Keywords

1 Work, Family and Human Flourishing

Recent social and demographic changes have transformed business and family structures. As the number of dual earner couples, single parents, and women in the workforce continues to increase, more individuals now assume multiple roles that require obligations and responsibilities regarding both the work and family domain. Therefore, there is a growing concern about working adults who aspire to engage successfully in both the work and family sphere. This has called into question the changes we need in order for them to achieve this effectively.

Organizations, families, and society can benefit from understanding the linking relationships between work and family (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Research has suggested that individuals can benefit from engaging in multiple roles (Hanson et al., 2006). Our study aims to explore human flourishing in the context of stable dual earning heterosexual couples. Organizations where individuals can better flourish are beneficial for individuals and for society (Huppert & So, 2013). As organizations seek to create more humane environments, we see this as an opportunity for enrichment in couples, and a means towards human flourishing. For the same token, it is our aim to show that individuals who are part of couples that generate enriching dynamics will be better able to contribute to organizations as well. Our research intents to explore under which family and organizational circumstances, individuals who are part of committed and stable couples live fulfilled lives and experience well-being. We study such conditions for couples in which both members work full time jobs.

Human flourishing has been defined as a state in which different aspects of life, including happiness, health, satisfaction, meaning, purpose, and relationships, are good (Vanderweele, 2017). It is a state that is achieved when feeling good, functioning effectively and experiencing that life is going well (Huppert & So, 2013). Vanderweele (2017) considers family, work, education, and religious communities as major pathways towards outcomes related to human flourishing. In this study, we refer to human flourishing as the combination of feeling good and functioning effectively in the work and home domain. Using as reference the work-home resource model (WH-R) proposed by ten Brummelhuis and Bakker (2012), we analyze how the relationship between the work and family domain can foster human flourishing. The WH-R model offers a framework that describes the relationship between work and family as a process of depletion and enrichment of resources (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). The WH-R model has a theoretical foundation on the Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory proposed by Hobfoll (2002). According to COR theory, individuals aim for resources and the possession of them can help generate other resources (Hobfoll, 2002).

Work and family are two domains of human life that are closely interconnected (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Job resources and flourishing can contribute to the understanding of the interaction between the family and work domain (Du et al., 2018). Yet, most research has focused on the conflict or interference from the relationship between work and family roles (Crain & Hammer, 2013). Work-family conflict is a term used to describe the incompatibility between the pressure of the work and family sphere (Amstad et al., 2011) and is based on the assumption that one role results in difficulties on the other role (Sanz-Vergel et al., 2015). Work-family conflict has also been studied in terms of work interference with family and in terms of family interference with work (Amstad et al., 2011).

As part of the work-family research, studies began to ask whether work and family domain might also facilitate one another. Data suggested that work-family facilitation is a phenomenon that is not just the absence of work-family conflict (Hill, 2005). The inquiry on work-family enrichment as research topic shifted the focus in order to study how positive experiences in one sphere can improve experiences in the other sphere (Crain & Hammer, 2013). Enrichment is used to describe the way in which one domain is associated with improvement in the quality of life of the other domain (Zhang et al., 2018). Research and studies on work-family enrichment analyze other concepts such as enhancement or facilitation. Greenhause and Powell (2006) proposed the work-family enrichment model as a framework that explains work and family roles as allies that are considered to be bidirectional.

According to the WH-R model (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012), contextual resources from either family or work domain lead to development of personal resources, which can facilitate performance on the other domain (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). The model states the possession of resources decreases the possibility of conflict and relates positively to enrichment. Our study gathers information concerning resources generated in dyads, to do that we collected data panel consisted from both individuals of dual earning couples. We explore when, and to what extent, the relationship between work and family can foster well-being at for the individuals, and when resources transfer from one member of the couple to the other.

We use the concept of resources as defined in the social and psychological research: resources are elements that have a value in their own or function as means towards an end (Hobfoll, 2002). Resources have an important role in COR Theory and in the WH-R Model. According to COR theory, the possession of resources work by two spiral processes: one refers to a loss spiral, when depletion happens, and a gain spiral, when accumulation of resources occurs (Hobfoll, 2002). The WH-R model proposes that enrichment is more likely to occur when individual possesses resources and at the same this will make conflict less likely to occur (Bakker et al., 2011).

