Crossover specificity of team level work

(1)

Crossover specificity of

team-level work-family conflict to

individual-level work-family

conflict

I.J. Hetty van Emmerik and Maria C.W. Peeters

Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University,

Utrecht, The Netherlands

Abstract

Purpose– This study aims to investigate the crossover specificity of team-level stressors to individual-level work-family conflict.

Design/methodology/approach– The paper takes the form of a multilevel analyses with data from 428 employees of a Dutch municipality working in 49 teams.

Findings– The results indicate the expected crossover specificity of different types of work-family conflicts. After controlling for individual-level demands there is little evidence that team-level work demands influence work-family conflict (WFC) or family-work conflict (FWC), but team-level WFC and FWC do influence individual-level WFC and FWC, respectively.

Research limitations/implications– The paper distinguishes two types of WFC, but it did not distinguish between strain- and time-based conflicts. Further, it did not pay attention to individual differences (e.g., susceptibility to distress of team members), although such differences may be important moderators of the crossover process.

Originality/value– This study is one of the first that empirically linked team-level stressors and WFC to individual-level WFC and that tested crossover specificity. Findings indicated the associations of team-level WFC and FWC and focal employees’ WFC and FWC respectively, thereby underscoring the importance of crossover specificity.

KeywordsWorkplace, Stress, Family life, Employee behaviour, Conflict, The Netherlands

Paper typeResearch paper

Increasingly, employees are confronted with high pressures in both their work and home life and many daily hassles stem from job demands that are incompatible with family demands. Work-family conflict (WFC) refers to the extent to which a person experiences pressures within the work domain that are incompatible with the pressures that arise within the family domain and vice versa (Geurts et al., 1999; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). WFC encompasses two distinct constructs, work interfering with family and causing conflict (WFC) and family interfering with work and causing conflict (FWC) (Froneet al., 1992; Netemeyeret al., 1996).

In the present study, we will elaborate on how WFC and FWC in the workplace are experienced by employees by examining both individual-level and team-level

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Damiet Martinot and Marloes Sengers for conveying the data used in this study.

JMP

24,3

254

Received September 2007 Revised February 2008, July 2008

Accepted October 2008

Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 24 No. 3, 2009

pp. 254-268

qEmerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946

(2)

antecedents of work-family conflict. Do negative experiences at the team level affect individual team members? What happens to employees when their colleagues have a hard time suffering from work-family conflicts? We will focus on crossover specificity and examine the association of team level WFC with individual level WFC, after controlling for the influence of the individual level job demands.

Theoretical perspectives on crossover processes in the workplace

Social psychological theoretical perspectives, such as role theory and emotional contagion theory, propose that stress outcomes are, at least to some extent, induced by social processes (Bakkeret al., 2006). This may especially hold for crossover processes within teams since team-level crossover involves not only inter-individual transmission of stress and strain but also applies to transmission of positive and negative feelings and attitudes in general. When people enter a team, they bring their individual experiences with them and thus they may also bring in, for instance, their experiences with incompatible work and home responsibilities. These individual-level experiences may influence other members of the team and may combine to form team-level experiences and this is the foundation of team-level crossover (Kelly and Barsade, 2001).

Workplace experiences of one employee may cross over and affect other employees. In this study, we conceptualize WFC experienced within the team as a form of crossover that “demands” the reaction of the focal employee. A better understanding of the processes involved will enable the identification of effective strategies for coping with the crossover of strain (Bakkeret al., 2006). The crossover process can be explained by different theoretical perspectives, such as role theory and the emotional contagion model. First, the processes involved in team crossover can be explained by role theory (Bolger

et al., 1989; Westman, 2002). Work role demands and home/family role demands refer to the responsibilities, requirements, expectations, duties, and commitments associated with a given role (Netemeyeret al., 1996). Employees may well be influenced by the norms and role expectations of their co-workers. For instance, team members may develop role expectations such that employees should prioritize work above family. Norms about the number of hours employees are expected to work and whether or not employees are expected to take work home are important aspects of an organizational culture that may affect employees’ WFC (see McDonald et al., 2005). Hence, in such cultures the amount of time spent at work is frequently interpreted as an indication of employees’ dedication and commitment to work. When confronted with such norms and role expectations, employees may be reluctant to take time off or to reduce their work hours to attend to family responsibilities. As a consequence, these employees can be expected to experience more WFC (e.g., Thompson and McNamara, 1997).

