JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR
ARTICLE NO.
48, 275–300 (1996)
0025
Work and Family Variables, Entrepreneurial Career
Success, and Psychological Well-Being
SAROJ PARASURAMAN, YASMIN S. PUROHIT,
AND
VERONICA M. GODSHALK
Department of Management, Drexel University
AND
NICHOLAS J. BEUTELL
Hagan School of Business, Iona College
The study examines the influence of work and family variables on the career success
and psychological well-being of 111 men and women entrepreneurs. The results show
that work-domain variables account for significant variation in time commitment to
work, whereas family-domain variables explain substantial variation in time commitment to family. Time commitment to work and time commitment to family play an
important role in mediating the effects of gender, work and family characteristics, and
role demands on work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict. These two types
of work–family conflict in turn mediate the effects of time commitment to work and
family and selected work and family variables on entrepreneurs’ career success and
life stress. Implications of the findings and directions for further research are discussed.
q 1996 Academic Press, Inc.
In the context of widespread restructuring and downsizing of large Fortune
500 companies, and the reduced opportunities for career advancement in the
corporate sector, entrepreneurship has become an increasingly attractive career alternative. This is reflected in the accelerated rate of new business
venture formation in the United States during the last decade, particularly of
businesses owned and operated by women (Main, 1990; Scott, 1986). Of the
twelve million small businesses in the United States, 30% are owned and
operated by women, and the proportion is growing (Goffee & Scase, 1985;
Greenhaus and Callanan, 1994; National Foundation for Women Business
The authors thank Patricia Peacock and Samuel Rabinowitz for their help in data collection
for this study. They also deeply appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions made by
the editor and the two anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Address
correspondence and reprint requests to: Dr. Saroj Parasuraman, Department of Management,
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
275
0001-8791/96 $18.00
Copyright q 1996 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
276
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
Owners Report, 1992). Greenhaus and Callanan (1994) have identified a
number of factors that distinguish entrepreneurial careers from the more traditional careers of organizational employees. These include personal risk of
failure, higher degree of personal commitment to the success of the firm, a
lower degree of structure, predictability, and support as well as the need to
perform multiple functions. The increased influx of women and men into
entrepreneurial careers highlights the need to examine entrepreneurs as a
distinct occupational group in order to understand the nature of their work
experiences, the pressures and satisfactions of owning and operating a business, and the factors that contribute to their career success and well-being.
Research on organizationally employed men and women has demonstrated
the interdependence of work and family roles (Gutek, Nakamura, & Nieva,
1981), and emphasized the importance of examining both work- and familydomain variables in understanding the determinants of career success and
role satisfaction (Bedeian, Burke, & Moffet, 1981; Frone, Russell, & Cooper,
1992; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992; Parasuraman, Greenhaus, & Granrose, 1992). Although studies on entrepreneurship have acknowledged the
potential constraints on business growth and success arising from conflicts
between work and family demands (Loscocco, Robinson, Hall, & Allen, 1991;
Stoner, Hartman & Arora, 1990), the role of work and family variables as
they relate to the career success and psychological well-being of entrepreneurs
has not yet been explored.
Comparative studies have shown that entrepreneurs enjoy somewhat greater
freedom, autonomy, and opportunity for self-fulfillment than organizationally
employed men and women (Eden, 1975; Mannheim & Schiffrin, 1984;
Naughton, 1987). However, Eden (1975) reported that there were no differences in satisfaction and psychological well-being between entrepreneurs and
organizational employees. Other research indicates that despite the freedom
implied in owning their businesses, entrepreneurs work long hours (Hornaday & Aboud, 1987), experience work–family conflict, and are susceptible
to stress reactions (Cooper & Dunkelberg, 1986; Kets de Vries, 1988; Stoner
et al., 1990). This underscores the need to examine the work and family
characteristics and experiences of men and women entrepreneurs, and their
effects on entrepreneurs’ career success and well-being.
Studies on entrepreneurs have adopted a limited view of success, focusing
almost exclusively on their business success as indexed by ‘‘hard’’ measures of
firm performance, (e.g., return on sales, sales growth, and return on assets)
(Chaganti & Schneer, 1994; Kalleberg & Leicht, 1991; Loscocco, et al., 1991).
With limited exceptions (Chay, 1993), these studies have generally not explored
the ‘‘softer,’’ more personally defined criteria of success that reflect the internal
career. The careers literature suggests that these include psychological indicators
of success and well-being in both work and family domains, such as job satisfaction, career satisfaction, marital adjustment, family satisfaction, and life stress
(Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994; Peluchette, 1993; Schein, 1978).
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
277
The literature on entrepreneurs shows that men and women start businesses
for many of the same reasons, prominent among which are the need for
achievement, autonomy, and flexibility (Bowen & Hisrich, 1986; Brenner,
Pringle, & Greenhaus, 1991; Cromie, 1978; Moore, Buttner & Rosen, 1992;
Quinn & Staines, 1978; Waddell, 1983). Women entrepreneurs, in particular,
view the freedom and flexibility offered by business ownership as facilitating
the pursuit of active careers and family roles simultaneously (Bowen & Hisrich, 1986; Kaplan, 1988; Main, 1990). Greenhaus and Callanan (1994) have
pointed out, however, that the relation between entrepreneurship and family
obligations is paradoxical. Theoretically, entrepreneurs are their own bosses,
enjoy greater personal freedom than organizational employees, and have the
flexibility to modify their work schedules to fulfill family commitments. In
reality, however, this freedom is bounded by their responsibility for the survival and economic success of the enterprise. Success usually entails escalating business demands that can diminish the time available to fulfill family
role responsibilities (Goffee & Scase, 1985; Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994;
Hornaday & Aboud, 1987; Loscocco et al., 1991; Mannheim & Schiffrin,
1984). On the other hand, heavy family responsibilities limit the entrepreneur’s ability to devote time and energy to the enterprise.
Gender has long been assumed to influence the allocation of time and
energy to the competing role demands of work and family (Pleck, 1977;
Pleck, Staines, & Lang, 1980). Early research on gender differences in commitment to the work role tended to be descriptive and atheoretical. Recent
theoretical formulations of work and family linkages propose that individuals’
investment in work and family roles can be explained in utilitarian terms
based on rational models of decision making, gender-role congruence, and
the psychological importance of the two roles (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991;
Lobel, 1991; O’Driscoll et al., 1992). Thus, it is necessary to examine the
role of gender in influencing the time devoted to work and family, and the
consequences of this for entrepreneurs’ career success and well-being.
The present study seeks to address several gaps in the research on entrepreneurial careers. First, it examines the relations of gender, work, and family
variables with entrepreneurs’ personal career success and psychological wellbeing in both the work and family domains. Focusing on the internal career,
the study examines three indicators of entrepreneurial success and well-being:
career satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life stress. Moreover, the study
seeks to understand the mechanisms or processes that link work and family
variables with career success and well-being among entrepreneurs, and to see
if they are similar to the findings relating to organizationally employed women
and men. Specifically, it investigates the role of time commitment to work
and time commitment to family respectively as intervening variables linking
work and family characteristics and role demands with work–family conflict.
