elderly dependent and lack of a sharing-concerns climate (eitheat home or at work) made a home or family caredecision particularly damaging to well-being andwork performance. Finally, we showed that workand family climates for sharing concerns and making sacrifices were directly related to well-beingwork and family performance, and work-familyconflict.

Previous work-family research has neglected theactual caregiving decisions employees make andhas examined only direct effects of work-familyvariables. This is the first study to examine howtype of dependent and positive or negative workfamily climates interact with caregiving decisionsthereby taking a useful first step toward examiningthese issues. Our results reinforce the notion thawork-family variables interact in complex waysdemonstrating that research on work-family perfor


12/17

40 of Management louniolFIGURE 3Sample Plots of Interactions between CaregivingDecisions and Climate

B.OOi

5.75Well-Be ing 5.50

5.25 -

5.00

High Fam i ly Cl imatefor Shar ing 'Concerns Low Fami ly Cl imate

for Shar ing" Con cern s

Nontamily Care Family Care5 .0 0 -I

4.75 Work-to-Fami ly 4.50 Conflict

4.25 -

4.00 Nonhome Care Home Care

mance, conflict, and well-being would benefit fromconsideration of the simultaneo us (and not just theindependent) effects of such variahles. Indepen-dently considering the consequences of the who,where, and how of caregiving (or the role of work-family climates) may lead to erroneous conclusionsthat such factors, in and of themselves, are unim-portant. These findings have implications for the-ory and practice and are discussed below.Effects of Dependent Caregiving Decisions

Traditionally, organizational studies of depen-dent care have considered elder care and child careas similar or have focused primarily on child care(Parker & Hall, 1992). Our re sults suggest that re-searchers studying the consequences of dependentcaregiving decisions should treat elder care andchild care decisions as separate phenom ena. F uturestudies need to acknowledge that managing eldercare interacts with variables to influence employeeoutcomes more negatively than does managingchild care, especially when caregiving is at home orby a family member. Unlike work relationships,family and home relationships are marked by anabsence of formal definitions of supervisory rolesand job responsibilities and a less explicit divisionof labor (Zedeck, 1992). These issues become prob-lematic with home or familv elder care choices.

FIGURE 4Sample Plots of Three-Way Interactions

Well-Being

5.75 n

5.50-

5.25

5.00-

4.75

-Eld er Dependent wi th High 'Fami ly Shar ing Concerns i-E lder impendent wi th Low 1Fami ly Shar ing Concerns-Chi ld D epend ent w i th High IFamily Shar in g Concern.s i-C^hild De pen den t wi lh Low ,Fam ily Sh arin g Cloiujerns j

Nonfam ilv Care Familv Care5 . 5 0 -

5.25

Well-Being 5.00 -

4.75 -

4.50N o n h o m e C a r e Ho7ne Care

given their negative cost, involvement, and psycho-logical ramifications.Researchers should explore whether these find-ings could be attributed to a greater expectationthat the employee using home or family care mustengage in more unpaid caregiving work than thoseusing nonhome or nonfamily care. Future researchshould investigate whether employees primarilyusing home or family care may experience greaterpressure to provide respite for family or home pro-viders. Scholars have shown that the more oneparticipates in caregiving, the less one is able tocommit to an organization, which can negativelyinfluence performance (Thompson et al., 1999).The time or ability to perform other home roles,such as housekeeping or spouse relations, is alsoreduced. Put simply, employees using home orfamily care may have a longer "second shift" (e.g..Hoch schild & Mach ung, 1989); or they m ay per-ceive pressure to take on such a longer shift.


