No abstract

A methodological review was conducted of work-family (WF) research published in industrial-organizational psychology and organizational behavior journals over a period of 24 years (1980-2003). Content analysis was conducted on 225 individual studies published in 210 articles to categorize methodological features, including the research design, sources of data used, data analysis techniques, reliability and validity of measures used, and sociodemographic characteristics of the samples. Results support many of the criticisms of WF research and suggest that scholars publishing WF research in industrial-organizational psychology and organizational behavior journals could make greater use of longitudinal and experimental research designs, gather more multisource data, and move beyond the individual level of analysis. Adopting more diverse conceptualizations of family, including a greater proportion of racial and ethnic minorities, and studying workers in occupations other than managerial or professional positions also appear warranted. Finally, methodological trends varied across specific WF content areas, which suggests that distinct methodologies might be useful to advance knowledge of specific WF topics.

This meta-analysis examines relationships between work-family support policies, which are policies that provide support for dependent care responsibilities, and employee outcomes by developing a conceptual model detailing the psychological mechanisms through which policy availability and use relate to work attitudes. Bivariate results indicated that availability and use of work-family support policies had modest positive relationships with job satisfaction, affective commitment, and intentions to stay. Further, tests of differences in effect sizes showed that policy availability was more strongly related to job satisfaction, affective commitment, and intentions to stay than was policy use. Subsequent meta-analytic structural equation modeling results indicated that policy availability and use had modest effects on work attitudes, which were partially mediated by family-supportive organization perceptions and work-to-family conflict, respectively. Additionally, number of policies and sample characteristics (percent women, percent married-cohabiting, percent with dependents) moderated the effects of policy availability and use on outcomes. Implications of these findings and directions for future research on work-family support policies are discussed.

Employees around the world have experienced sudden, significant changes in their work and family roles due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, applied psychologists have limited understanding of how employee experiences of work-family conflict and enrichment have been affected by this event and what organizations can do to ensure better employee functioning during such societal crises. Adopting a person-centered approach, we examine transitions in employees' work-family interfaces from before COVID-19 to after its onset. First, in Study 1, using latent profile analysis (N ϭ 379; nonpandemic data), we identify profiles of bidirectional conflict and enrichment, including beneficial (low conflict and high enrichment), active (medium conflict and enrichment), and passive (low conflict and enrichment). In Study 2, with data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, we replicate Study 1 profiles and explore whether employees transition between work-family profiles during the pandemic. Results suggest that although many remain in prepandemic profiles, positive (from active/passive to beneficial) and negative (from beneficial to active/passive) transitions occurred for a meaningful proportion of respondents. People were more likely to go through negative transitions if they had high segmentation preferences, engaged in emotion-focused coping, experienced higher technostress, and had less compassionate supervisors. In turn, negative transitions were associated with negative employee consequences during the pandemic (e.g., lower job satisfaction and job performance, and higher turnover intent). We discuss implications for future research and for managing during societal crises, both present and future.

We review research on work-nonwork balance to examine the presence of the jingle fallacy-attributing different meanings to a single construct label-and the jangle fallacy-using different labels for a single construct. In 290 papers, we found 233 conceptual definitions that clustered into 5 distinct, interpretable types, suggesting evidence of the jingle fallacy. We calculated Euclidean distances to quantify the extent of the jingle fallacy and found high divergence in definitions across time and publication outlet. One exception was more agreement recently in better journals to conceptualize balance as unidimensional, psychological, and distinct from conflict and enrichment. Yet, over time many authors have committed the jangle fallacy by labeling measures of conflict and/or enrichment as balance, and disagreement persists even in better journals about the meanings attributed to balance (e.g., effectiveness, satisfaction). To examine the empirical implications of the jingle and jangle fallacies, we conducted meta-analyses of distinct operational definitions of balance with job, life, and family satisfaction. Effect sizes for conflict and enrichment measures were typically smaller than effects for balance measures, providing evidence of a unique balance construct that is not interchangeable with conflict and enrichment. To begin to remedy concerns raised by our review, we propose a definition of work-nonwork balance drawing from theory, empirical evidence from our review, and normative information about how balance should be defined. We conclude with a theory-based agenda for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record