Recent conceptual refinements in the definition of work–family conflict
emphasize the need to recognize the bidirectional nature of work–family
278
FIG. 1.
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
Conceptual model of work and family variables and entrepreneurial career success.
conflict (Frone et al., 1992; Gutek et al., 1991; O’Driscoll et al., 1992), and
to distinguish between work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict.
Thus, we examine work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict as
second-level, intervening variables linking work demands and family role
responsibilities with entrepreneurs’ well-being. In summary, the present study
examines the role of time commitment to work and family, and work–family
conflict in mediating the relations of gender, work and family characteristics
and role demands with entrepreneurs’ career success, family satisfaction, and
life stress.
The variables in the study and the pattern of relationships proposed among
them are summarized in Figure 1. Gender, work-domain variables, and familydomain variables are expected to be directly related to time commitment to
work and time commitment to family. These two variables in turn are posited
to influence work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict, and through
them the career satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life stress experienced
by entrepreneurs. Thus, time commitment to work and time commitment to
family are expected to play a mediational role, linking gender and the antecedent work and family-domain variables to the two types of work–family conflict. Similarly, work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict are expected to mediate the relation of time commitment to work and family respectively with the three indicators of well-being. Based on prior research we
also expect that work- and family-domain variables will have direct effects
on the two types of work–family conflict and the three outcome measures.
The rationale for the variables selected and the hypothesized pattern of relations among them are discussed in the following sections.
Previous research on work–family dynamics has treated gender as both an
independent variable directly related to time commitment to work and time
commitment to family (Frone et al., 1992; Gutek et al., 1991), work–family
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
279
conflict (Bedeian et al., 1988), and as a moderator of the relationship of role
demands with well-being (Gutek et al., 1991; Parasuraman et al., 1992).
Greenhaus, Parasuraman, Granrose, Rabinowitz, & Beutell, (1989) found that
women professionals work fewer hours per week and rate their career as
having lower priority than that of their partner. Gender asymmetries persist
in the participation of men and women in home maintenance and child care,
and women still bear primary responsibility for managing family-role demands in addition to their work-role demands (Lewis & Cooper, 1988; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1993). Consequently, women entrepreneurs have substantially less time available for their businesses and experience more conflict
between work and family than their male counterparts (Longstreth, Stafford, &
Maudlin, 1987; Mannheim & Schiffrin, 1984). As a result, they are more
likely than men to spend fewer hours at work or to choose part-time work
(Cromie, 1978; Main, 1990).
Two theoretical perspectives have been proposed concerning the relationships among gender, work and family role demands, time commitment to work
and family, and work–family conflict. According to the ‘‘rational approach’’
(Gutek et al., 1991), the amount of time devoted to work and family roles
influences work–family conflict, and the direction of role interference (i.e.,
the level of perceived work-to-family conflict, and family-to-work conflict).
Thus, the greater the time commitment to work, the greater the perceived
work-to-family conflict, and the greater the time commitment to family, the
greater the perceived family-to-work conflict (O’Driscoll et al., 1992). On
the other hand, the ‘‘gender-role perspective’’ suggests that time allocated to
role demands that are consistent with traditional gender-role expectations will
be less strongly related to the two types of work–family conflict than time
allocation that is incongruent with such norms. Although the gender-role
perspective has received some support, stronger support has been reported
for the rational hypothesis (Gutek et al., 1991; O’Driscoll et al., 1992). Based
on gender-role expectations and previous research, we propose that men entrepreneurs will display less time commitment to family and higher time commitment to work than women entrepreneurs. In terms of the rational approach
(Gutek et al., 1991) discussed earlier, entrepreneurs who display heavy time
commitment to work are likely to experience greater work-to-family conflict.
Conversely, individuals who invest high levels of time and energy in the
family role are likely to experience greater family-to-work conflict. Therefore,
time commitment to family is hypothesized to be positively related to familyto-work conflict.
We examined autonomy, schedule inflexibility, work-role overload, and
job involvement as relevant work-domain variables likely to influence time
commitment to work and family, work–family conflict, and career success
and well-being. Autonomy refers to the degree of freedom available on the job,
and is a primary motivator in the choice of entrepreneurial careers (Brenner et
al., 1991; Eden, 1975; Wortman, 1987). Insofar as autonomy increases per-
280
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
ceived control over situations, it can reduce the perceived severity of workrole stressors (Parasuraman & Alutto, 1981, 1984) and work–family conflict
(Greenhaus & Kopelman, 1981). Greenhaus et al. (1989) found autonomy to
be negatively related to time-based work–family conflict among women, and
to strain-based work–family conflict among men. Autonomy has also been
reported to be associated with increased job satisfaction and decreased felt
stress (Parasuraman & Alutto, 1984). In the case of entrepreneurs, the greater
perceived control implied by autonomy may enable them to structure their
work in a manner that accommodates their family responsibilities, delegate
responsibility for certain work-related tasks, or be more efficient in accomplishing them, thereby making time for dealing with family role demands, and
minimizing or reducing work–family conflict (Greenhaus et al., 1989;
Quinn & Staines, 1978).
Entrepreneurs, however, do not enjoy unfettered autonomy. Their degrees
of freedom may be limited by the characteristics of the business in which
they are engaged. Certain deadline-driven and/or client-centered businesses
may involve schedule constraints that exacerbate work-role pressures, and
reduce the time available to devote to family-role demands. Schedule inflexibility represents a structural source of interference between work and family
that makes it difficult to devote the time needed to fulfill family responsibilities
(Bowen & Hisrich, 1986; Kaplan, 1988). Business-related travel may also
add to schedule inflexibility. Thus schedule inflexibility reduces the degrees
of freedom available to entrepreneurs in dealing with competing role demands
(Loscocco & Roschelle, 1991; Pleck et al., 1980; Quinn & Staines, 1978).
Although autonomy and schedule inflexibility are correlated, they are conceptually and empirically distinct (Greenhaus et al., 1989). Thus, autonomy and
schedule inflexibility are likely to have opposite effects on time commitment
to work and family. Despite the observation that a majority of men and
women rank work second in importance to family, work demands usually take
precedence over family-role demands. Autonomy is expected to be positively
related to time commitment to work and family. Conversely, schedule inflexibility is expected to be associated with increased time commitment to work
and decreased time commitment to family.
Work-role overload refers to the perceived magnitude of work-role demands, and the feeling that there are too many things to do and not enough
time to do them (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pineau, 1975;
Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus et al., 1989). The myriad tasks involved in starting and operating one’s own business, the need to perform
multiple functions concurrently, and the demands and pulls of different constituencies are likely to be reflected in perceptions of role overload
(Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994). Work-role overload is hypothesized to be
associated with increased time commitment to work and decreased time commitment to family.
Job involvement, which refers to the psychological involvement in and
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
281
importance of work to the individual, represents an internal or self-induced
source of work-role pressures. Job involvement influences the amount of
energy invested in the work role, and it has been found to be positively related
to conflict between work and family roles (Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985; Wiley, 1987). Greenhaus et al. (1989) found job involvement
to be associated with increased time-based and strain–based work-family
conflict among women. According to Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), high
levels of psychological involvement lead to increased energy and time devoted
to the work role, thereby limiting the time available for the family role.
