Work-Family Conflict and Employee Wellbeing: Examining the Buffering Effects of Workplace Provided Family-Friendly Resources

This study examines the moderating effect of two family-friendly resources available in the workplace such as family friendly practices (FFP) and family supportive supervisor (FSS) on the relationship between work-family conflict and employee wellbeing. The data was collected from 297 frontline sales employees working for four major insurance companies in Pakistan. Each employee received a hard copy of the questionnaire with a cover letter outlining the goals and voluntary nature of the study. Hierarchical regression analysis was performed to analyze the collected data and test the proposed hypotheses. Findings suggest that FFP and FSS were linked to lower levels of depression and anxiety, and higher levels of job satisfaction and organization commitment. FFP buffer the impact of WIF and FIW on depression. FSS buffer the impact of WIF and FIW on depression, anxiety, job satisfaction, and organization commitment. It is important to focus on both formal (i.e. FFP) and informal (i.e. FSS) family-friendly resources when designing an intervention program for enhancing employee wellbeing.

Due to the increased membership of women in salaried jobs, the demographic structure of the labour force has changed rapidly. This change may be the primary reason for a shift of emphasis on work-family related issues (Grant-Vallone & Donaldson, 2001). Changes in the work structure due to constant changes in technology and global competition places increased pressure on employees to keep pace with the work demands (Valcour, 2007); this limits their performance of family roles. As the number of dual-earner families are on the rise, so does the pressure caused by the demands of the family and single parenting (Valcour, 2007). Increased demands on work and family have made it harder to achieve a balance in both work and life (Hill et al., 2001), resulting in higher conflict between work-family.
Role theory offers an overarching theoretical framework for the present study as it allows two forms of conflicts to be distinguished. Role theory states that people have a fixed amount of time and energy that must be distributed over the many roles they perform. Conflict between work-family is seen because of the tension that arises when pressures from work-family roles become discordant in some respects and involvement in one role makes contribution in another challenging (Voydanoff, 2005). This conflict can take two forms that are moderately related to each other: interference of work in the family (WIF) and interference of family in the work (FIW). In WIF, the requirements of the work role make it harder to perform the role in the family. In the FIW, requirements of family roles limit one's ability to fulfill work roles (Byron, 2005). Today, many employed people face conflicts from work-family, and they struggle to manage responsibilities in both areas. This prompted scholars and practitioners to examine the changes needed to employ organizational policies to assist employees reduce work-family conflicts (Voydanoff, 2005).
Current literature on work-family conflict presents itself in four directions. The first examines the measures of work-family conflict and its consequences for employees’ mental health and wellbeing (Allen et al., 2000). The second examines family-friendly practices (FFP) and family-supportive supervisors (FSS) as resources that not only reduce work-family conflict by enabling employees to balance their responsibilities in both areas (Kossek et al., 2011; Lapierre et al., 2008; Thompson & Prottas, 2006) but also has consequences for their mental health and wellbeing (Brotheridge & Lee, 2005; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). The third provides evidence of the indirect effects of conflict between work-family in the work-family stressors and strain relationship (Geurts etal., 2003). The fourth provides evidence of the indirect effects of work-family conflict between work-family resources and employee wellbeing (Kinnunen et al., 2005; Fiksenbaum, 2014). The first two lines of inquiry support the additive effects of conflict between work-family and work-family resources on mental health and wellbeing where conflict is correlated negatively, and work-family resources are linked positively with mental health and wellbeing. The third approach extends the first line of inquiry by including stressors as antecedents of conflict in work-family that, in turn, have consequences for employee wellbeing. The fourth approach, however, combines conflict in work-family and work-family resources together in a single model. It, however, does not shed any light on whether workplace that provides family friendly resources can eliminate or reduce the harmful effects of conflict between work-family on employee wellbeing.
The current study, therefore, propose that Job Demand-Resource (JD-R) theory can provide a useful framework to answer two key questions; firstly, are workplace provided family-friendly resources needed for improved mental health and wellbeing? Secondly, does the workplace providing family-friendly resources (e.g. FFP and FSS) offset the harmful effects of conflict in work-family roles on employee wellbeing? The implications for FFP and FSS differ for additive and buffering effects. In additive effects, FFP and FSS improve mental health and wellbeing but do not account for the consequences of WIF and FIW on outcomes. However, in buffering effects, FFP and FSSmay reduce or eliminate the consequences of WIF and FIW on mental health and wellbeing. Thus, if these resources buffer, policies which may increase the provision of these resources become necessary to protect against their negative consequences.
Therefore, to improve our understanding of the effects of conflict in work-family roles on employee wellbeing, this study has examined: (a) both dimensions of work-family conflict (i.e. WIF and FIW); (b) the additive effects of conflict in work-family and workplace provided family-friendly resources (such as FFP and FSS) on employee wellbeing; and (c) the interaction effects of conflict in work-family and workplace provided family-friendly resources on employee wellbeing. Thus, this study makes an important contribution not only by focusing on work-related risk factors that have consequences for the wellbeing of employees, but also on the workplace provided family-friendly resources to provide employees with a healthy workplace.

