!
The Agreeable Personality Trait and its Impact on Work-Life Balance Satisfaction
How agreeableness influences work-life balance satisfaction and the potential impact of empowering leadership and working hours as moderators
Bachelor Thesis
BSc. Business Administration - Management in the Digital Age Amsterdam Business School of the University of Amsterdam Maximilian Benedikt Felsberg - 11836903
Supervisor: Dr. Joanna Sosnowska June 20, 2020
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Maximilian Benedikt Felsberg who
declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is
original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text
and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the
supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction……….….…….6
2. Theoretical Framework……….……9
2.1 Personality………..………9
2.2 Work-Life Balance.……….……….….….….……..10
2.3 The Relationship between Personality and Work-Life Balance Satisfaction.……..11
2.4 Empowering Leadership………..……….13
2.5 Empowering Leadership as a Moderating Variable……….….…..…..14
2.6 Working Hours.……….…..…..15
2.7 Working Hours as a Moderating Variable……….…………16
2.8 Summary of the Conceptual Model……….….………17
3. Method.……….….…..18
3.1 Design, Sample and Procedure………..……….……..….18
3.2 Measurements.……….……..………19 3.3 Analytical Plan.……….….……20 4. Results……….……….………..……….…21 4.1 Correlations……….…….21 4.2 Test of Hypothesis 1……….……..…………..22 4.3 Test of Hypothesis 2……….………..……..…23 4.4 Test of Hypothesis 3……….…..…..………..…..24
4.5 Results of the Explorative Analysis……….……25
5. Discussion……….….………….……….…25
5.1 Discussion of Results……….…..………..………..….26
5.1.1 Discussion of the Insignificant Influence of Agreeableness.….…….…………26
5.1.2 Discussion of Aspects Weakening the Influence of Empowering Leadership..28
5.1.3 Discussion of Working Hours and Potential Factors Weakening the Influence.31 5.1.4 Research Contributions……….…….……….…31
5.2 Limitations and Future Research………..……..……..32
5.3 Managerial Implications………..….32
6. Conclusion……….….……….…………33
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Conceptual Research Model……….………17
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations………22
Table 2. Moderation Table 1……….24
Table 3. Moderation Table 2……….24
Abstract
Previous research analyzed the work-family relationship in detail (Sumer & Knight, 2001) but fell short of investigating the impact of personality on this relation (Watanabe, Takahashi, and Minami, 1997). Moreover, no research was carried out that investigated the degree to which personality influences WLBS. To establish, if agreeableness influences WLBS and whether this relation is influenced by either empowering leadership or average weekly working hours, this study developed three hypotheses as part of the conceptual model. First, it was illustrated that agreeableness might influence WLBS. More precisely, it was hypothesized that employees with a high agreeableness score have a higher WLBS. In the second model, it was assumed that this relation is moderated by the empowering leadership style so that agreeable individuals WLBS is enhanced through the presence of empowering leadership. In the third step it was presumed that working hours interact with the relation between agreeableness and WLBS, so that high working hours negatively influence agreeable individuals WLBS. To analyze these assumptions, 122 unique samples were investigated through linear regression and the use of Hayes (2018) PROCESS macro. This led to the conclusion that agreeableness did not have an effect on WLBS, accordingly hypothesis 1 was rejected. Moreover, the data did not offer support for hypotheses 2 and 3. Hence, neither empowering leadership nor working hours moderated the relation. However, it was found that the master level correlated positively with WLBS, and hence higher education might absorb the negative impact of higher working hours through more interesting jobs.
Keywords: personality, agreeableness, work-life balance satisfaction, work-life balance, empowering leadership, working hours, education
1. Introduction
These days are increasingly characterized by expanded globalization and widening economic problems, also caused by the US-China trade war and the ongoing Covid-19 crisis. Additionally, climate change forces governments to enact tough policies, especially for pollutant rich industries. These circumstances result not only in corporate downsizing and increased pressure on individuals, but also burden to improve efficiency, especially in the automotive industry. Simultaneously technological transformation not only enables one to always be connected and available for work-related demands (Milliken & Dunn Jensen, 2005; Valcour & Hunter, 2005), but also requires entirely new skills from the workforce and is thereby putting more demands and pressure on employees (Shankar & Bhatnagar, 2010). Under these circumstances, unsatisfactory work-life balances (WLB) can reduce the performance at work (Abendroth & Den Dulk, 2011), lead to a higher proportion of health-related issues (OECD, 2001), potentially cause burnout in employees (Brauchli, Bauer, & Hämming, 2011) and increase their turnover intention (Huang, Lawler & Lei, 2007). Hence, a well balanced work-family life is a critical aspect of career value (Heiligers & Hingstman, 2000; Lee & Kossek, 2005). It even impacts occupational decisions, as well as work-related metrics such as involvement and career satisfaction (Heiligers & Hingstman, 2000; Lee & Kossek, 2005). Thus, it is clear that work-life balance satisfaction (WLBS) plays an important role in human resource development and management (Shankar & Bhatnagar, 2010). Furthermore, it is valued across generations (Bresman, 2015; Ozkan & Solmaz, 2015; Guest, 2002). However, not all personality traits are equally affected by the mentioned factors and they also react differently to the new emerging forces of hyper-competitiveness in the workplace and increased integration of work into private life.
