Journal of Managerial Issues, Spring 2007 v19 i1 p76(20)
An examination of the role of emotional intelligence in work and family conflict *.
Janet A. Lenaghan; Richard Buda; Alan B. Eisner.
Author's Abstract: COPYRIGHT 2007 Pittsburg State University - Department of
Economics
This study (N = 205) investigates the impact of Emotional Intelligence (EI) in the workfamily model. The work-family literature, specifically the depletion and enrichment
arguments, provides the theoretical underpinnings of this study which investigates a
possible explanation for these divergent views. The results indicate that Emotional
Intelligence acts as a protector variable of one's well-being in the face of work-family
conflict. In other words, Emotional Intelligence interacts with work-family conflict to
predict one's well-being. Implications of the results for human resource strategies are
discussed as well as suggestions for future research.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2007 Pittsburg State University - Department of Economics
Employers need to recognize the constant challenge many employees face in balancing
work and family. Recruiting and retaining top workers is essential to the success of the
organization; thus, it behooves employers to understand the variables associated with the
effective management of the work-family conflict.
One cannot pick up a newspaper or periodical or even turn on the news without being
confronted with the issue of balancing work and family. For most, it is a constant struggle
to attempt to balance the commitments of work and family life. Some researchers have
suggested that work-family balance is an illusive goal and one that is unattainable
(Caproni, 1997). The concern is that the more one is committed to work, the more one
enjoys the associated benefits, both financial and non-financial, which encourage them to
devote even more time and energy to work. Since neither one's time nor energy is
limitless, by definition, then, such workers will find themselves far from the balance they
originally sought with one of the roles invariably ending up on the losing end.
As a result of an increasingly larger share of the workforce occupying many non-work
roles in addition to that of paid worker, organizations need to understand the impact of
multiple roles on workers' productivity. Attitudes, behaviors and emotions associated
with one role may spill over to the other (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000). In fact, many
employers fear that engagement in the family role is accomplished only to the detriment
to the work role.
The work-family literature frames this balance in seemingly diametrically opposed views,
namely the depletion and enrichment arguments (Marks, 1977). The former is more
deeply rooted in the literature and views these roles as conflicting (Friedman and
Greenhaus, 2000). One's energy and time are limited, and, as such, the demand in each
role depletes resources at the expense of the other. Yet those scholars that view the workfamily research through the lens of the enrichment hypothesis suggest that it is the
1
occupancy of multiple roles and the quality of those roles that yield beneficial effects on
one's well-being (Barnett and Hyde, 2001). The benefits to individuals provide a net gain
over the costs, leading to a positive emotional response and better well-being,
In an effort to explain the competing views in the literature--the depletion or enrichment
hypotheses--we propose that the question needs to be examined at the individual level.
Specifically, we posit that Emotional Intelligence, a dispositional variable, interacts with
work-family conflict to predict one's well-being. Consistent with research conducted by
Noor (2003) that resulted in support for the effect of locus of control on the relationship
between work-family conflict and well-being, this study expands the link to examine the
effect of a broader dispositional measure. Noor (2003) sampled 310 married women with
children who were employed full-time in Malaysia. She found that "women with high
control beliefs generally were more vulnerable to work-family conflict" and that workfamily conflict was positively related to symptoms of psychological distress--women's
sense of general well-being" (2003: 658).
This study builds on past models of work and family stress that use individual differences
as moderators of the effects of work and family experiences on well-being (e.g., Frone et
al., 1997a; Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1986; Higgins et al., 1992; Parasuraman et al.,
1996). In addition, the present study answers the call of Greenhaus and Beutell for more
research "to determine the impact of specific personal characteristics on role
attitude/behaviors that affect the arousal of work-family conflict" (1985: 83), as well as
Carlson's (1999) call for additional study of personality variables such as the "Big Five"
to provide further insight into the underpinnings of work-family conflict. We posit that it
is not necessarily a general all-encompassing trait that distinguishes the "handlers" from
the "non-handlers," but rather it is an individual trait which can cross gender, race,
ethnicity, and age.
The ultimate question is can you have it all? As Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) state in
their book, Work and Family--Allies or Enemies ?, it is possible to have both a fulfilling
career and a satisfying family life, but it requires balanced involvement in both of these
spheres of our life. In other words, Freidman and Greenhaus suggest that it is the
successful management of conflicting demands and one's level of satisfaction with their
decisions that lead to balance. It is on the interrole conflict between the work role and the
other life roles that much of the literature is based. Work-family literature is based on the
boundaries between the two domains as being permeable such that work can influence
family and family can influence work.
Work-family conflict has been found to be a predictor of employee's well-being (Vallone
and Donaldson, 2001) and several studies have shown that it is a mediator between work
and family roles and individual well-being (Aryee et al., 1999; Frone et al., 1997a). Also,
it has been empirically shown to lead to psychological depression (Googins, 1991),
physical ailments (Frone et al., 1997a), lower life satisfaction (Aryee, 1992), lower
quality of family life (Higgins et al., 1992) and lower energy levels (Googins, 1991).
Additionally, it is negatively related to employee job satisfaction (Boles et al., 2001).