 Work-Family Conflict as Job Demand
Demerouti and colleagues termed job demands as “physical, social, or organizational aspects of the work that require sustained physical or mental effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and psychological costs” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501). These demands have been categorized as quantitative, psychological, and emotional (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Instances of these demands include work overload, lengthy working hours, conflicts, and job insecurity (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Job demands such as excessive work overload and time pressure have constantly been used as indicators of work-family conflict (Voydanoff, 2005). Where high reports of WIF would mean that time pressures and workload at work limits employees’ participation in family role. Similarly, high reports of FIW would mean time pressures and workload in family role limits employees’ involvement in the work role. The two components of work-family conflict, WIF and FIW, can increase the psychological demands on workers and therefore affect their wellbeing (Ahuja, 2002; Armstrong et al., 2007). Hence, conflict in work-family roles can be regarded as psychological job demand.

Work-Family Conflict: Impact on Employee Wellbeing
Conflict in work-family roles has been studied with respect to several outcomes. Conflicts between work-family roles was linked to three categories of outcomes in a meta-analysis that included studies from 1977-1998 (Allen et al., 2000). These categories include work, stress, and non-work-related consequences. Work-related consequential outcomes centered on job satisfaction, organization commitment, absenteeism, turnover, quit intentions, job performance, and career satisfaction and success. The consequences of stress focused on physical symptoms, general emotional stress, anxiety and depression. Non-work outcomes included issues pertaining to family performance and satisfaction with life, family and leisure. Of all the possible outcomes of conflict, greatest emphasis has been placed on studying outcomes that focus on stress, for instance depression and anxiety (Frone, 2000; Major et al., 2002).
Evidence from existing research indicates that conflict between work-family affects the wellbeing of employees (Allen et al., 2000). For instance, it was reported that WIF has been positively associated with depression, physical health symptoms (Major et al., 2002) and emotional/psychological distress (Burke & Greenglass, 1999). FIW, however, predicted greater alcohol consumption. Another study reported that both WIF and FIW are positively associated with anxiety disorders, mood disorders, and drug or alcohol use and that FIW has a stronger impact on anxiety disorders for men (Frone, 2000). Among the work-related outcomes, WIF has been found to be correlated with lower levels of job satisfaction, organization commitment, high absenteeism, turnover, and burnout (Allen et al., 2000).
The present study focuses on both work and stress-related consequences of WIF and FIW. These include job satisfaction, organization commitment, anxiety and depression. Thus, the study presents the hypotheses as follows:

1. Hypothesis 1a:  WIF and FIW would be associated positively with depression.
2. Hypothesis 1b: WIF and FIW would be associated positively with anxiety.
3. Hypothesis 1c: WIF and FIW would be associated negatively with job satisfaction.
4. Hypothesis 1d: WIF and FIW would be associated negatively with organization commitment.