Therefore, job involvement is expected to be positively related to time commitment to work and negatively related to time commitment to family.
We included parental demands, instrumental, and informational or emotional support and family involvement as salient variables in the family domain that can influence time commitment to work and time commitment to
family, and thereby career and family outcomes. Parenthood and the presence
of children greatly increase the time demands of the family role, and have
been identified as primary sources of family-role stress that can have adverse
effects on the well-being of mothers, irrespective of their employment status
(Lewis & Cooper, 1977, 1988) and fathers (Benin & Nienstedt, 1985). Parental demands refers to the extent of responsibility for child care and housework
borne by entrepreneurs, which have important implications for the time available to devote to business and the work role. The extensiveness of parental
demands is likely to depend upon a number of factors, but most importantly
on the presence or absence of children, and the number and ages of the
children at home. In view of the greater dependence of infants and young
children on adults, the demands on the time and energy of parents are assumed
to be the strongest among those with infants or preschool children, which
corresponds to the peak stage in Lopata’s (1966) model of family roles.
Parental demands are assumed to be lower for those with school-aged children,
and least for those with adult children not living at home (Osherson & Dill,
1983). Individuals’ career orientation is likely to be strongly influenced by
the extensiveness of parental and family-role demands (Tinsley & Faunce,
1980). The demands on the time and energy of entrepreneurs to fulfill their
parental role responsibilities necessitate decisions about the allocation of time
between work and family roles. Thus, parental demands are expected to be
positively related to time commitment to family, and negatively related to
time commitment to work.
Theoretical models of work–family dynamics (Greenhaus & Parasuraman,
1986) and related empirical research have demonstrated the importance of
social support, especially spouse support, in influencing the well-being of
two-career couples (Frone et al., 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1992). Support
represents an interpersonal coping resource, and is conceptualized as the flow
of resources from one partner to the other aimed at helping the receiver and
enhancing his or her well-being. Spouse support has been found to influence
282
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
women’s career aspirations and choices, career priority and commitment to
their career (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1993; Sekaran, 1986; Suchet & Barling, 1986), as well as job satisfaction (Rudd & McEnery, 1986) and family
satisfaction (Parasuraman et al., 1992).
Recent research suggests that the beneficial effect of social support depends
upon the appropriateness of both the source of support and the type of support
in dealing with a particular stressor (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1994; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1994). Although a number of types of support have
been identified in the support literature (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Greenhaus &
Parasuraman, 1994), the empirical distinction among some of them is unclear.
Two types of spouse support appear relevant in the context of work–family
conflict: instrumental support, which refers to tangible help from the partner
in the form of participation in home maintenance and child care; and information or emotional support, which refers to information, advice, affirmation
of affection, and concern for the receiver’s welfare displayed by the partner
(Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1994; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1994). Thus,
high levels of instrumental support provided by one’s partner can ease the
burden of family-role demands, and enable the entrepreneur to devote less
time to the family role and more time to the work role. Informational or
emotional support may enhance the entrepreneur’s feelings of self-efficacy
and thereby decrease the perceived severity of work–family conflict. The two
types of support may also be related directly with increased family satisfaction
and decreased life stress.
Family involvement refers to the psychological involvement with and importance of the family to the individual. Analogous to job involvement, family
involvement is likely to generate internal pressures to devote more time to
meet family-role demands, and therefore demonstrate a positive relation to
time commitment to family. Recent studies provide empirical support for this
linkage (Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus et al., 1989).
Studies of work–family dynamics posit that time commitment to work and
time commitment to family are important intervening variables that link workand family-domain variables with work–family conflict (Bedeian et al., 1988;
Parasuraman et al., 1989). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985: 77) conceptualize
work–family conflict as ‘‘a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some
respect.’’ Recent refinements in the conceptualization and operationalization
of work–family conflict acknowledge the bidirectionality of such conflict and
distinguish between work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict (Frone
et al., 1992; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1994; Gutek et al., 1991; O’Driscoll
et al., 1992). Insofar as work and family compete for the attention and energy
of the entrepreneur, the time allocated to the two domains is likely to influence
perceptions of work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict. The
greater the time invested in one role (say work), the less the time available
to devote to the other role (family), and consequently, the greater is the
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
283
perceived interference of the work domain on the family domain (i.e., workto-family conflict). Conversely, the investment of additional time in the family
role diminishes time available for the work role, thereby generating perceptions of family-to-work conflict. Hence this study examines both work-tofamily conflict and family-to-work conflict experienced by entrepreneurs.
Career satisfaction, reflecting the entrepreneur’s personal satisfaction with
various aspects of career progress and success, was examined as an internal
index of career success. Family satisfaction and life stress were included as
indicators of well-being in the family domain and life overall. Family satisfaction refers to entrepreneurs’ feelings of positive affect about their family
situation, whereas life stress reflects the psychological response state of disturbed affect in relation to stresses in one’s life.
Previous research indicates that overall work–family conflict is associated
with lower levels of job, family, and life satisfaction, greater life stress, and
symptoms of decreased mental and physical well-being (Bedeian et al., 1988;
Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983; Lewis & Cooper, 1988; Parasuraman et al., 1992; Pleck et al., 1980; Sekaran, 1986). O’Driscoll et al. (1992)
reported that job interference with family is associated with decreased nonjob
satisfaction, which in turn contributes to increased psychological strain. Based
on these findings, work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict are
hypothesized to be negatively related to career satisfaction and family satisfaction, and positively related to life stress. Moreover, extending the findings of
Frone et al. (1992) and O’Driscoll et al. (1992), the study posits that workto-family conflict and family-to-work conflict will mediate the relations of
time commitment to work and time commitment to family respectively with
the three indicators of entrepreneurial career success and well-being.
METHOD
Sample
The sample consisted of 111 business owners who completed and returned
a survey entitled ‘‘Work and Family Research Study’’ distributed in class to
men and women enrolled in continuing professional education courses for
small business owners in two eastern universities. For the purpose of this
study a broad and inclusive definition of the term entrepreneur was used to
refer to a self-employed person who owned and operated his or her own
business (Evans, 1957). The criteria for inclusion in the present study was
that the respondent be self-employed in his or her own business, work twenty
hours or more per week in the business, and be a member of a two-career
relationship. The surveys were anonymous and returned directly to researchers
at the university. Of the 111 respondents, 59 were men and 52 were women.
The age of the entrepreneurs in this study ranged from 26–61 years; their
average age was 41 years. Over 60% of the sample had completed a bachelor’s
degree or higher level of education.
284
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
Measures
The measures used to operationalize the variables in the study were selected
from the literature with appropriate modifications for use with a sample of
entrepreneurs. In all cases the alpha reliability coefficients of the adapted
measures were computed to test the appropriateness of the instrument for use
with a sample of business owners. Internal consistency reliability coefficients
were also calculated for the few new measures developed for this study.
Autonomy was measured by a four-item scale developed by Parasuraman
and Alutto (1981, 1984) to reflect the extent of freedom involved in the job.
