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

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.

Emotional Intelligence can be developed and improved. Organizations can begin to allocate resources to helping employees learn to be resilient and to develop increased Emotional Intelligence. By helping employees effectively deal with the inherent emotions of handling the family and work domains, employers will benefit as well. As Cappelli noted, "when employees believe that their employer is supportive of their well-being, they are more committed" (2003:11). Similarly, Thompson et al. suggested that the "organization's ability to communicate respect for employees' non-work lives affects the level of perceived work-family conflict" (2004: 558). Moreover, organizations that assist employees in improving their Emotional Intelligence should benefit by reducing the oftentimes dysfunctional behavior that results when employees become overwhelmed by stress. Employees struggling to meet the demands in both domains are searching for avenues that provide help and relief to this constant dance between work and family. Organizations that can effectively offer training in the abilities underlying the construct of Emotional Intelligence will ultimately enjoy more committed employees.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations of this study that should be understood in interpreting the results. To begin, the cross-sectional nature of the study prevents the examination of causal relationships. Future studies with an experimental design are needed to draw conclusions about causality. Although causation cannot be substantiated with cross-sectional data, the theoretical underpinnings strongly support the directions suggested in the study.

All measures were derived from the self-report of the respondents, potentially contributing to inflated inter-item correlations due to common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Common method variance is variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs measured. However, the use of self-report scales seems logical since the study was interested in capturing stable, internal states of the respondents that could not be manipulated. Furthermore, Crampton and Wagner (1994) challenge the validity of the general condemnation of self-reports, citing that there is research that has failed to show evidence of any meaningful inflation. Rothbard and Edwards (2003) justify the use of self-report measures when they are consistent with the focal constructs of the study, since the most accurate source of information regarding an individual's own perceptions of workfamily conflict and well-being is the person him/herself. Thus, this limitation is warranted by the focus on psychological stress which arises from the person's perception of the situation and self (Edwards and Rothbard, 1999). Moreover, the pattern of results observed suggest that common method bias is an unlikely explanation for the results.

All data were collected at one point in time and from one organization. A more precise study should involve multiple methods (e.g., interviews with family and co-workers, diaries of employees and their family) of data collection. Also, multiple sources of data should be used (family members, co-workers, supervisors). Further, all of the respondents worked for a northeast university. Nearly half of them had a college degree or higher. It is important to note that the sample did not include any members of the faculty since that is a position unique to a university setting. The sample, however, did include a broad range of non-faculty job types. Yet it cannot be overlooked that a university culture is quite unique. For example, a core value for most institutions of higher learning is the longevity of service by its employees. As a result, employees tend to have less anxiety over job security. Additionally, a common benefit associated with employment at a university or college is a generous time-off allotment, thus allowing for greater workfamily flexibility. Consequently, the depletion argument may be underrepresented.

This study helps support the introduction of an individual-specific variable into the continuous analysis of work-family conflict. Future research, however, should address the limitations of this study to confirm the findings. Specifically, future research should test more diverse samples, encompassing many industries, geographic locations, and classification of employees. In addition, the study would be greatly enhanced if one could obtain confirmatory data. A longitudinal study is needed so that the process can be studied over time, capturing the data during various occurrences of stressful situations.

Additionally, it would be helpful to substitute an ability measure of Emotional Intelligence, such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), to substantiate the finding using the self-report measure. Also, it would be useful to look at the model separately for work interfering with family and family interfering with work. While this study did use a work-family conflict measure that differentiates between work interfering with family and family interfering with work, the study analyzed them together, because the purpose of this study was to look at all sources of work-family conflict. Future research, however, may look at each separately.

Furthermore, this study primarily consisted of working spouses and parents. However, an emerging trend that will undoubtedly affect the workfamily conflict is the role of elder-care provider. According to the National Council for the Aging, approximately 40% of the workforce will be caring for an elderly parent by 2020. Arguably the role of elder-care provider stirs even greater emotional response as many find it difficult to handle the emotional burdens of caring for an ailing parent. This role needs to be included in the debate of work-family conflict as it is one many people will find themselves occupying.

Lastly, much of the work-family literature is not cross-cultural. A significant contribution to the field and the body of literature at large would be to analyze cross-cultural differences in the antecedents and moderators of work-family conflict and well-being.

Conclusion

The primary purpose of this study was to gain further insight into the effect that work-family conflict has on one's well-being, by introducing a dispositional variable, Emotional Intelligence, into the equation. The results provide an avenue to explore that attempts to shed some light on the opposing views in the work-family conflict literature, namely the depletion and the enrichment hypotheses. The results of this study support the finding that possession of Emotional Intelligence will act as a protector variable of one's well-being in the face of work-family conflict. In other words, Emotional Intelligence interacts with work-family conflict to predict one's well-being.

References