Crossover of WFCs may also take place through an explicit, conscious process of sharing (Kelly and Barsade, 2001). For instance, employees complaining about their workload may transfer their feelings to their co-workers. Such crossover can take the form of tuning in to the emotions and attitudes of others. Tuning in refers to people trying to imagine what the other person may feel, for instance, by comparing the other person’s situation with their own experiences (Gorgievski-Duijvesteijinet al., 2000). This would be the case when a person tries to imagine how he or she would feel in the position of another and, as a consequence, experiences the same feelings. In this case it may be assumed that the emotions expressed by one partner elicit an empathic reaction in the other partner (Bakkeret al., 2003; Bakker and Demerouti, 2009 (this issue)).

Crossover

specificity

(3)

In contrast with the process of sharing, the emotional contagion model assumes a non-conscious process of influencing each other: Individuals are not necessarily aware that the process is occurring. Emotional contagion is the tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize expressions, feelings, and attitudes with those of another person and, consequently, to converge emotionally (Hatfieldet al., 1994, p. 5). Frequent exposure to another person’s emotions and paying close attention to them is one of the conditions facilitating contagion (Gorgievski-Duijvesteijin et al., 2000; Hatfield et al., 1994). It is this frequent exposure to another person’s emotions and paying close attention to them that is at the core of the contagion model and how the contagion model explains the crossover of both FWC and WFC.

So far, studies already supported the idea that team-level crossover can be a phenomenon within groups or teams. For instance, Westman and Etzion (1999) examined crossover of stress in the workplace of school principals and teachers and found a significant crossover of job-induced tension. Bakkeret al.(2005) tested burnout contagion among nurses and found that burnout complaints among colleagues in intensive care units made a statistically significant and unique contribution to explaining variance in individual nurses’ experiences of burnout. Bakkeret al.(2006) investigated the crossover of burnout and work engagement among 2,229 constabulary officers. The results of multilevel analyses confirmed a crossover phenomenon by showing that team-level burnout and team-level work engagement were related to individual team members’ burnout (i.e. exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy) and work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption) after controlling for individual members’ job demands and resources. Results from a study of Crosetto (2004) revealed that emotional interactions within the team resulted in a variety of individual and team emotional states triggered by emotional contagion processes. Recently, Ilies et al. (2007) showed that the average affective state of the other team members (so-called affective linkages) was related to an individual team member’s affective state, for both positive and negative affect.

Crossover of team-level job demands

Numerous studies have already examined the antecedents of WFC. In particular job stress, flexibility of work schedule, time devoted to the job/role, and a supportive supervisor or organizational culture are considered to be important antecedents of WFC (e.g., Bacharachet al., 1991; Byron, 2005; Ebyet al., 2005; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Netemeyeret al., 1996; Voydanoff, 1988). In fact, work overload by excessive job demands appears to be one of the most critical factors determining WFC (e.g., Bacharachet al., 1991; Geurtset al., 1999; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Netemeyeret al., 1996; Voydanoff, 1988; Wallace, 1999).

In the present study, we will focus on crossover of team-level work stressors and team level WFC to a focal employee’s experience of WFC. The job demands that will be examined are quantitative, mental and emotional job demands (Peeters et al., 2005). Quantitative job demands refer to work overload or too much work to do in too little time. Emotional job demands refer to the affective component of work and the degree to which one’s work puts one in emotionally stressful situations. Mental job demands refer to the degree to which work tasks call on a person to expend sustained mental effort in carrying out his or her duties.

JMP

24,3

(4)

Crossover specificity of team-level WFCs to individual level WFCs

To examine WFC, we will explicitly distinguish between work interfering with family (WFC) and family interfering with work (FWC). This distinction allows testing of hypotheses concerning the unique antecedents and outcomes of both forms of WFC (Froneet al., 1992) and allows for testing crossover specificity.

Bolgeret al.(1989) already noted that stress contagion effects are quite specific. For instance, burnout of team members may cross over to a focal employee’s burnout. It seems reasonable to assume that such crossover specificity exists: After all, when the greater part of team members has a common cold this may increase the chances of the focal employee catching a cold but not to catch another disease. This specificity has already been found in spouse-to-spouse crossover. Hammeret al. (1997) showed that partners’ work-family conflict accounted for a significant amount of variance in both males’ and females’ work-family conflict and did not cross over to related negative consequences. The findings of Westman and Etzion (1995) revealed that the husbands’ sense of control and burnout were positively related to the corresponding variables measured for their wives. However, up till now, only few studies have focused on crossover specificity in the workplace (e.g., Bakker et al., 2005; Bakker et al., 2006; Westman and Etzion, 1999). From the contagion perspective, we propose that not only job demands (both at the individual and team level) may result in work family conflicts, but also that there will be crossover specificity of team-level WFC to a focal employee’s WFC and also crossover specificity of team-level FWC to a focal employee’s FWC.