2
Depletion
The depletion argument stems from research on role drain, namely what Marks refers to
as the "drain theory" of energy (1977) as well as role conflict (Merton, 1957; Greenhaus
and Beutell, 1985). The depletion argument of interrole conflict, according to Kahn,
Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek and Rosenthal, is defined as the "simultaneous occurrence of two
(or more) sets of pressures such that compliance with one would make more difficult
compliance with another" (1964: 19). Goode suggests that the "individual's total role
obligations are over-demanding." He further states that "role strain--difficulty in meeting
given role demands --is therefore normal" (1960: 485). He likens the need for an
individual to allocate his energy and skills to reduce role strain to "some bearable
proportions" to the way the individual handles limited economic resources. One needs to
make decisions as to where to allocate money and where not, the same as one needs to do
with their energy. Similar to the equimarginal principle in economics which posits that
one should maximize utility in allocating limited dollars among goods and services, an
individual needs to maximize the results of his/her efforts and energy invested in one
domain over the other. Opposing pressures arise from engaging in multiple roles and
these pressures can be incompatible by requiring different roles to compete for a person's
limited time resources as well as the strains associated with one or more roles (Kopelman
et al., 1983). The assumption underlining the depletion argument is that multiple
demands of paid worker and family role are detrimental to the individual and that role
participation invokes stress, resulting in emotional strain (Rothbard, 2001).
Enrichment
The enrichment view, as postulated by Marks (1977), suggests that as an individual
increases the number of roles he or she occupies, there is a net gain or benefit from them
(enrichment) rather than a loss or depletion. Many studies have empirically supported the
enhancement hypothesis by depicting a positive relationship between the involvement in
multiple roles and various measures of psychological well-being (Barnett et al., 1992;
Baruch and Barnett, 1986). The enrichment argument assumes that the benefits of
multiple roles outweigh the costs, leading to gratification rather than strain (Rothbard,
2001).
HYPOTHESES
This study is primarily concerned with identifying a possible explanation for the
disagreement regarding the beneficial effects of multiple roles on well-being. Similar to
prior research, this study analyzed the roles of spouse, parent and worker (Sieber, 1974).
These non-work roles were identified and studied because we want to focus on workfamily conflict. Sociologists have focused on the resulting outcome of role strain or
overload from one possessing both a paid worker role and a family role (Geerken and
Gove, 1983).
3
Well-being
Researchers have developed models to predict how work and family influence stress and
well-being (e.g., Frone et al., 1997b; Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1986; Higgins et al.,
1992; Kopelman et al., 1983; Parasuraman et al., 1996). Edwards and Rothbard (1999)
studied how the cognitive appraisal process (up to that point, "notably absent from the
models") influenced stress. Using the person-environment fit theory, Edwards and
Rothbard "examined how the comparison of work and family experiences to the person's
values relates to stress and well-being" (1999: 85). They wanted to explore possible
explanations for why different people in the same situation experience different levels of
stress.
Some models of work and family stress use individual differences as moderators of the
effects of work and family experiences on well-being (e.g., Greenhaus and Parasuraman,
1986; Higgins et al., 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1996). Friedman and Greenhaus (2000)
argue that time is not the major enemy of work-family conflict, rather it is the level of
psychological interference of work into the family domain and of family concerns into
the workplace. Recent research has associated personality variables and work-family
conflict.
Personality traits and the interaction on work-family conflict have been studied, including
aggressiveness (Lightdale and Prentice, 1994) and negative affectivity (Carlson, 1999;
Bruck and Allen, 2003). In addition, there have been several studies that found a positive
relationship between Type A behavior and workfamily conflict (Burke et al., 1979).
Neuroticism was also found to have a positive relationship to work-family conflict
(Bruck and Allen, 2003). Further research has shown that conscientiousness helps reduce
the negative impact that work role ambiguity has on one's well-being (Bruck and Allen,
2003). Moreover, agreeableness was found to have a negative effect on work-family
conflict: the more agreeable the individual, the greater reported work-family conflict
(Bruck and Allen, 2003). Emotional Intelligence (EI) was also shown to predict
persistence under frustrating circumstances (Schutte et al., 2000) and has been found to
moderate the effect of work-family conflict on career commitment (Carmeli, 2003). In a
study of senior managers, Carmeli found a significant interaction of work-family conflict
and Emotional Intelligence in predicting career commitment. Stated differently, the
higher a senior manager is on Emotional Intelligence, the weaker the negative effect of
work-family conflict on career commitment (2003).
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional Intelligence is a profile of self-awareness, of managing one's emotions, of
motivation, of empathy and social competence. Goleman's (1995) work thrusted the
concept into the spotlight, although the term Emotional Intelligence was first used by
Salovey and Mayer (1990). They defined Emotional Intelligence as "the ability to
monitor one's own feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this
information to guide one's thinking and actions" (1990: 189).
4
Mayer and Salovey (1997) later identified four components of Emotional Intelligence:
perception, assimilation, understanding and management. The first component is
described as an ability to be self-aware of emotions and to be able to express one's
emotional needs. Assimilation refers to one's ability to distinguish among different
emotions they may be feeling and to prioritize those that are influencing their thought
processes (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). The third component is the ability to understand
complex emotions such as simultaneous feelings of loyalty and betrayal (Mayer and
Salovey, 1997). The ability to distinguish the emotions that emerge from perceptions is
important in overcoming negative responses to emotions. It is also in this component that
Mayer and Salovey include the ability to understand other's emotional expressions and
behaviors. Lastly, the management component is the ability to connect or disconnect
from an emotion, depending on its usefulness in any given situation (Mayer and Salovey,
1997). This component varies from the personality domain because the regulation of
emotions can vary to suit specific personality traits (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). Caruso et
al. (2002) examined the relation of an ability measure of Emotional Intelligence to
personality. This examination found that Emotional Intelligence was a "measure as
reliable and independent of traditional defined personality traits, supporting the
discriminant validity of the Emotional Intelligence construct" (2002: 306). Similarly,
Saklofske et al. (2003) state that Emotional Intelligence self-reports measures account for
variance not accounted for by personality. The contribution of Emotional Intelligence to
one's attitude toward change was found to be significant, indicating the added value of
using an Emotional Intelligence measure above and beyond the effect of personality
(Vakola et al., 2004).
