An examination of the role of emotional intelligence in work and family conflict *.

Employers need to recognize the constant challenge many employees face in balancing work and family. Recruiting and retaining top workers is essential to the success of the organization; thus, it behooves employers to understand the variables associated with the effective management of the work-family conflict.

One cannot pick up a newspaper or periodical or even turn on the news without being confronted with the issue of balancing work and family. For most, it is a constant struggle to attempt to balance the commitments of work and family life. Some researchers have suggested that work-family balance is an illusive goal and one that is unattainable (Caproni, 1997). The concern is that the more one is committed to work, the more one enjoys the associated benefits, both financial and non-financial, which encourage them to devote even more time and energy to work. Since neither one's time nor energy is limitless, by definition, then, such workers will find themselves far from the balance they originally sought with one of the roles invariably ending up on the losing end.

As a result of an increasingly larger share of the workforce occupying many non-work roles in addition to that of paid worker, organizations need to understand the impact of multiple roles on workers' productivity. Attitudes, behaviors and emotions associated with one role may spill over to the other (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000). In fact, many employers fear that engagement in the family role is accomplished only to the detriment to the work role.

The work-family literature frames this balance in seemingly diametrically opposed views, namely the depletion and enrichment arguments (Marks, 1977). The former is more deeply rooted in the literature and views these roles as conflicting (Friedman and Greenhaus, 2000). One's energy and time are limited, and, as such, the demand in each role depletes resources at the expense of the other. Yet those scholars that view the work-family research through the lens of the enrichment hypothesis suggest that it is the occupancy of multiple roles and the quality of those roles that yield beneficial effects on one's well-being (Barnett and Hyde, 2001). The benefits to individuals provide a net gain over the costs, leading to a positive emotional response and better well-being,

In an effort to explain the competing views in the literature--the depletion or enrichment hypotheses--we propose that the question needs to be examined at the individual level. Specifically, we posit that Emotional Intelligence, a dispositional variable, interacts with work-family conflict to predict one's well-being. Consistent with research conducted by Noor (2003) that resulted in support for the effect of locus of control on the relationship between work-family conflict and well-being, this study expands the link to examine the effect of a broader dispositional measure. Noor (2003) sampled 310 married women with children who were employed full-time in Malaysia. She found that "women with high control beliefs generally were more vulnerable to work-family conflict" and that work-family conflict was positively related to symptoms of psychological distress--women's sense of general well-being" (2003: 658).

This study builds on past models of work and family stress that use individual differences as moderators of the effects of work and family experiences on well-being (e.g., Frone et al., 1997a; Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1986; Higgins et al., 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1996). In addition, the present study answers the call of Greenhaus and Beutell for more research "to determine the impact of specific personal characteristics on role attitude/behaviors that affect the arousal of work-family conflict" (1985: 83), as well as Carlson's (1999) call for additional study of personality variables such as the "Big Five" to provide further insight into the underpinnings of work-family conflict. We posit that it is not necessarily a general all-encompassing trait that distinguishes the "handlers" from the "non-handlers," but rather it is an individual trait which can cross gender, race, ethnicity, and age.

The ultimate question is can you have it all? As Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) state in their book, Work and Family--Allies or Enemies ?, it is possible to have both a fulfilling career and a satisfying family life, but it requires balanced involvement in both of these spheres of our life. In other words, Freidman and Greenhaus suggest that it is the successful management of conflicting demands and one's level of satisfaction with their decisions that lead to balance. It is on the interrole conflict between the work role and the other life roles that much of the literature is based. Work-family literature is based on the boundaries between the two domains as being permeable such that work can influence family and family can influence work.

Work-family conflict has been found to be a predictor of employee's well-being (Vallone and Donaldson, 2001) and several studies have shown that it is a mediator between work and family roles and individual well-being (Aryee et al., 1999; Frone et al., 1997a). Also, it has been empirically shown to lead to psychological depression (Googins, 1991), physical ailments (Frone et al., 1997a), lower life satisfaction (Aryee, 1992), lower quality of family life (Higgins et al., 1992) and lower energy levels (Googins, 1991). Additionally, it is negatively related to employee job satisfaction (Boles et al., 2001).

Depletion

The depletion argument stems from research on role drain, namely what Marks refers to as the "drain theory" of energy (1977) as well as role conflict (Merton, 1957; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). The depletion argument of interrole conflict, according to Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek and Rosenthal, is defined as the "simultaneous occurrence of two (or more) sets of pressures such that compliance with one would make more difficult compliance with another" (1964: 19). Goode suggests that the "individual's total role obligations are over-demanding." He further states that "role strain--difficulty in meeting given role demands --is therefore normal" (1960: 485). He likens the need for an individual to allocate his energy and skills to reduce role strain to "some bearable proportions" to the way the individual handles limited economic resources. One needs to make decisions as to where to allocate money and where not, the same as one needs to do with their energy. Similar to the equimarginal principle in economics which posits that one should maximize utility in allocating limited dollars among goods and services, an individual needs to maximize the results of his/her efforts and energy invested in one domain over the other. Opposing pressures arise from engaging in multiple roles and these pressures can be incompatible by requiring different roles to compete for a person's limited time resources as well as the strains associated with one or more roles (Kopelman et al., 1983). The assumption underlining the depletion argument is that multiple demands of paid worker and family role are detrimental to the individual and that role participation invokes stress, resulting in emotional strain (Rothbard, 2001).

Enrichment

The enrichment view, as postulated by Marks (1977), suggests that as an individual increases the number of roles he or she occupies, there is a net gain or benefit from them (enrichment) rather than a loss or depletion. Many studies have empirically supported the enhancement hypothesis by depicting a positive relationship between the involvement in multiple roles and various measures of psychological well-being (Barnett et al., 1992; Baruch and Barnett, 1986). The enrichment argument assumes that the benefits of multiple roles outweigh the costs, leading to gratification rather than strain (Rothbard, 2001).

HYPOTHESES

This study is primarily concerned with identifying a possible explanation for the disagreement regarding the beneficial effects of multiple roles on well-being. Similar to prior research, this study analyzed the roles of spouse, parent and worker (Sieber, 1974). These non-work roles were identified and studied because we want to focus on work-family conflict. Sociologists have focused on the resulting outcome of role strain or overload from one possessing both a paid worker role and a family role (Geerken and Gove, 1983).

Well-being

Researchers have developed models to predict how work and family influence stress and well-being (e.g., Frone et al., 1997b; Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1986; Higgins et al., 1992; Kopelman et al., 1983; Parasuraman et al., 1996). Edwards and Rothbard (1999) studied how the cognitive appraisal process (up to that point, "notably absent from the models") influenced stress. Using the person-environment fit theory, Edwards and Rothbard "examined how the comparison of work and family experiences to the person's values relates to stress and well-being" (1999: 85). They wanted to explore possible explanations for why different people in the same situation experience different levels of stress.

Some models of work and family stress use individual differences as moderators of the effects of work and family experiences on well-being (e.g., Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1986; Higgins et al., 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1996). Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) argue that time is not the major enemy of work-family conflict, rather it is the level of psychological interference of work into the family domain and of family concerns into the workplace. Recent research has associated personality variables and work-family conflict.