The mechanism through which team-level WFC may be contagious is probably employees talking to each other about their problems with regard to work-family interference. They may talk about how family events are influenced by their job demands. For instance, how they have to reschedule or postpone meals or about the consequences of working late unexpectedly (see Kellowayet al., 1999). In this way, a focal employee may “tune in” and as a result become more sensitive for his/her own work-family interference and this is an example of an explicit, conscious process of sharing (Kelly and Barsade, 2001). Further, employees who experience high levels of WFC may report elevated levels of job-related distress because they are more likely to feel overwhelmed by the ensuing struggle to meet their responsibilities at work and therefore experience a reduction in the quality of their work life (Froneet al., 1992).

At first sight, it may seem a bit odd to propose that team-level FWC will contribute to a focal employee’s FWC, after controlling for the individual-level job demands. However, Beauregard (2006) has shown that working conditions can be important predictors of FWC. Job-related variables appeared to explain significant additional variance in FWC beyond the effects of family domain variables. These results suggest that job characteristics may have more influence over the degree to which employees’ home situation interferes with their work than has previously been assumed. Moreover, it is important to examine team-level phenomena, for instance, the norm within a specific team may promote people to talk about problems in their private life. Therefore, we include both WFC and FWC as dependent variables in the following hypotheses:

H1. Team-level WFC is positively related to a focal employee’s WFC, after controlling for the impact of individual-level job demands.

H2. Team-level FWC is positively related to FWC of a focal employee, after controlling for the impact of individual-level job demands.

Crossover

specificity

(5)

Method

Procedure and respondents

This study was part of a survey on work conditions and occupational health among employees of a Dutch municipality (n¼1,737). Preceding the development of the questionnaire, some qualitative interviews were conducted to identify the most significant work conditions and these were subsequently included in a written questionnaire. Responses of the interviewed employees were summarized and compared with standard scales to measure work conditions and job demands. After that, the most salient job demands were selected and assessed trough the survey. The implementation of the research was completely taken care of by the municipality. Questionnaires were sent to all employees. Anonymity was guaranteed, and an information campaign supported the study. The response was 631 questionnaires (response rate¼36 percent). Since we used multi-level analyses, we selected respondents working in teams with size

$ four respondents, working together in the same departmental unit and reporting to the same supervisor. The final sample consisted of 428 respondents (47 percent women and 53 percent men) from 49 teams with a mean size of 8.7 (SD¼5:5) respondents per team. Mean age of the participants was 43.5 years (SD¼10:0).

Measures at the individual level

WFC and FWC. WFC and FWC were measured using the respective scales from the

Survey Work Home Interference Nijmegen (Wagena and Geurts, 2000). Most items in the WFC scale are congruent with items in similar scales, such as the scales used by Netemeyeret al.(1996) and Kopelmanet al.(1983). In the present research, WFC was measured with seven items (e.g., “How often do you find it difficult to fulfill your domestic obligations because you are constantly thinking about work?”; alpha¼0:86). FWC was measured with six items (e.g., “How often do you arrive late at work because of domestic obligations?”; alpha¼0:82). Items were scored on a five-point frequency scale ranging from 1 “ Never” to 5 “Always”.

Job demands. Three types of job demands were measured using scales taken from the Dutch Questionnaire on the Experience and Evaluation of Work (Van Veldhoven

et al., 2002). Quantitative job demands (five items, e.g. “Do you have to work very fast?”, alpha¼0:85), emotional job demands (seven items, e.g. “Is your work emotionally demanding?”, alpha¼0:79), and mental job demands (seven items, e.g. “Must you be very precise in your work?” alpha¼0:83). All items are scored on a four-point scale (1 “Never” to 4 “ Always”).

Background/control variables. Since individual differences in susceptibility to crossover of other employees’ attitudes have been documented (Doherty and Orimoto, 1995), we controlled for gender (male¼0, female¼1) and age (in years). Since number of hours of paid worked is among the most consistent predictors of work-home conflict, we controlled for number of hours paid work per week (see Tuten and August, 2006). In addition to the three types of job demands and the number of paid hours per week, we also measured the mean hours of overtime per week, i.e. the mean number of hours respondents devoted to their work above their contracted hours. Finally, size of the team (in number of employees) was also controlled for in the analyses, since individual perceptions of WFC can be affected by the size of the group. For example, in small teams, it is often obvious who is having a hard time coping with WFC and who is not. As team size increases, these direct relationships may become less obvious (see Bowers, 2000).