13/17

2001 Kossek. Colquitt. and \'oe 41Effects of Work and Family Climates

To date, relatively few work-family studies havestudied the effects of climate on work and familyoutcomes. More research has centered on the ef-fects of employer-offered formal work policies suchas flexible schedules or referral services (Thomas &Ganster, 1995). Moreover, studies that have exam-ined informal influences like climate have assessedonly direct effects, such as the degree to which awork climate is unsupportive of the family role(Thompson et al., 1999). Our results suggest thatmore attention n eeds to be paid to additional cross-domain aspects of climate, both positive ones, likethe ability to share concerns about the family rolewhen at work and vice-versa, and negative ones,like having to make sacrifices in one role to fulfillanother. Just as the social support literature showsthat instrumental and emotional support have dif-ferent relationships with key outcomes, our resultsshow that specific dimensions of climate (that is,sharing concerns and making sacrifices) have dif-fering effects on the relationship between caregiv-ing decisions and employee well-being, conflict,and performance. We did find a negative correla-tion of .34 between the two work climate dimen-sions, but we did not find a similar negative corre-lation between the two family climate dimensions.This observation suggests individuals can feel freeto share concerns with family members about theirwork roles without necessarily perceiving theyhave to make sacrifices in their work roles in orderto meet their family role demands.

Our results emphasized that a home- or a family-based caregiving decision resu lted in less detrimentaloutcomes where climates for sharing concerns werepresent. Such climates also had favorable direct rela-tionships with outcomes. These findings highlightthe need to identify the conditions tinder which em-ployees perceive they are able to discuss their workroles with their families and their family roles withtheir coworkers. Climates supporting sharing con-cerns about one's family w hile at work or about one'sjob wh ile with family are necessary to directly benefitas well as enhance th e positive consequences of em-ployees' caregiving decisions. Indeed, low levels ofsharing-concerns climates were especially damagingwhen home or family care was used with an elderlydepen dent, as evidenced by oiu: three-way interac-tion results.

We found less support for our expectation thatwork and family climates for making sacrificesmoderated the effects of caregiving decisions. Ourresults did not uncover any two-way interactionsbetween caregiving decisions and climates for sac-rifice, and our three-way interaction results did not

support our predictions. Perhaps work and familyperformance is lowest with the combination of ahom e or family choice, an elderly dep ende nt, and alow climate for sacrifice because the employee maynot be motivated to do the types of constructiveactions that reconcile conflicting role demands.Although no influence was formally hypothesizedresults did show that the relationship between a family climate for work sacrifice and family-to-work conflict was higher when th e depen dent w as a child thanwhen the dependent was an elder. Similarly, the relationsh ip betw een a work clima te for family sacrificand family performance was more negative in suchcases. Additionally, the relationship between a workclimate for sharing family concerns and family-towork confiict was less negative when the dependenwas a child. Thus, child dependents seemed to enhance the effects of "bad climates" and neutralize theeffects of "good climates."Although the moderating influence of sacrificeclimates remains unclear, our results do stronglysuggest that such climates directly harm outcomesThese results show the need for researchers, managers, and family members to further examine thepotentially negative effects of individuals' perceptions that caregiving decisions are made in winlose contexts. Such contexts may involve circumstances in which employees believe they are forcedto make a less than desirable caregiving decision inorder to be seen as valuable. Understanding thecomplex conditions that help create climates tha

"end the war between work and family" (Senge1990: 306) is clearly an important fiiture challengeStudy Limitations

Some limitations should be noted. The fact thathis study was conducted in an organization thahad high-quality employer-supported child careavailable makes it a conservative test of the effectsof child care. Future studies might examine contexts in which the availability of good child care islower. We also did not directly measure the costreliability, or quality of care (beyond our measureof family performance). Previous research hasshown that cost is highly correlated with familybased care, which is predominantly not paid for(Bergmann, 1997). Previous research has also indicated that reliability is correlated with family careas studies show that families are more likely toexpand caregiving hours to help with needs. Stud-ies have indicated that the more that employeeshave family help with caregiving when their children are sick, the fewer problems they have ar-rangements (Kossek, 1990).Care quality is often difficult to measure using