The scale was used by Greenhaus et al. (1989) as an antecedent of work–
family conflict. An example of an item is ‘‘How often do you find that you
have freedom to adopt your own approach to the job?’’ The response anchors
ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The referent ‘‘work or business’’ was
used instead of job in this study. The alpha reliability coefficient of the scale
as used in the current study was .85.
Schedule inflexibility was assessed by a scale with three items developed
by Greenhaus et al. (1989). Two items refer directly to inflexibility, (e.g.,
‘‘How flexible is your work schedule, i.e., to what extent can you make
adjustments concerning the time you go to work and the time you leave
work?’’) The response options ranged from 1 (not at all flexible) to 4 (very
flexible). A third item asked respondents to indicate the extent to which their
work involved out-of-town travel. Responses were anchored on a five-point
scale ranging from 1 (almost none) to 5 (a great deal). Since frequent outof-town travel increases the inflexibility of schedules, responses to the three
items were standardized, and the mean was used as a composite measure of
schedule inflexibility (alpha Å .68).
Work-role overload refers to the perception that the quantity of work exceeds the time or resources available to complete it. A four-item scale adapted
from Caplan et al. (1975) was used to operationalize this variable. A sample
item is ‘‘There is a great deal to be done at work,’’ with responses made on
a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).
The scale items were recoded and averaged such that high scores denoted
high work-role overload (alpha Å .77).
Job involvement was measured by Lodahl and Kejner’s (1965) abbreviated four-item scale, which has been used widely as an index of the psychological importance of work in the person’s life (Frone et al., 1992; Kopelman et al., 1983; Greenhaus et al., 1989; Parasuraman & Alutto, 1984).
An illustrative item is ‘‘The most important things that happen to me
involve my job.’’ The word work was used instead of job as the referent
for entrepreneurs. The alpha coefficient of the measure of job involvement
used in this study was .78.
Parental demands were assessed by a scale derived from several questions
relating to the presence or absence of children, the number and ages of the
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
285
children living at home, and the age of the youngest child. Applying Lopata’s
(1966) model of family stages, we used the coding strategy used by Bedeian
et al. (1988) to categorize the respondents into five groups to reflect increasing
levels of parental demands: 1 (no children), 2 (one or more children older
than 22 but none under the age of 22) 3 (one or more children between 19
and 22 but none under the age of 19), 4 (one or more children between 6
and 18 but none under 6), and 5 (one or more children under 6 years of
age). The five groups were coded 1 to 5 and used to form an ordinal scale
indicating increasing parental role demands, reaching a peak for parents in
category 5 (i.e., one or more children under age 6). Instrumental support
was measured by a single behavioral item developed by Parasuraman and
Greenhaus (1994). Individuals were asked to indicate, ‘‘On average days
when your spouse or partner is working, about how much time does he or
she spend on housework and/or childcare?’’ A four-point response option
was provided, ranging from 1 (less than 1 hour) to 4 (more than 4 hours).
Although the reliability of a single-item measure is generally open to question,
because this measure is behaviorally anchored it may be considered quasiobjective. This measure was related to selected variables in the expected
direction in previous research (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1994), and in the
current study, for example, gender (r Å .39, p õ .001, where 0 Å women
and 1 Å men) and parental demands (r Å .40, p õ .001). These findings
provide additional confidence in the validity of the measure. The level of
informational or emotional support received by the entrepreneur was assessed
by a six-item scale developed and used by Parasuraman et al., 1992. Respondents were asked to indicate how much support of various types they received
from their spouse or partner. An illustrative item relating to informational
support is ‘‘To what extent does your spouse or partner give you advice or
suggestions when you have a problem?’’ An example of an item reflecting
emotional support is ‘‘To what extent is your spouse or partner willing to
listen to your problems?’’ The response anchors ranged from 1 (almost none)
to 5 (a great deal). The mean of the six items was used as a measure of
perceived informational or emotional support (alpha Å .86).
Family involvement was measured by a scale that paralleled the job involvement scale, with the word family substituted for the word job. This scale as
modified by Kopelman et al. (1983), has been used to assess family involvement in a number of research studies (e.g., Frone et al., 1992; Parasuraman
et al., 1992). The negative correlation of this variable with job involvement
and positive correlation with time commitment to family provide additional
confidence in the validity of this scale as a measure of family involvement.
The alpha coefficient of the scale as used in this study was .76. Gender was
a dummy variable coded 0 for women and 1 for men.
Time commitment to work was measured by a self-report, behaviorally
anchored item that asked respondents, ‘‘How many hours would you say you
work in an average week? Include the time spent at the office, time spent
286
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
traveling, and time spent working at home.’’ The response categories ranged
from 1 (20–29 hours) to 5 (60 hours or more). The modal time commitment
to work was 50–59 hours for men and 40–49 hours for women. Time commitment to family was assessed by a behaviorally anchored item: ‘‘On the average
on days when you are working, about how much time do you spend on
housework and/or child care?’’ Four response categories ranging from 1 (less
than 1 hour) to 4 (more than 4 hours) were provided.
Work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict were measured by a set
of items developed by Kopelman et al. (1983). The scale measuring workto-family conflict consisted of six items dealing with the interference of work
with family. An illustrative item is: ‘‘My work takes up time I’d like to spend
with my family.’’ Responses to these items were made on five-point scales
anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). The mean of the
six items was used as a measure of work-to-family conflict (alpha Å .87).
The measure of family-to-work conflict included four items reflecting the
interference of family with work (e.g., ‘‘My family takes up time I’d like to
spend working’’) (alpha Å .64). The two types of work–family conflict were
correlated in the expected direction (r Å 0.31, p õ .01).
Career satisfaction was measured with a 5-item scale developed by Parasuraman et al. (1992). The items asked respondents to indicate their level of
satisfaction with their career progress and success, including progress made
in meeting goals for income and development of new skills. An example is
‘‘How satisfied are you with the progress you have made toward meeting
your overall career goals?’’ The response options were anchored on a fivepoint scale from 1 (dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). The mean of the five
items was used as a measure of career satisfaction (alpha Å .87).
Family satisfaction was measured by a three-item scale used originally
by Kopelman et al. (1983) and subsequently by other researchers as well
(Parasuraman et al., 1992). The items used a five-point rating scale, ranging
from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). An example is ‘‘Generally
speaking, I am very satisfied with my family.’’ The items were recoded such
that high scores denoted high family satisfaction (alpha Å .76).
Life stress was assessed by a ten-item scale developed by Parasuraman et
al. (1992). The scale measures the psychological response state of disturbed
affect in relation to stressors in one’s life. The scale items ask individuals to
indicate the extent to which they experience various feelings about things in
their life such as being upset, frustrated, under pressure, feeling ‘‘blue’’ and
‘‘tired or worn out.’’ The ten items were averaged and used as a measure of
overall life stress (alpha Å .89).
Control variables included the organization’s size, and the number of years
of business ownership. Previous research has shown these two variables to
be strongly related to gender, entrepreneurial business success, income, and
satisfaction (Chaganti & Schneer, 1994; Kalleberg & Leicht, 1991; Loscocco
et al., 1991). Hence they were treated as controls to avoid confounding the
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
287
results. Organization size was assessed by a nine-point scale ranging from 1
(less than three employees) to 9 (more than 10,000 employees). Years of
business ownership was assessed by a self-report item.