JMP

24,3

(6)

Statistical analyses

Measures at the team-level. To compute team-level job demands and overtime, we aggregated the individual – level variables. To check whether this aggregation of the scales was justified, we computed the within-group inter-rater reliabilityrwg(James

et al., 1993). Therwgfor the quantitative work load scale¼0:91, for the mental job demands scale¼0:96, and for the emotional job demands scale¼0:91. Further, for all three team-level job demands, therwgof all groups was greater than 0.70. As a rule of thumb, a group is viewed to have an adequate level of agreement ifrwgis greater than 0.70, thus it seems reasonable to conclude that aggregation was justified (see Klein

et al., 2000).

To compute team-level WFC and FWC, we first computed whether the participants scored relatively low, medium, or high on these scales and divided the sample in three equal sized groups. After that, employees were categorized as having WFC or FWC when they scored in the high-risk category on the respective scales. In the analyses, the percentage of employees falling in the high-risk group per team was used (for a comparable procedure see Bakkeret al.(2006)). Among all respondents, 36 percent was classified high on WFC and 28 percent was classified high on FWC.

Multilevel analyses. To test whether the nesting structure in the data set called for multilevel analyses, we computedF-values for group effects with analysis of variance (ANOVA). WithF¼0:86 the FWC F-test was not significant. For WFCF¼2:02 (p,0:01), showing that the measurements are not independent and, confirming the appropriateness of using multilevel analyses. Although one of theF-tests did not reach significance, we still decided to conduct multilevel analyses based on the nature of the hypothesized relationships. Hausman (1978) tests, to determine if we should use a random effects or a fixed effects model, were not significant for both WFC (Chi2_¼₀_:_{90, ns) and FWC (Chi}2_¼₀_:_{54, ns) indicating that a random effects model is}

the preferred type of multilevel analyses. Consequently, to test the hypotheses, we performed random-effects GLS regression multilevel analyses with FWC and WFC as the dependent variables. In each of the two analyses, we included group size, team-level job demands, and team-level overtime as aggregated variables, and we controlled for background variables, individual job demands, and overtime.

For the interpretation of the results, it is important to keep in mind that multilevel programs report gamma parameters or unstandardized (b) coefficients and do not report standardized or beta regression coefficients. These gamma or unstandardized regression coefficients can be compared within rows, but not within columns (as is the case for standardized regression coefficients) (Nezlek and Zyzniewski, 1998). For example, the association between gender and WFC in Model 2 (g¼20:17) is stronger than the association between gender and WFC in Model 1 (g¼20:15). With unstandardized coefficients, the usual comparisons within columns are not possible: One cannot infer from Model 1 that quantitative job demands (g¼0:42) is a better predictor of WFC than emotional job demands (g¼0:20)

Results

Table I presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for individual level and team level variables.

The results of the multi-level analysis for WFC and FWC are shown in Tables II and III. To assess effect sizes, we computed the proportions of incremental explained

Crossover

specificity

(7)

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Individual level

1 Gender 0.47 0.50 2 Age 43.49 9.99 ₂0.16**

3 Hours paid work 34.43 8.02 ₂0.49** ₂_0.02

4 Overtime 2.11 3.66 ₂0.13** _0.10* _0.43**

5 Quantitative job

demands 2.62 0.65 0.01 0.10* _0.08 _0.18**

6 Mental job

demands 3.33 0.48 0.09 0.12* 20.06 0.07* 0.35** 7 Emotional job

demands 1.92 0.53 0.05 0.05 0.12* 0.26** 0.27** 0.34** 8 WFC 2.06 0.69 20.10* 0.02 0.16** 0.37** 0.44** 0.05 0.25** 9 FWC 1.42 0.45 20.07 20.06 0.07 0.16** 0.17** 0.02 0.12* 0.55** Team-level

10 Size of the unit 8.70 5.50 0.07 0.02 20.15** 0.28** 20.11* 20.06 0.12 20.02 20.02 11 Team-level

overtime 2.10 2.93 20.17** 0.04 0.43** 0.75** 0.03 0.03 0.25** 0.21** 20.10* 0.37** 12 Team-level

Quantitative job

demands 2.62 0.28 0.22** _0.05 ₂_0.15** _0.04 _0.44** _0.17** _0.04 _0.25** _0.11* ₂_0.26** _0.05