Job Resources: Workplace Provided Family-Friendly Practices and Family-Supportive Supervisors
Job resources have been defined as physical, social, or organizational aspects of a job that may: (a) be useful in attaining work objectives; (b) reduce work demands and any physical and mental/emotional costs associated with them; (c) encourage growth and development profile (Demerouti et al., 2001). Typical examples of such resources comprise job control, feedback, and social support. Where job control and social support may empower employees to perform their work roles in a better way, workplace provided family-friendly resources may have implications for the performance family roles. Thus it is necessary to study the effects of workplace provided family-friendly resources for employee wellbeing as an increasing number of non-traditional employees including women, single parents with family responsibilities, the disabled, and employees with caring responsibilities of a disabled family member are represented in the labour force (Allen, 2001). In particular, with the increase number of women and single parents in the workforce, work-family concerns are becoming more and more important (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). Where women struggle in performing work roles alongside traditional family responsibilities such as looking after dependents, families, and children, men experience greater conflicts from the demands to share family responsibilities (Lewis, 2001).
To help employees manage work-family conflict, employers have responded by providing formal resources to employees by adopting several FFP such as flexible work schedules, part-time working, dependent care benefits, family leave of absence, i.e., maternity or paternity leave, job sharing, compressed week and working from home (Allen, 2001; Lewis, 2001). With these resources employees can manage their roles at work and family to reduce conflicts (Mauno et al., 2006). Therefore, FFP may be viewed as a formal resource that may help individuals balance the demands of work and family.
Though the focus of initial research on FFP has remained on the number, types and coverage of family-friendly practices in the workplaces (Bloom et al., 2011), later research investigated the extent of FFP use and its impact on work-family conflict. For instance, when employees had flexible work schedules, they experienced fewer conflicts and higher levels of job satisfaction (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). When employees were satisfied with FFP, they experienced lower conflicts in work and family that was associated with less stress, and more job and family satisfaction, and organization commitment.
Besides formal resources such as FFP, earlier work in this area has also stressed the importance of informal resources such as family-supportive supervisor (FSS) to gain positive outcomes (Allen, 2001; Hammer et al., 2009; Lapierre & Allen, 2006). A supervisor is regarded as family-supportive if he “understand employees desire to strive for a balance between work and family roles” (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). FSS not only encourage employees to use the formal FFP (Allen, 2001; Poelmans & Beham, 2008), but also provide them with informal work schedule, flexibility and job control, which can reduce the extent of WIF (Greenhaus et al., 2012; Hammer et al., 2009; Kossek et al., 2011) and FIW (Michel et al., 2011). Informal arrangements in the workplace make it easier for employees to fulfill their family obligations without limiting their ability to fulfill their work responsibilities (Greenhaus et al., 2012). Thus, FSS and FFP have been the most commonly mentioned family-friendly resources for reducing conflict in work-family areas (Brough & O'Driscoll, 2010).
It is contended in this study that family-friendly resources provided by the workplace are essential to dealing with WIF and FIW and are important in itself too. Through these resources, organizations send signals to their employees that their non-work activities are valuable (Fiksenbaum, 2014). Perceived support from the organization increases the possibility that employees will be successful in accomplishing their work goals. The study used “the job demand–resources (JD-R)” (Demerouti et al., 2001) hypothesis to emphasize the protective effects of workplace provided family-friendly resources for employees against the harmful effects of work-family conflict on employee wellbeing.

The Job Demand Resource (JD-R) Model
The JD-R model identifies the risk factors associated with job-related stress and classifies them into two general categories: job demands and job resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2003a; Bakker et al., 2003b; Demerouti et al., 2001). The model examines two hypotheses: the “health impairment hypothesis” and “motivation enhancement hypothesis”. The health impairment hypothesis suggests that demanding jobs (e.g., work time and schedule demands which limit participation in family role and vice versa) exhaust the physical and mental resources of employees, and thus may lead to the diminished energy and increased health issues (e.g., mental health and wellbeing) (Bakker et al., 2003a; Demerouti et al., 2001).
The motivational hypothesis states that job resources motivate employees intrinsically because they promote employee learning, growth and development. It also extrinsically motivates employees by assisting them achieve their work goals. In the first case, for instance, job resources satisfy basic need for control to balance work-family roles. In the second case, a work environment that provides a lot of resources enhances the willingness of employees to devote their efforts to work responsibilities (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Combining these roles in an additive sense would mean that high job demands would be harmful to employee wellbeing (Hypothesis 1a-1d), whereas the presence of job resources (e.g. FFP and FSS) would lead to an improvement in work related employee wellbeing (Hypothesis 2a-2d). Thus, we present the following hypotheses:

1. Hypothesis 2a:  FFP and FSS would be associated negatively to depression.
2. Hypothesis 2b: FFP and FSS would be associated negatively to anxiety.
3. Hypothesis 2c: FFP and FSS would be associated positively to job satisfaction.
4. Hypothesis 2d: FFP and FSS would be associated positively to organization commitment.