1.1 Bidirectional Spillover from Work to Home Within Persons and Crossover Within Couples

There is lots of evidence showing that work resources transfer to the non-work domain, and the other way round. For instance, research by Lin et al. (2017) shows that resources generated at work result in positive outcomes in the family domain. Data at the individual level has suggested that work resources, such as flexibility at the workplace, improve outcomes in both the family and work domain (Hill et al., 2001). Research at the individual level suggests that the transfer of skills from work to home leads to positive outcomes such as mental health (Hanson et al., 2006).

Emotions at work result on work outcomes at work on individuals, but also on their partner at home (Sanz-Vergel et al., 2012). For example, work-family conflict research have found evidence of stress causing consequences on individuals, and also on their partner’s health and well-being (Yucel & Fan, 2019). These dynamics among partners let Hammer et al. (1997) to call for more research that focuses not only on individuals as the unit of analysis, but also to explore crossover effects of work and family between partners. Aligned with the WH-R model, spillover theory explores how experiences at work impact an individual’s behavior at home (Sanz-Vergel et al., 2015). Spillover theory also explores how experiences, feelings, or attitudes spill over from the work domain to the family domain (Lin et al., 2017). Studies have also explored how the spillover outcome can then be transferred to the partner (crossover) (Sanz-Vergel et al., 2015). Research on crossover theory has contributed to the understanding of how crossover in work and in home leads to improvement of individuals at work and at home.

1.2 Support as a Resource

The purpose of the first part of our research is to study how contextual resources, such as spouse behavior at home, can foster human flourishing through spillover and crossover, resulting in enriched outcomes in the work and home domain. We explore how support for work received from the spouse can lead to the generation of resources such as creativity, self-efficacy, and strategic renewal. Our study contributes to the work and family literature by introducing the concept of work supportive spouse behavior (WSSB), which mirrors the Family Supportive Supervisor Behaviors (FSSB) that denotes behaviors by supervisors that favor their employees’ role as family members (Hammer et al., 2013). In line with FSSB, we define WSSB as behaviors exhibited by spouses that are supportive of their partner’s role in the workplace.

The concept of FSSB is framed within the social support theory. Research has suggested that social support can act as a causal contributor of well-being and of improved mental health (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Social support is usually measured between emotional support and instrumental support (Aycan & Eskin, 2005) which can come from sources such as spouses, coworkers, or supervisors (Hammer et al., 2013). The FSSB research explores supervisor’s behavior as a tool that provides resources to employees and enables them to better cope with managing multiple roles in the home and work domain (Hammer et al., 2013). We intent to explore how WSSB can also help individuals to successfully manage multiple roles in the home and work domain.

Our model (1) proposes social support, given by spouses through work supportive behavior, as a resource that might foster enrichment in the work and family domain. Alongside the WH-R model, we propose that resources in the work domain, such as creativity at work and self-efficacy at work, as well as resources in the home domain, like creativity at home and strategic renewal at home, are more likely to accumulate among individuals who receive work spouse supportive behavior. We also integrate family performance as a possible outcome for work supportive spouse behavior, and as an antecedent for enrichment outcomes. Family performance has been used usually as a self-report variable. As part of our intention to gather two sources of information, we have turned this into a measure rated by the partner. Studies that include data from both partners contribute a more clear picture of the processes by using information from two sources involved in the crossover and spillover process (Sanz-Vergel et al., 2015).

In line with spillover and crossover theory, the second part of our research suggests that resources, in the form of spouse support, may cross over between couples and result in the accumulation of resources of the partner. In our proposed model (2) we suggest spouse support for strength use given might cross over as perceived spouse support for strength use and then spill over in the work domain in creativity at work and meaning at work from psychological empowerment. We also include possible outcomes regarding the home domain, such as family crafting and self-efficacy, in order to explore spillover in both domains.

In line with the WF-R framework, our model also integrates personal traits, such as love from spouse and perspective taking as personal resources that can be utilized to improve outcomes in the work and home domain. In line with the concept of gain spiral, we suggest personal resources, such as love for spouse and perspective taking, can enable individuals to achieve other purposes effectively, such as giving spouse support for strength use to their partner.