13 Team-level mental

job demands 3.33 0.20 0.25** _0.01 ₂_0.16** _0.05 _0.18** _0.42** _0.15** _0.04 ₂_0.01 ₂_0.19** _0.06 _0.42**

14 Team-level emotional job

demands 1.92 0.28 0.02 0.06 0.14** _0.36** _0.04 _0.12* _0.54** _0.06 _0.04 _0.24** _0.45** _0.07 _0.27**

15 Team-level WFC 0.36 0.20 ₂0.06 0.04 0.12* _0.31** _0.21** _0.01 _0.08 _0.39** _0.15* _0.03 _0.42** _0.49** _0.07 _0.18**

16 Team-level FWC 0.28 0.13 ₂0.03 ₂0.06 0.14** _0.18** _0.10** _0.02 _0.08 _0.22** _0.27** ₂_0.02 _0.24** _0.27** _0.05 _0.18** _0.35**

Notes:*p,0:05;**p,0:01

Table

I.

Means,

standard

deviations

and

correlations

for

all

variables

(

n

¼

428,

n

of

groups

¼

49)

JMP

24,3

(8)

Work interfering with family

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

g SE g SE g SE

Team-level overtime 0.01 0.02 20.03 0.02

Team-level quantitative job demands 0.25* _0.13 ₂_0.08 _0.13

Team-level mental job demands 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.17

Team-level emotional job demands 20.49* * _0.15 ₂_0.46* * _0.13

Team-level inter-role conflict

Team-level WFC 0.99* * _0.17

DR2 _0.31* * _0.04* * _0.05* *

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

g SE g SE g SE

Quantitative 0.11* * 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.08* 0.04

Mental 20.05 0.05 20.05 0.06 20.05 0.05

Emotional 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10* _0.05

Team-level

Size of the unit 20.00 0.00 20.00 0.00

Team-level overtime 20.00 0.01 20.01 0.01

Team-level quantitative job demands 0.11 0.09 0.02

- Team-level mental job demands 20.09 0.14 20.04 0.1

Team-level emotional job demands 20.10 0.10 20.12 0.10

(9)

variance for the different models and these proportions are also reported in Tables II and III.

With an F-test we tested whether the incremental explained variance was significant:

F¼ R2_{second model}2R2_{first model}12

=ðK22K1Þ

= 12R2_{second model}

=ðn2K221Þ

where K2 is the number of predictors in the second model and K1 is the number of predictors in the first model. Further, differences in model fit were tested with a Wald chi-squared difference test. Model 1 in Table II shows that the individual-level and background variables explain 31 percent of the variance in WFC. Model 2 and 3 show that the team-level variables explain an additional 9 percent of the variance in WFC. From Table III it can be seen that the individual-level and background variables explain 7 percent of the variance in FWC and that the inclusion of the team-level variables explains an extra 13 percent (see Model 2 en 3) in individual-level FWC.

Unexpected, team-level emotional job demands are negatively associated with individual WFC (g¼20:49,p,0:01). For FWC, the gamma coefficients of all three team-level job demands do not reach significance. Taken together, these findings show that team-level job demands do not increase individual team members’ levels of FWC and WFC, after controlling for the impact of individual job demands.

Hypotheses testing

The crossover specificity hypotheses predicted that team-level WFC (H1) and FWC (H2) are positively related to individual level WFC and FWC respectively, after controlling for the impact of individual and team level job demands. The results of Random-effects GLS Regression analysis show that, as predicted, team-level WFC is positively associated with WFC (g¼0:99, p,0:01). Further, team-level FWC is positively associated with a focal employee’s FWC (g¼0:84, p,0:01). Taken together, these findings provide support for H1 and H2. There exists team-level crossover specificity for both types of WFCs.

Discussion

In this study, unlike most WFC research, we explored the role of antecedents of WFC from a team-level crossover point of view. We assessed the extent to which demands experienced at the team-level were associated with employee’s individual experiences of WFCs and tested for crossover specificity.