14/17

42 .'\(,Tjf/fimv of Management Journalself-report employee data. Employees with caregiv-ing responsibilities tend to not always have a goodunderstanding of the characteristics of high-qualitychild care. For example, a common myth is thatcare by a stay-at-home m other is the high est-qualitycare (Lerner, 1994). However, research shows thatone cannot assume that a child who stays at homewith a mother or family member is receiving opti-mal care (Lerner, 1994). Compounding this prob-lem is the fact that parents tend to rate their ar-rangements as higher in quality than do experts(Phillips, 1987). To deal with the se issues, in futurework on caregiving decisions researchers shouldconsider using a multidisciplinary research team ofexperts to measure quality and outcomes for boththe dependents and other family members.Our results were generally stronger for the per-formance and well-being outcomes than for thework-family conflict outcomes. These findings areconsistent with Greenhaus's (1988) call for moreresearch distinguishing between psychological roleconflict and behavioral criteria. Future studiesneed to continue to include multiple outcomes,because feeling stressed ahout managing dual roles(conflict) is a different construct from role perfor-mance or overall well-being. Work-family policies(for instance, flextime, on-site care center) may re-duce time-based conflicts, but they do not neces-sarily reduce affective reactions related to percep-tions of role stress (Bohen & Viveros-Long, 1981;Goff et al., 1990). What appears to matter more forrole conflict perceptions is not so much the type ofarrangement used, but the satisfaction with thecaregiving arrangements (Goff et al., 1990). Futurestudies should measure satisfaction with arrange-ments.This study captured the type of care being pro-vided but did not capture whether the dependentscared for required assistance in the activities ofdaily living. Such activities have generally onlybeen examined in the elder care literature. Thechild care literature tends to mainly assess only ageor age group. Future research might also includemeasures of instrumental (for instance, social,financial) and direct (for instance, eating, toileting)activities of daily living for both child and elderdependents. Measuring these would allow one toget a clearer picture of the types of caregiving de-mands an employee is managing and would alsoallow for better measurement of caregiving involv-ing individuals with special needs, such as handi-capped children or disabled spouses.Finally, this study used cross-sectional data.Caregiving is dynamic, and levels of responsibilitymay change over time and may eventually cease.Few studies have examined how caregiving and

work linkages shift over the career life cycle or thelife stage of the individuals and/or couples studied.The impact of work on family and vice versa maydiffer as a function of whether one is starting out ina career (or a family) or is attempting to main tain analready achieved position.

ConclusionDespite these limitations, this study provides anintegrative approach to guide future research in thework-family domain. Such an approach is neededbecause role performance and well-being (as well asorganizational outcomes such as turnover or absen-teeism) are likely influenced by the type of depen den tan employee has to care for, what caregiving deci-sions are made, and what kinds of work or familyclimates those decisions are made in. Examining anyof these facets in isolation lead s to imde restimation ofthe complexity of these phenomena.

REFERENCESAbel, E. K. 1987. Love is not enough: Family ceure of thefrail elderly. Washington. DC: American Public-Health Association.Adams, G. A.. King, L. A., & King, D. W. 1996. R elation-ships of job and family involvement, family socialsupport, and work-family conflict with job and lifesatisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81:

411-420.Allen, T., Parker, L., Kourpounadis, A. 1998. Walkingthe family-friendly talk: Developm ent, family so-cial support, and work-family conflict with job andlife satisfaction. Paper presented at the NationalSociety of Industrial/Organizational Psychologymeetings, Dallas.Aneshensel, S., Pearlin, L., Mullan, [., Zarit, S.. Whit-latch, C. 1995. Profiles in caregiving: Une xpectedcareer. Boston: Academic Press.Ashford, S. J.. Rothbard, N. P., Pid erit, S. K., & Dutton.J. E. 1998. Out on a limb: The role of context and

impression management in selling gender-equity is-sues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 23-57Barnett, R. 1998. Toward a review and reconceptualiza-tion of the work/family literature. Genetic, Social,and General Psychology Monographs, 124: 1-50.Bergmann. B. 1997. Work-family policies and equalitybetween women and m en. In F. Blau & R. Ehrenberg(Eds.), Gender eind family issues in the workplace:277-279. New York: Russell Sage.Bohen, H., & Viveros-Long, A. 1981. Balancing jobs andfamily life: Do flexible schedules really help? Phil-adelphia: Temple University Press.Bon d. J.. Galinsky , E., & Sw anbe rg, ). 199R. The 1997


