The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

[Link]

Managerial support, work–family Work–family

conflict and
conflict and employee outcomes: employee
outcomes
an Australian study
Phuong Anh Tran, Sadia Mansoor and Muhammad Ali
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Received 25 March 2020
Revised 31 August 2020
Abstract 26 November 2020
Accepted 9 April 2021
Purpose – Derived from leader–member exchange theory, this study hypothesises the relationships between
work–family related managerial support and affective commitment and job satisfaction, and advocates that
these relationships are mediated by work–family conflict.
Design/methodology/approach – The model was tested in an Australian manufacturing organisation
using survey data from employees, using structural equation modelling in Analysis of Moment
Structures (AMOS).
Findings – The findings suggest that enhanced work–family related managerial support will decrease work–
family conflict, eventually enhancing employees’ affective commitment and job satisfaction.
Originality/value – This study provides important insights into the impact of managerial support on
improvements in employees’ work–family conflict, and, in turn, its impact on affective commitment and job
satisfaction, in the Australian context.
Keywords Managerial support, Work–family conflict, Affective commitment, Job satisfaction
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The conflict between work and family has been an important research field due to substantial
changes in workforce demographics, such as dual-earner couples and increasing women’s
workforce participation (Allen et al., 2000; Greenhaus et al., 2012; Odriozola and Baraibar-
Diez, 2018). “Work–family conflict” (WFC), termed by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985, p. 77),
refers to “a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family
domains are mutually incompatible in some respect”. WFC is related to work–family
interference, which refers to the situation in which participation in the family (work) domain
is hindered by participation in the work (family) domain (Tummers and Babette, 2014). WFC
can impose direct and indirect costs for an organisation. The former includes involvement
and belonging (e.g. turnover, strike or slowdown) and industrial accidents, whereas the latter
entails lower levels of job satisfaction and organisational commitment as well as deteriorating
the employer–employee relationship (Quick, 2013).
WFC has been found to be negatively associated with employee outcomes in the work
domain, including job satisfaction (e.g. Allen et al., 2000; Frone et al., 1992; G€oz€
ukara and
Çolako glu, 2016; Kossek et al., 2011), affective commitment (e.g. Cloninger and Selvarajan,
2015; Qureshi et al., 2019), and well-being (e.g. Chambel et al., 2017; Galletta et al., 2019;
Karatepe and Karadas, 2016; Kinman et al., 2017; McDowell et al., 2019). While job satisfaction
refers to an individual’s enjoyment or positive emotion arising from an evaluation of his or her
job and/or job experiences (Locke, 1976), affective commitment is ‘the relative strength of an

© Phuong Anh Tran, Sadia Mansoor and Muhammad Ali. Published in European Journal of
Management and Business Economics. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is
published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, European Journal of Management
and Business Economics
distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial Emerald Publishing Limited
purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence e-ISSN: 2444-8494
p-ISSN: 2444-8451
may be seen at [Link] DOI 10.1108/EJMBE-03-2020-0056
EJMBE individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organisation’ (Mowday et al.,
1979, p. 226). Managerial support can elicit satisfaction and affective reactions among
employees (Pohl and Galletta, 2017) and has been found to weaken WFC experienced by
employees (Karatepe and Kilic, 2007; Frone et al., 1992; Selvarajan et al., 2013). Managerial
support is the extent to which managers appreciate employees’ contributions, care about their
subordinates’ well-being and are attentive to employee needs (Eisenberger et al., 2002).
Our study extends work–family research in several ways. First, we test the mediating role
of WFC between managerial support and both job satisfaction and affective commitment (see
Figure 1). Recent studies have found that the effect of managerial support on job satisfaction
was mediated by WFC (Drummond et al., 2017; Hwang and Ramadoss, 2017). A meta-analysis
also tested the mediating role of WFC in the relationship between general work support
(including support from supervisors, colleagues and organisation) and job satisfaction (Ford
et al., 2007). However, little is known about whether WFC mediates the relationship between
managerial support and affective commitment (see the Table A1 for key information on
relevant studies).
Past studies have mainly explored separate elements of our model. A number of studies
found direct effect of work–family related support from managers on job satisfaction (e.g.
Babin and Boles, 1996; Charoensukmongkol et al., 2016; Hwang and Ramadoss, 2017;
Lapierre et al., 2008; Qureshi et al., 2018) and affective commitment (e.g. Talukder et al., 2018;
Thompson et al., 1999; Wayne et al., 2013). Literature has also established the negative
association between WFC and the concerned two outcome variables. For example, Choi and
Kim (2012) and G€oz€ ukara and Çolako glu (2016) show that WFC has a detrimental impact on
job satisfaction; whereas Allen et al. (2000), Talukder et al. (2018) and Qureshi et al. (2019)
suggest WFC is negatively associated with affective commitment. However, to our
knowledge, the model proposed in Figure 1 has not been previously tested.
Second, it theorises a process by which the provision of managerial support for employees
to manage their work and life roles accounts for an increase in affective commitment and job
satisfaction among employees. We use leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (Deluga,
1994), which is underpinned by social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of
reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). We postulate that supporting a subordinate employee in
managing competing work–life demands (Eisenberger et al., 2002) helps decrease the level of
WFC experienced by the employee (Anderson et al., 2002; Kim and Mullins, 2016; Lapierre
and Allen, 2006; Mas-Machuca et al., 2016; Pluut et al., 2018; Talukder et al., 2018; Thompson
et al., 1999). The employee will reciprocate with affective responses in terms of affective
commitment and job satisfaction (Birtch et al., 2015; Major and Lauzun, 2010).
Third, our theoretical model was tested in the Australian context. WFC and related issues
such as stress (Smith et al., 2002; Turner et al., 2014) have been considered as common among
Australian employees (Skinner and Chapman, 2013). Despite reforms in childcare, parental
leave and employment regulations over the past two decades, WFC continues to be a
challenge in Australia. Many Australian employees were found to have encountered high

Affective
H2a− Commitment
Managerial H1−
Support W/F Conflict
H2b−
Job Satisfaction
Figure 1.
Theoretical model
H3
levels of WFC (Skinner and Pocock, 2014). WFC has received the attention from scholars, Work–family
government, employers and employees (De Cieri et al., 2005; Zheng et al., 2016). Capturing the conflict and
role of support from managers for employees to alleviate the conflict between work and
family roles has the potential for organisations to understand the reciprocal exchange and in
employee
turn, to arrange necessary support in pursuit of desired employee attitudes and behaviour. outcomes

Theoretical foundation and hypotheses development

In building the theoretical model (as displayed in Figure 1), we draw on the LMX theory to
investigate the process through which WFC could be alleviated and lead to positive employee
outcomes, including affective commitment and job satisfaction. The theory posits that LMX
emerges from the social exchange between a manager and employee, wherein the negotiation
of the employee’s work role occurs through reciprocities between the two parties (Deluga,
1994; Major and Lauzun, 2010). Consistent with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), the LMX
theory advances the idea that reciprocity arises from the (perceived) fulfilment of needs and
expectations by both parties in the relationship (Birtch et al., 2015). The LMX framework
incorporates a focus on the quality of the manager–subordinate relationship (Gerstner and
Day, 1997).
In addition, LMX and family-supportive managerial behaviour reportedly generate a
positive environment in which both components influence and strengthen each other
(Tummers and Bronkhorst, 2014). As noted by Graen and Scandura (1987, p. 182), it is crucial
to the LMX quality that “each party must offer something the other party sees as valuable
and each party must see the exchange as reasonably equitable or fair”. Low-quality LMX
relationships are characterised by transactional interactions, determined by the employment
contract (Litano et al., 2016), in which employees receive standard benefits, including salary,
superannuation and sick leave, in exchange for fulfilling formal job duties (Lapierre et al.,
2006). By contrast, in high-quality LMX relationships, both instrumental and affective forms
of support are increased (Bernas and Major, 2000) due to reciprocal exchanges between the
manager and employee (Tummers and Bronkhorst, 2014).
The LMX theory suggests that when employees perceive that the manager is fulfilling his
or her part of the LMX process through generating a family-friendly work environment and
offering support for a range of work-related and life (personal) matters (G€oz€ ukara and ;
Odriozola and Baraibar-Diez, 2018), reciprocity should emerge. On the basis of reciprocity, the
exchange relationship between employees and managers (and the organisation) is formed
(de Juana-Espinosa and Rakowska, 2018). This relationship is manifested in employees’
inclination to demonstrate positive behaviours and attitudes towards the organisation (and
manager) and job (Talukder et al., 2018), including affective commitment and job satisfaction
(Birtch et al., 2015).