The crossover specificity hypothesis was supported. The results showed that team-level WFC was positively associated with a focal employee’s WFC. Team-level FWC was also positively associated with a focal employee’s FWC. Findings indicated the associations of team-level WFC and FWC and focal employee’s WFC and FWC respectively, thereby underscoring the specificity of crossover. This study may be one of the first attempts to explore the role of crossover specificity. Theoretically, it is noteworthy that these contagion effects are specific (Bolgeret al., 1989), namely from WFC at the team-level to WFC at the individual level and from FWC at the team-level to FWC at the individual level. However, with the present study design, we can only speculate on the reasons for this and future longitudinal studies should shed more light on this phenomenon. Taken together, these results support the existence of emotional

JMP

24,3

(10)

contagion at the workplace (Westman, 2006). This is in line with Westman and Etzion’s (1999) finding for school principals and teachers. They found a direct specific crossover effect of job-induced tension between school principals and teachers and vice versa. They did not find a direct crossover effect of burnout and this may reflect that burnout represents a more “holistic” strain that relates both to the work and the nonwork domains, whereas job-induced tension is a specific strain that relates to specific work aspects. Further, it is possible that there are other (than contagion) explanations for the group effect. For example, is it conceivable that there exists a micro-climate or culture within teams in which there are shared expectations about acceptable levels of WFC/FWC. It is possible that such an environment exerts a powerful influence on individual perceptions of WFC/FWC.

The negative association of team-level emotional job demands with WFC was unexpected. Perhaps this has to do with how people cope with emotional demands at work. The feeling that one can cope successfully with emotional job demands might decrease WFC. It is also possible that the shared emotional demands create a sense of collectivity and cohesion within the work situation. In the context of a cross-sectional study, it is possible that reports of job demands are influenced by WFC or FWC (i.e. the causal arrow goes the other way), which is the classic problem in cross-sectional research of this nature. Further, there are indications that over time there may be spiral relationships. This could explain the relationship between individual level job demands and individual level WFC/FWC. The so-called team level job demands might represent a more objective measure of demands in the workplace, all of this leading to the conclusion that there is no influence of job demands on WFC/FWC in the present study. Further, we distinguished two types of WFC, but we did not distinguish between strain- and time-based conflicts between work and family demands (see Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Future research may find it useful to make this further distinction because it may well be that especially strain-based conflicts are susceptible to contagion, whereas time-based conflicts may be susceptible to other mechanisms.

We included a number of background variables in the analyses. Gender appeared to be related to WFC but not to FWC: Women were more likely to suffer from WFC, but FWC was not different between men and women. It might be that women are so overburdened with work and home chores that work more easily interferes with home for them than for happens to be the case for men. Further, age was not associated with WFC but it was negatively associated with FWC. Younger employees suffer more from FWC than older employees, and this may point to a life stage phenomenon for FWC. However, taking your work home (i.e. WFC) apparently is something not linked to one’s life stage or age. Weekly hours of work have been demonstrated to have a significant impact on work-home conflicts (Crompton and Lyonette, 2006). In the present study, we could not find such a relationship. It appeared that it is not the weekly contracted hours that are associated with WFC, but it is the extra number of hours or overtime that is important to explain work-family conflict.

Practical implications and suggestions for future research

High levels of WFC have been associated with various negative consequences, such as poorer physical health, higher rates of depression, anxiety, stress, and problem drinking (see Grzywacz et al., 2006; Roehlinget al., 2005). It is recommended that organizations expand their conception of why they need to be concerned about WFC

Crossover

specificity

(11)

related issues. When perceptions of WFC are (partly) shared by colleagues this shared perception can affect individual negative outcomes and group-level interventions to reduce the negative effects, should be seriously considered (Van Yperen and Snijders, 2000). Management’s understanding of contagion is needed for a better appreciation of organizational behavior from the perspective of team crossover of emotions, as well as the development of creative and useful ideas for making teamwork more successful (Crosetto, 2004).

Previous research has already shown the importance of team-level phenomena for individual experiences and work outcomes (e.g., Bliese and Castro, 2000; Bliese and Britt, 2001; Devineet al., 1999; Gullyet al., 2002; Jex and Bliese, 1999). The results of the present study also emphasize the importance of a multilevel perspective. People who share the same environment may experience a similar level of stress to begin with, but once they express stress or strain, a dynamic may set in that elevates the reaction of all of the team members to the stressful situation Thus, whereas one employee’s behavior may be a source of stress to many team members, their stress may in turn not only boomerang back, but also start “ping-pong” reactions (Westman and Etzion, 1999).

Limitations

Some words of caution regarding the results of this study are necessary. Data were collected with the single administration of a survey. This may raise concern about common method variance. Although the use of aggregate variables makes this less likely, future research efforts need to consider using longitudinal and multi-actor data. For instance, future studies may include information from both supervisor and employee collected at different points in time.