15/17

2001 Kossek. Colquitt. an d Noenational study of the changing workforce. New-York: Families and Work Institute.

Caplan, R., Cobb, S., French, J., Harrison, R., & Pinneau.S. 1980. Job demands and worker health: Maineffects and occupational differences. Ann Arbor,MI: Institute for Social Research.Day, A. T. 1985. Who cares? Demographic trends chal-

lenge family care for the elderly. Population Trendsand Public Policy, 9: 1-17.Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 1999. Work and familystress and well-being: An examination of person-environment fit in the work and family domains.Organizational Behavior and Hum an DecisionProcesses: 77: 85-129.Friedm an, D., & Galinsky, E. 1992. Work and familyissues: A legitimate business concern. In S. Zedeck(Ed.), Wo rk, families, and organizations: 168-207.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Galinsky , E., & Friedm an, D. 1988. Investing in q uality

child care: A report for AT & T. In F. Winfield (Ed.),The work and family sourcebook: 125-1 42. Green-vale, NY: Panel.George, L. K., & Gwy ther, L. P. 19 86. Caregiver w ell-being: A multidimensional examination of familycaregivers of demented adults. Gerontologist, 26 :253-259.Goff, S., M ount, M., & Jamison, R. 1990. E mployer-supported child care, work-family conflict, and ab-senteeism: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 43:793-809.Gottleib, B., Kelloway, K., Fraboni, M. 1994. Aspects of

eldercare that place an employee at risk. Gerontolo-gist, 34 : 815- 821 .Greenhaus, J. 1988. The intersection of work and familyroles: Individual, interpersonal and organizationalissues. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,3: 23-44 .Gutek, B ., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. 19 91. Rational v ersusgender role explanations for work-family conflict.Journa l of Applied Psycho logy, 76: 560-5 68.Hall, D. T. 1986. An overview of current career devel-opme nt theory, research, and practice. Career de-velopment in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. 1989. The second shift:Working parents and the revolution at home. NewYork: Viking.How ell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. 1986. Moderatorvariables in leadership research. Academy of Man-agement Review, 11: 88-102.Kerr. S., & Jermier, J. M. 1978. Substitutes for leadership:Their meaning and measurement. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 22: 375-40 3.Kofodimos, J. 1993. Balancing act. San Francisco:Jossev-Bass.

Kossek, E. 1990. Diversity in child care assistance needsEmployee problems, preferences, and work-relatedoutcomes. Personnel Psychology, 43: 769-791.Kossek, E., DeMarr, B., Backman, K., & KoUar, M. 1993Assessing em ployees' emerging elder care needs andreactions to depen dent care benefits. Public Personnel Management Journal, 22: 617-638.Kossek, E. E., & Nicho l, V. 1992. The effects of em ployersponsored child care on employee attitudes and per-formance. Personnel Psychology, 45: 485-509.Kossek, E., Noe. R., & DeMarr, B. 1999. Work-family rolsynthesis: Individua l, family, & organizational determinants . International Journal of Conflict Resolu-tion, 10: 102-129.Kossek, E., & Ozeki, C. 1998. Work-family conflict, polcies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for OB/HR research. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83: 139-149.Kossek, E., & Ozeki, C. 1999. Bridging t he work-family

policy and productivity gap: A literature reviewInternational Journal of Community, Work, andFamily, 2(1): 7-30.Lerner, J. 1994. Working women and their familiesThousan d Oaks, CA: Sage.Ostroff, C. 1993. The effects of climate and personalinfluences on individual behavior and attitudes inorganizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56: 56-90 .Parker, V., & Hall, D. T. 1992. Con clusion s: E xpan dingthe domain of family and work issues. In S. Zedeck(Ed.), Work, family and organizations: 432-451San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Perlovv. L. 1995. Putting t he wo rk back into work/fam ilyGroup and Organization M anagement, 20: 227239.Phillips, D. A. 1987. Quality in child care: What doethe research tell us? Washington, DC: NationaAssociation for the Education of Young Children.Reicbers, A., & Schneider, B. 1990. Climate and cultureAn evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.)Organizational climate and culture: 5-39. SanFrancisco: Jossey Bass.Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rouss eau. D. M. 1978