The third part of our research explores how behaviors might cross over between the work and the home domain. The third model we propose takes account of self-efficacy, strategic renewal, and creativity at work as behaviors that may influence and cross over to the home domain as flow, strategic renewal, and creativity at home. We also include proactive personality of the spouse and organizational support for strength use of the spouse as contextual resources that may influence the crossover of self-efficacy, strategic renewal, and creativity from the work to the home interface.

Finally, our third model also integrates self-efficacy at home of the spouse as a resource that could partially mediate between our predictors and our proposed outcomes. Perceived self-efficacy can influence a person’s choice of activities, of environments and settings, coping efforts, and determine how much they will try to face obstacles against difficult experiences (Bandura, 1977). Individuals with higher self-efficacy are more likely to successfully use resources obtained in the work domain for the benefit of their role in the home domain, and vice versa (Gayathri & Karthikeyan, 2016). Our study suggests that perceived self-efficacy at work domain can lead to skills, values, and opportunities that cross over to the home domain as flow, strategic renewal, and creativity.

Research has found evidence of association between creativity and high levels of well-being on individuals (Huppert & So, 2013). At the organizational level, research has also highlighted how creativity of individuals is beneficial for innovation at organizations (Tierney et al., 1999). Creativity has also been described as an antecedent for innovation, growth, and societal development (Zhou & Hoever, 2014). We suggest that creativity at work can cross over and favor creativity at home as well as other behaviors such as flow and strategic renewal.

2 Sample and Procedure

Our study consists of a random sample of 150 US resident couples. Selection criteria for our sample included spouses who had both partners work full time jobs, shared a common residence and be part of a heterosexual couple. We asked the participants to complete an online survey during 7 weeks. Half of the males were assigned to role A, and half of them to role B. Their partners were assigned to the complementary role, so that our final sample would consist of a sample of 50% in which men was A and female was B, and the other 50% males would be B and females would be A. This was done because A and B were different questionnaires, to study the transfer of resources from A to B, and from B to A. Our final sample consists of 150 dual earner couples (N = 300), of which 129 (89%) have children. Of the total sample 52% have people under their responsibilities in their job; 54% have a bachelor’s degree, while 18% have a master’s. The company they worked for had between 251 and 500 employees for 19% of the sample, 501–2500 for 21%, and 2500 or more for 16%. All statistical analysis was tested with MLWIN.

3 Measures

Items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale where a rating of 1 was equivalent to strongly disagree and a 7 to strongly agree. Since some of the resources in the models are volatile, meaning that they might change over the course of time (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012), we contacted each couple during 7 weeks in a row, to account for such changes over time. The first week we collected demographic data, and data corresponding to structural resources. These resources are stable and therefore last longer (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012).

The measures that we collected first week are the following:

  • Love for spouse: Individuals evaluated four items from The love Attitudes Scale: short form (Hendrick et al., 1998). (e.g., You would rather suffer than let your partner suffer) (α = 0.84 for group A; mean = 5.57; SD = 0.04).

  • Empathic concern: Participants evaluated on the scale developed by Davis (1983) which is composed of seven items and describes empathic concern as the reaction someone has to the experiences of the others. We use the empathic concern scale that measures other oriented feelings (e.g., You often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than you) (α = 0.86 for group A; mean = 4.61; SD = 0.03).

  • Perspective taking: We took the seven items of the Perspective Taking Scale, also developed by Davis (1983) that measures the tendency to take on the psychological point of view of someone else. (e.g., You sometimes try to understand your friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective) (α = 0.79 for group A; mean = 4.94; SD = 0.03).

  • Organizational support for strength use: We measured five items of the scale on organizational support for strength use, which is a scale that was developed to measure perception of employees on their organization as organizational support (Keenan & Mostert, 2013) (e.g., Your organization uses your strengths) (α = 0.92 for group B; mean = 5.53; SD = 0.05).

  • Proactive personality: We used six items of the proactive personality scale, a reliable self-report instrument to evaluate proactive behavior within the individual level (Bateman & Crant, 1993) (e.g., You are always looking for better ways to do things) (α = 0.89 for group B, mean = 5.52; SD = 0.04).