Previous research found that agreeableness is a key variable in predicting work and life satisfaction (Organ & Lingl, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1991), as agreeable people are more likely to have a higher life and work satisfaction (Organ & Lingl, 1995; Shaver and Brennan, 1992) and stronger psychological resources (Rothmann & Storm, 2003). These individuals also tend to be more open to alternative means of leadership (Parmer, Green, Duncan, & Zarate, 2013), opening the way for newer, more engaging methods. This is important since these new leadership forms might then impact their WLBS positively, for example through more autonomy or increased job satisfaction. Simultaneously this does not hold for low
agreeable individuals, who are more focused on individual goals (Bozionelos, 2004). Thus, their WLBS might not be influenced through leadership or other means of empowerment in the workplace or private life.
Furthermore, there is a gap in research, regarding this broader framework of how personality influences WLBS, which might also happen through indirect ways such as leadership. Past research has mostly looked at the influence of work-related perceptions and their influence on family life (Sumer & Knight, 2001). Early research also studied the work-family relationship greatly and neglected the effect of personality on this relationship (Sumer & Knight, 2001). Additionally, Abendroth & Den Dulk (2011) concluded that research in this area has predominantly investigated the factors that lead to work-family conflicts and its consequences, including reduced quality of living and reduced performance, as well as problems with ones’ health (OECD, 2001). Further, cross-cultural research of the WLB and its satisfaction has been limited (Poelmans, 2005), also with regard to the influence of personality. As personality might be a key variable in predicting and understanding individual WLBS, it demands more attention. Moreover, according to Sumer & Knight (2001), the pattern of how an individual interacts with other people has an influence on not only how the person perceives the work environment, but also on the family domain and how these two spheres interplay. Hence, research needs to explore how different personality types might impact this. This is supported by Watanabe, Takahashi, and Minami (1997), who emphasized that research overlooked the importance of individual differences and circumstances in explaining their WLB.
In conclusion, these variables have been researched within a limited scope, excluding personality and with a focus on specific relations (family/ employer support (Abendroth & Den Dulk,2011), instrumental/ emotional support (Abendroth & Den Dulk,2011; Den Dulk & Peper, 2007; Warren & Johnson, 1995), work hours (Valcour, 2007), job complexity (Valcour, 2007), control over work time (Valcour, 2007) and attachment styles (Sumer & Knight, 2001)), but not within the broader framework of the influence of personality.
This study investigates the relationship between the agreeable personality and WLBS. It thereby informs about the benefits and consequences of adopting the empowering leadership style, the impact of working hours, and personality in general, as well as their influence on
WLBS. Hence, the results of this research are of particular interest for organizations and scholars. It intends to help companies better understand the broader concept of WLBS and how to best adjust management styles, depending on the employees’ level of agreeableness. Further, it helps in understanding which employees are more likely to have a negative WLBS and which do not. To remain attractive for current key employees and become attractive for future employees, to ultimately achieve positive organizational outcomes, the results of this research are required. However, this study also intends to further the understanding of these relations and provide additional insights. This enables organizations to make better decisions in areas such as management, personal selection, and the general organizational environment. As Robbins and Judge (2009) explained that satisfied employees (also including WLBS) are more effective, this is in the interest of every organization.