Analysis
Zero-order correlations were computed and examined to assess the general
pattern of relations among the study variables. Because the conceptual model
guiding this study is exploratory, our interest focused on understanding the
nature of these relations and on theory development rather than theory testing.
Path analysis using least-squares multiple regression analysis was performed
to test the plausibility of the proposed relations among the study variables.
In situations where theory is not well developed, path analysis is a useful
analytical technique to assess the assumed causal linkages of the exogenous
variables with the endogenous variables (Heise, 1969). Path analysis involves
fewer constraints than LISREL, it allows control of possible confounding
variables, and it permits the inclusion of dummy-coded categorical variables.
Path analysis entails the same assumptions as those of multiple regression
analyses (i.e., normal distribution of data, linear additive relations, low measurement error, absence of extreme multicollinearity, and uncorrelated residuals) (Billings & Wroten, 1978). The internal consistency reliability coefficients
of the multi-item scales that ranged from .64 to .89 were considered satisfactory. Inspection of the intercorrelations among the independent variables revealed no evidence of extreme multicollinearity (i.e., r’s § .80). The DurbinWatson d-statistics (Dillon & Goldstein, 1984) showed that the residuals for
all but one of the dependent variables were substantially uncorrelated. The
robustness of the F and t tests used in multiple regression analysis makes
them resistant to minor violations in the assumptions.
A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to
assess the effects of gender, work-domain variables, and family-domain variables respectively on each successive dependent variable in the model, while
controlling for the size of the organization and entrepreneurs’ years of experience as a business owner. Thus, time commitment to work and time commitment to family respectively were regressed on the controls in the first step,
with gender added in the second step. Work- and family-domain variables
were entered separately in the third and fourth steps respectively in order to
assess the independent contribution of each domain to variation in the dependent measures. Similarly, work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict
were regressed on the two control variables in step one; gender, work-domain
variables, and family-domain variables in steps two, three, and four respectively; and time commitment to work and time commitment to family in the
fifth step. Finally, career satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life stress were
each regressed first on the controls, with gender, work- and family-domain
variables added in the second and third steps, followed by time commitment
288
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
to work and time commitment to family, and work-to-family conflict and
family-to-work conflict in the fourth and fifth steps respectively.
The hierarchical regression procedure facilitates the interpretation and understanding of the path analysis results in two ways. First, it allows assessment
of the unique contribution of a set of variables or a single variable to explaining variation in the dependent variables (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The
change in R2 obtained at each step of the hierarchical regression analysis
reflects the explanatory power of the variables included in that step in influencing the dependent variable. Second, it permits partitioning of the total
variance into direct and indirect effects of the independent variable on the
dependent measure (Alwin & Hauser, 1975). The initial beta weight of a
variable when it first enters a regression equation represents the total effect
of that variable on the dependent measure, and the standardized regression
weight (beta) obtained in the final step of the analysis represents the direct
effect. The difference between the total and direct effect is the indirect effect
(Ross, 1975). The direct effect indicates the strength and direction of the
relationship of the independent variable with the dependent measure.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among
the study variables. The correlations show that the bivariate relations among
several of the variables were in the expected direction and statistically significant. Of the work-domain variables, schedule inflexibility, work-role overload, and job involvement were positively related to time commitment to
work. The correlates of time commitment to family include parental demands,
and instrumental support. Gender was significantly related to several of the
study variables. Thus, male entrepreneurs tended to be more job involved,
received more instrumental support from their spouses, and displayed more
time commitment to work, and lower time commitment to family than women
entrepreneurs.
Table 2 presents the path analysis results for time commitment to work
and time commitment to family, respectively. The results show that gender
was related to time commitment to work and time commitment to family. As
predicted, men entrepreneurs devoted significantly more time to work (b Å
.41, p õ .001) and less time to family (b Å 0.46, p õ .001) than women
entrepreneurs. The work-domain variables collectively explained significant
unique variation in time commitment to work (D R2 Å .21, p õ .001). The
family-domain variables accounted for significant unique variation in time
commitment to family (D R2 Å .21, p õ .001). Work-role overload (b Å
.36, p õ .001) and schedule inflexibility (b Å .19, p õ .01) were the principal
work-domain variables associated with increased time commitment to work.
Similarly, parental demands (b Å .32, p õ .001) and instrumental support
(b Å .25, p õ .01) were positively related to time commitment to family.
The path analysis results for work-to-family conflict and family-to-work
Gender
Autonomy
Work role overload
Schedule
inflexibility
Job involvement
Parental demands
Info./Emotional
support
Instrumental support
Family involvement
Time commitment
to work
Time commitment
to family
Work-to-family
conflict
Family-to-work
conflict
Career satisfaction
Family satisfaction
Life stress
.87
.99
.84
1.33
3.87
2.04
4.01
3.48
2.25
.00
2.86
2.88
3.02
.64
.73
.80
.67
.82
1.05
.71
.76
1.91
0.30
3.10
2.83
2.04
.65
.76
SD
4.49
3.61
Mean
0.36
.32
0.13
0.20
0.11
.31
0.04
0.12
.08
.22
0.02
.34
.61
0.01
.19
.47
.14
0.01
.07
.10
.28
.00
3
0.28
.07
.31
0.14
.10
0.18
.23
.03
.06
2
0.11
0.47
.43
.24
.39
0.03
.04
.25
.00
.07
.19
1
.18
0.09
0.28
.12
.22
0.01
.20
.26
0.06
0.02
.22
0.26
.34
.11
.17
0.30
0.03
.26
0.33
.24
.06
5
.23
.05
4
.13
0.02
0.16
.17
.06
.42
0.02
0.03
.40
.22
6
0.38
.27
.05
0.08
.07
0.13
.13
0.02
.40
7
.08
.11
0.06
.09
.10
.15
.29
0.09
8
0.32
.11
.04
0.08
0.15
.15
0.11
9
Note. Gender was coded 0 Å women, 1 Å men. r § .15, p õ .05; r § .25, p õ .01; r § .36, p õ .001.
14.
15.
16.
13.
12.
11.
8.
9.
10.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Variables
0.06
.27
0.09
.11
.51
0.33
10
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations among Study Variables
.13
0.12
.10
.03
0.31
11
.16
.03
0.02
.53
12
0.28
0.03
.33
13
.21
0.16
14
.04
15
.25
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
289
290
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
TABLE 2
Path Analysis Results for Time Commitment to Work and Time Commitment to Family
Time commitment to work
Independent variables
Controls
Gender
Work domain
Autonomy
Schedule inflexibility
Work-role overload
Job involvement
Family domain
Parental demands
Info./emotional support
Instrumental support
Family involvement
Adjusted R 2
Direct
effect b
.41***
.04
.19*
.36***
.14
0.06
0.01
.19
0.05
R2
DR 2
.04
.21***
.17***
.42***
.45***
.38***
.21***
.03
Time commitment to family
Direct
effect b
0.46***
0.04
.05
0.16
0.13
.32***
.03
.25*
.03
R2
DR 2
.02
.23***
.21***
.29***
.06
.50***
.44***
.21***
Note. The control variables were organizational size and number of years of business ownership. Gender was coded 0 Å women, and 1 Å men.