In addition to these main effects, the JD-R model indicates that the interaction between job demands and resources is critical to job stress and motivation development. Job resources can offset the effects of higher job demands on employee wellbeing (Bakker et al., 2005; Bakker et al., 2003a; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Job resources can decrease the propensity of organizational traits to produce certain stressors (e.g. WIF and FIW), alter perceptions of these stressors, moderate responses that follow the assessment process, and minimize the effects of such adverse health responses (Kahn & Byosserie, 1992). Therefore, adopting the JD-R perspective, the study presents the hypotheses as follows:

1. Hypothesis 3: FFP and FSS would moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and depression.
2. Hypothesis 4: FFP and FSS would moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and anxiety.
3. Hypothesis 5: FFP and FSS would moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction.
4. Hypothesis 6: FFP and FSS would moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and organization commitment.

Figure 1
Theoretical Model for the Present Study

Method

Sample
Sample consisted of 297 frontline sales employees working for four insurance companies registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. Of the respondents, 84% are males, with an average age of 33 years. 36% of respondents do not have a formal degree, 39% have bachelor’s and 25% have a master’s degree. Nearly 54% of the respondents had no formal insurance training, 25% had up to four hours and 21% had up to nine hours of formal training. The average tenure at the company was seven years. Employees worked 43 hours a week on average. 69% of respondents are permanent full-timers and are entitled to employee benefits and eligible for pension at retirement.

Instruments
The following measures are used in the current study.

Family Friendly Practices
Measures of workplace provided Family Friendly Practices are consistent with previous work (Javed, 2019).The availability of family-friendly practices was measured by asking respondents whether any family-friendly practices were available to them. Family-friendly practices included were: Flexi-time, job sharing, opportunities to reduce working hours, work the same number of hours per week over fewer days, work at or from home at normal working hours, work only during school term time, and paid leave to care for dependents in emergency cases. Responses were scored as one for availability and zero, if respondents pointed out that these policies were not available to them.

Family Supportive Supervisor
Supervisor support was measured by one item: “managers here understand the responsibilities of employees outside the workplace”. The measure is consistent with previous work (Javed, 2010; 2019).  Responses were scored on a five-point scale where 1= Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree. 

Employee Wellbeing
Employee wellbeing was assessed using four indicators: anxiety (3 items, α = .86), depression (3 items, α = .91), job satisfaction (8 items, α = .87), and organization commitment (3 items, α = .88).  Anxiety and depression were measured using the Warr scale (1990). Respondents were asked: ‘reflecting in the past few weeks, how much of the time has your work made you feel each of the following’? They were given six states, out of which three (tense, worried, uneasy) measured anxiety and three others (depressed, gloomy, miserable) measured depression. For each state, responses were scored on a 5-point scale from 1 = never to 5 = all of the time.  Measures of job satisfaction and organization commitment are consistent with previous research (Javed, 2010). Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction from 1 = Very dissatisfied to 5 = Very satisfied  for each of the following eight aspects of their work: Sense of achievement, influence over work, training received, scope for initiative, opportunities for skills development, job security, pay and work itself. For organization commitment, they were asked to score their responses to the three items (I feel loyal to my organization, I share many of the organization’s values, and I am proud to tell people who I work for) on a five point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Work-Family Conflict
Both aspects of work-family conflict (WIF and FIW) were assessed using a 6-item scale developed by Mathew et al. (2020). There are three items that measure WIF (e.g., I have to miss familyactivities due to the amount of time at spend on work responsibilities) and three other items measure FIW (e.g. ‘I have to miss work activities due to amount of time I spend on my family responsibilities). All responses were scored on 5-point scale with 1= strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree.  Several variables commonly controlled for in the literature on work-family conflict were included in the present study: participant’s gender, age, dependent children at home and eldercare responsibilities.

Procedure
Questionnaires with a cover letter outlining the objectives of the study and its voluntary nature were distributed to 420 frontline sales employees working for four insurance companies registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. Participants were assured that the data provided by them will be dealt with anonymity and confidentiality and research didn’t request any information from them that could reveal their identity. From 420 distributed questionnaires, 311 were returned with responses. Fourteen questionnaires with incomplete data were discarded.  Thus, the remaining 297 questionnaires provided valid answers for this study.