It is of importance for organizations because WLBS affects organizational outcomes (Abendroth & Den Dulk, 2011; OECD, 2001; Brauchli, Bauer, & Hämming, 2011; Huang, Lawler, & Lei, 2007). Thus, it can negatively impact the organizational goals of increased growth and earnings per share, which are the primary drivers of shareholder value creation (Christensen, Kaufmann, & Shih, 2008). Hence, the potential conflict between work and family life could aggravate the principal-agent conflict. However, WLBS not only affects organizational outcomes directly, but also indirectly. Heiligers & Hingstman (2000) and Lee & Kossek (2005), described that WLBS also influences which employer the employee chooses. This means that a company’s external image of having a negative WLB atmosphere may keep away high-performance employees. This relation is especially present within generation X (Guest, 2002), is of even higher importance for millennials (Bresman, 2015) and will stay relevant with the entrance of generation Z into the workforce (Ozkan & Solmaz, 2015). In addition, Barnett & Hall (2001) note that there is an ever-increasing focus on WLB, also forming a part of talent management. Hence, this research helps companies to understand the topologies more comprehensively.
In conclusion, this study intends to fill the research gap of the agreeable personalities’ impact on WLBS, as well as the moderating influence of organizational factors and further the understanding in the area of WLBS through the following research question.
RQ: To what extent does the agreeable personality influence WLBS and is this relationship moderated by empowering leadership or working hours?
2. Theoretical Framework 2.1 Personality
Devadoss & Minnie (2013) emphasized the importance of personality for predicting WLBS and explained personality as qualities that create differences between individuals that in turn are differentiating them.
This study makes use of the HEXACO model of personality structure (Ashton, Lee & de Vries, 2014), which consists of six personality dimensions: Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. This model is chosen over the five-dimensional model because it is capable of incorporating additional personality variance that the other model is unable to do. Although De Raad et al. (2010) found that among languages solely three personality dimensions can be replicated, this model is still relevant as equivalent structures were found later (Ashton, Lee, & de Vries, 2014). First of all, personality is defined as `the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to his environment´ (Allport, 1937, p. 48). This study focuses on the agreeable personality trait, as past research described agreeableness especially as a `moderator of various kinds of interpersonal behaviors` (Graziano & Tobin, 2009, p. 46). The authors narrowed the definition further down, by stating that individuals with a high level of this personality trait tend to engage in actions that are generally more productive and positive. They elaborated that this is based on the general tendency of agreeable individuals to keep and sustain positive relations with their peers. These behavioural traits might be of special importance in the modern workplace, where collaboration in complex problems is required. Hence, this trait was chosen. According to Ashton, Lee & de Vries (2014), these people are also more likely to cooperate and work together with their peers, forgive any wrongdoings and simultaneously have a greater capacity to manage their emotions. On the opposite side of this scale there are individuals with a low score of agreeableness, who are more selfish, focus more on themselves with regard to any wrongs others did to them, and tend to keep these wrongs in mind. Moreover, they are more likely to defend and advocate for their own opinions and focus more intensely on the weaknesses and failures of others.
These characteristics are important because they might influence the WLBS of an individual, as illustrated in a later paragraph. In conclusion, agreeable people are not only kind, but also characterized as warm and considerate (Graziano & Tobin, 2009).
2.2 Work-Life Balance
In general, the WLB definition hints at a compatible and peaceful relation among the diverse spheres of life (Frone, 2003), and concentrates especially on the relation of work and family characters (Resch, 2003). Frone (2003, p.145) further sharpened that definition by stating that WLB can be described as ´a lack of conflict or interference between work and family roles´. This means that someone, who is able to fulfil both roles, experiences a high degree of satisfaction with the balance (Valcour, 2007). On the other hand, work-life conflict is associated with mutually exclusive and contrary inter role tensions (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Grant-Vallone & Ensher (1998) added that the work-life conflict leads to diminished psychological health, a decreased well being, and also negatively influences the body. They concluded that WLB consistently has an impact on both the quality of the work domain and the quality of the family domain. Generally, past research concluded that employees seek to conform to work and family obligations while feeling satisfaction in this process (Friedman & Greenahaus, 2000; Rapoport, Fletcher, Pruitt, & Bailyn, 2002). The concept of WLB includes several other perspectives such as Wilensky`s (1960) proposed spillover, compensation, and segmentation models, that explain the relation between work and family life. The spillover model predicts that the satisfaction an individual experiences within one sphere of life will spill over to other domains and thereby create a positive reinforcing cycle (Liou, Sylvia, & Brunk, 1990). This means that, when an individual is satisfied with the social life, the individual will also be satisfied with its work life. Hence, this model is of increased importance within the scope of this research, as agreeable individuals have a general high job and life satisfaction (Organ & Lingl, 1995; McCrae and Costa, 1991). In contrast to the spillover model, the compensation model explains that events within the work and family domain are more likely antithetical. This means that when the circumstances in one domain are dissatisfying the individual tends to compensate for this, by engaging more intensely in another one. Lambert (1990) stated that this compensation occurs indirectly and that it proceeds to an unbalanced involvement in these two domains. The segmentation model, in turn, argues that the work and life domains are not connected with each other, but are rather detached and distinct (Elizur, 1986; Staines, 1980). Moreover, this model is especially important in times where individuals are always connected with the employer (Milliken & Dunn Jensen, 2005; Valcour & Hunter, 2005) and where keeping a boundary is especially important. Certain personalities might be better able to maintain a boundary (Zaman, Anis-ul-
Haque, & Nawaz, 2014) than others. Furthermore, the concept of the balance itself was discussed, which by some individuals may also be viewed more as an integration (Rapoport, Fletcher, Pruitt, & Bailyn, 2002), whereas others prefer not to integrate the spheres (Clark, 2000). These different models predict the WLBS of an individual and which model might apply is also based on the circumstances, as explained in the next section.