* p õ .05.
** p õ .01.
*** p õ .001.
conflict are reported in Table 3. The results provide substantial support for
the hypothesis that time commitment to work and time commitment to family
will be directly related to the two types of work–family conflict. Time commitment to work was related positively with work-to-family conflict (b Å
.25, p õ .05), whereas time commitment to family was negatively related
with both family-to-work conflict (b Å 0.24, p õ .05) and work-to-family
conflict (b Å 0.24, p õ .05). Work-role overload (b Å .49, p õ .001) and
parental demands (b Å .22, p õ .05) also were associated with heightened
work-to-family conflict. Cross-domain effects were noted for job involvement,
which was positively related to work-to-family conflict (b Å .31, p õ .001)
and for family involvement, which was associated with decreased work-tofamily conflict (b Å 0.22, p õ .05). Autonomy (b Å 0.32, p õ .001) had
a direct negative effect on family-to-work conflict. Informational/emotional
support (b Å .25, p õ .01) was negatively associated with family-to-work
conflict.
Table 4 presents the path analyses results for career satisfaction, family
satisfaction, and life stress. The work-domain variables as a set accounted
for most of the variation in career satisfaction (D R2 Å .25, p õ .001). The
work–family conflict variables also made a significant incremental contribu-
0.05
.05
.49***
0.12
.22*
.09
.01
0.22*
.25*
0.24*
.13
.08
.00
0.24
.25
0.24
0.13
0.02
.13
.58
.02
.19
Direct
effect
b
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.02
.00
.00
0.03
.08
.09
.14
.32
Indirect
effecta
.04
.07***
.52***
.45***
.35***
.03
DR 2
.45***
.41***
.03
.06
R2
.18
0.24
0.07
0.13
0.15
.13
0.40
0.03
.02
.33
0.10
Total
effect
b
.13
0.25
0.08
0.15
0.15
.13
0.32***
.01
.15
.31***
.01
Direct
effect
b
.05
.01
.01
.02
.00
.00
.08
.04
0.13
.02
0.09
Indirect
effecta
.39***
.30***
.39***
.27***
.06
.07
R2
Family-to-work conflict
Note. The control variables were organizational size and number of years of business ownership. Gender was coded 0 Å women, 1 Å men.
a
The indirect effect is the difference between the total effect and the direct effect.
* p õ .05.
** p õ .01.
*** p õ .001.
Controls
Gender
Work domain
Autonomy
Schedule inflexibility
Work-role overload
Job involvement
Family domain
Parental demands
Info./emotional support
Instrumental support
Family involvement
This commitment to work
Time commitment to family
Adjusted R 2
Independent variables
Total
effect
b
Work-to-family conflict
TABLE 3
Path Analysis Results for Work-to-Family Conflict and Family-to-Work Conflict
.02
.09
.20***
.01
DR 2
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
291
.08
.24*
0.14
.17
.35***
0.08
0.06
.02
.07
.08
.21
0.14
0.26*
.33
0.14
.17
.22
0.08
.00
.11
.14
.09
.21
0.14
0.26
Direct
effect b
.16
Total
effect b
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.06
.09
.07
.09
.00
.00
0.13
.08
Indirect
effecta
.03
.06*
.40***
.29***
.01
.25***
.03
DR 2
.34***
.31***
.30***
.02
.05
R2
.29*
.17
0.08
0.18
0.12
.24
.17
0.08
0.18
.04
.02
0.12
0.20
0.26*
.05
.14
0.20
0.23
.02
.10
0.07
.09
.07
0.14
.05
Direct
effect b
0.08
Total
effect b
.33***
.22***
.02
.04
0.11
.51
.20
.31***
.21
.06
.07
0.19
0.18
.02
.38
0.04
0.13
Total
effect b
0.05
.00
.00
.02
.06
.00
DR 2
0.02
.27***
.25***
.18***
.19***
R2
.06
.11
.05
.05
0.02
.00
.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
Indirect
effecta
Family satisfaction
0.01
.51***
.20*
0.12
.10
.07
.11
0.04
0.09
0.06
.13
0.13
0.21
Direct
effect b
.10
.00
.00
.10
.11
0.01
0.04
0.15
.09
0.09
.08
.08
Indirect
effecta
Life stress
.44***
.35***
.27***
.27***
.25
.21***
.03
.05
R2
Note. The control variables were organizational size and number of years of business ownership. Gender was coded 0 Å women, 1 Å men.
a
The indirect effect is the difference between the total effect and the direct effect.
* p õ .05.
** p õ .01.
*** p õ .001.
Controls
Gender
Work domain
Autonomy
Schedule inflexibility
Work-role overload
Job involvement
Family domain
Parental demands
Info./emotional support
Instrumental support
Family involvement
Time commitment to
work
Time commitment to
family
Work-to-family conflict
Family-to-work conflict
Adjusted R 2
Independent variables
Career satisfaction
TABLE 4
Path Analysis Results for Career Satisfaction and Well-Being of Entrepreneurs
.17***
.00
.06
.16***
.02
DR 2
292
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
293
FIG. 2. Direct and indirect effects of work and family variables on entrepreneurial career
success and psychological well-being.
tion (D R2 Å .06, p õ .05) to variation in career satisfaction, with familyto-work conflict decreasing career satisfaction (b Å 0.26, p õ .05). The
model variables explain 33% of the variation in family satisfaction. Schedule
inflexibility (b Å 0.26, p õ .05) detracted from family satisfaction, and time
commitment to family (b Å .29, p õ .05) enhanced satisfaction. Neither of the
two types of work–family conflict was directly related to family satisfaction.
Consistent with our hypothesis, work-to-family conflict (b Å .51, p õ
.001) and family-to-work conflict (b Å .20, p õ .05) were related directly to
life stress, and jointly make a substantial incremental contribution (D R2 Å
.17, p õ .001) to variation in life stress. The effects of gender and several
work and family variables on life stress were transmitted through time commitment to work and time commitment to family at the first level, and through
the two types of work–family conflict at the second level. Thus, the results
provide moderately strong support for the mediational role of time commitment to work and family and work–family conflict.
Figure 2 summarizes the total pattern of significant relations among the
study variables. The diagram shows that time commitment to work partially
mediated the effects of gender, role overload, and schedule inflexibility on
work-to-family conflict. Similarly, time commitment to family served a partial
mediational role in transmitting the effects of gender, parental demands, and
instrumental support on work-to-family conflict and family satisfaction. In
other words, the effect of work and family variables on the two types of
work–family conflict was transmitted through time commitment to work and
time commitment to family. Work-to-family conflict mediated the effects of
294
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
time commitment to work, time commitment to family, role overload, parental
demands, and family involvement on life stress. The effects of time commitment to family, autonomy, job involvement, and informational or emotional
support on career satisfaction and life stress were mediated through familyto-work conflict. Family satisfaction was influenced directly by schedule inflexibility. Overall, the results demonstrated that time commitment to work
and family, and work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict operated
as key intervening mechanisms through which work and family variables
affected entrepreneurs’ career success, family satisfaction, and life stress.