Managerial support and WFC

Research shows that high LMX is associated with lessened WFC. Using a sample of Dutch
healthcare professionals, Tummers and Bronkhorst (2014) found that high LMX was
negatively correlated with work–family interference, a construct that is closely related to
WFC. Similar negative relationships have also been reported when examining the relationship
between LMX and two types of WFC (Gutek et al., 1991), namely family interference with work
and work interference with family. Lapierre et al. (2006), for instance, reported a negative
relationship between LMX and family interference with work in their study of a Canadian
non-profit organisation. Studies conducted by Bernas and Major (2000) and Major et al. (2008)
have found a negative relationship between LMX and work interference with family.
A general consensus in the literature is that managerial support has beneficial effects on
work–family experiences among employees (Litano et al., 2016). Scholars have contended that
EJMBE managerial support exerts a stronger influence on work-to-family conflict, as opposed to
family-to-work conflict, since the source of support is work-related (Frone et al., 1992;
Selvarajan et al., 2013). Karatepe and Kilic (2007) have lent empirical support to the
relationship between managerial support and work-to-family conflict. This finding is
consistent with that of Thomas and Ganster (1995). Similarly, results in a longitudinal study
pertain to the relationship between work-to-family conflict and turnover intentions, which is
most effectively buffered by support stemming from the work domain (Nohe and
Sonntag, 2014).
Managers who display accommodating behaviours and compassion for employees’ work
and family responsibilities can have a significant impact on employees’ endeavour to achieve
work–life balance (Talukder et al., 2018; Thomas and Ganster, 1995). These managers serve
as a source of instrumental and emotional assistance to buffer work-related demands (Choi,
2020). Support for work–life initiatives from managers propagates employees’ perceptions of
balance between their work and personal (life) commitments (Mas-Machuca et al., 2016).
Indeed, managerial support is considered as a crucial workplace resource conducive to
employees’ achievement of better work–life balance (Greenhaus et al., 2012), including
perceived decreased role conflict, specifically, decreased WFC (Talukder et al., 2018).
For instance, flexible working hours may optimise employees’ ability to fulfil both work
and non-work responsibilities (Russo et al., 2016). From a work–family perspective, Major and
Lauzun (2010) suggest that not only does a manager appreciate an employee’s contributions,
the manager is also interested in ensuring that the employee feels appreciated and maintains
productivity at work, including providing employees with assistance to handle work–family
issues. Likewise, the employee could be inclined to contribute to the manager’s goals and be
confident in the manager’s propensity for appropriate help and acknowledgement, namely
aiding in the employee’s ability to manage work–family demands. A meta-analysis suggests
that support of immediate managers and positive work–family experience among employees
are strongly related (Kossek et al., 2011). Empirical literature has also established that a
supportive manager plays a pivotal role in reducing WFC (e.g. Allen, 2001; Behson, 2002;
Thompson et al., 1999). Allen (2001) explains that managerial support exerts influence over
employees’ perceptions of their organisation’s family-supportiveness, which could lead to
reduced WFC. O’Driscoll et al. (2003) found that employees supervised by managers who
provide more support for work–family balance reported less psychological strain than those
with lower levels of managerial support. Managerial support is of great importance in work–
family balance (Greenhaus et al., 2012; G€oz€ ukara and Çolako glu, 2015), due to its alleviating
effects on work–family tension (Beehr et al., 2000).
The work-to-family type of conflict reflects the extent to which participation in the family
role is complicated as a result of participation in the work role (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985).
From this perspective, antecedents of WFC arise from the work domain, and the levels of
work resources and work demands are associated with WFC (Byron, 2005; Michel et al., 2011).
Therefore, the provision of managerial support for employees to participate in the family
domain is likely to ameliorate the role demands at work interfering in family responsibilities
(i.e. WFC). The present study therefore proposes the following hypothesis:
H1. Managerial support will be negatively associated with WFC.

WFC and affective commitment, job satisfaction

Affective commitment, as a component of organisational commitment (Meyer and Allen,
1991), is related to the role or roles of an individual within the social organisation, which could
evoke satisfaction or stress experienced by the individual (Benligiray and S€onmez, 2012).
Affective commitment is a form of psychological attachment originated from sense of pride
and loyalty to an organisation or the manager as the organisation’s representative (Allen and
Meyer, 1990; Meyer et al., 2015), and is likely to be influenced by job- or role-related Work–family
characteristics (i.e. job demands and resources) (Mowday et al., 1982). conflict and
Job satisfaction emanates from employees’ favourable evaluations of the job (Locke, 1976).
Detrimental job characteristics that cause incompatible requirements arising from one’s work
employee
and family roles that potentially have restraining influences on role fulfilment (Greenhaus outcomes
and Beutell, 1985) could be minimised by manager support or “psychologically and
functionally useful resources” for employees to achieve work–life balance (Kossek et al., 2011,
p. 294). Research has established that a common way in which employees reciprocate to their
manager (and organisation) entails developing strong affective and socio-emotional
attachment, including affective commitment and job satisfaction (Birtch et al., 2015;
G€oz€ukara and Çolako glu, 2015; Mukanzi and Senaji, 2017).
According to Thompson et al. (1999), family-supportive management with goodwill and
intention to assist employees in balancing work–family responsibilities could evoke feelings of
attachment from employees, including affective commitment and intention to leave. Similarly,
a recent study conducted in the Australian financial sector revealed the significant role of
managerial support in promoting work–life balance (i.e. decreased WFC), which subsequently
affected employee attitudes, including job satisfaction, organisational commitment and life
satisfaction (Talukder et al., 2018). Furthermore, substantial evidence suggests that affective
commitment and job satisfaction are improved when an individual experiences fewer conflicts
at the work–life interface. Meta-analytic evidence shows that WFC negatively impacts
affective commitment and job satisfaction (Allen et al., 2000; Kossek and Ozeki, 1998). Results
from a number of studies (e.g. Boles et al., 1997; Cannon, 1998; Good et al., 1988; Weale et al.,
2019) reveal that WFC is related to a lower degree of job satisfaction and affective commitment.
Drawing upon the LMX concepts and presented research evidence, it is proposed that:
H2a. WFC will be negatively associated with affective commitment.
H2b. WFC will be negatively associated with job satisfaction.

The mediating role of WFC

The above hypotheses combine to form a mediation model. In the present study, we applied
the LMX framework, which is rooted in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Deluga, 1994), to
theorise the process in which WFC will mediate the relationship between managerial support
and employees’ affective and socio-emotional outcomes, including affective commitment and
job satisfaction. We predict that it is likely that managerial support will lessen the level of
conflicts between employees’ work and life roles (Hypothesis1), which in turn will promote
affective commitment (Hypothesis 2a) and job satisfaction (Hypothesis 2b). Therefore:
H3a. WFC will mediate the relationship between managerial support and affective
commitment.
H3b. WFC will mediate the relationship between managerial support and job
satisfaction.