Results
The aim of this study is to assess the moderating effect of FFP and FSS on the relationship that WIF and FIW have with employee wellbeing. The researcher used hierarchical regression analyses to test moderation hypotheses because the sample size was somewhat small. For the analyses, the variables were added into the equation in the following order: control variables as the first block, WIF, FIW, FFP and FSS as the second block, and the interaction terms of WIF and FIW with FFP and FSS as the third block. All predictor variables were centered to remove non-essential correlation between interaction terms and their component variables.

Descriptive Statistics
Means, standard deviations and associations among studied variables are presented in Table 1. On average employees perceived that at least one FFP was available to them, and their supervisors were family supportive. They seemed satisfied with their jobs and committed to their organizations. In general, employees saw themselves as having low levels of WIF, FIW, anxiety and depression.
As predicted, WIF and FIW were linked positively to anxiety and depression and negatively to job satisfaction and organization commitment respectively. The job resources, FFP and FSS respectively, were negatively related to anxiety and depression and positively related to job satisfaction and organization commitment.

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Zero-Order Correlations Between Study Variables (N = 297)

* p < .05; ** p < .01.

To test the direct (H1a, H1b, H1c and H1d and H2a, H2b, H2c and H2d) and moderating (H3, H4, H5, and H6) hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical regressions for the four dependent variables namely depression, anxiety, job satisfaction, and organization commitment. The results are given in Table 2.

Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Predicting Employee Wellbeing (N=297)

Note. WIF = Work Interference in Family; FIW = Family Interference in Work; FFP = Family-Friendly Practices; FSS = Family Supportive Supervisors
*p < .05; **p < .01.

First, the control variables were introduced into the regression equation. Results show that control variables do not significantly affect employee wellbeing. However, these are still included in the step 2 and 3 of hierarchical regression to control for potential confounding of gender, age, dependent children and eldercare responsibilities. Second, WIF, FIW, FFP and FSS were entered into the regression equation to examine the primary effects of these variables on employee wellbeing. Results show that WIF has a positive impact on depression and anxiety and negative impact on job satisfaction and organization commitment. FIW, on the other hand, has a significant positive impact on anxiety and negative impact on organization commitment. Of the two family-friendly job resources, FFP has a significant negative impact on depression and positive impact on job satisfaction and organization commitment; though, the effect size is very small. Results also showed that FSS has significant negative impact on depression, anxiety and positive impact on job satisfaction and organization commitment.
The findings imply that individuals with high levels of WIF and FIW are more prone to feel anxiety, depression, and lower job satisfaction and organization commitment compared to those who have lower levels of WIF and FIW. Therefore, the results support H1a-d. Results also revealed that employees who perceive the availability of FFP and FSS are more likely to experience less anxiety and depression, and higher job satisfaction and organization commitment compared to those who do not. Therefore, the results support H2a-d. In other words, employees’ perception of the availability of family friendly job resources has a significant impact on their wellbeing.
Lastly, the hierarchical regression analysis analyzed the moderating effects of FFP and FSS on the relationship that WIF and FIW had with employee wellbeing (i.e. anxiety, depression, job satisfaction and organization commitment). The interaction models for anxiety, depression, job satisfaction and organization commitment are significant. The results show that FFP buffer the effects of WIF and FIW on depression. However, FSS moderate the effects of WIF on depression, anxiety, job satisfaction and organization commitment and FIW on depression, job satisfaction and organization commitment. Therefore, the results support H3, H4, H5 and H6. While FFP buffers the impact of WIF and FIW on depression only, FSS buffers the consequences of WIF and FIW on depression, anxiety, job satisfaction, and organization commitment. The results, thus, support the hypothesis that FFP and FSS moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and employee wellbeing.

Discussion

The results indicate that, WIF was related positively to depression and anxiety and negatively to job satisfaction and organization commitment. FIW was positively associated with anxiety and negatively associated with organization commitment. More specifically, it was found that WIF was a strong predictor of depression, anxiety, and job satisfaction, while FIW strongly predicted the organization commitment. The extent to which an individual is committed to an organization may depend on the extent to which the work and family roles facilitate or conflict with each other. The stronger relationship between FIW and organization commitment is consistent with cross-domain hypothesis which underlies the assumption that conflict initiating in one area (such as family) cause complications in the other area (such as work). As a result, the sense of wellbeing in this other domain of life is compromised (e.g. Amstad et al., 2011). A strong relationship of WIF with depression and anxiety is important, as they support earlier research on this relationship (Frone, 2000). This finding is consistent with the hypothesis, which is based on the premise that the main effect of conflict in work-family areas is in the area where the conflict starts. Hence, WIF showed a stronger impact on work-related outcomes and vice versa. Therefore, if employees’ work situation is considered responsible for spending little time with their families, they may feel anxious, depressed or dissatisfied with their jobs (Major et al., 2002; Burke & Greenglass, 1999).
We found that workplace provided family-friendly resources were associated negatively with depression and anxiety and positively with job satisfaction and organization commitment. The combination of FSS in a family-supportive organization (with many FFPs) is likely to lower depression and anxiety among employees and improve their job satisfaction and organization commitment. Consistent with Friedman & Greenhaus (2000), this finding suggests that an alignment between organization’s practices and supervisors values and beliefs allows employees to benefit from organization and their supervisors’ help and support. This alignment communicates to employees that the organization values and reinforce family support for enhancing employee wellbeing (Greenhaus et al., 2012). Furthermore, the greater ability to integrate work-family roles positively enhances emotional responses to work roles such as job satisfaction and organization commitment (Allen et al., 2000).
Regarding workplace provided family-friendly resources; formal sources of support (such as FFP) moderate the impact of WIF on depression.; informal job resources (such as FSS buffer the impact of WIF on depression and FIW on depression and anxiety. The significant three-way interaction between WIF and FIW and both components of workplace provided family-friendly resources provided support to our expectations that both FFP and FSS play an important role in buffering the negative effects of WIF and FIW. Job satisfaction and organization commitment would be elevated in the situations where both high levels of formal and informal family-friendly resources are present in a high work-family conflict context. Furthermore, depression would be lower in the situations where both high levels of formal and informal family-friendly resources are present in a high work-family conflict context.

Limitations and Suggestions
Several limitations of the present study and issues for future research can be noted. First, the data were cross-sectional; therefore it is not possible to draw any causal conclusions based on the findings of this study. Second. This study used self-report data which may result in common method bias due to data contamination. However, studies have reported that common method variance is not problematic (Spector, 1992).

Implications
The present study highlights the importance of considering the impact of WIF and FIW on employees’ mental health and wellbeing. The results highlight the value of adding family-friendly resources to the workplace as a meaningful variable in dealing with depression, anxiety, job satisfaction, and organization commitment. In this sense, it will be important to focus more on informal family-friendly resources when designing an intervention program in specific workplaces. Training of supervisors to maintain or enhance informal support at work can be a useful strategy for eliminating potential negative consequences of WIF and FIW on employee wellbeing. Furthermore, family supportive supervisors would encourage employees to use formal family-friendly resources. Together these formal and informal resources moderate the potential negative effects of WIF on depression, anxiety and WIF and FIW on job satisfaction and organization commitment. These interventions would be particularly relevant and helpful for those employees who are particularly at risk for poor mental health and wellbeing due to negative work-family interactions.

Conclusion
The present study highlights the importance of considering the impact of WIF and FIW on employees’ mental health and wellbeing. The results highlight the value of adding family-friendly resources to the workplace as a meaningful variable in dealing with depression, anxiety, job satisfaction, and organization commitment. In this sense, it will be important to focus more on informal family-friendly resources (i.e., FSS) when designing an intervention program in specific workplaces. Training of supervisors to maintain or enhance informal support at work can be a useful strategy for eliminating potential negative consequences of WIF and FIW on employee wellbeing. Furthermore, family supportive supervisors would encourage employees to use formal family-friendly resources. Together these formal and informal resources moderate the potential negative effects of WIF on depression, anxiety and WIF and FIW on job satisfaction and organization commitment. These interventions would be particularly relevant and helpful for those employees who are particularly at risk for poor mental health and wellbeing due to negative work-family interactions. 
Future research may include the support from co-workers along with the two family-friendly resources examined in this study as some co-workers may be annoyed with employees who use workplace provided family-friendly resources to participate in family affairs. It is possible that the lack of support from the co-workers affect the possibility that employees can take advantage of family friendly practices or family-friendly supervisor to handle work and family issues.