Many scholars have theorized that high Emotional Intelligence contributes to success in
various aspects of life including work and relationships (e.g., Goleman, 1995; Salovey
and Mayer, 1990). Because Emotional Intelligence theoretically includes the ability to
understand and regulate others' as well as one's own emotions, it may be related to both
characteristics that build relationships and the quality of those relationships (Schutte et al.,
2001).
Furthermore, scholars have theorized that high Emotional Intelligence would lead to
greater feelings of emotional well-being (Goleman, 1995; Saarni, 1999; Salovey and
Mayer, 1990; Salovey et al., 1995; Schutte et al., 2002). Some empirical evidence that
Emotional Intelligence is associated with emotional well-being comes from research
indicating that higher Emotional Intelligence is associated with less depression, greater
optimism (Schutte et al., 1998) and greater self-esteem (Schutte et al., 2002). Moreover,
research found that individuals with higher Emotional Intelligence were better able to
maintain a positive mood and self-esteem when faced with a negative state induction
(Schutte et al., 2002). Thus, both theory and prior research advance a connection between
Emotional Intelligence and well-being.
Hypothesis 1: Emotional Intelligence is positively related to well-being.
Work-family conflict has been identified as a source of stress that influences well-being
(Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1986). For example, it has been shown to be positively
5
related to depression and decreased satisfaction with life and an intensified depressive
affect (Marshall and Lang, 1990). Even perceived unfairness between work and family
demands leads to psychological distress and depression in both men and women
(Voydanoffand Donnelly, 1999). Thus, if one perceives the work-family demands as
unfairly monopolizing their time and attention, one experiences more conflict between
the two domains. This conflict leads to reduced feelings of well-being.
Hypothesis 2: Work-family conflict is negatively related to well-being.
The ability to perceive, understand and manage emotions is an integral part of Emotional
Intelligence; thus, it seems that people with high Emotional Intelligence should
experience lower worker family conflict. Carmeli (2003) studied the relationship between
Emotional Intelligence and work attitudes and the behavior of senior managers. Among
other findings, his results supported a finding that Emotional Intelligence moderated the
negative influence of work-family conflict on career commitment. He suggests that this
result "indicates that senior managers who have high Emotional Intelligence may better
and more carefully handle the inherent work-family conflict than those with low
Emotional Intelligence" (2003: 805).
A person with high EI is one that can recognize, and then effectively deal with their own
emotions while at the same time recognize and empathize with others' feelings. Inherent
in the work-family conflict is a tremendous amount of emotional upheaval. Inevitably
one domain will encroach on the other and it results in more than just a time issue or
energy constraints; it also invokes one's emotions. The ability to be aware of your
emotions, express them and effectively manage them is a key determinant in whether the
conflict between the two domains negatively impacts one's well-being.
This study suggests that Emotional Intelligence will have an impact on the relationship
between work-family conflict and well-being. Consistent with Jordan et al. who argued
that "Emotional Intelligence moderates the links between perceptions of job insecurity
and affective reaction, as well as the links between affective reactions and behavior"
(2002: 365), we posit that Emotional Intelligence interacts with work-family conflict to
predict well-being.
Hypothesis 3: There is an interaction effect between Emotional Intelligence and workfamily conflict on well-being.
METHODS
Participants
A total of 205 people participated in this study. For the study, 60.0% were female. Most
(81.0%) were married and the most common racial/ ethnic group was Caucasian (77.1%),
followed by African-American (15.1%). The age of the respondents ranged between 19
and 70, with a mean of 47.48 years, and a standard deviation of 11.14 years. For number
of children, 34.6% reported having no children, with the most any respondent had was
6
five children (M = 1.27, SD = 1.19). For education, 50.2% had a high school diploma,
and the remainder had a college degree or more education. Years with the organization
ranged from 1 to 34 (M = 10.78, SD = 7.32). Hours of work reported ranged from 4 to 82
(M = 38.25, SD = 8.16). For satisfaction and importance of work, the means and standard
deviations, are 5.04 (1.36) and 5.87 (1.19), respectively.
The data collected for use in this study were part of a "Quality of Work-Family Study" at
a university in the northeast of the U.S. This sample was drawn from a large university
representing a large variety of jobs including unionized trade workers to executive
managers. The survey sample was obtained from the population of employees at a
suburban doctoral-granting university with a budget of over $242 million with
approximately 8,000 full-time and part-time employees.
Measures
Gender was coded "0" for Male and "1" for Female. Marital status was coded as "1" for
married and "0" for all other categories (i.e., single, widowed or divorced). Information
on race, age, number of children and number of children living at home, average number
of hours worked/week, number of hours caring for elderly parent were also collected
from the respondent.
Control Variables. Consistent with prior research, martial status was considered a control
variable (Bruck and Allen, 2003; Carlson, 1999; Cooke and Rousseau, 1984). In addition,
work satisfaction (Netermeyer et al., 1996) and importance of work (Rothbard, 2001)
were controlled for since these have been found to have a significant influence on workfamily conflict, Emotional Intelligence and/ or well-being--a finding that is replicated in
this study (Table 1).
Dependent Variable. The General Well-Being scale (GWB), developed in 1970 for the
National Center for Health Statistics, was used to measure the dependent variable of wellbeing. The GWB is a structured instrument for assessing self-representations of
subjective well-being. Scale scores run from 14 (lowest well-being) to 110 (highest wellbeing) for the first 18 items as described by Fazio (1977). This measure has been
validated and shown to have good psychometric properties (Fazio, 1977). Mean scores
for the first 18 items of the schedule were 75 for men and 71 for women (SD = 15 and 18,
respectively). An example of an item from this scale is "Have you been under or felt you
were under any strain, stress, or pressure during the past month?" The internal reliability,
as measured by Cronbach's alpha, for this study was .89, an acceptable level based on
Nunnally's (1978) criteria of .70.