Methods
The study used a cross-sectional design, and data were collected through a survey of
employees from an Australian manufacturing organisation.

Sample and data collection

The sampling frame comprised all employees of an Australian manufacturing organisation.
Initially multiple organisations were approached, however only one organisation agreed to
EJMBE participate and provided access to its employees. An e-survey link was sent to each employee
via the HR manager. The responses were directly received by the researchers, with no
involvement of the HR manager. Employees’ self-reported data were collected as opposed to
peer or supervisor ratings, objective observations or archival data. The data were collected
between July 2013 to September 2013. A total of 250 employees were sent a survey. After
deleting incomplete responses, 134 surveys with all questions answered led to a response rate
of 53.6%. Final sample size was within the acceptable range of 30–500 responses, defined by
scholarly standards (Roscoe, 1975). It also fulfils the various rules of thumb, such as 50 þ k
(Harris, 1975), 5k (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1989), 50 þ 8k (Green, 1991) and 100 (Combs, 2010).
The value of k for the current study is 4. The respondents comprised 75% male and 25%
female, with a mean age of 45 years. Of participating employees, 62.5% were below the age of
45, and 47.8% had the European/Anglo-American background.

Measures
This study uses four latent variables measured through multiple indicators which represent
the underlying constructs (Byrne, 1998). These indicators are repeatedly used in the literature
for the measurement of these latent constructs that cannot be directly measured (e.g. Bergami
and Bagozzi, 2000; Boyar et al., 2005). This is referred as parcelling in literature that involves
“averaging or summing several raw items to form a single score, which can then be used as an
indicator of a latent variable” (Sterba, 2011, p. 554). Hence, the main four variables (see
Figure 1) are based on reflective scales where the measured items “jointly influence the latent
construct, and meaning emanates from the measures to the construct in the sense that the full
meaning of the composite latent construct is derived from its measures” (MacKenzie et al.,
2005, p. 713). The responses to the items were averaged to create the final score for the
construct (e.g. Armstrong et al., 2010; Liao et al., 2009), as these indicators reflect the
heterogeneous causes of latent construct (Jarvis et al., 2003). Empirical justifications for
averaging items include attaining normality, enhancing reliability and achieving a better
model fit (Bandalos and Finney, 2001). Summing items can lead to misleading values in the
presence of missing responses to some items.
Predictors. Work–family related managerial support was measured by an eleven-item
scale developed by Thompson et al. (1999), with a reported reliability of 0.91. The exploratory
factor analysis was run to check the validity of the scale with the current data. Three items
were dropped from the scale due to factor loadings below 0.4. A sample item is “In general,
managers are quite accommodating of family-related needs”. The Cronbach’s alpha value for
the current study is 0.875. Scales were reported on a five-point Likert scale from “1”
representing “strongly disagree” to “5” representing “strongly agree”.
Outcomes. A seven-item scale was used to measure job satisfaction, developed by King
et al. (2012), asking the degree of employee satisfaction with respect to different aspects of the
job, for example “support from immediate manager” and “value of work”. The reported
reliability of the scale was 0.86. The Cronbach’s alpha value for the current study is 0.89.
Affective commitment was measured using a four-item scale originally developed by Allen
and Meyer (1990). The sample item is “Working at this organisation has a great deal of
personal meaning to me”. The scale measures the emotional attachment, identification and
involvement of employees with the organisation. The Cronbach’s alpha value for the current
study is 0.84. For both scales, employees reported on a five-point Likert scale from “very
dissatisfied” to “very satisfied”.
Mediator. The mediating variable of WFC was measured with a scale used by Netemeyer
et al. (1996), with a reported reliability of 0.88. The scale comprised five items, for example,
“The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life”. Employees reported on
five response choices ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The Cronbach’s
alpha for the current study is 0.94.
 Controls. The analysis controlled for the effects of gender and age. Participant gender was Work–family
coded as a dummy variable, where “0” 5 male and “1” 5 female. Age was an open-ended conflict and
question in the survey. To convert it into a categorical variable, we calculated the median
value of age and created two categories above and below the median value. Lower values
employee
were represented by “0”, while the upper values were represented by “1”. A total of 51.5% of outcomes
the values lay below the median value.

Results
Means, correlations and standard deviations for all variables in the theoretical model are
presented in Table 1. The data were checked for multivariate assumptions through Cook’s
distance, skewness, kurtosis and collinearity diagnostics. All the values were below 0.1 for
Cook’s distance hence showing no outliers (Cook, 1977). Similar was the case for skewness,
kurtosis and variation inflation factor (VIF) values. The Mardia’s standardised coefficient
value is a multivariate measure of normality. Its value equal to or less than 1.96 indicates
multivariate normality of the data (e.g. Vargas-Halabı et al., 2017). For the proposed model,
the value is 1.711 indicating the normality of data. Fornell-Larcker (1981) criterion has been
used to establish the convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs. According to the
criterion, the convergent validity can be assessed through average variance extracted (AVE),
with the values above 0.5 acceptable. For the current model the AVE values for all the
construct are above 0.5, indicating the presence of convergent validity of the constructs
(see Table 2). On the other hand, the criterion proposes the presence of discriminant validity if
the square root of AVE for each construct is greater than the correlations involving the
constructs. The results fulfil the criterion for the presence of discriminant validity in the
current data. At the same time the correlation coefficient values for all variables were below
0.5, indicating convergent and discriminant validity of the data. Convergent and discriminant
validity of variables were also established through exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis, where all factor loadings were above 0.5 (see Table 2: Cunningham et al., 2001;

VARIABLE MEAN SD 1 2 3 4 5

Predictors
1. Managerial support 3.60 0.575
Mediator
2. Work–family conflict 2.69 0.969 0.177*
Outcome
3. Affective commitment 3.43 0.710 0.477** 0.206*
4. Job satisfaction 3.81 0.640 0.110 0.345** 0.254**
Controls Table 1.
5. Gender 0.27 0.445 0.069 0.026 0.201* 0.076 Means, standard
6. Age 1.49 0.502 0.179* 0.017 0.039 0.016 0.182* deviations and
Note(s): *p < 0.05 (2-tailed). **p < 0.01 (2-tailed) correlations

Variable Reliability Convergent validity

Managerial support 0.87 0.50

Work–family conflict 0.94 0.74 Table 2.
Affective commitment 0.84 0.51 Construct reliability
Job satisfaction 0.89 0.56 and validity
EJMBE Tharenou et al., 2007). The cross-sectional nature of data may also pose threats of common
method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Consistent with past literature, the statistical procedures
were used to reduce the bias (e.g. Bitrian et al., 2020; Erkutlu and Chafra, 2019). Therefore,
Harmon’s single factor test was conducted to exclude superfluous items. The results indicate
that 35.15% of total variance was explained by single factor, demonstrating no risk of
common method bias.
The structural equation modelling (SEM) technique in Analysis of Moment Structures
(AMOS) was used to test the hypothesised model shown in Figure 1. Hypotheses 1, 2a and 2b
state the direct relationships in the model. Hypothesis 1 proposes that work–family related
managerial support is negatively associated with WFC (β 5 0.40, α < 0.05). Hypotheses 2a
and 2b anticipate that WFC is negatively related to affective commitment (β 5 0.51,
α < 0.001) and job satisfaction (β 5 0.42, α < 0.001), respectively. Table 3 presents the
estimates and significance of the direct effects in the model. The 95% confidence interval
using 5000 bias corrected samples does not include zero, reporting the relationships to be
significant.
Hypothesis 3a states that WFC will mediate the relationship between managerial support
and affective commitment (β 5 0.32, LLCI 5 0.007, ULCI 5 0.140, α < 0.05), whereas
hypothesis 3b predicts the mediating influence of WFC on the relationship of managerial
support and job satisfaction (β 5 0.30, LLCI 5 0.010, ULCI 5 0.167, α < 0.05). The results
(presented in Table 4) indicate that managerial support had a positively significant effect on
affective commitment and job satisfaction via WFC. The 95% confidence interval using 5000
bias corrected samples does not include zero, reporting the relationships to be significant.
The chi-square to the degrees of freedom ratio for the complete model is 1.627, suggesting
that the model is fit for the data. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is the
most used index to check model fitness (McDonald and Ho, 2002). For the proposed model, the
RMSEA value is 0.05, indicating a model fit (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004; Steiger, 2007).
Other absolute fit value measures are the goodness of fit index (GFI) and adjusted goodness of
fit index (AGFI). For the proposed model, the GFI and AGFI values are 0.977 and 0.919,
respectively, showing acceptable variance for the study (Hooper et al., 2008). The incremental
fit indices mostly reported for SEM are the comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI)
and Tucker Lewis index (TLI). The CFI, NFI and TLI values for the proposed model are 0.954,

