Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesAn example of an item from the WIF scale is "On the job I have so much work to do it takes away from my personal interests." An example from the FIW scale is "I'm often too tired at work because of the things I have to do at home." These eight items have been used in other work-family conflict research (Adams et al., 1996; Judge et al., 1994).
Emotional Intelligence. The Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS), a self-report measure, was used in this study to measure Emotional Intelligence. This scale is based on the model of Salovey and Mayer (1990), which has been labeled as the standard for "scholarly discourse" (Jordan et al., 2003). As Schutte et al. (1998) stated in the defining article of the EIS, it is a reliable, valid measure of Emotional Intelligence as conceptualized by Salovey and Mayer (1990). The EIS represents the following categories which are consistent with the Mayer and Salovey (1997) conceptualization of Emotional Intelligence: appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself and others, regulation of emotion in self and others, and utilization of emotions solving problems.
The EIS is a scale of a trait measure of Emotional Intelligence that was developed through factor analysis which showed good reliability with two different samples. Two-week test-retest reliability indicated that the scores were fairly stable over time. The EIS reported internal consistency was between .87 and .90 (Schutte et al., 1998). It consists of 33 items which assess to which extent individuals perceive, understand, regulate and harness emotions adaptively. On a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) respondents rate their agreement with such items as "I am aware of my emotions as I experience them," and "I help other people feel better when they are down." The sum of all items constitutes the total score, which can range from 33-165 (higher scores indicate greater Emotional Intelligence). The internal reliability for this study, as measured by Cronbach's alpha, was .90.
Analysis
To test hypotheses 1, 2 and 3, a two-way ANOVA was used with the independent variables being Emotional Intelligence (low and high) and WFC (low and high), and the dependent variable was well-being. The independent variables were dichotomized using median splits to conduct the 2 x 2 analysis of variance on well-being. The dichotomization of the variables is consistent with prior research (Nikolaou and Tsaousis, 2002; Hammer et al., 2004). Since job satisfaction and job importance were found to be significantly correlated with the dependent variable, factorial analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was carried out, with job satisfaction and job importance as covariates, along with marital status since prior research suggested its impact on well-being (Bruck and Allen, 2003; Carlson, 1999; Cooke and Rousseau, 1984). As covariates in the ANCOVA, any variability attributed to these variables was partialled out of the dependent variable, well-being.
RESULTS
The correlations between the three primary scales (Emotional Intelligence, work-family conflict, and well-being) and the selected variables including the control variables as well as the reliability estimates are presented in Table 1. Emotional Intelligence (M = 123.7, SD = 13.5) was correlated with well-being (r = .36), importance of work (r = .17) and negatively correlated with work-family conflict (r = -.27). Work-family conflict (M = 19.53, SD = 5.8) was also negatively correlated with well-being (r = -.35), age (r = -.15), satisfaction with work (r = -.23), and importance of work (r = -.19). Work-family conflict was significantly yet slightly correlated with number of hours the respondent worked (r = .16). In addition, well-being was positively correlated with work satisfaction (r = .33), and importance of work (r = .24).
Table 2 displays the analysis of covariance for well-being, based on Emotional Intelligence and work-family conflict. The covariates included marital status, work satisfaction, and importance of work. The overall model was significant (p < .001), accounting for 30.7% of the variance in well-being. Both main effects (Emotional Intelligence and work-family conflict) were significant (p < .001), with Emotional Intelligence accounting for 10.8% of the variance in well-being and work-family conflict accounting for 7.4% of the variance. In addition, the interaction of Emotional Intelligence and work-family conflict was also significant (p < .05).