Independent Variables
Work-Family Conflict. In this study, Work-Family Conflict (WFC) was measured using
an eight-item scale. The first four items in the scale measure work-interfering with family
(WIF), as developed by Kopelman, Greenhaus and Connolly (1983). The last four items
were developed by Burley (1989) to assess family-interfering with work (FlW). This
7
study analyzed both directions of work-family conflict (work interfering with family
(WIF) and family interfering with work (FIW) as a combined measured of overall
conflict. The internal reliability for this study, as measured by Cronbach's alpha, was .89.
In addition, the work-family conflict variable means and standard deviations were
comparable to those found in previous work-family conflict studies.
An example of an item from the WIF scale is "On the job I have so much work to do it
takes away from my personal interests." An example from the FIW scale is "I'm often too
tired at work because of the things I have to do at home." These eight items have been
used in other work-family conflict research (Adams et al., 1996; Judge et al., 1994).
Emotional Intelligence. The Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS), a self-report
measure, was used in this study to measure Emotional Intelligence. This scale is based on
the model of Salovey and Mayer (1990), which has been labeled as the standard for
"scholarly discourse" (Jordan et al., 2003). As Schutte et al. (1998) stated in the defining
article of the EIS, it is a reliable, valid measure of Emotional Intelligence as
conceptualized by Salovey and Mayer (1990). The EIS represents the following
categories which are consistent with the Mayer and Salovey (1997) conceptualization of
Emotional Intelligence: appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself and others,
regulation of emotion in self and others, and utilization of emotions solving problems.
The EIS is a scale of a trait measure of Emotional Intelligence that was developed
through factor analysis which showed good reliability with two different samples. Twoweek test-retest reliability indicated that the scores were fairly stable over time. The EIS
reported internal consistency was between .87 and .90 (Schutte et al., 1998). It consists of
33 items which assess to which extent individuals perceive, understand, regulate and
harness emotions adaptively. On a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree) respondents rate their agreement with such items as "I am aware of my
emotions as I experience them," and "I help other people feel better when they are down."
The sum of all items constitutes the total score, which can range from 33-165 (higher
scores indicate greater Emotional Intelligence). The internal reliability for this study, as
measured by Cronbach's alpha, was .90.
Analysis
To test hypotheses 1, 2 and 3, a two-way ANOVA was used with the independent
variables being Emotional Intelligence (low and high) and WFC (low and high), and the
dependent variable was well-being. The independent variables were dichotomized using
median splits to conduct the 2 x 2 analysis of variance on well-being. The
dichotomization of the variables is consistent with prior research (Nikolaou and Tsaousis,
2002; Hammer et al., 2004). Since job satisfaction and job importance were found to be
significantly correlated with the dependent variable, factorial analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) was carried out, with job satisfaction and job importance as covariates, along
with marital status since prior research suggested its impact on well-being (Bruck and
Allen, 2003; Carlson, 1999; Cooke and Rousseau, 1984). As covariates in the ANCOVA,
8
any variability attributed to these variables was partialled out of the dependent variable,
well-being.
RESULTS
The correlations between the three primary scales (Emotional Intelligence, work-family
conflict, and well-being) and the selected variables including the control variables as well
as the reliability estimates are presented in Table 1. Emotional Intelligence (M = 123.7,
SD = 13.5) was correlated with well-being (r = .36), importance of work (r = .17) and
negatively correlated with work-family conflict (r = -.27). Work-family conflict (M =
19.53, SD = 5.8) was also negatively correlated with well-being (r = -.35), age (r = -.15),
satisfaction with work (r = -.23), and importance of work (r = -.19). Work-family conflict
was significantly yet slightly correlated with number of hours the respondent worked (r
= .16). In addition, well-being was positively correlated with work satisfaction (r = .33),
and importance of work (r = .24).
Table 2 displays the analysis of covariance for well-being, based on Emotional
Intelligence and work-family conflict. The covariates included marital status, work
satisfaction, and importance of work. The overall model was significant (p < .001),
accounting for 30.7% of the variance in well-being. Both main effects (Emotional
Intelligence and work-family conflict) were significant (p < .001), with Emotional
Intelligence accounting for 10.8% of the variance in well-being and work-family conflict
accounting for 7.4% of the variance. In addition, the interaction of Emotional Intelligence
and work-family conflict was also significant (p < .05).
Inspection of the means and standard errors in Table 3 found the group with high
Emotional Intelligence coupled with low work-family conflict to have the highest mean
for well-being (M = 81.13). In addition, respondents with low Emotional Intelligence and
high work-family conflict had the lowest level of well-being (M = 63.36). Figure I
provides a graph of the interaction of Emotional Intelligence and work-family conflict.
Based on the results indicated in Tables 2 and 3 and Figure I, hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 could
not be rejected. (1)
DISCUSSION
As shown, the hypotheses advanced in this study on the influence of work-family conflict
and Emotional Intelligence on well-being could not be rejected. The results showed that
the variables of Emotional Intelligence and work-family conflict (hypotheses 1 and 2)
had significant influence on the dependent variable of well-being. Similarly, results from
testing Hypothesis 3 showed a significant interaction effect between Emotional
Intelligence and work-family conflict on well-being.