Predictor Outcome Estimate LLCI – ULCI

Managerial support Work–family conflict 0.40** 0.622 – 0.036

Work–family conflict Affective commitment 0.51*** 0.267 – 0.092
Work–family conflict Job satisfaction 0.42*** 0.330 – 0.116
Note(s): ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.05
Table 3. Bootstrap sample size 5 5000 bias corrected, LL 5 lower limit, UL 5 upper limit, CI5 Confidence Interval,
Direct effects Level of confidence 5 95%

Predictor Mediator Outcome Estimate LLCI – ULCI

Managerial support Work–family conflict Affective commitment 0.32** 0.007–0.140

Managerial support Work–family conflict Job satisfaction 0.30** 0.010–0.167
Note(s): **p < 0.05
Table 4. Bootstrap sample size 5 5000 bias corrected, LL 5 lower limit, UL 5 upper limit, CI5 Confidence Interval,
Mediating effects Level of confidence 5 95%
0.90 and 0.886, respectively. According to Schumacker and Lomax (2004), values Work–family
approaching one are treated as good and acceptable. All the parsimonious, absolute and conflict and
incremental fit indices show the proposed model fit for the study.
employee
outcomes
Discussion
The basic purpose of this paper was to explore whether: (1) managerial support decreases
WFC, (2) WFC is negatively associated with affective commitment and job satisfaction, and
(3) WFC mediates the relationship between managerial support and outcomes (affective
commitment and job satisfaction). The results reveal all the proposed relationships are
significant.
The results indicate a negative relationship between work–family related managerial
support and WFC. Our findings support and strengthen the literature suggesting decrease in
WFC because of managerial support (e.g. Allen, 2001; Drummond et al., 2017; Frone et al.,
1992; Karatepe and Kilic, 2007; Pluut et al., 2018; Selvarajan et al., 2013; Thomas and Ganster,
1995). For example, Pluut et al. (2018) stated that supervisor’s support mitigates the within-
individual workload effects on emotional exhaustion which reduces WFC. Kossek et al. (2011)
reported a strong relationship between immediate manager support and work–family
experience. Managerial support is also found to exert influence on employees’ perceptions of
an organisation’s family supportiveness, which can lead to lower WFC (Allen, 2001).
Similarly, Drummond et al. (2017) and Lapierre et al. (2008) found negative association
between supervisory support and WFC.
Furthermore, the negative association between WFC and affective commitment/job
satisfaction found in this study is widely supported in the literature (e.g. Allen et al., 2000;
Boles et al., 1997; Cannon, 1998; Good et al., 1988; G€oz€
ukara and Çolako glu, 2016; Kossek and
Ozeki, 1998; McDowell et al., 2019; Qureshi et al., 2019). For example, Weale et al. (2019) found
a significant association between WFC and job satisfaction among residential aged care
employees. Choi and Kim (2012) and Grandey et al. (2005) reported an increase in job
satisfaction with the decrease in WFC. Regarding commitment, Qureshi et al. (2019) reported
a significant negative relationship between WFC and affective commitment. Lyness and
Thompson (1997) also found negative association between WFC and affective commitment.
Meta-analytic evidence has also attributed WFC to a broad range of employee outcomes, such
as job dissatisfaction, low organisational commitment and high turnover intention (Allen
et al., 2000; Eby et al., 2005; Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005). Therefore, the findings
of the current study strengthen the evidence for negative effects of WFC on job satisfaction
and effective commitment.
Our findings indicate that the mediating relationships of managerial support–WFC–
outcomes are also significant. This study provides pioneering evidence of the mediating role
of WFC in the relationship between managerial support and affective commitment. However,
the mediating relationship of managerial support–WFC–job satisfaction has been previously
studied by Anderson et al. (2002) and Hwang and Ramadoss (2017). They reported significant
mediation of WFC in the relationship of managerial support and job satisfaction. There is
adequate theoretical support for the results via LMX theory. The LMX theory suggests that
managers’ fulfilment of needs and expectations lead employees to reciprocate the same
behaviour towards their managers and the organisation (Birtch et al., 2015; G€oz€ ukara and
Çolako glu, 2015; Odriozola and Baraibar-Diez, 2018). The quality of this exchange
relationship holds much importance (Gerstner and Day, 1997; Solıs, 2017).

Theoretical and research contributions

This study makes various theoretical and research contributions. First, the findings provide
support for LMX theory (Deluga, 1994), that is based on social exchange theory and its norm
EJMBE of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). The fulfilment of needs and expectations of
managers and employees through positive social exchange (de Juana-Espinosa and
Rakowska, 2018) underpins the philosophy of LMX theory (Birtch et al., 2015; Deluga,
1994; Major and Lauzun, 2010). Therefore, the decrease in the level of WFC experienced by
employees, due to managers caring for employee well-being and family-supportive
behaviour, led employee to reciprocate positively in the form of enhance affective
commitment and job satisfaction (Birtch et al., 2015; Eisenberger et al., 2002). Second, the
findings provide empirical evidence for the negative linear relationship between managerial
support and WFC, and WFC and affective commitment/job satisfaction. This strengthens the
argument that demonstration of family-supportive behaviours from managers helps
employees to manage work–life demands effectively, reducing WFC (Drummond et al.,
2017; Eisenberger et al., 2002; Pluut et al., 2018) and leading to affective responses from
employees in terms of commitment and job satisfaction (Birtch et al., 2015; Qureshi et al.,
2019). This study focuses on managerial support as it has been considered as most useful and
valuable for employees (Ng and Sorensen, 2008).
Third, this study addresses a gap in the literature by reporting the direct and mediating
relationships in the Australian context that have not previously been explored. Researchers
can also further explore the proposed framework in different cultural settings with larger
data sets and longitudinal analyses. The influence and type of managerial support and facets
of WFC might differ in developed, developing and under-developing cultures. Our research
used the limited number of variables to undertake the focused study rather than the
comprehensive study; however, WFC also has a number of other predictors that need to be
further investigated, like work–family culture, work-role ambiguity, co-worker support, task
autonomy, schedule flexibility and so on (Michel et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 1999). Similarly,
managerial support and WFC can influence employee behaviours and outcomes at a larger
level. Analysing larger sets of predictors and outcomes of WFC can help understand the
reasons for the increase/decrease in WFC.
Fourth, the study provides pioneering evidence for the significant mediating effect of
WFC on the relationship of managerial support and outcomes (affective commitment and job
satisfaction). Studies can also be undertaken to compare the level of managerial support and
family support in enhancing or reducing WFC (Madhavi, 2015; Michel et al., 2011). At the
same time, employee personality traits can also play a vital role in defining WFC (Michel
et al., 2011).