Conclusions

Although the existing work-family literature has not addressed crossover specificity, our results suggest that this could improve further theory development. The purpose of the present study was to explain how variables at the team-level are associated with individual level outcomes. As already suggested by Bliese and Castro (2000), aggregate ratings of constructs used in stress research allow one to assess the contextual work environment in ways that cannot be done by relying merely on individual-level variables. The team-level variables we used open up important possibilities in occupational stress research. It is important to consider how social and contextual variables can be integrated into research and theory (Bliese and Castro, 2000, p. 72). Viewing stress and strain from a multilevel perspective makes it possible to examine how processes at the organizational, departmental, or team-level affect individual phenomena (Bliese and Jex, 2002).

Finally, prior research has shown that various sources of social support can reduce an individual’s WFC (Carlson, 1999; Thompsonet al., 1999). For instance, colleagues can be supportive on an ongoing basis and understanding and respecting an individual’s commitment to other life roles (Greenhaus and Powell, 2003; Powell and Greenhaus, 2006). We looked at these issues from the other way around. Colleagues can be very supportive but they can also be demanding. Contacts with burned-out and cynical co-workers, demanding bosses, or emotionally exhausted subordinates, all can be associated with a focal employee’s (decrease in) well-being. When possible, employees tend to avoid interaction with these people but physical proximity and

JMP

24,3

(12)

organizational structure may prevent this unsolicited relationships (see Brass et al., 2004; Deelstraet al., 2003). We focused on the negative side of people working together and did not measure how supportive team members can be for each other. However, it is possible that for team members plagued by high emotional job demands, supportive interactions between employees alleviate stress and strain in such a way that these interactions between employees prevent stress and strain to spilling over to the home situation.

References

Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P. and Conley, S. (1991), “Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers: mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work”,

Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-53.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2009), “The crossover of work engagement: a closer look at the role of empathy”,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 220-36.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2003), “The socially induced burnout model”, in Shohov, S.P. (Ed.),Advances in Psychology Research, Vol. 25, Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 13-30.

Bakker, A.B., Le Blanc, P.M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2005), “Burnout contagion among nurses who work at intensive care units”,Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 276-87. Bakker, A.B., Van Emmerik, I.H. and Euwema, M.C. (2006), “Crossover of burnout and

engagement in work teams”,Work and Occupations, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 464-89.

Beauregard, T.A. (2006), “Predicting interference between work and home: a comparison of dispositional and situational antecedents”,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 244-64.

Bliese, P.D. and Britt, T.W. (2001), “Social support, group consensus and stressor-strain relationships: social context matters”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 425-36.

Bliese, P.D. and Castro, C.A. (2000), “Role clarity, work overload and organizational support: multilevel evidence of the importance of support”,Work and Stress, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 65-73. Bliese, P.D. and Jex, S.M. (2002), “Incorporating a multilevel perspective into occupational stress research: theoretical, methodological, and practical implications”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 265-76.

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R.C. and Wethington, E. (1989), “The contagion of stress across multiple roles”,Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 175-83.

Bowers, C.A. (2000), “When member homogeneity is needed in work teams”, Small Group

Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 305-27.

Brass, D.J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H.R. and Tsai, W. (2004), “Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 795-817.

Byron, K. (2005), “A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 169-98.

Carlson, D.S. (1999), “Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family conflict”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 236-53.

Crompton, R. and Lyonette, C. (2006), “Work-life ‘balance’ in Europe”,Acta Sociologica, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 379-93.

Crosetto, G.J. (2004), “The experience of team emotion: a phenomenological study”,Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 65 Nos 3-A, p. 1140.

Crossover

specificity

(13)

Deelstra, J.T., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., Stroebe, W., Zijlstra, F.R.H. and Van Doornen, L.P. (2003), “Receiving instrumental support at work: when help is not welcome”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 324-31.

Devine, D.J., Clayton, L.D., Philips, J.L., Dunford, B.B. and Melner, S.B. (1999), “Teams in organizations: prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness”, Small Group Research, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 678-711.

Doherty, R.W. and Orimoto, L. (1995), “Emotional contagion: gender and occupational differences”,Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 355-71.

Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C. and Brinley, A. (2005), “Work and family research in IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002)”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 124-97.

Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 65-78.

Geurts, S., Rutte, C. and Peeters, M. (1999), “Antecedents and consequences of work-home interference among medical residents”,Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 48, pp. 1135-48. Gorgievski-Duijvesteijin, M.J., Giesen, C.W.M. and Bakker, A.B. (2000), “Financial problems and

health complaints among farm couples: results of a 10-yr follow-up study”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 359-73.

Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.

Greenhaus, J.H. and Powell, G.N. (2003), “When work and family collide: deciding between competing role demands”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 291-303.

Grzywacz, J.G., Frone, M.R., Brewer, C.S. and Kovner, C.T. (2006), “Quantifying work-family conflict among registered nurses”,Research in Nursing & Health, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 414-26. Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A. and Beaubien, J. (2002), “A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 819-32.

Hammer, L.B., Allen, E. and Grigsby, T.D. (1997), “Work-family conflict in dual-earner couples: within-individual and crossover effects of work and family”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 185-203.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Rapson, R.L. (1994),Emotional Contagion, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Hausman, J.A. (1978), “Specification tests in econometrics”, Econometrica, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1251-71.

Ilies, R., Wagner, D.T. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Explaining affective linkages in teams: individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism/collectivism”,

Journal of Applied Psychology, (forthcoming).

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1993), “R-sub(wg): an assessment of within-group interrater agreement”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 306-9.

Jex, S.M. and Bliese, P.D. (1999), “Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: a multilevel study”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 349-61. Kelloway, E.-K., Gottlieb, B.-H. and Barham, L. (1999), “The source, nature, and direction of work

and family conflict: a longitudinal investigation”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 337-46.

JMP

24,3

(14)

Kelly, J.R. and Barsade, S.G. (2001), “Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams”,

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 99-130. Klein, K.K., Bliese, P.D., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M.B., Griffin, M.A., Hoffman, D.,

James, L., Yammarino, F. and Bligh, M. (2000), “Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions”, in Klein, K.K. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 512-53. Kopelman, R.E., Greenhaus, J.H. and Connolly, T.F. (1983), “A model of work, family and interrole conflict: a construct validation study”,Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 198-213.

McDonald, P., Brown, K. and Bradley, L. (2005), “Explanations for the provision-utilisation gap in work-life policy”,Women in Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 37-55.

Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 400-10.

Nezlek, J.B. and Zyzniewski, L.E. (1998), “Using hierarchical linear modeling to analyze grouped data”,Group Dynamics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 313-20.

Peeters, M.C.W., Montgomery, A.J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2005), “Balancing work and home: how job and home demands are related to burnout”,International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 43-61.

Powell, G.N. and Greenhaus, J.H. (2006), “Managing incidents of work-family conflict: a decision-making perspective”,Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 1179-212.

Roehling, P.V., Jarvis, L.H. and Swope, H.E. (2005), “Variations in negative work-family spillover among white, black, and hispanic American men and women: does ethnicity matter?”,

Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 26 No. 6, p. 840.

Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L. and Lyness, K.S. (1999), “When work-family benefits are not enough: the influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 392-415.

Thompson, D.P. and McNamara, J.F. (1997), “Job satisfaction in educational organizations: a synthesis of research findings”,Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 7-39.

Tuten, T.L. and August, R.A. (2006), “Work-family conflict: a study of lesbian mothers”,Women in Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 578-87.

Van Veldhoven, M., De Jonge, J., Broersen, S., Kompier, M. and Meijman, T. (2002), “Specific relationships between psychosocial job conditions and job-related stress: a three-level analytic approach”,Work and Stress, Vol. 16, pp. 207-28.

Van Yperen, N.W. and Snijders, T.A.B. (2000), “A multilevel analysis of the demands-control model: is stress at work determined by factors at the group level or the individual level?”,

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 162-90.

Voydanoff, P. (1988), “Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family conflict”,Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 749-61.

Wagena, E. and Geurts, S.A.E. (2000), “SWING. Ontwikkeling en validering van de ‘Survey Werk-thuis Interferentie-Nijmegen’” (“SWING. development and validation of the ‘survey work-home interference-Nijmegen”),Gedrag & Gezondheid, Vol. 28, pp. 138-58.

Wallace, J.E. (1999), “Work-to-nonwork conflict among married male and female lawyers”,

Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 797-816.

Westman, M. (2002), “Crossover of stress and strain in the family and workplace”,Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, Vol. 2, pp. 143-81.

Crossover

specificity

(15)

Westman, M. (2006), “Negative and positive crossover in the family and among team members”, in Rossi, A.M., Perrewe, P.L. and Sauter, S.L. (Eds),Stress and Quality of Working Life: Current Perspectives in Occupational Health, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp. 68-86.

Westman, M. and Etzion, D. (1995), “Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one spouse to another”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 169-81.

Westman, M. and Etzion, D. (1999), “The crossover of strain from school principals to teachers and vice versa”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 269-78.