The results presented in this study suggest that Emotional Intelligence acts as a protector
variable in the impact of work-family conflict on one's well-being. Higher Emotional
Intelligence positively influenced well-being. Specifically, those individuals in this
sample who had high Emotional Intelligence with low work-family conflict reported the
9
highest well-being while those with low Emotional Intelligence and high work-family
conflict reported the lowest well-being. Additionally, the results of this study showed that
low Emotional Intelligence and low work-family conflict yielded similar well-being
scores as those with high Emotional Intelligence and high work-family conflict. Thus, in
situations where one experiences a significant amount of work-family conflict, the
possession of high Emotional Intelligence will protect their well-being. This study
showed that for these people, their well-being scores were very similar to those who
experience low work-family conflict. Consequently, it seems that possession of high
Emotional Intelligence is more important when facing work-family conflict.
This finding is consistent with past research that has theorized that high Emotional
Intelligence leads to greater feelings of well-being (Goleman, 1995; Saarni, 1999;
Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Salovey et al., 1995; Schutte et al., 2002). The ability to be
aware of one's emotions and capable of managing them successfully will enhance one's
well-being when facing work-family conflict. To help illustrate this effect, one may think
of Emotional Intelligence as something one can develop to help protect them against the
stress of meeting demands in both domains. It is something in one's "bag-of-tricks," if
you will, that can be utilized to maintain a healthy well-being.
This study makes several contributions to the field. It contributes to the work-family
literature by focusing the lens in which work-family conflict is viewed. Specifically, this
study suggests that the dichotomous hypotheses of depletion and enrichment may each
have value but they are driven by an intensely individualistic phenomenon.
10
Implications
Work-family conflict is an issue that cannot be ignored. The profile of the labor supply
(workers have increased family responsibilities, i.e., greater number of dual-income
households and elder-care responsibilities) coupled with societal pressure places this
issue squarely on any human resource professional's radar. Lost time due to family
demands and employee stress costs employers billions of dollars each year. In fact,
despite employers having strong work-family or work-life initiatives, many employees
still face difficult and oftentimes debilitating stress from the conflict that arises from
trying to balance both domains. As found in this study, in Hypothesis 2, the resulting
work-family conflict experienced by employees has a negative effect on their well-being.
The tested hypotheses in this study begin to shed light on possible avenues for employee
training to better equip them with much needed tools to handle work-family conflict.
Demographic trends highlight that if employees cannot find ways to effectively deal with
the work-family conflict, they choose to remove themselves from the work domain. The
finding in this study (Hypothesis 1c), that emotionally intelligent individuals have higher
well-being when facing work-family conflict than those with lower Emotional
Intelligence, can be useful to employers when trying to retain workers. Successful
employers recognize the strategic advantage that human resources can provide and must
find ways to help retain highly skilled employees. Retention, therefore, needs to be a
significant goal of employers and they must determine ways to help these employees deal
with the oftentimes conflicting demands of the family and work domain.
Organizations can target resources to help individuals improve their Emotional
Intelligence in order to better handle the conflicting demands. One's resiliency can be
measured through their Emotional Intelligence. Emotionally intelligent individuals can,
through self-regulation, adapt to the social situation and remain functional (Eisenberg and
Fabes, 1992). Human resource professionals need to implement learning opportunities as
well as nurture an environment that recognizes the value of self-exploration. It is a
concept often met with skepticism and ridicule. Therefore, it is important that the
organization's culture supports and encourages employees to put effort into selfawareness training and exercises.
11
Emotional Intelligence can be developed and improved. Organizations can begin to
allocate resources to helping employees learn to be resilient and to develop increased
Emotional Intelligence. By helping employees effectively deal with the inherent emotions
of handling the family and work domains, employers will benefit as well. As Cappelli
noted, "when employees believe that their employer is supportive of their well-being,
they are more committed" (2003:11). Similarly, Thompson et al. suggested that the
"organization's ability to communicate respect for employees' non-work lives affects the
level of perceived work-family conflict" (2004: 558). Moreover, organizations that assist
employees in improving their Emotional Intelligence should benefit by reducing the
oftentimes dysfunctional behavior that results when employees become overwhelmed by
stress. Employees struggling to meet the demands in both domains are searching for
avenues that provide help and relief to this constant dance between work and family.
Organizations that can effectively offer training in the abilities underlying the construct
of Emotional Intelligence will ultimately enjoy more committed employees.
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations of this study that should be understood in interpreting the
results. To begin, the cross-sectional nature of the study prevents the examination of
causal relationships. Future studies with an experimental design are needed to draw
conclusions about causality. Although causation cannot be substantiated with crosssectional data, the theoretical underpinnings strongly support the directions suggested in
the study.
All measures were derived from the self-report of the respondents, potentially
contributing to inflated inter-item correlations due to common method variance
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). Common method variance is variance that is attributable to the
12
measurement method rather than to the constructs measured. However, the use of selfreport scales seems logical since the study was interested in capturing stable, internal
states of the respondents that could not be manipulated. Furthermore, Crampton and
Wagner (1994) challenge the validity of the general condemnation of self-reports, citing
that there is research that has failed to show evidence of any meaningful inflation.
Rothbard and Edwards (2003) justify the use of self-report measures when they are
consistent with the focal constructs of the study, since the most accurate source of
information regarding an individual's own perceptions of workfamily conflict and wellbeing is the person him/herself. Thus, this limitation is warranted by the focus on
psychological stress which arises from the person's perception of the situation and self
(Edwards and Rothbard, 1999). Moreover, the pattern of results observed suggest that
common method bias is an unlikely explanation for the results.