Practical implications
Managerial support has been considered as the most important and valuable resource for
employees to reduce WFC (Kossek et al., 2011; Ng and Sorensen, 2008). According to a survey
by the Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research, employees facing WFC
can face problems in their work performance, their children’s functioning and their family life
(Wilkins et al., 2019). WFC and stress in lives have been considered as common among
Australian workers (Skinner and Chapman, 2013). The supportive and accommodating
work–family climate among managers and employees can help employees achieve a balance
(Talukder et al., 2018; Thomas and Ganster, 1995) as they find instrumental and emotional
assistance to fulfil work-related demands (Choi, 2020). Increasing attention of organisations’
impact on the manager–employee relationship requires firms to focus on the quality of this
exchange relationship. Therefore, evaluating the pros and cons of this relationship holds
significant practical implications. The proposed theoretical framework helps organisations to
understand this reciprocal relationship and its consequences. The more positive managerial
support employees receive, the more positive their behaviours will be towards the
organisation due to decreased conflict in their work and family lives. The improved
relationships among managers and employees will ultimately result in better outcomes for Work–family
both employees and the organisation. conflict and
The HILDA Survey (Wilkins et al., 2019) states that 12% of employees facing high WFC
for around five years will certainly leave employment. This shows that if organisations
employee
understand the reasons for WFC and successfully create a family-supportive environment, outcomes
they can develop a positive exchange relationship between managers and employees, leading
to more positive outcomes. This study draws attention to the importance of managerial
support in reducing WFC as managerial support plays a critical role in mitigating WFC (Goh
et al., 2015). Managers’ family-supportive behaviour towards employees will eventually force
employees to reciprocate positive behaviours and attitudes towards the organisation
(Bettencourt and Brown, 1997; Hicks-Clarke and Iles, 2000; Mor Barak and Levin, 2002).
Organisations can invest in training their managers to maximise their family-supportive
behaviours (Hammer et al., 2011; Mukanzi and Senaji, 2017); this will help managers to use
resources to enhance employee well-being and alleviate the negative effects of a high
workload.
According to a media release in 2019 by Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS,
2019) vis Australian Government, the incompatible work and family demands are a source of
threat to the mental health of mothers as well as fathers. Fathers experiencing high WFC have
reported to be psychologically distressed, and thus reduction in WFC can significantly
improve their mental health (Cooklin, 2018). Therefore, it is important for organisations to
boost managers’ training to support employee health and well-being to reap benefits of the
most critical resource of the organisation and to make it their competitive edge. Such training
will aid them to communicate effectively with their workers and develop compatible working
roles to enhance positive employee outcomes like affective commitment and job satisfaction
(Deluga, 1994; Major and Lauzun, 2010). These positive outcomes will ultimately enhance
organisational productivity.

Limitations
This study holds certain limitations. First, only managerial support is considered as the
predictor of WFC, whereas many other organisational and family factors can influence WFC.
Future research can account for additional predictors of WFC, such as work/family
behaviour support, family non-supportive culture and work/family culture (Glaveli et al.,
2013; Thompson et al., 1999). Second, this study was conducted in the Australian context—
the influence and support of managers may differ in other cultural settings. Third, the limited
sample size and inclusion of only one manufacturing organisation may limit the
generalisability of the findings. Fourth, the study uses a cross-sectional, single-source, self-
reported data design. This can constitute a risk of common method variance and does not
allow for causal inferences. Future research can expand the scope of the study by using a
longitudinal design to assess the relationships.