Developin g a n interdisciplinary science of organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Scharlach, A., Sobel, E., & Roberts, R. 1991. Em ploymenand caregiver strain: An integrative model. Gerontologist, 31: 778-787.Senge, P. M. 1990. Ending the war between work andfamily. The fifth discipline. New York: DoubledayShonsey, M. 1994. Eldercare support bits its stride in'90s. Employee Benefit Plan Review, 49(4): 48 -49 .Skaff, M. M., & Pearlin, L. I. 1992. Caregiving: Role engulfment and loss of self. Gerontologist, 32: 656664.


16/17

44 Arademv of Managomont journulSmerglia, V., & Deimling, G. 1997. Care-related decision-making satisfaction and caregiver well-being in fam-ilies caring for older members. Gerontologist, 37:658.Ston e, R., Cafferata, G., & Sangl, J. 1987. Caregivers of thofrail elderly: A national profile. Gerontologist, 27 :6 1 6 - 6 2 6 .Strawbridge, W. J.. Wallhagen, M.. Shema, S., & Kaplan,G. 1997. New burdens or more of tbe same? Compar-ing grandparent, spouse , and adult-child caregivers.Gerontologist, 37: 505-510.Thoits, P. A. 1992. Identity structures and psychologicalwell-being: Gender and marital status comparisons.Social Psychology Quarterly, 55: 236-256.Thom as, L., & Ganster. D. 1995. Impact of family sup-portive work variables on work-family conflict andstrain: A control perspective. Journ al of AppliedPsychology, 80: 6-15 .Thom pson, C , Beauvais, L.. & Lyness, K. 1999. Whenwork-family benefits are not enough: The influenceof work-family culture on benefit utilization, organi-zational attachment, and work-family conflict. Jour-nal of Vocational Behavior, 54 : 392-41.^.U.S. Census Bureau. 1994. Handbook on aging Ameri-cans. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.U.S. Census Bureau. 1995. Bureau of Census statisticalbrief: Sixty-five plus in the United States. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Available at http://\\n,vw.census.gov/socdemo/\,v\v\v/agehrief.hlmLU.S. Census Bureau, 1998. Num ber of preschoolers of

employed mothers in primary child care arrange-ments. Wa.shington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Wallhagen, M. I., & Strawbridge, W. I. 1995. My parent-no t myself: Contrasting tbemes in family care. Jour-nal of Aging H ealth, 7: 552-572.Zedeck, S. 1992. Introduction: Exploring the domain ut

work and family conc erns. In S. Zodeck (Ed.), Work,families, and organizations: 1-32. San Francisco:lossev-Bass.Ellen Ernst Kossek is a professor of human resourcemanagement and organizational behavior at the Scbool ofLabor and Industrial Relations at Michigan State Univer-sity. She earned her Ph.D. in organizational behavior atYale University. Her research interests include the orga-nizational and human resource management implica-tions of work and family interaction, human resourcestrategy, and the virtual employment relationship.Jason A. Colquitt is an assistant professor of managemeniat the Warrington College of Business Administration attbe University of Florida. He earned his Ph.D. at Michi-gan State University. His research interests include orga-nizational justicn. team effectiveness, and training moti-vation.Raymond A. Noe is the Robert and Anne Hoyt Desig-nated Professor of Management at the Ohio State L'niver-sity. He received his Ph.D. in psychology from MichiganState University. His current research interests includi^training and employee development and antecedents (ilteam effectiveness.


17/17

Climate Scale

Documents

Transcript of Climate Scale