References

1. Ahuja, M. K. (2002). Women in the information technology profession: A literature review, synthesis and research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 20-34.
2. Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 414-435.
3. 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(2), 278-308.
4. Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 151-169.
5. Armstrong, D. J., Riemenschneider, C. K., Allen, M. W., & Reid, M. F. (2007). Advancement, voluntary turnover and women in IT: A cognitive study of work–family conflict. Information & Management, 44(2), 142-153.
6. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
7. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170-180.
8. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003a). Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(2), 341-356.
9. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. (2003b). A multigroup analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home care organizations. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(1), 16-38.
10. Bloom, N., Kretschmer, T., & Van Reenen, J. (2011). Are family-friendly workplace practices a valuable firm resource?. Strategic Management Journal, 32(4), 343-367.
11. Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2005). Impact of work-family interference on general wellbeing: A replication and extension. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(3), 203-221.
12. Brough, P., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (2010). Organizational interventions for balancing work and home demands: An overview. Work & Stress, 24(3), 280-297.
13. Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1999). Work–family conflict, spouse support, and nursing staff wellbeing during organizational restructuring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(4), 327-336.
14. Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 169-198.
15. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.
16. Fiksenbaum, L. M. (2014). Supportive work–family environments: Implications for work–family conflict and wellbeing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(5), 653-672.
17. Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family - allies or enemies?: What happens when business professionals confront life choices. Oxford University Press, USA.
18. Frone, M. R. (2000). Work–family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 888-895.
19. Geurts, S. A., Kompier, M. A., Roxburgh, S., & Houtman, I. L. (2003). Does work–home interference mediate the relationship between workload and wellbeing?. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 532-559.
20. Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Consequences of work-family conflict on employee wellbeingover time. Work & stress, 15(3), 214-226.
21. Greenhaus, J. H., Ziegert, J. C., & Allen, T. D. (2012). When family-supportive supervision matters: Relations between multiple sources of support and work–family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 266-275.
22. Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35(4), 837-856.
23. Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week: The positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family relations, 50(1), 49-58.
24. Javed, U. (2010). Impact of perceived work environment characteristics on employee wellbeing, attitudes and turnover. Cardiff University, United Kingdom.
25. Javed, U. (2019). Combining career and care-giving: The impact of family-friendly policies on the wellbeingof working mothers in the United Kingdom. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 38(5), 44-52.
26. Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In W. M. Dunette & L. Hough L. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 571-650). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
27. Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., Geurts, S., & Dikkers, J. (2005). Work-family culture in organizations: Theoretical and empirical approaches. Work and Family: An International Research Perspective, 2(1), 87-120.
28. Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 289-313.
29. Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: implications for work-family conflict and employee wellbeing. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(2), 169.
30. Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S., Cooper, C. L., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Kinnunen, U. (2008). Family-supportive organization perceptions, multiple dimensions of work–family conflict, and employee satisfaction: A test of model across five samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 92-106.
31. Lewis, S. (2001). Restructuring workplace cultures: The ultimate work-family challenge?. Women in Management Review, 16(1), 21-29.
32. Major, V. S., Klein, K. J., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 427-436.
33. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2006). Exploring work-and organization-based resources as moderators between work–family conflict, wellbeing, and job attitudes. Work & Stress, 20(3), 210-233.
34. Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011). Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 689-725.
35. Poelmans, S., & Beham, B. (2008). The moment of truth: Conceptualizing managerial work-life policy allowance decisions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(3), 393-410.
36. Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. Bridging occupational, organizational and public health, 43-68.
37. Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6-15.
38. Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee wellbeing. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 100-118.
39. Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. Journal of applied psychology, 92(6), 1512.
40. Voydanoff, P. (2005). Consequences of boundary-spanning demands and resources for work-to-family conflict and perceived stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 491-503.
41. Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of wellbeing and other aspects of mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(3), 193-210.
42. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Dollard, M. F., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Schreurs, P. J. (2007). When do job demands particularly predict burnout? The moderating role of job resources. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(8), 766-786.

Received 17 November 2022
Revision received December 2022