References
AIFS (2019), Conflict Between Work and Family Affects Fathers’ and Childrens’ Mental Health,
Australian Government: Australian Institute of Family Studies, available at: [Link]
media-releases/conflict-between-work-and-family-affects-fathers-and-childrens-mental-health.
Allen, T. (2001), “Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 414-435.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63
No. 1, pp. 1-18.
EJMBE Allen, T., Herst, D., Bruck, C. and Sutton, M. (2000), “Consequences associated with work-to-family
conflict: a review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 278-308.
Anderson, S., Coffey, B. and Byerly, R. (2002), “Formal organizational initiatives and informal
workplace practices: links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 787-810.
Armstrong, C., Flood, P.C., Guthrie, J.P., Liu, W., MacCurtain, S. and Mkamwa, T. (2010), “The impact
of diversity and equality management on firm performance: beyond high performance work
systems”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 977-998.
Babin, B. and Boles, J. (1996), “The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support
on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72
No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Bandalos, D.L. and Finney, S.J. (2001), “Item parceling issues in structural equation modelling”, in
Marcoulides, G.A. and Schumacker, R.E. (Eds), New Developments and Techniques in Structural
Equation, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 269-296.
Beehr, T., Jex, S., Stacy, B. and Murray, M. (2000), “Work stressors and coworker support as
predictors of individual strain and job performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 391-405.
Behson, S. (2002), “Which dominates? The relative importance of work–family organizational support
and general organizational context on employee outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
Benligiray, S. and S€onmez, H. (2012), “Analysis of organizational commitment and work–family
conflict in view of doctors and nurses”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 23 No. 18, pp. 3890-3905.
Bergami, M. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2000), “Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-
esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization”, British Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 555-577.
Bernas, K. and Major, D. (2000), “Contributors to stress resistance: testing a model of women’s work-
family conflict”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 170-178.
Bettencourt, L. and Brown, S. (1997), “Contact employees: relationships among workplace fairness, job
satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, pp. 39-61.
Birtch, T., Chiang, F. and Van Esch, E. (2015), “A social exchange theory framework for
understanding the job characteristics–job outcomes relationship: the mediating role of
psychological contract fulfillment”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1-20.
Bitrian, P., Buil, I. and Catalan, S. (2020), “Gamification in sport apps: the determinants of users’
motivation”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 365-381.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Boles, J., Johnston, M. and Hair, J. (1997), “Role stress, work-family conflict and emotional exhaustion:
inter-relationships and effects on some work-related consequences”, Journal of Personal Selling
and Sales Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Boyar, S.L., Maertz, C.P. Jr and Pearson, A.W. (2005), “The effects of work–family conflict and family–
work conflict on nonattendance behaviors”, Journal of business Research, Vol. 58 No. 7, pp. 919-925.
Byrne, B.M. (1998), “Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: basic
concepts”, Applications and Programming, pp. 3-40.
Byron, K. (2005), “A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 169-198.
Cannon, D. (1998), “Better understanding the impact of work interferences on organizational
commitment”, Marriage and Family Review, Vol. 28 Nos 1-2, pp. 153-166.
Chambel, M., Carvalho, V., Cesario, F. and Lopes, S. (2017), “The work-to-life conflict mediation Work–family
between job characteristics and well-being at work part-time vs full-time employees”, Career
Development International, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 142-164. conflict and
Charoensukmongkol, P., Moqbel, M. and Gutierrez-Wirsching, S. (2016), “The role of co-worker and
employee
supervisor support on job burnout and job satisfaction”, Journal of Advances in Management outcomes
Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 4-22.
Choi, Y. (2020), “A study of the influence of workplace ostracism on employees’ performance:
moderating effect of perceived organizational support”, European Journal of Management and
Business Economics, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 333-345.
Choi, J.H. and Kim, T.Y. (2012), “Work-family conflict, work-family facilitation, and job outcomes in
the Korean hotel industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 1011-1028.
Cloninger, P. and Selvarajan, T. (2015), “The mediating influence of work-family conflict and the
moderating influence of gender on employee outcomes”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 26 No. 18, pp. 2269-2287.
Combs, J.G. (2010), “Big samples and small effects: let’s not trade relevance and rigor for power”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 9-13.
Cook, R.D. (1977), “Detection of influential observation in linear regression”, Technometrics, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 15-18.
Cooklin, A. (2018), “Conflicts between work and family and fathers’ mental health”, The 15th Biennial
AIFS Conference, Australian Government: Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne,
pp. 1-3, available at: [Link]
Cunningham, W.A., Preacher, K.J. and Banaji, M.R. (2001), “Implicit attitude measures: consistency,
stability, and convergent validity”, Psychological Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-170.
De Cieri, H., Holmes, B., Abbott, J. and Pettit, T. (2005), “Achievements and challenges for work/life
balance strategies in Australian organizations”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 90-103.
de Juana-Espinosa, S. and Rakowska, A. (2018), “Public sector motivational practices and their effect
on job satisfaction: country differences”, European Journal of Management and Business
Economics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 141-154.
Deluga, R. (1994), “Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship
behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67, p. 315.
Drummond, S., O’Driscoll, M.P., Brough, P., Kalliath, T., Siu, O.L., Timms, C., Riley, D., Sit, C. and Lo, D. (2017),
“The relationship of social support with well-being outcomes via work–family conflict: moderating
effects of gender, dependants and nationality”, Human Relations, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp. 544-565.
Eby, L., Casper, W., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C. and Brinley, A. (2005), “Work and family research in
IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002)”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 124-197.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. and Rhoades, L. (2002), “Perceived
supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 565-573.
Erkutlu, H. and Chafra, J. (2019), “Leader Machiavellianism and follower silence: the mediating role of
relational identification and the moderating role of psychological distance”, European Journal of
Management and Business Economics, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 323-342.
Ford, M., Heinen, B. and Langkamer, K. (2007), “Work and family satisfaction and conflict: a meta-
analysis of cross-domain relations”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 57-80.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
EJMBE Frone, M., Russell, M. and Cooper, M. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict:
testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1,
pp. 65-78.
Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., Melis, P., Aviles Gonzalez, C., Finco, G., Contu, P. and Campagna, M. (2019),
“The role of collective affective commitment in the relationship between work–family conflict
and emotional exhaustion among nurses: a multilevel modeling approach”, BMC Nursing,
Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 5.
Gerstner, C. and Day, D. (1997), “Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: correlates
and construct issues”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 827-844.
Glaveli, N., Karassavidou, E. and Zafiropoulos, K. (2013), “Relationships among three facets of family-
supportive work environments, work–family conflict and job satisfaction: a research in Greece”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 20, pp. 3757-3771.
ukara, I._ and Çolako
G€oz€ glu, N. (2015), “The impact of manager support and work family conflict on
job satisfaction”, Business Management Dynamics, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 13-25.
ukara, I._ and Çolako
G€oz€ glu, N. (2016), “The mediating effect of work family conflict on the relationship
between job autonomy and job satisfaction”, Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, No. 229,
pp. 253-266.
Goh, Z., Ilies, R. and Wilson, K.S. (2015), “Supportive supervisors improve employees’ daily lives: the
role supervisors play in the impact of daily workload on life satisfaction via work–family
conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 89, pp. 65-73.
Good, L., Sisler, G. and Gentry, J. (1988), “Antecedents of turnover intentions among retail
management”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 3, p. 295.
Gouldner, A. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T.A. (1987), “Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, pp. 175-208.
Grandey, A., Cordeiro, B. and Crouter, A. (2005), “A longitudinal and multi-source test of the work–
family conflict and job satisfaction relationship”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 305-323.
Green, S.B. (1991), “How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?”, Multivariate
Behavioral Research, Vol. 26, pp. 499-510.
Greenhaus, J. and Beutell, N. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”, The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Greenhaus, J., Ziegert, J. and Allen, T. (2012), “When family-supportive supervision matters: relations
between multiple sources of support and work–family balance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 266-275.
Gutek, B.A., Searle, S. and Klepa, L. (1991), “Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family
conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 4, p. 560.
Hammer, L.B., Kossek, E.E., Anger, W.K., Bodner, T. and Zimmerman, K.L. (2011), “Clarifying work–
family intervention processes: the roles of work–family conflict and family-supportive
supervisor behaviors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 1, p. 134.
Harris, R.J. (1975), A Primer of Multivariate Statistics, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Hicks-Clarke, D. and Iles, P. (2000), “Climate for diversity and its effects on career and organisational
attitudes and perceptions”, Personnel Review, Vol. 29, pp. 324-345.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M. (2008), “Structural equation modelling: guidelines for
determining model fit”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 6, pp. 53-60.
Hwang, W. and Ramadoss, K. (2017), “The job demands–control–support model and job satisfaction
across gender: the mediating role of work–family conflict”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 52-72.
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A critical review of construct indicators and Work–family
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218. conflict and
Karatepe, O. and Karadas, G. (2016), “Service employees’ fit, work-family conflict, and work
employee
engagement”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 554-566. outcomes
Karatepe, O. and Kilic, H. (2007), “Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts in the work–
family interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline employees”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 238-252.
Kim, T. and Mullins, L.B. (2016), “How does supervisor support and diversity management affect
employee participation in work/family policies?”, Review of Public Personnel Administration,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 80-105.
King, E.B., Dawson, J.F., Kravitz, D.A. and Gulick, L.M.V. (2012), “A multilevel study of the
relationships between diversity training, ethnic discrimination and satisfaction in
organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5-20.
Kinman, G., Clements, A.J. and Hart, J. (2017), “Working conditions, work–life conflict, and well-being
in U.K. Prison officers: the role of affective rumination and detachment”, Criminal Justice and
Behavior, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 226-239.
Kossek, E.E. and Ozeki, C. (1998), “Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction
relationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 139-149.
Kossek, E.E. and Ozeki, C. (1999), “Bridging the work-family policy and productivity gap: a literature
review”, Community, Work and Family, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 7-32.
Kossek, E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T. and Hammer, L. (2011), “Workplace social support and work-family
conflict: a meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-family-specific supervisor
and organizational support”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 289-313.
Lambert, E.G., Qureshi, H., Keena, L.D., Frank, J. and Hogan, N.L. (2019), “Exploring the link between
work-family conflict and job burnout among Indian police officers”, Police Journal (Chichester),
Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 35-55.
Lapierre, L. and Allen, D. (2006), “Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of
organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: implications for work-family conflict and
employee well-being”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 169-181.
Lapierre, L., Hackett, R. and Taggar, S. (2006), “A test of the links between family interference with work,
job enrichment and leader–member exchange”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 489-511.
Lapierre, L., Spector, P.E., Allen, T.D., Poelmans, S., Cooper, C.L., O’driscoll, M.P., Sanchez, J.I.,
Brough, P. and Kinnunen, U. (2008), “Family-supportive organization perceptions, multiple
dimensions of work–family conflict, and employee satisfaction: a test of model across five
samples”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 92-106.
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D.P. and Hong, Y. (2009), “Do they see eye to eye? Management and
employee perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on service
quality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, p. 371.
Litano, M., Major, D., Landers, R., Streets, V. and Bass, B. (2016), “A meta-analytic investigation of the
relationship between leader-member exchange and work-family experiences”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 802-817.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M.
(Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press,
Palo Alto, Calif.
Lyness, K. and Thompson, D.E. (1997), “Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of
female and male executives”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 359-375.
EJMBE MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Jarvis, C.B. (2005), “The problem of measurement model
misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, p. 710.
Madhavi, C. (2015), “Impact of work family conflict on job and life satisfaction”, International Journal
on Global Business Management and Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, p. 35.
Major, D. and Lauzun, H. (2010), “Equipping managers to assist employees in addressing work-family
conflict: applying the research literature toward innovative practice”, The Psychologist-Manager
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 69-85.
Major, D., Fletcher, T., Davis, D. and Germano, L. (2008), “The influence of work-family culture and
workplace relationships on work interference with family: a multilevel model”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 881-897.
Mas-Machuca, M., Berbegal-Mirabent, J. and Alegre, I. (2016), “Work-life balance and its relationship
with organizational pride and job satisfaction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 586-602.
McDonald, R.P. and Ho, M.H.R. (2002), “Principles and practice in reporting structural equation
analyses”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 64.
McDowell, W., Matthews, L., Matthews, R., Aaron, J., Edmondson, D. and Ward, C. (2019), “The price
of success: balancing the effects of entrepreneurial commitment, work-family conflict and
emotional exhaustion on job satisfaction”, International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 1179-1192.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. and Viswesvaran, C. (2005), “Convergence between measures of work-to-family
and family-to-work conflict: a meta-analytic examination”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 215-232.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J., Morin, A. and Vandenberghe, C. (2015), “Dual commitment to organization and supervisor: a
person-centered approach”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 88, pp. 56-72.
Michel, J.S., Kotrba, L.M., Mitchelson, J.K., Clark, M.A. and Baltes, B.B. (2011), “Antecedents of work–
family conflict: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 689-725.
Mor Barak, M.E. and Levin, A. (2002), “Outside of the corporate mainstream and excluded from the
work community: a study of diversity, job satisfaction and well-being”, Community, Work and
Family, Vol. 5, pp. 133-157.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 224-247.
Mowday, R., Porter, L. and Steers, R. (1982), Employee-organization Linkages: The Psychology of
Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Mukanzi, C. and Senaji, T. (2017), “Work–family conflict and employee commitment: the moderating
effect of perceived managerial support”, SAGE Open, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 1-12.
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation of work–family
conflict and family–work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4, p. 400.
Ng, T.W.H. and Sorensen, K.L. (2008), “Toward a further understanding of the relationships between
perceptions of support and work attitudes: a meta-analysis”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 33, pp. 243-268.
Nohe, C. and Sonntag, K. (2014), “Work–family conflict, social support, and turnover intentions: a
longitudinal study”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Odriozola, M. and Baraibar-Diez, E. (2018), “Do work-life balance practices mediate in the relationship
between female participation and financial performance?”, European Journal of Management
and Business Economics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 249-265.
O’Driscoll, M., Poelmans, S., Spector, P., Kalliath, T., Allen, T., Cooper, C. and Sanchez, J. (2003), “Family- Work–family
responsive interventions, perceived organizational and supervisor support, work-family conflict,
and psychological strain”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 326-344. conflict and
Pluut, H., Ilies, R., Curşeu, P.L. and Liu, Y. (2018), “Social support at work and at home: dual-buffering
employee
effects in the work-family conflict process”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision outcomes
Processes, Vol. 146, pp. 1-13.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Pohl, S. and Galletta, M. (2017), “The role of supervisor emotional support on individual job
satisfaction: a multilevel analysis”, Applied Nursing Research, Vol. 33 No. 61, pp. 61-66.
Quick, J. (2013), Preventive Stress Management in Organizations, 2nd ed., American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
Qureshi, M.A., Bin Ab Hamid, K., Jeihoony, P., Ali, R., Brohi, N.A., Magsi, R. and Shah, S.M.M. (2018),
“Is supervisor support matter in job satisfaction? A moderating role of fairness perception
among nurses in Pakistan”, Academy of Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 1-10.
Qureshi, H., Lambert, E.G. and Frank, J. (2019), “When domains spill over: the relationships of work–
family conflict with Indian police affective and continuance commitment”, International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 63 No. 14, pp. 2501-2525.
Roscoe, J.T. (1975), Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, New York, NY.
Russo, M., Shteigman, A. and Carmeli, A. (2016), “Workplace and family support and work–life
balance: implications for individual psychological availability and energy at work”, The Journal
of Positive Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Schumacker, R. and Lomax, R. (2004), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed.,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Selvarajan, T., Cloninger, P. and Singh, B. (2013), “Social support and work–family conflict: a test of
an indirect effects model”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 486-499.
Skinner, N.J. and Chapman, J. (2013), Work-life Balance and Family Friendly Policies, Doctoral
dissertation, ANZSOG-The Australia and New Zealand School of Government.
Skinner, N. and Pocock, B. (2014), The Australian Work and Life Index 2014: The Persistent Challenge:
Living, Working, and Caring in Australian 2014, Centre for Work þ Life, University of South
Australia, available at: [Link]
Smith, V., Klein, K. and Ehrhart, M. (2002), “Work time, work interference with family, and
psychological distress”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 427-436.
Solıs, M. (2017), “Moderators of telework effects on the work-family conflict and on worker performance”,
European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 21-34.
Steiger, J.H. (2007), “Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation
modelling”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 893-898.
Sterba, S.K. (2011), “Implications of parcel-allocation variability for comparing fit of item-solutions and
parcel-solutions”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 554-577.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1989), Using Multivariate Statistics, 2nd ed., Harper and Row,
Cambridge, MA.
Talukder, A., Vickers, M. and Khan, A. (2018), “Supervisor support and work-life balance: impacts on
job performance in the Australian financial sector”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 727-744.
Tharenou, P., Donohue, R. and Cooper, B. (2007), Management Research Methods, Cambridge
University Press, Melbourne.
Thomas, L. and Ganster, D. (1995), “Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family
conflict and strain: a control perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 6-15.
EJMBE Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L. and Lyness, K.S. (1999), “When work–family benefits are not enough:
the influence of work–family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and
work–family conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 392-415.
Tummers, L.G. and Bronkhorst, B. (2014), “The impact of leader-member exchange (LMX) on work-
family interference and work-family facilitation”, Personnel Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 573-591.
Turner, N., Hershcovis, M., Reich, T. and Totterdell, P. (2014), “Work–family interference,
psychological distress, and workplace injuries”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 715-732.
Vargas-Halabı, T., Mora-Esquivel, R. and Siles, B. (2017), “Intrapreneurial competencies: development
and validation of a measurement scale”, European Journal of Management and Business
Economics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 86-111.
Wayne, J., Casper, W., Matthews, R. and Allen, T. (2013), “Family-supportive organization perceptions
and organizational commitment: the mediating role of work-family conflict and enrichment and
partner attitude”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 4, pp. 606-622.
Weale, V., Wells, Y. and Oakman, J. (2019), “The work-life interface: a critical factor between work
stressors and job satisfaction”, Personnel Review, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 880-897.
Wilkins, R., Laß, I., Butterworth, P. and Vera-Toscano, E. (2019), The Household, Income and Labour
Dynamics in Australia Survey: Selected Findings from Waves 1 to 17 (2019), Melbourne
Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne, available at:
[Link]
[Link].
Yang, J., Bently, J.R., Treadway, D.C., Brouer, R.L., Wallace, A.B., Jeffery, R., Treadway, D.C., Brouer,
R.L. and Wallace, A. (2018), “The role of affective commitment and political skill in the work
interfering with family (WIF) conflict - voluntary turnover relationship”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 595-613.
Zheng, C., Kashi, K., Fan, D., Molineux, J. and Ee, M. (2016), “Impact of individual coping strategies
and organisational work-life balance programmes on Australian employee well-being”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 501-526.