  • Family climate for creativity: We adapted a scale developed to measure climate for creativity at work in order to measure climate for creativity at home (Zhou & Hoever, 2014) (e.g., In your home, your partner and family members are open to new ideas and new ways of thinking). (α = 0.82 for group B, mean = 5.75; SD = 0.04).

From week two to seven, we collected data on resources that we consider volatile. That is, these resources might vary over short time periods. For that reason, so took weekly measures. As previously mentioned, we collected different information for group A and B. The following measures correspond to the data collected for group A:

  • WSSB—Work Supportive Spouse Behaviors (received): To evaluate work supportive spouse behaviors we adapted four items from the FSSB developed by Hammer et al. (Hanson et al., 2006). We ask group A to report WSSB received by group B (α = 0.88, mean = 5.75; SD = 0.04) (e.g., your partner has made you feel comfortable talking about your conflicts between work and non-work).

  • Flow at home: To measure flow at home we used ten item, adapted to the home domain, that measures a state described by being absorbed and optimally challenged in your activities “This week at home, your thoughts/activities ran fluidly and smoothly” (α = 0.92, mean = 5.35, SD = 0.04).

  • Self-efficacy at work: We used three items of the general self-efficacy scale which includes items such as: This last week, you felt capable of achieving your work goals (α = 0.87, mean = 5.73, SD = 0.04).

  • Creativity at work: To measure creativity at work we used three items that measure originality and innovation through a scale developed by Tierney et al. (1999) that includes items such as: This week, you’ve demonstrated originality in your work (α = 0.88, mean = 5.15, SD = 0.06).

  • Creativity at home: It resembles the scale developed for creativity at work, yet it refers to the home domain. This scale had never been used for such domain before. For example: This week, you’ve demonstrated originality in your home/family life (α = 0.92, mean = 5.18, SD = 0.06).

  • Strategic renewal at work: We measured strategic renewal at work by including four items of one dimension of the scale, and adapted it to a weekly methodology to collect data regarding new ideas to face challenges at work (α = 0.94, mean = 4.77, SD = 0.07). (e.g., This last week, you’ve conceptualized new ways of working for your organization.)

  • Strategic renewal at home: We adapted the four items that we used for strategic renewal at work to the home domain (e.g., This last week, you’ve conceptualized new ways of working for your family) (α = 0.94, mean = 4.90, SD = 0.06). To our knowledge, this scale had never been used in a non-work domain.

  • Spouse support for strength use: We adapted a scale developed to measure organizational support strength use to focus it on measuring spouse support (e.g., You’ve given your partner the opportunity to do what he/she is good at alpha) (α = 0.91, mean = 6.02, SD = 0.04). To our knowledge, this scale had ever been used to measure support coming from a non-organizational source.

The following measures correspond to the data collected for group B (these are the partners of the sample of group A):

  • Family crafting: We included five items that collected measures regarding learning, skills, and challenging activities in the home domain. The survey asked for self-reporting on data such as: Through your family activities, you have looked for inspiration from others (α = 0.89, mean = 5.49, SD = 1.22).

  • Family performance of spouse A: We took two items regarding tasks (for example: To what extent do you think that, in the last week, your partner has fulfilled what your family expects of him/her in relation to maintaining this around home), and two items of relationships (for example: Keep family members connected with each other, to measure family performance of the spouse. (α = 0.88, mean = 5.72, SD = 1.21).

  • Satisfaction with work-family balance of the spouse: We used three items to measure satisfaction with performance of spouse A reported by B. Survey included items such as: This past week: to what extent have you been satisfied with how your partner has divided his/her attention between work and home (α = 0.92, mean = 5.56, SD = 1.32).

  • Perceived spouse support for strength use: In line with spouse support given measured by group A, we ask group B to report for spouse support received (e.g., Your partner has given you the opportunity to do what you are good at) (α = 0.93, mean = 5.87, SD = 1.18).

  • Self-efficacy at home: We adapted the scale used for group A to report for self-efficacy at work, modified to measure the same variables in the home domain (e.g., In the last week, you’ve felt capable of achieving your family duties) (α = 0.84, mean = 5.91, SD = 1.02).

