No abstract

Research, theory, and practice generally assume that contact with others, often characterized as social support, is beneficial to the recipient. The current study, however, explores the possibility that workplace social interactions, even if intended to be helpful, can sometimes be harmful. University employees (N = 403) completed an online survey examining three types of potentially supportive interactions with other people in the workplace that might be harmful: Interactions that make the person focus on how stressful the workplace is, help that makes the recipient feel inadequate or incompetent, and help that is unwanted. Results suggest that these types of social interactions at work were indeed likely to be related to worse rather than to improved psychological and physical health. The most potentially harmful forms of these three social interactions were those that drew the person's attention to stress in the workplace. These results indicate that in some instances social interactions, even if ostensibly helpful, may be harmful.

Workplace victimization has recently emerged as an important topic in occupational health psychology. One of the major limitations of this research is that it generally employs crosssectional designs. The current study, however, used a 13-month two-wave prospective design to examine the relationship between target personality and workplace interpersonal conflict in a sample of 166 non-faculty employees at a Midwestern university in the United States. Results suggested that victims' positive affectivity, negative affectivity, and core self-evaluations were associated with interpersonal conflict. Furthermore, employee personality was related to subsequent interpersonal conflict from supervisors even after initial levels of interpersonal conflict were controlled. Analyses further suggested that target negative affectivity might be an especially strong predictor of interpersonal conflict. Consistent with past theorizing, we found evidence that initial interpersonal conflict with co-workers can result in subsequent interpersonal conflict with supervisors. We conclude with a discussion of the practical and theoretical implications of our findings.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict, taking into account generational cohort and life cycle stage differences. Design/methodology/approach Survey participants (428 employed individuals with families) represented different generations and life cycles. Key variables were work/family characteristics and centrality, work-family and family-work conflict, and age. Findings Generational differences in both directions were found. Gen X-ers reported the most work-family conflict, followed by Millennials and then Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers exhibited family-work conflict the most, followed by Gen X-ers, and then Millennials, a surprising finding given generational stereotypes. Some of these differences remained after controlling for children in the household (based on life cycle stage theory) and age. Millennials were highest in work centrality, whereas Baby Boomers were highest in family centrality. Employees with children ages 13-18 reported the most work-family conflict, and employees with children under the age of six reported the most family-work conflict. Research limitations/implications This study found that generation and children in the household make a difference in work-family conflict, but it did not support some of the common generational stereotypes. Future studies should use a time-lag technique to study generational differences. To reduce work-family conflict, it is important to consider its directionality, which varies across generations and life cycle stages. Practical implications This informs organizations on how to tailor interventions to help employees balance work/life demands. Originality/value This study is the first to simultaneously examine both generation and life cycle stage (children in the household) in regard to work-family conflict.