Further reading
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-247.
Keeney, J., Boyd, E., Sinha, R., Westring, A. and Ryan, A. (2013), “From ‘work-family’ to ‘work-life’:
broadening our conceptualization and measurement”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 82
No. 3, pp. 221-237.
Ngah, N., Ahmad, A., Hamid, T. and Ismail, A. (2010), “The mediating role of work-family conflict in
the relationship between supervisor support and job satisfaction”, International Journal of
Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 11, pp. 187-197.

Corresponding author
Muhammad Ali can be contacted at: [Link]@[Link]
Study Predictor(s) Mediator(s) Outcome(s) Key findings

Allen et al. (2000) Work–family conflict (WFC) Individual well-being, WFC has negative effects on
affective commitment, job individual well-being, affective Appendix
satisfaction commitment and job satisfaction
Anderson et al. (2002) Managerial support WFC Job satisfaction, turnover All four outcome variables were
intention, stress, directly impacted by managerial
absenteeism support. WFC was linked to job
dissatisfaction, turnover
intentions and stress. WFC was
influenced by managerial support
Babin and Boles (1996) Supervisory support Role conflict (RC), Role ambiguity Job performance, job Supervisory support leads to low
Work involvement (RA) satisfaction RC and RA. Employee
perceptions of the work
involvement, the general level of
support offered by supervisors,
and the role stress (RC and RA)
felt on the job have significant and
nontrivial effects on job
performance and satisfaction
Charoensukmongkol Supervisor support, co-worker Aspects of burnout: Emotional Job satisfaction Burnout will reduce employee job
et al. (2016) support exhaustion, depersonalisation, satisfaction. Employees who felt
perceived lack of personal that they received good support
accomplishment from their supervisor and co-
worker tended to report lower
burnout and higher satisfaction.
The positive effect of supervisor
support on job satisfaction, and
co-worker support on job
satisfaction will be mediated by
all three aspects of burnout

(continued )
outcomes
employee
conflict and
Work–family

Table A1.

studies
Past relevant empirical
 EJMBE

Table A1.
Study Predictor(s) Mediator(s) Outcome(s) Key findings

Choi and Kim (2012) Family-work conflict (FWC), Job satisfaction Job performance Job satisfaction may be increased
Work–family facilitation by reducing WFC. FWC was
(WFF), Family–work found to have a positive effect on
facilitation (FWF) job satisfaction. FWF has positive
effect on job satisfaction. The
greater job satisfaction employees
experience, the better job
performance they generate
Drummond et al. (2017) Supervisor support, family WFC Psychological strain, job Supervisor support and family
support and family satisfaction support were associated with
lower work–family conflict, and
hence reduced psychological
strain and increased job and
family satisfaction for women and
for employees in China and Hong
Kong, but not for employees in
Australia and New Zealand
Galletta et al. (2019) WFC Emotional exhaustion The study provided support at the
individual level for the positive
relationship between WFC and
emotional exhaustion
G€oz€
ukara and Job autonomy WFC Job satisfaction Job autonomy increases the
Çolako
glu (2016) satisfaction levels of employees.
WFC has a negative mediating
effect on this relationship
Grandey et al. (2005) WFC Job satisfaction WFC was negatively related to job
satisfaction for men and women

(continued )
Study Predictor(s) Mediator(s) Outcome(s) Key findings

Hwang and Ramadoss Supervisor support, co-worker WFC Job satisfaction While job demands contribute to
(2017) support, greater work–family conflict, job
job control, job demands controls, supervisor support, and
co-worker support contribute to
lesser work–family conflict and
greater job satisfaction. Job
demands contribute to lesser job
satisfaction, whereas job controls,
supervisor support, and co-
worker support contribute to
greater job satisfaction. WFC
reduces the satisfaction levels of
employees. The mediation effects
were significant
Karatepe and Karadas Person-job fit WFC, FWC, work engagement Work engagement, life Person-job fit is negatively related
(2016) satisfaction to employees’ WFC and FWC.
Employees are less engaged in
their work when they are
incapable of establishing a
healthy balance between their
work (family) and family (work)
responsibilities. The study found
person–job fit influences
engagement directly and
indirectly via both WFC and
FWC. FWC is significantly and
negatively related to life
satisfaction, while WFC is not

(continued )
outcomes
employee
conflict and
Work–family

Table A1.
 EJMBE

Table A1.
Study Predictor(s) Mediator(s) Outcome(s) Key findings

Kim and Mullins (2016) Supervisor support of Employees’ participation in Supervisor support for
employees’ work–life balance work/family programs employees’ work–life balance and
(WLB), diversity management diversity management are
positively related to employees’
participation in work/family
programs
Kossek and Ozeki WFC Performance, turnover, WFC is associated with higher
(1999) absenteeism, turnover intentions, care-related
organisational absences, job involvement and
commitment, job lower commitment to
involvement, burnout organisations and careers.
Conflict between work and family
is also found to have a strong
positive association with burnout
Lambert et al. (2019) WFC Burnout WFC was positively related to
emotional burnout
Lapierre et al. (2008) Family-supportive WFC Job, family, life satisfaction Employees working in an
organisation (including environment viewed as more
supervisor support) perception family-supportive experience
lower levels of WFC. Reduced
WFC then translates into greater
job and family satisfaction,
followed by greater overall life
satisfaction
Lyness and Thompson WFC Affective commitment WFC was negatively related to
(1997) affective commitment

(continued )
Study Predictor(s) Mediator(s) Outcome(s) Key findings

Mas-Machuca et al. Supervisor WLB support, Organisational pride, WLB Satisfaction Supervisor WLB support and
(2016) autonomy autonomy are positively related to
employee WLB. Employee WLB
is positively related with
organisational pride and job
satisfaction. Organisational pride
mediates the employee WLB-job
satisfaction relationship
McDowell et al. (2019) Entrepreneurship WFC, Emotional exhaustion Job satisfaction Entrepreneurship commitment
commitment has a positive influence on job
satisfaction. Entrepreneurship
commitment has a positive
significant impact on WFC and
emotional exhaustion. Emotional
exhaustion as a consequence from
WFC has a negative influence on
job satisfaction
Pluut et al. (2018) Workload Emotional exhaustion WFC Emotional exhaustion
experienced at the end of the
workday mediates the positive
relationship between daily
workload and WFC experienced
at home
Qureshi et al. (2019) WFC Affective commitment, Family-based WFC was found to
Continuance commitment reduce continuance commitment,
while strain-based WFC reduced
affective commitment. Time-
based, strain-based, and
behaviour-based WFC increased
levels of continuance commitment

(continued )
outcomes
employee
conflict and
Work–family

Table A1.
 EJMBE

Table A1.
Study Predictor(s) Mediator(s) Outcome(s) Key findings

Qureshi et al. (2018) Supervisor support, fairness Job satisfaction Supervisor support has a
perception significant impact on job
satisfaction among nurses.
Fairness perception is found to be
a strong predictor of nurses’ job
satisfaction
Talukder et al. (2018) Supervisor support WLB Job performance, job Supervisor support can play a
satisfaction, major role in maintaining a WLB
life satisfaction, for employees. WLB is positively
organisational commitment related to all four outcomes.
Mediation not tested
Thompson et al. (1999) Work–family culture Affective commitment, Supportive work–family culture
(including managerial support turnover intention, WFC was positively related to affective
for WLB) commitment and negatively
related to WFC and intentions to
leave the organisation
Wayne et al. (2013) Employee Employee work-to-family conflict Employee affective FSOP is positively associated
Family-supportive and enrichment (EWCE), Partner commitment (EAC) with EAC through both EWCE
organisational perceptions attitude towards employee work- and PAEW. FSOP was found to
(FSOP) schedule (PAEW), Parter affective be positively related to employee
commitment (PAC) work-to-family enrichment, which
was positively associated with
employee AC. FSOP has a
negative effect on employee work-
to-family conflict, which is related
to a partner’s increased positive
attitude towards the employee’s
work schedule and commitment
to the firm. Partner AC was
positively and reciprocally
associated with employee AC.
These relationships partially
mediated the relationship between
FSOP and employee AC
Yang et al. (2018) WIF Affective commitment Voluntary turnover Affective commitment is a
mediating mechanism in WIF-
turnover relationship