DISCUSSION
This study breaks new ground in research on entrepreneurs by examining
the effect of both work and family variables on entrepreneurial career success
and psychological well-being. The results provide interesting insights into the
relation of specific characteristics of the work and family domains and associated role demands with entrepreneurs’ time commitment to work and time
commitment to family, respectively. The results indicate that entrepreneurs’
time commitment to work is influenced primarily by work-domain characteristics and role pressures (i.e., schedule inflexibility and work-role overload).
On the other hand, time commitment to family is influenced largely by parental demands and instrumental support provided by the partner. Thus, workdomain variables account for significantly greater variation in time commitment to work than in time commitment to family, whereas family-domain
variables explain substantially more variation in time commitment to family
than in time commitment to work. These findings parallel the results reported
in studies of organizationally employed men and women, that within-domain
relations are stronger than between-domain relations (Frone et al., 1992;
Parasuraman et al., 1992).
The findings reveal that gender influences the career success and wellbeing of entrepreneurs primarily through its effects on time commitment to
work and time commitment to family. Women entrepreneurs devote significantly more time to family than men, and men entrepreneurs devote more
time to work than women. Viewed in conjunction with the direct effects of
time commitment to work and family on work-to-family conflict, the results
suggest women attempt to reduce anticipated work–family conflicts by scaling down their time commitment to work and increasing their time commitment to family. These findings are consistent with our hypotheses and traditional gender-role norms and expectations. Gender does not have direct effects
on work–family conflict or the outcome variables. The significant correlations
of gender with job involvement and the two types of social support, viewed
in conjunction with the direct effects of job involvement on work-to-family
conflict, and of social support on work-to-family conflict suggests a more
complex web of relations among these variables and their effects on work–
family conflict and entrepreneurs’ well-being. It is also possible that gender
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
295
and some of the work and family variables (parental demands, job involvement, and instrumental social support) have interaction effects on the dependent measures.
Contrary to expectations, the results indicate that psychological involvement in work and family roles have virtually no effect on time commitment
to work and time commitment to family; rather, they have direct effects on
the two types of work–family conflict. Moreover, job involvement and family
involvement have differential cross-domain effects on work–family conflict.
High levels of job involvement are associated with increased family-to-work
conflict independently of the time commitment to work, whereas high levels
of family involvement are associated with decreased work-to-family conflict.
Thus, as suggested by Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1994), it appears that the
extent of psychological involvement in a role importantly affects perceptions
of the direction of role interference.
Our findings indicate that extensive parental demands necessitate increased
time commitment to family, which in turn is associated with decreased workto-family conflict, but unrelated to family-to-work conflict. It appears from
this that the additional time devoted to the family role by entrepreneurs with
young children is viewed positively by them and is not perceived to interfere
with the work role. The positive direct relation of spouse instrumental support
with time commitment to family is surprising and contrary to what was
expected. This may reflect in part the operation of reciprocity in the exchange
of support by entrepreneurs and their spouses (i.e., entrepreneurs who provide
extensive instrumental support to their spouse, are also likely to receive similar
support in return) (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1994). However, the possibility
of common method variance contributing to the result cannot be ruled out.
The beneficial effects of autonomy in enabling entrepreneurs to meet the
dual demands of work and family roles are reflected in the direct negative
effect of autonomy on family-to-work conflict. This finding suggests that
the latitude provided by autonomy enables the entrepreneur to minimize the
intrusion of family into work. An additional benefit of autonomy is its positive
effect on career satisfaction.
An important contribution of this study is the confirmation of the role of
time commitment to work and time commitment to family in mediating the
effects of gender, work-domain, and family-domain variables on work-tofamily conflict and family-to-work conflict, respectively. The findings also
demonstrate that the two types of conflict operate as second-level, intervening
variables, through which the effects of time commitment to work and time
commitment to family are transmitted to career success and life stress. It is
interesting to note that work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict
have cross-domain consequences on entrepreneurs’ well-being. Work-to-family conflict is associated with heightened life stress, whereas family-to-work
conflict is associated with decreased career satisfaction of entrepreneurs.
Work-to-family conflict also plays a more important mediating role than
296
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
family-to-work conflict in terms of the number of paths from antecedent
variables that go through it. Moreover, the magnitude of the path coefficient
from work-to-family conflict to life stress is more than twice that of the path
from family-to-work conflict to life stress. The differential pattern and strength
of the relations of work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict with
the antecedent and outcome variables underscore the importance of specifying
the type of conflict involved in gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms and processes through which work and family variables affect the
career success and well-being of entrepreneurs.
In conclusion, the study extends prior research on entrepreneurial careers
by defining success more broadly to include internal or personal criteria of
career success and indicators of psychological well-being in the work and
family domains. The results demonstrate the utility of examining both workdomain and family-domain variables simultaneously in gaining a deeper understanding of the factors that influence entrepreneurial success and wellbeing. In particular, they highlight the importance of time commitment to
work and time commitment to family as intervening variables through which
work and family domain variables influence different types of work–family
conflict, and eventually the success and the well-being of entrepreneurs.
Although the findings provide some support for the assumed causal linkages
among the study variables, no causal inferences can be drawn about the pattern
of relations reported in the results section because of the cross-sectional design
of this study. The failure to confirm some of the predicted paths (e.g., from
work-to-family conflict to career satisfaction) may be due to problems in the
measures used to assess some variables, unmeasured variables (James, 1980;
James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982), and problems inherent in single-item scales.
This suggests the need is to identify and examine other salient variables likely
to influence entrepreneurial career success and well-being. Future research
should examine explicitly interactions among gender and other work and
family variables (e.g., job involvement, family involvement) in order to uncover possible joint moderating effects of these variables on career and family
outcomes. Such research should also include more macrolevel variables, reflecting the nature of the business and management practices and processes
that are likely to influence career success and other outcomes.
REFERENCES
Alwin, D. E., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). Decomposition of effects in path analysis. American
Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.
Bedeian, R. C., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. C. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conflict among
male and female professionals. Journal of Management, 14, 475–491.
Benin, M. H., & Nienstedt, B. C. (1985). Happiness in single and dual-earner families: The
effects of marital happiness, job satisfaction, and life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 47, 975–984.
Beutell, N. J., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1980). Some sources and consequences of interrole conflict
among married women. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Eastern Academy of
Management, 17, 2–6.
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
297
Billings, R. S., & Wroten, S. P. (1978). Use of path analysis in industrial/organizational psychology: Criticisms and suggestions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 677–699.
Bowen, D. D., & Hisrich, R. D. (1986). The female entrepreneur: A career development perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11, 393–407.
Brenner, O. C., Pringle, C. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1991). Perceived fulfillment of organizational
employment versus entrepreneurship: Work values and career intentions of business college
graduates. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(7), 62–74.
Brett, J., & Yogev, S. (1988). Restructuring work for family: How dual-earner couples with
children manage. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 159–174.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Harrison, R. U., & Pineau, S. R. (1975). Job demands
and worker health, NIOSH Report.
Chaganti, R., & Schneer, J. A. (1994). A study of the impact of owner’s mode of entry on
venture performance and management patterns. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 243–260.