All data were collected at one point in time and from one organization. A more precise
study should involve multiple methods (e.g., interviews with family and co-workers,
diaries of employees and their family) of data collection. Also, multiple sources of data
should be used (family members, co-workers, supervisors). Further, all of the respondents
worked for a northeast university. Nearly half of them had a college degree or higher. It is
important to note that the sample did not include any members of the faculty since that is
a position unique to a university setting. The sample, however, did include a broad range
of non-faculty job types. Yet it cannot be overlooked that a university culture is quite
unique. For example, a core value for most institutions of higher learning is the longevity
of service by its employees. As a result, employees tend to have less anxiety over job
security. Additionally, a common benefit associated with employment at a university or
college is a generous time-off allotment, thus allowing for greater workfamily flexibility.
Consequently, the depletion argument may be underrepresented.
This study helps support the introduction of an individual-specific variable into the
continuous analysis of work-family conflict. Future research, however, should address
the limitations of this study to confirm the findings. Specifically, future research should
test more diverse samples, encompassing many industries, geographic locations, and
classification of employees. In addition, the study would be greatly enhanced if one could
obtain confirmatory data. A longitudinal study is needed so that the process can be
studied over time, capturing the data during various occurrences of stressful situations.
13
Additionally, it would be helpful to substitute an ability measure of Emotional
Intelligence, such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT),
to substantiate the finding using the self-report measure. Also, it would be useful to look
at the model separately for work interfering with family and family interfering with work.
While this study did use a work-family conflict measure that differentiates between work
interfering with family and family interfering with work, the study analyzed them
together, because the purpose of this study was to look at all sources of work-family
conflict. Future research, however, may look at each separately.
Furthermore, this study primarily consisted of working spouses and parents. However, an
emerging trend that will undoubtedly affect the workfamily conflict is the role of eldercare provider. According to the National Council for the Aging, approximately 40% of
the workforce will be caring for an elderly parent by 2020. Arguably the role of eldercare provider stirs even greater emotional response as many find it difficult to handle the
emotional burdens of caring for an ailing parent. This role needs to be included in the
debate of work-family conflict as it is one many people will find themselves occupying.
Lastly, much of the work-family literature is not cross-cultural. A significant contribution
to the field and the body of literature at large would be to analyze cross-cultural
differences in the antecedents and moderators of work-family conflict and well-being.
Conclusion
The primary purpose of this study was to gain further insight into the effect that workfamily conflict has on one's well-being, by introducing a dispositional variable,
Emotional Intelligence, into the equation. The results provide an avenue to explore that
attempts to shed some light on the opposing views in the work-family conflict literature,
namely the depletion and the enrichment hypotheses. The results of this study support the
finding that possession of Emotional Intelligence will act as a protector variable of one's
well-being in the face of work-family conflict. In other words, Emotional Intelligence
interacts with work-family conflict to predict one's well-being.
14
References
Adams, G. A., L. A. King and D. W. King. 1996. "Relationships of Job and Family
Involvement, Family and Social Support and Work-family Conflict with Job and Life
Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 411-420.
Aryee, S. 1992. "Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-family Conflict Among Married
Professional Women: Evidence from Singapore." Human Relations 45: 813-837.
--, V. Luk, A. Leung and S. Lo. 1999. "Role Stressors, Interrole Conflict, and Well-being:
The Moderating Influence of Spousal Support and Coping Behaviors Among Employed
Parents in Hong Kong." Journal of Vocational Behavior 54: 259-278.
Barnett, R. C. and J. S. Hyde. 2001. "Women, Men, Work and Family: An Expansionist
Theory." American Psychologist 56: 781-796.
--, N. L. Marshall and J. D. Singer. 1992. "Job Experiences Over Time, Multiple Roles
and Women's Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 62 (4): 634-644.
Baruch, G. K. and R. Barnett. 1986. "Role Quality, Multiple Role Involvement, and
Psychological Well-being in Midlife Women." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 51 (3): 578-585.
Boles, J. S., W. G. Howard and H. H. Donofrio. 2001. "An Investigation Into the Interrelationships of Work-Family Conflict, Family-Work Conflict and Work Satisfaction."
Journal of Managerial Issues 13 (3): 376-391.
Bruck, C. S. and T. D. Allen. 2003. "The Relationship Between Big Five Personality
Traits, Negative Affectivity, Type A Behavior, and Work-family Conflict." Journal of
Vocational Behavior 63: 457-472.
Burke, R. J., T. Weir and R. E. DuWors. 1979. "Type A Behavior of Administrators and
Wives' Reports of Marital Satisfaction and Well-being." Journal of Applied Psychology
64: 57-65.
Burley, K. 1989. "Work-family Conflict and Marital Adjustments in Dual Career Couples:
A Comparison of Three Time Models." Dissertation Abstracts International 50: 10B
(UMI No. 9315947).
Cappelli, P. 2003. "Managing Without Commitment." Organizational Dynamics 28 (4):
11-25.
Caproni, P. J. 1997. "Work/Life Balance: You Can't Get There From Here." Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 33 (1): 46-56.
15
Carlson, D. S. 1999. "Personality and Role Variables as Predictors of Three Forms of
Work-family Conflict." Journal of Vocational Behavior 55: 236-253.
Carmeli, A. 2003. "The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Work Attitudes,
Behavior and Outcomes: An Examination Among Senior Managers." Journal of
Managerial Psychology 18 (8): 788-813.
Caruso, D. R., J. D. Mayer and P. Salovey. 2002. "Relation of an Ability Measure of
Emotional Intelligence to Personality." Journal of Personality Assessment 79 (2): 306320.
Cooke, R. A. and D. M. Rousseau. 1984. "Stress and Strain from Family Roles and
Work-role Expectation." Journal of Applied Psychology 69: 252-260.