Inspection of the means and standard errors in Table 3 found the group with high Emotional Intelligence coupled with low work-family conflict to have the highest mean for well-being (M = 81.13). In addition, respondents with low Emotional Intelligence and high work-family conflict had the lowest level of well-being (M = 63.36). Figure I provides a graph of the interaction of Emotional Intelligence and work-family conflict. Based on the results indicated in Tables 2 and 3 and Figure I, hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 could not be rejected. (1)
[FIGURE I OMITTED]
DISCUSSION
As shown, the hypotheses advanced in this study on the influence of work-family conflict and Emotional Intelligence on well-being could not be rejected. The results showed that the variables of Emotional Intelligence and work-family conflict (hypotheses 1 and 2) had significant influence on the dependent variable of well-being. Similarly, results from testing Hypothesis 3 showed a significant interaction effect between Emotional Intelligence and work-family conflict on well-being.
The results presented in this study suggest that Emotional Intelligence acts as a protector variable in the impact of work-family conflict on one's well-being. Higher Emotional Intelligence positively influenced well-being. Specifically, those individuals in this sample who had high Emotional Intelligence with low work-family conflict reported the highest well-being while those with low Emotional Intelligence and high work-family conflict reported the lowest well-being. Additionally, the results of this study showed that low Emotional Intelligence and low work-family conflict yielded similar well-being scores as those with high Emotional Intelligence and high work-family conflict. Thus, in situations where one experiences a significant amount of work-family conflict, the possession of high Emotional Intelligence will protect their well-being. This study showed that for these people, their well-being scores were very similar to those who experience low work-family conflict. Consequently, it seems that possession of high Emotional Intelligence is more important when facing work-family conflict.
This finding is consistent with past research that has theorized that high Emotional Intelligence leads to greater feelings of well-being (Goleman, 1995; Saarni, 1999; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Salovey et al., 1995; Schutte et al., 2002). The ability to be aware of one's emotions and capable of managing them successfully will enhance one's well-being when facing work-family conflict. To help illustrate this effect, one may think of Emotional Intelligence as something one can develop to help protect them against the stress of meeting demands in both domains. It is something in one's "bag-of-tricks," if you will, that can be utilized to maintain a healthy well-being.
This study makes several contributions to the field. It contributes to the work-family literature by focusing the lens in which work-family conflict is viewed. Specifically, this study suggests that the dichotomous hypotheses of depletion and enrichment may each have value but they are driven by an intensely individualistic phenomenon.
Implications
Work-family conflict is an issue that cannot be ignored. The profile of the labor supply (workers have increased family responsibilities, i.e., greater number of dual-income households and elder-care responsibilities) coupled with societal pressure places this issue squarely on any human resource professional's radar. Lost time due to family demands and employee stress costs employers billions of dollars each year. In fact, despite employers having strong work-family or work-life initiatives, many employees still face difficult and oftentimes debilitating stress from the conflict that arises from trying to balance both domains. As found in this study, in Hypothesis 2, the resulting work-family conflict experienced by employees has a negative effect on their well-being.
The tested hypotheses in this study begin to shed light on possible avenues for employee training to better equip them with much needed tools to handle work-family conflict. Demographic trends highlight that if employees cannot find ways to effectively deal with the work-family conflict, they choose to remove themselves from the work domain. The finding in this study (Hypothesis 1c), that emotionally intelligent individuals have higher well-being when facing work-family conflict than those with lower Emotional Intelligence, can be useful to employers when trying to retain workers. Successful employers recognize the strategic advantage that human resources can provide and must find ways to help retain highly skilled employees. Retention, therefore, needs to be a significant goal of employers and they must determine ways to help these employees deal with the oftentimes conflicting demands of the family and work domain.
Organizations can target resources to help individuals improve their Emotional Intelligence in order to better handle the conflicting demands. One's resiliency can be measured through their Emotional Intelligence. Emotionally intelligent individuals can, through self-regulation, adapt to the social situation and remain functional (Eisenberg and Fabes, 1992). Human resource professionals need to implement learning opportunities as well as nurture an environment that recognizes the value of self-exploration. It is a concept often met with skepticism and ridicule. Therefore, it is important that the organization's culture supports and encourages employees to put effort into self-awareness training and exercises.
FEED