  • Creativity at work: We use the same scale used in group A to report for creativity at work (α = 0.90, mean = 5.56, SD = 1.28).

  • Meaning at work from psychological empowerment scale: We used three items from the scale developed by Spreitzer (1995) that measures meaning at work with items such as: The work I do is personally meaningful to me (α = 0.91, mean = 5.84, SD = 1.22).

4 Proposed Models

For our first model (Fig. 1), we predict behavioral support to be an antecedent of enrichment outcomes in the work and home domain. In line with social support theory and work-home resource model, we suggest behavioral support is a resource that can foster the generation of positive outcomes. We therefore propose that work supportive spouse behavior (WSSB) received is a volatile resource and its possession can lead to outcomes such as creativity, flow, strategic renewal, and self-efficacy. Thus, we hypothesize:

  • Hypothesis 1a: WSSB (received by A) positively relates to: (a) Creativity at home (of A), (b) Flow at home (of A), (c) Strategic renewal (of A), (d) Creativity at work (of A) and (e) Self-Efficacy at work (of A).

Fig. 1
figure 1

First model: behavioral support as an antecedent of enrichment outcomes in the work and home domain

Full size image

We suggest that family performance is key to understanding the relationship between WSSB and enrichment outcomes, such as the ones tested in our model. Successfully accomplishing family tasks can explain the link between WSSB and creativity, flow, strategic renewal, and self-efficacy. In our model, we tested family performance as a resource that can mediate the relationship between WSSB and work and home outcomes. Thus, we hypothesize:

  • Hypothesis 1b: Family performance (of A, reported by B) mediates the effect of WSSB (received by A) on: (a) Creativity at home (of A), (b) Flow at home (of A), (c) Strategic renewal at home (of A), (d) Creativity at work (of A) and (e) Self-Efficacy at work (of A).

We also suggest structural resources, such as empathic concern and family climate for creativity, moderate the relationship between family performance and its outcomes such that outcomes are stronger among those with higher levels of empathic concern and family climate for creativity.

  • Hypothesis 1c: Empathic concern (of A) moderates the impact of family performance (of A, reported by B) on: (a) Creativity at home (of A), (b) Flow at home (of A), (c) Strategic renewal (of A), (d) Creativity at work (of A) and (e) Self-Efficacy at work (of A).

  • Hypothesis 1d: Family climate for creativity (reported by A) moderates the impact of family performance (of A, reported by B) on: (a) Creativity at home (of A), (b) Flow at home (of A), (c) Strategic renewal (of A), (d) Creativity at work (of A), (e) Self-Efficacy at work (of A).

Finally, our first model also considers that satisfaction with family balance of the spouse can explain the size of the effect of the relationship between family performance and its outcomes. Therefore, we suggest that the extent to which the outcomes have a positive relationship may be stronger among those with higher satisfaction with work-family balance of the spouse.

  • Hypothesis 1e: Satisfaction with work-family balance of the spouse A (measured by B) moderates the impact of family performance (of A) on: (a) Creativity at home (of A), (b) Flow at home (of A), (c) Strategic renewal (of A), (d) Creativity at work (of A) and (e) Self-Efficacy at work (of A).

In our second model (Fig. 2) as suggested by crossover theory, we explore how resources lead to generating further resources between spouses. At the individual level, structural resources, such as personal traits, can work as antecedents for the generation of other resources, such as spouse support for given. Thus, we hypothesize:

  • Hypothesis 2a: (a) Perspective taking (of A) and (b) Love for spouse (of A), positively relates to spouse support for strength use (given by A).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Second model. Resources of spouse A (perspective taking and love for spouse) leading to further resources of spouse B (creativity at work, family crafting, self-efficay, and maening at work)

Full size image

In line with spillover crossover theory, our model suggests that the use of personal resources can have crossover effect between spouses and then induce the generation of resources. We believe that spouse support for strength use (given by A) crosses over between spouses and leads to perceive spouse support for strength use (received by B).

  • Hypothesis 2b: Spouse support for strength use given (by A) positively relates to perceived spouse support for strength use received (by B).