Crampton, S. M. and J. A. Wagner. 1994. "Percept-Percept Inflation in MicroOrganizational Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect." Journal of Applied
Psychology 79: 67-76.
Edwards, J. R. and N. P. Rothbard. 2000. "Mechanisms Linking Work and Family:
Clarifying the Relationship Between Work and Family Constructs." Academy of
Management Review 25: 178-199.
-- and -- 1999. "Work and Family Stress and Well-being: An Examination of Personenvironment Fit in the Work and Family Domains." Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 77: 85-129.
Eisenberg, N. and R. A. Fabes. 1992. "Emotion, Regulation, and the Development of
Social Competence." In Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Emotion and
Social Behavior. Ed. M. Clark. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp. 119-150.
Fazio, A. F. 1977. A Concurrent Validation Study of the NCHS General Well-being
Schedule (Dept. of H. E. W. Publ. No. HRA-78-1347). Hyattsville, MD: National Center
for Health Statistics.
Friedman, S. D. and J. H. Greenhaus. 2000. Work and Family--Allies or Enemies? What
Happens When Business Professionals Confront Life Choices. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Frone, M. R., M. Russell and M. L. Cooper. 1997a. "Relation of Work-family Conflict to
Health Outcomes: A Four-year Longitudinal Study of Employed Parents." Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70: 325-335.
--, J. K. Yardley and K. S. Markel. 1997b. "Developing and Testing an Integrative Model
of the Work-family Interface." Journal of Vocational Behavior 50: 145-167.
16
Geerken, M. and W. R. Gove. 1983. At Home and at Work: The Family's Allocation of
Labor. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goleman, D. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam. 1995.
Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.
Goode, W. J. 1960. "A Theory of Role Strain." American Sociological Review 25: 483496.
Googins, B. K. 1991. Work/family Conflicts: Private Lives-Public Responses. New York,
NY: Auburn House.
Greenhaus, J. H. and N. J. Beutell. 1985. "Sources of Conflict Between Work and Family
Roles." Academy of Management Review 10: 76-88.
-- and S. Parasuraman. 1986. "A Work-Nonwork Interactive Perspective of Stress and Its
Consequences." Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 8: 37-60.
Hammer, T. H., P. O. Saksvik, K. Nytro, H. Torvatn and M. Bayazit. 2004. "Expanding
the Psychosocial Work Environment: Workplace Norms and Workfamily Conflict as
Correlates of Stress and Health." Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 9 (1): 83-97.
Higgins, C. A., L. E. Duxbury and R. H. Irving. 1992. "Work-family Conflict in the
Dual-Career Family." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 51: 51-75.
Jordan, P. J., N. M. Ashkanasky and C. J. Hartel. 2003. "The Case for Emotional
Intelligence in Organizational Research." Academy of Management Review 28 (2): 195197.
--, -- and --. 2002. "Emotional Intelligence as a Moderator of Emotional and Behavioral
Reactions to Job Insecurity." Academy of Management Journal 27 (3): 361-372.
Judge, T. A., J. W. Boudreau and R. D. Bretz. 1994. "Job and Life Attitudes of Male
Executives." Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (5): 767-782.
Kahn, R., D. M. Wolfe, R. P. Quinn, J. D. Snoek and R. A. Rosenthal. 1964.
Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kopelman, R. E., J. H. Geenhaus and T. F. Connolly, 1983. "A Model of Work, Family
and Interrole Conflict: A Construct Validation Study." Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 32: 198-215.
Lightdale, J. R. and D. A. Prentice. 1994. "Rethinking Sex Differences in Aggression:
Aggressive Behavior in the Absence of Social Roles." Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 20: 30-44.
17
Marks, S. R. 1977. "Multiple Roles and Role Strain: Some Notes on Human Energy,
Time and Commitment." American Sociological Review 42: 921-936.
Marshall, G. N. and E. L. Lang. 1990. "Optimism, Self-mastery, and Symptoms of
Depression in Women Professionals." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:
132-139.
Mayer, J. D. and P. Salovey. 1997. "What is Emotional Intelligence?" In Emotional
Development and Emotional Intelligence Implications for Educators. Eds. P. Salovey and
D. Sluter. New York, NY: Basic Books. pp. 3-32.
Merton, R. K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Netemeyer, R. G., J. S. Boles and R. McMurrian. 1996. "Development and Validation of
Work-family Conflict and Family-work Conflict Scales." Journal of Applied Psychology
81: 400-410.
Nikolaou, I. and I. Tsaousis. 2002. "Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace: Exploring
its Effects on Occupational Stress and Organizational Commitment." International
Journal of Organizational Analysis 10 (4): 327-342.
Noor, N. M. 2003. "Work and Family Related Variables, Work-family Conflict and
Women's Well-being: Some Observations." Community, Work and Family 6 (3): 297319.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Osterman, P. 1995. "Work/Family Programs and the Employment Relationship."
Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 681-700.
Parasuraman, S., Y. S. Purohit, V. M. Godshalk and N. J. Beutell. 1996. "Work and
Family Variables, Entrepreneurial Career Success, and Psychological Well-Being."
Journal of Vocational Behavior 48: 275-300.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie and J. Y. Lee. 2003. "Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies."
Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879-903.
Rothbard, N. P. 2001. "Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of Engagement in Work
and Family Roles." Administrative Science Quarterly 46: 655-68.
-- and J. R. Edwards. 2003. "Investment in Work and Family Roles: A Test of Identity
and Utilitarian Motives." Personnel Psychology 56: 699-730.
Saarni, C. 1999. The Development of Emotional Competence. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
18
Saklofske, D. H., E. J. Austin and P. S. Minski. 2003. "Factor Structure and Validity of a
Trait Emotional Intelligence Measure." Personality and Individual Differences 34: 707721.
