Joy at work turns to sorrow at home: The influence of flow experience on work–family conflict and a three‐way interaction effect

Abstract

Despite convincing evidence suggesting that organizations benefit from employees' flow states, when and how work flow experience generates negative effects remain largely understudied. By integrating the spillover‐crossover model and perseverative cognition theory, we established a model to explain how flow experience induces employees' positive rumination after work (i.e., problem‐solving pondering), which ultimately results in work–family conflict. We proposed that mindfulness acts as a buffer factor in this process but further elucidated that work–family segmentation preference serves as a boundary that may alter or even completely reverse the original effects of mindfulness. Our experience sampling method yielded 1425 data points from 186 employees and their family members across 10 workdays in China, and multilevel analyses supported our propositions. We identified the mediating role of problem‐solving pondering in transmitting the effects of flow to work–family conflict. Additionally, we confirmed the three‐way interaction effect among mindfulness, segmentation preference, and flow. Specifically, the harmful effect of flow is assuaged when segmentation preference and mindfulness are both high. However, flow experience causes severe work–family conflict when mindfulness is high and segmentation preference is low. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

Today, tomorrow, and then forever: Exploring how workflow experience is sustained from a work–home perspective

“…Although we did not test the influence of negative rumination (i.e., affective rumination) and other energy losses, in theory, flow and other positive experiences may inhibit these processes because of the spillover of positive emotion caused by them (Demerouti et al, 2012;Salanova et al, 2006). Nevertheless, scholars have recently noted that thinking about tasks at home may cause dissatisfaction in employees' spouses or can lead to family conflicts (Feng et al, 2023;Junker et al, 2020;Peifer & Zipp, 2019;Schüler, 2012). Therefore, perseverative cognition may be a double-edged sword not only for individuals themselves (next-day positive experience vs. today's recovery) but also for their lives (next-day work vs. today's families; Wach et al, 2021).…”

“…First, our study extends the emerging research on flow experience at work by building on a model that spans different fields and cycles. The literature has separately investigated either the prerequisites or consequences of flow (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 2014;Feng, Han, & Terpstra Tong, 2023;Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009, 2014Van Oortmerssen et al, 2020;Xie & Feng, 2023), but it has not examined the potentially reciprocal relationship even though the basic elements of the JDR model and the COR theory (i.e., challenging demands and job resources) have indicated such a possibility (Bakker et al, 2023;Hobfoll et al, 2018;Philip, 2023;Philip & Kosmidou, 2023). As a result, researchers still largely regard flow as a fragile, fleeting, and exclusive experience.…”

“…First, we expand the nomological network of flow in occupational settings as studies have mainly focused on the antecedents or consequences of flow (e.g., Feng, Han, & Terpstra Tong, 2023;Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009;Peifer & Zipp, 2019;Xie & Feng, 2023), but by integrating two-sided literature to expound on the work-and nonwork-related antecedents of flow, we develop a new understanding of this construct's dynamic evolution and development. Moreover, this study also tests the reciprocal association between nonworking factors and flow, which extends the academic dialogue of this concept from the workplace to the home (Debus et al, 2014;Demerouti et al, 2012).…”