Chay, Y. W. (1993). Social support, individual differences and well-being: A study of small
business entrepreneurs and employees. The Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 66, 285–302.
Christensen, K., & Staines, G. (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work-family conflict. The
Journal of Family Issues, 11, 455–476.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences, Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis, Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work role
expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 253–260.
Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership.
Strategic Management Journal, 7, 53–68.
Cromie, S. (1978). Motivations of aspiring male and female entrepreneurs. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 251–261.
Dillon, W. R., & Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate analysis: Methods and applications. New
York: Wiley.
Eden, D. (1975). Organizational membership versus self-employment: Another blow to the American dream. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 79–94.
Evans, H. G. (1957, April). A century of entrepreneurship in the United States with emphasis
on large manufacturing concerns, 1850–1957. The Entrepreneur. Presented at the Annual
conference of the Economic History Society.
Frone, M. R., & Rice, R. W. (1987). Work-family conflict: The effect of job and family involvement. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 45–53.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,
65–78.
Goffee, R., & Scase, R. (1985). Business ownership and women’s subordination: A preliminary
study of female proprietors. The Sociological Review, 31, 625–648.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Callanan, G. A. (1994). Career management. Ft. Worth, TX: The Dryden
Press.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Kopelman, R. E. (1981). Conflict between work and nonwork roles. Implications for the career planning process. Human Resource Planning, 4(1), 1–10.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1986). A work–nonwork interactive perspective of stress
and its consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8(2), 37–60.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1994). Work-family conflict, social support, and well-
298
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
being. In M. J. Davidson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Women in management: Current research
issues. (pp. 213–229) London: Paul Chapman.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N. J. (1989).
Sources of work-family conflict among two-career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
34, 133–153.
Gutek, B. A., Nakamura, C., & Nieva, V. (1981). The interdependence of work and family roles.
Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 1–16.
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role expectations for workfamily conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.
Heise, D. R. (1969). Problems in path analysis and causal inference. In E. F. Borgatta (Ed.),
Sociological methodology, (pp. 38–73). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. (1987). The woman entrepreneur. In C. M. Baumback & J. R.
Mancuso (Eds.). Entrepreneurship and venture management (pp. 187–189). (Second Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hornaday, J. A., & Aboud, J. (1987). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. In C. M.
Baumback, & J. R. Mancuso (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and venture management (pp. 24–
36) (second Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
James, L. R. (1980). The unmeasured variables problem in path analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65, 415–421.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and
data. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.
Kalleberg, A., & Leicht, K. T. (1991). Gender and organizational performance: Determinants of
small business survival and success. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 136–161.
Kaplan, E. (1988). Women entrepreneurs: Constructing a framework to examine venture success
and failure. Proceedings of the Babson Entrepreneurship Conference, (pp. 643–653).
Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family and
interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 198–215.
Kets de Vries, M. F. (1988). Stress and the entrepreneur. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne. Current
Concerns in Occupational Stress (pp. 43–59), Chichester: Wiley.
Lewis, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1977). Stress in dual-earner couples and stage in the life cycle.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 289–303.
Lewis, S. N. C., & Cooper, C. L. (1988). Stress in dual-earner families. In B. A. Gutek, A. H.
Stromberg, & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women and work: An annual review (pp. 139–168).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment in work and family roles: Alternative theories and
implications for research. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 507–521.
Lodahl, T., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 49, 24–33.
Longstreth, M., Stafford, K., & Maudlin, T. (1987). Self-employed women and their families:
Time use and socioeconomic characteristics. Journal of Small Business Management, 25(7),
30–37.
Lopata, H. Z. (1966). The life cycle of the social role of housewife. Sociology and Social
Research, 51, 5–22.
Loscocco, K. A., Robinson, J., Hall, R. H., & Allen, J. K. (1991). Gender and small business
success: An inquiry into women’s relative disadvantage. Social Forces, 70, 65–85.
Loscocco, K. A., & Roschelle, A. R. (1991). Influences on the quality of work and nonwork
life: Two decades in review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 182–225.
Main, J. (1990). A golden age for entrepreneurs. Fortune, February, pp. 120–125.
Mannheim, B., & Schiffrin, M. (1984). Family structure, rewards and strains as related to work
WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS
299
role centrality of employed and self-employed professional women with children. Journal
of Occupational Behavior, 51, 83–101.
Moore, D. T. P., Buttner, E. H., & Rosen, B. (1992). Stepping off the corporate track: The
entrepreneurial alternative. In U. Sekaran & F. T. L. Leong (Eds.), Womanpower: Newbury
Park, CA.: Sage.
National Foundation for Women Business Owners. (1992). Women owned business: The new
economic force, 1992 data report.
Naughton, T. J. (1987). Contrasting models of working life among the self-employed: An empirical test. Academy of Management Proceedings, 47, 78–81.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities,
interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 272–279.
Osherson, S., & Dill, D. (1983). Varying work and family choices: Their impact on men’s work
satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 339–346.
Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1981). An examination of the organizational antecedents of
stressors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 48–67.
Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1984). Sources and outcomes of stress in organizational settings:
Toward the development of a structural model. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 330–
350.
Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1993). Personal portrait: The lifestyle of women managers.
Women in management: Trends, issues and challenges (vol. 4, pp. 186–211). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publishers.
Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1994). Determinants of support provided and received by
partners in two-career relationships. In L. A. Heslop (Ed.), The ties that bind (pp. 121–
145). Calgary, Alberta: Canadian Consortium of Management Schools.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and
well-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339–356.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., Rabinowitz, S., Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1989).
Work and family variables as mediators of the relationship between wives’ employment
and husbands’ well-being. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 185–201.
Peluchette, J. V. E. (1993). Subjective career success: The influence of individual difference,
family, and organizational variables, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 198–208.
Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work-family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417–427.
Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life.
Monthly Labor Review, 103(3), 29–32.
Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1978). The 1977 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor, MI:
ISR, University of Michigan.
Ross, D. R. (1975). Direct, indirect, and spurious effects: Comments on causal analysis of
interorganizational relations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 295–297.
Rudd, N. M., & McEnery, P. C. (1986). Family influences on the job satisfaction of employed
mothers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 363–372.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Scott, C. E. (1986). Why more women are becoming entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business
Management, 4, 37–44.
Sekaran, U. (1986). Dual-career families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stoner, C. R., Hartman, R. I., & Arora, R. (1990). Work-home role conflict in female owners
of small businesses: An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business Management, 28, 30–
38.
Suchet, M., & Barling, J. (1986). Employed mothers: Interrole conflict, spouse support, and
marital functioning. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 7, 167–178.
Tinsley, D. J., & Faunce, P. S. (1980). Enabling, facilitating, and precipitating factors associated
with women’s career orientation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 183–194.
300
PARASURAMAN ET AL.
Waddell, F. T. (1983). Factors affecting choice, satisfaction, and success in the female selfemployed. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 294–304.
Wiley, D. L. (1987). The relationship between work/nonwork role conflict and job-related outcomes. Some unanticipated findings. Journal of Management, 13, 467–472.
Wortman, M. S. (1987). Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical research in the field. Journal of Management, 13(2), 259–279.
Received: August 2, 1994.