Salovey, P. and J. D. Mayer. 1990. "Emotional Intelligence." Imagination, Cognition and
Personality 9 (3): 185-211.
--, --, S. L. Goldman, C. Turvey and T. P. Palfai. 1995. "Emotional Attention, Clarity and
Repair: Exploring Emotional Intelligence Using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale." In Emotion,
Disclosure and Health. Ed. J. W. Pennebaker. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. pp. 125-154.
Schutte, N. S., J. M. Malouff, C. Bobik, T. D. Coston, C. Greeson, C. Jedlicka, E. Rhodes
and G. Wendorf. 2001. "Emotional Intelligence and Interpersonal Relations." The Journal
of Social Psychology 14 (4): 523-536.
--, --, L. E. Hall, D. J. Haggerty, J. T. Cooper, C. J. Golden and L. Dornheim. 1998.
"Development and Validation of a Measure of Emotional Intelligence." Personality and
Individual Differences 25: 167-177.
--, --, M. Simunek, J. McKenley and S. Hollander. 2002. "Characteristic Emotional
Intelligence and Emotional Well-being." Cognition and Emotion 16 (6): 769-785.
--, E. Schuettpelz and J. M. Malouff. 2000. "Emotional Intelligence and Task
Performance." Journal of Imagination, Cognition and Personality 20 (4): 347-354.
Sieber, S. D. 1974. "Toward a Theory of Role Accumulation." American Sociological
Review 39: 67-578.
Thompson, C. A., E. W. Jahn, R. E. Kopelman and D. J. Prottas. 2004. "Perceived
Organizational Family Support: A Longitudinal and Multilevel Analysis." Journal of
Managerial Issues 16 (4): 545-566.
Vakola, M., I. Tsaousis and I. Nikolaou. 2004. "The Role of Emotional Intelligence and
Personality Variables on Attitudes Toward Organizational Change." Journal of
Managerial Psychology 19 (2): 88-110.
Vallone, E. J. and S. I. Donaldson. 2001. "Consequences of Work-family Conflict on
Employee Well-being Over Time." Work and Stress 15 (3): 214-226.
Voydanoff, P. and B. W. Donnelly. 1999. "Multiple Roles and Psychological Distress:
The Intersection of the Paid Worker, Spouse and Parent Roles with the Role of the Adult
Child." Journal of Marriage and Family 61: 725-738.
Janet A. Lenaghan
19
Assistant Professor of Management
Hofstra University
Richard Buda
Associate Professor of Management
Hofstra University
Alan B. Eisner
Associate Professor and Graduate Program Chair of Management
Pace University
* The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments of Dr. Charles C. Fischer,
editor of JMI and two anonymous reviewers. We would also like to thank Alvin Hwang
and Dan Baugher for their contributions to this research. This article is dedicated to the
memory of our friend and coauthor, Dr. Richard Buda, who passed away on September 2,
2005.
(1) Outcomes comparable to those reported emerged when treating WFC and EI as
continuous variables and using hierarchical regression. The interaction effect remained
significant at the .05 level.
Table 1
Correlations between Primary Scales and Selected Variables
Emotional Intelligence
Work-family Conflict
Well-being
Gender (a)
Marital Status (b)
Race/Ethnicity (c)
Age
Number of Children
Education
Staff Size
Years in Organization
Hours of Work
Satisfaction of Work
Importance of Work
Emotional
Intelligence
Workfamily
Conflict
1.00
-.27 **
.36 **
.13
.08
.08
.07
-.03
.09
-.05
.05
.02
.11
.17 **
1.00
-.35
-.12
-.05
.03
-.15
.01
.05
.06
.02
.16
-.23
-.19
**
*
*
**
**
Emotional
Well-being
1.00
-.06
.13
-.06
.09
-.09
.07
-.01
.05
.03
.33 **
.24 **
(N = 205)
20
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
(a) Gender: 1 = Male; 2 = Female
(b) Marital Status: 0 = Other; 1 = Married
(c) Race/Ethnicity: 0 = Other; 1 = Caucasian
Note. Italicized numbers on the diagonal are the reliability
coefficients. All other numbers are correlations.
Table 2
ANCOVA Analysis of the Influence of Emotional Intelligence and
Work-family Conflict on Well-being
Source
SS
Full Model
Marital Status
Work Satisfaction
hnportance of Work
El
WFC
El X WFC Interaction
Error
Total
df
16765.58
651.85
1719.17
68.25
4564.45
3014.51
731.36
37879.57
54645.16
Source
Full Model
Marital Status
Work Satisfaction
hnportance of Work
EI
WFC
EI X WFC Interaction
Error
Total
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
198
204
MS
2794.26
651.85
1719.17
68.25
4564.45
3014.51
731.36
191.31
F
p
Partial
Eta
Squared
14.61
3.41
8.99
0.36
23.86
15.76
3.82
.001
.066
.003
.551
.001
.001
.052
.307
.017
.043
.002
.108
.074
.019
(N = 205)
(a) Covariates.
(b) Main effect adjusted means: High EI (M = 79.01) versus Low EI
(M = 69.33).
(c) Main effect adjusted means: High WFC (M = 70.13) versus Low WFC
(M = 78.22).
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Well-being Adjusted for Covariates (a)
Emotional
Intelligence
Low
High
Work-family
Conflict
Low
High
Low
High
N
39
62
58
46
M
SE
75.30
63.36
81.13
76.89
2.23
1.81
1.85
2.04
(N = 205)
21
(a) Covariates: Marital Status, Work Satisfaction, and
Importance of Work.
22