We argue that since perceive support for strength use received (by B) is associated with support for strength used given (by A), consequently the effect of perspective taking and love for spouse on perceived support for strength use (by B) will be mediated by the level of spouse support for strength use (given by A). Therefore, we hypothesize:

  • Hypothesis 2c: Spouse support for strength use given (by A) mediates the effect of (a) Perspective taking (of A) and (b) Love for spouse (of A), on perceived spouse support for strength use (received by B).

Work-home resource model suggests that gains in resources, such as social support, lead to a gain spiral in which resources accumulate. Therefore, we believe that perceived spouse support for strength use (received by B) can be an antecedent to enrichment outcomes such as creativity at work (of B), family crafting (of B), self-efficacy at home (of B), and meaning at work from psychological empowerment (of B). Thus, we hypothesize:

  • Hypothesis 2d: Perceived spouse support for strength use (received by B) positively relates to: (a) Creativity at work (of B), (b) Family crafting (of B), (c) Self-efficacy at home (of B), (d) Meaning at work from psychological empowerment scale (of B).

We predict that a higher level of perceived spouse support for strength use (received by B) resulting from spouse support for strength use (given by A) will foster a better quality of experiences in the work and home domain. Thus, we hypothesize:

  • Hypothesis 2e: Perceived spouse support for strength use (received by B) mediates the relationship between spouse support for strength use (given by A) and: (a) Creativity at work (of B), (b) Family crafting (of B), (c) Self-efficacy at home (of B) and (d) Meaning at work from psychological empowerment scale (of B).

Our third model (Fig. 3) suggests that individual behaviors at the work domain can foster enrichment through crossover between spouses and between domains. Individuals influence the behavior, emotions, and thoughts of their partners and transmit their feelings or events between them. Therefore, we suggest behaviors at the work domain and behaviors at the home domain of the spouse are associated positively. Thus, we hypothesize:

  • Hypothesis 3a: (a) Self-Efficacy at work (of A), (b) Strategic renewal at work (of A) and (c) Creativity at work (of A) positively relates to self-efficacy at home (of B).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Third model: Individual behaviors by spouse A at the work domain leading to positive outcomes of spouse B at home (Self-Efficacy, Flow at home, Strategic renewas, Creativity at Home). This process is dependent on the Organizatioan Support for Strengh use of spouse B

Full size image

In the same line, we predict that behavior at the home domain can be an antecedent to behaviors of the spouse in the home domain. We suggest self-efficacy of one of the partners can cross over in the home domain through flow, strategic renewal or creativity at home. Thus, we hypothesize:

  • Hypothesis 3b: Self-efficacy at home (of B) positively relates to: (a) Flow at home (of A), (b) Strategic renewal at home (of A) and (c) Creativity at home (of A).

In line with spillover theory, behaviors at work can impact an individual’s behavior at home. We predict that this relationship can be mediated through the behavior at home of the spouse. We suggest that high levels of self-efficacy at home (of B) will result in higher effects between behavior in the work and in the home domain. Thus, we hypothesize:

  • Hypothesis 3c: Self-efficacy at home (of B) mediates the effect of self-efficacy at work (of A) on: (a) Flow at home (of A), (b) Strategic renewal at home (of A) and (c) Creativity at home (of A).

  • Hypothesis 3d: Self-efficacy at home (of B) mediates the effect of strategic renewal at work (of A) on: (a) Flow at home (of A), (b) Strategic renewal at home (of A) and (c) Creativity at home (of A).

  • Hypothesis 3e: Self-efficacy at home (of B) mediates the effect of creativity at work (of A) on: (a) Flow at home (of A), (b) Strategic renewal at home (of A) and c) Creativity at home (of A).

Finally, we include in our model structural resources and suggest that they can moderate the crossover effect between spouses.

  • Hypothesis 3f: Organizational support for strength use (of B) moderates the effect of (a) Self-efficacy at work (of A), (b) Strategic renewal at work (of A) and (c) Creativity at work (of A), on self-efficacy at home (of B).

5 Results

5.1 Model 1: Results

Multilevel regression analysis revealed that work supportive spouse behavior had a significant positive effect on creativity at home (β = 0.497, SE = 0.056, p < 0.001), flow at home, (β = 0.571, SE = 0.035, p < 0.001), strategic renewal (β = 0.370, SE = 0.060, p < 0.001), creativity at work (β = 0.484, SE = 0.053, p < 0.001), and self-efficacy at work (β = 0.500, SE = 0.040, p < 0.001). Supporting hypothesis 1a, this suggests that work supportive spouse behavior can influence positive outcomes in the home and in the work domain.

