Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 23, Issue 1–2, pp 37–49 | Cite as

Supervisor Appraisal as the Link Between Family–Work Balance and Contextual Performance

  • Dawn S. Carlson
  • L. A. Witt
  • Suzanne Zivnuska
  • K. Michele Kacmar
  • Joseph G. Grzywacz
Article

Abstract

We examined the relationship between subordinates’ family to work balance (conflict and enrichment) and two dimensions of contextual performance (interpersonal facilitation and job dedication) reported by supervisors. Beyond the direct effects, we hypothesized that supervisor’s appraisals of employee conflict and enrichment would influence the supervisor’s contextual performance ratings. Data collected from a matched sample of 156 private sector employees and their supervisors indicated that the supervisor’s performance ratings were impacted by the supervisor’s appraisal of enrichment. However, the supervisor’s appraisal of conflict only mattered for interpersonal facilitation. There was a direct effect of subordinate’s conflict on both dimensions of contextual performance.

References

  1. Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balzer, W. K., & Sulsky, L. M. (1992). Halo and performance appraisal research: A critical examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 975–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, R. C. (1998). Toward a review and reconceptualization of the work/family literature. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 124(2), 125–182.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., & Sayer, A. (1992). Positive-spillover effects from job to home: A closer look. Women & Health, 19(2–3), 13–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Burkett, E. (2000). The baby boom: How family-friendly America cheats the childless. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 5, 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, W. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 218–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crouter, A. C. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of the work–family interface. Human Relations, 37, 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family—allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grzywacz, J. G. (2000). Work–family spillover and health during midlife: Is managing conflict everything? American Journal of Health Promotion, 14(4), 236–243.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: Testing different models of work–family fit. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 248–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. (2005). The impact of job characteristics on work-to-family facilitation: Testing a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 97–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Indovino, L., Rosner, E., DeNicolis, J., & Srednicki, O. (2003). Work-family conflict, work–family culture, and organizational contextual performance among teachers. Paper presented at the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Google Scholar
  30. Kenny, D. A. (1995). The effect of nonindependence on significance testing in dyadic research. Personal Relationships, 2, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 223–265). Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Keyes, C. L., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2005). Health as a complete state: The added value in work performance and healthcare costs. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 47(5), 523–532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging the common view of conflict-ridden domain relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lachman, M. E., & Boone-James, J. (1997). Charting the course of midlife development: An overview. In M. E. Lachman & J. Boone-James (Eds.), Multiple paths of midlife development (pp. 1–20). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationship. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  36. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organization behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family and family interference with work. Work and Stress, 8, 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marks, S. R., Huston, T. L., Johnson, E. M., & MacDermid, S. M. (2001). Role balance among white married couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 1083–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(2), 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marshall, N. L., & Barnett, R. C. (1993). Work–family strains and gains among two-earner couples. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1989). Cumulative evidence of the relationship between employee age and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nathan, B. R., & Tippins, N. (1990). The consequences of halo ‘error’ in performance ratings: A field study of the moderating effect of halo on test validation results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 290–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. (2002). Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sackett, P. R., & Dubois, C. L. (1991). Rater-ratee race effects on performance evaluation: Challenging meta-analytic conclusions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 873–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 427–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Taylor, S. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tompson, H. B., & Werner, J. M. (1997). The impact of role conflict/facilitation on core and discretionary behaviors: Testing a mediated model. Journal of Management, 4, 583–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work–family experience: Relationships of the Big Five to work–family conflict and enrichment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wayne, J. H., Randel, A., & Stevens, J. The role of identity and work–family support in work–family enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior (in press).Google Scholar
  55. Young, M. B. (1999). Work–family backlash: Begging the question, what’s fair? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 562, 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dawn S. Carlson
    • 1
  • L. A. Witt
    • 2
  • Suzanne Zivnuska
    • 3
  • K. Michele Kacmar
    • 4
  • Joseph G. Grzywacz
    • 5
  1. 1.Baylor UniversityWacoUSA
  2. 2.University of HoustonHoustonUSA
  3. 3.California State UniversityChicoUSA
  4. 4.The University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  5. 5.Wake Forest University School of MedicineWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations