The influence of simultaneous interference and enrichment in work–family interaction on work-related outcomes

Abstract

This study aimed to determine how work–nonwork interference and work–family enrichment operate simultaneously to influence the work-related outcomes job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and subjective career success. By employing South African work–family instruments, the study tested substantive hypotheses in this regard. A cross-sectional survey design among a sample of permanently employed married parents (n = 212) was utilised. Statistical analyses included confirmatory factor analyses and validity assessments. Second-order measurement models were utilised in a structural equation modelling to test various hypotheses in this regard. Results indicate that work–nonwork interference and work–family enrichment operate simultaneously and are independently significantly related to work-related outcomes (except work–nonwork interference with commitment). Work–family enrichment was positively related to job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and subjective career success, while work–nonwork interference was found to be negatively related to job satisfaction and subjective career success. The findings suggest that these concepts should not be viewed as opposites on a continuum, but rather as phenomena that act independently in the nomological net of the work–family domain. The findings also suggest that work–family enrichment contributes more to the work-related outcomes than in the case of work–nonwork interference. The implication is that, in order to obtain positive work-related outcomes, it is more important to focus on fostering positive interaction in the work–family context than trying to eliminate the conflict in this regard.

Determining the dimensionality and gender invariance of the MACE work-to-family enrichment scale using bifactor and approximate invariance tests

“…Previous criterion-related validation studies on the MACE also provided support for the plausibility of the MACE-W2FE consisting of an essentially unidimensional construct as opposed to four distinct constructs (De Klerk et al, 2015;Koekemoer et al, 2017;Marais et al, 2014). It was found that the group-specific four-factor model showed moderate correlates (i.e.…”

“…The SO factor models showed that a strong common factor underlies the MACE-W2FE, which can be consistent with an approximate unidimensional factor model with trivial group-specific factors or a general factor underlying substantive groupspecific factors. Koekemoer et al (2017) and Marias et al (2014) did not indicate clearly which of the former or latter assumptions applied to the SO factor model reported. They argued that in the presence of multicollinearity, a goodfitting SO factor model justified the use of a single-aggregated variable in the exogenous part of an SEM model when supported in theory.…”

“…Where the factors in multidimensional models correlate strongly, researchers often adopt a SO factor model (see Figure 1c) (Chen et al, 2006), especially when multicollinearity may be a concern, as was the case with the MACE studies in Koekemoer et al (2017) and Marais et al (2014). Gignac (2016) acknowledges that the SO (i.e.…”

“…However, previous studies show the MACE-W2FE's fourdimensional model might not be sufficiently supported by the data as evident in the dimensionality variations of the MACE-W2FE reported across studies. De Klerk, Nel and Koekemoer (2015) and Van Zyl (2020) reported that data supported a correlated four-dimensional factor model, whereas in other studies (Koekemoer, Strasheim, & Cross, 2017;Marais, De Klerk, Nel, & De Beer, 2014), a correlated four-dimensional measurement model was reported, but a good fitting second-order (SO) factor model was used to alleviate multicollinearity in the exogenous part of a structural equation model (SEM). The SO factor models showed that a strong common factor underlies the MACE-W2FE, which can be consistent with an approximate unidimensional factor model with trivial group-specific factors or a general factor underlying substantive groupspecific factors.…”

Work–family enrichment, job satisfaction, and work engagement: The mediating role of subjective career success

“…Within this sample, high internal consistency values for both the overall scale (Composite reliability: 0.91) and sub-dimensions (ranging from 0.77 to 0.92) were found. Previous studies reported acceptable Cronbach's alpha reliability values (Koekemoer, Strasheim, & Cross, 2017).…”