To test for the mediation effect of family performance, we first conducted a regression analysis to test for the direct effect between work supportive spouse behavior and family performance. The test was statistically significant (β = 0.505, SE = 0.041, p < 0.001). We also tested and found significant results on the direct association between family performance and creativity at home (β = 0.609, SE = 0.047, p < 0.001), flow at home (β = 0.424, SE = 0.035, p < 0.001), strategic renewal (β = 0.532, SE = 0.052, p < 0.001), creativity at work (β = 0.517, SE = 0.044, p < 0.001), and self-efficacy at work (β = 0.500, SE = 0.039, p < 0.001). In line with what we proposed in hypothesis 1b, bootstrapping test confirmed that the indirect effect via family performance is statistically significant at the 95% CI on creativity at home [CI = 0.20, 0.33], flow at home [CI = 0.07, 0.11], strategic renewal [CI = 0.17, 0.31], creativity at work [CI = 0.16, 0.27], and self-efficacy at work [CI = 0.13, 0.23].

Hypothesis 1c predicted that empathic concern had a moderating effect between family performance of spouse A and the proposed behavior outcomes. Results show that the interaction between empathic concern and family performance of spouse influence creativity at home (β = −0.252, SE = 0.065, p < 0.05) and flow at home (β = 0.016, SE = 0.04, p < 0.05).

Supporting hypothesis 1d, results indicate that the interaction between family climate for creativity and family performance is significant on creativity at home (β = 0.14, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001), flow at home (β = 0.07, SE = 0.03, p < 0.01), strategic renewal (β = 0.202, SE = 0.043, p < 0.001), creativity at work (β = 0.18, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001), and self-efficacy at work.

Hypothesis 1e predicted that satisfaction with work-family balance of the spouse moderated the relationship between family performance and the proposed outcomes. Results support our hypothesis, as the interaction was statistically significant between satisfaction with work-family balance of the spouse and flow at home (β = 0.036, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001).

5.2 Model 2: Results

Statistical analysis support there is a positive relationship between perspective taking and spouse support for strength use (β = 0.389, SE = 0.054, p < 0.001), as well as between love for spouse and spouse support for strength use (β = 0.333, SE = 0.032, p < 0.001) in line with what we proposed in hypothesis 2a.

We run a regression analysis and confirmed hypothesis 2b, which suggested that spouse support for strength use given (by A) positively relates to perceived spouse support for strength use received (by B) (β = 0.695, SE = 0.033, p < 0.001). We tested for the mediating effect of spouse support for strength use and found statistical evidence that it mediates the relationship between perspective taking and perceived spouse support for strength use [CI = 0.19, 0.35], as well as between love for spouse and perceived spouse support for strength use [CI = 0.01, 0.05] supporting hypothesis 2c.

Supporting hypothesis 2d, we found that perceived spouse support for strength use positively relates to creativity at work (β = 0.348, SE = 0.040, p < 0.001), family crafting (β = 0.392, SE = 0.037, p < 0.001), self-efficacy at home (β = 0.485, SE = 0.028, p < 0.001), and meaning at work from psychological empowerment (β = 0.417, SE = 0.037, p < 0.001).

To test for the mediation effect suggested in hypothesis 2e, we first tested for the direct relationship between spouse support for strength use and the proposed outcomes. We found significant positive relationships between spouse support for strength use and creativity at work (β = 0.397, SE = 0.044, p < 0.001), family crafting (β = 0.426, SE = 0.041, p < 0.001), self-efficacy at home (β = 0.539, SE = 0.031, p < 0.001), and meaning at work from psychological empowerment (β = 0.486, SE = 0.040, p < 0.001). We analyzed for mediation by testing the indirect effect of perceive spouse support for strength use on these associations. We bootstrapped and found significant indirect effects of mediation between spouse support for strength use through perceived spouse support on creativity at work [CI = 0.07827, 0.2189], family crafting [CI = 0.1171, 0.2472], self-efficacy at home [CI = 0.164, 0.2617], and meaning at work from psychological empowerment [CI = 0.1098, 0.2382].

5.3 Model 3: Results

We used multilevel modeling to test hypothesis 3a which suggested a positive relationship between self-efficacy at work (β = 0.530, SE = 0.033, p < 0.001), strategic renewal at work (β = 0.192, SE = 0.025, p < 0.001), and creativity at work (β = 0.541, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001) on self-efficacy at home.

Regression analysis also supported hypothesis 3b, which suggested that self-efficacy at home positively relates to flow at home (β = 0.487, SE = 0.039, p < 0.001), strategic renewal at home (β = 0.407, SE = 0.060, p < 0.001), and creativity at home (β = 0.453, SE = 0.057, p < 0.001).

Hypothesis 3c suggested self-efficacy at home (of B) had a mediation effect on the relationship between self-efficacy at work and the proposed behavior outcomes. We first tested the direct relationships which prove statistically significant indicating self-efficacy at work relates positively to flow at home (β = 0.579, SE = 0.033, p < 0.001), strategic renewal at home (β = 0.602, SE = 0.048, p < 0.001), and creativity at home (β = 0.626, SE = 0.046, p < 0.001). We tested the indirect effect of self-efficacy at home on these associations, bootstrapped the results and found significant indirect effects on flow at home [CI = 0.095, 0.189], strategic renewal at home [CI = 0.233, 0.367], and creativity at home [CI = 0.014, 0.148].

Hypothesis 3d suggested that self-efficacy at home (of B) mediates the effect of strategic renewal at work on the model outcomes. The test for direct relationships suggested a positive and significant association between strategic renewal and flow at home (β = 0.258, SE = 0.022, p < 0.001), strategic renewal at home (β = 0.652, SE = 0.025, p < 0.001), and creativity at home (β = 0.643, SE = 0.025, p < 0.001). To test for mediation we bootstrapped the indirect effects and found significant confidence intervals on flow at home [CI = 0.2731, 0.7371] and creativity at home [CI = 0.024, 0.068].

Hypothesis 3e suggested that self-efficacy at home (of B) mediates the effect of creativity at work on the model outcomes. The test for direct relationships suggested a positive and significant association between creativity at work and flow at home (β = 0.372, SE = 0.026, p < 0.001), strategic renewal at home (β = 0.720, SE = 0.032, p < 0.001), and creativity at home (β = 0.733, SE = 0.030, p < 0.001). To test for mediation we bootstrapped the indirect effects and found significant confidence intervals on flow at home [CI = 0.135, 0.213] and creativity at home [CI = 0.016, 0.112].

Hypothesis 3f suggested organizational support for strength use had a moderating effect on the relationship between self-efficacy at home, strategic renewal at work, and creativity at work on self-efficacy at home. The interaction proved statistically significant on the relationship between strategic renewal at work and self-efficacy at home (β = 0.720, SE = 0.032, p < 0.01).

6 Conclusions

Through our study, we saw that there could be positive associations between roles in the home and in the work domain: success in one domain can influence greater success in the other. Our results suggest that enrichment in the home domain can be influenced by: social support in the home domain, such as spouse supportive behavior; support in the workspace, such as organizational support; and positive behaviors in the work domain, such as strategic renewal at work. Alternately, we also saw this to happen in the work domain. Therefore, we conclude that, when individuals develop successful behaviors in one role, the benefits can spill over to the other role. Finally, we add that social support and personal traits can increase the outcomes such that the benefits, and therefore the individual enrichment, are greater.

Thus, we encourage organizations and policymakers to promote practices and policies that help individuals to successfully manage multiple roles in the home and work domain. Society and organizations can benefit from enriched individuals who are able to perform better in the work and in the home domain. Hence, work-family balance can influence greater human flourishing through well-being of women and men.

As a society that constantly strives to adapt to changes in a fast pace world, we can all benefit from understanding the relationship of managing multiple roles. Well-being of women and men should be a priority for organizations as work-family balance is increasingly crucial under current social and demographic conditions. Human flourishing, for those who manage multiple role, is possible and should be promoted as a means for a better and healthier society.