2.3 The Relationship between Personality and Work-Life Balance Satisfaction
As the previous paragraphs elaborated, both the personality and the specific WLB models have an influence on the resulting WLBS. According to Shaver and Brennan (1992), variations in personality and thus attachment relations direct variables such as work attitude. They also showed that secure individuals have higher scores on the agreeableness scale. Moreover, they have in general a different attitude towards work than insecure individuals, which is more positive. Further secure individuals’ attitude is described to be generally more positive. Additionally, these individuals were characterized to have a higher enjoyment of work-related tasks. This was complemented by Organ & Lingl (1995), who found that agreeable people have a higher job satisfaction in general, which might be because they tend to be more successful (Zellars & Perrewe, 2001). In contrast, people with a low degree of agreeableness tend to evaluate their job-related tasks as more distressing (Christiansen, Sliter, & Frost, 2014). McCrae and Costa (1991) further elaborated that individuals, who are agreeable tend to have a higher life satisfaction, are more likely to be approachable and happy. According to Graziano & Tobin (2009), this might be because these individuals focus on maintaining harmonious relations and generally can create interpersonal relations effortlessly (Witt, Burge, Barrick, & Mount, 2002). Graziano & Eisenberg (1997) supported this, by also saying that there is a lower likelihood that agreeable people are hostile or aggressive towards their co-workers, hence they have a more balanced personality. Through the spillover model, this might impact their WLBS.
In addition, personality also influences psychological resources, which determine the likelihood of experiencing burnout. Research described burnout as a syndrome that expresses not only emotional exhaustion and depersonalization but also includes a general diminished personal accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson, 1986). Because burnout includes behaviours such as depersonalization, it impacts the work-family life relationship (Rothmann & Storm, 2003). Furthermore, individuals with low ratings on the agreeableness scale are more prone to
emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and hence burnout (Rothmann & Storm, 2003). Burnout then might create a self-reinforcing cycle through the spillover model, as it might decrease job satisfaction. Decreased job satisfaction subsequently impacts WLBS and might cause a WLB conflict. According to Grant-Vallone & Ensher (1998), a WLB conflict then leads to diminished psychological health, decreased well being and it negatively influences physical health. Thus, further aggravating the consequences of the interdependence between WLB conflict and burnout. In addition, Havill, Besevegis & Mouroussaki (1998) described agreeableness as the most important factor in examining individual heterogeneousness, as it moderates other behavioural traits (Graziano & Tobin, 2009). Hence, it is a key variable influencing workplace behaviour, which in turn impacts WLBS.
Supplementary in today's hyper-competitive world, much teamwork and collaboration are required. Simultaneously work gets more complex and digital technologies remove the boundaries between work and family life, as employees are always connected (Milliken & Dunn Jensen, 2005; Valcour & Hunter, 2005). Thus, there is a seamless transition between the spheres, which could make it more difficult for people with low levels of agreeableness to maintain a separation, as they receive less family support (Zaman, Anis-ul-Haque, & Nawaz, 2014). Moreover, there is increased pressure for further advancements in efficiency and for individuals to stand out of the ever-increasing number of university graduates, making it difficult to withstand the pressure to work overtime. Mount, Barrick, & Stewart (1998) elaborated that agreeableness is of key importance with regard to work-related performance in these work settings. Agreeable individuals are less prone to experience a WLB conflict because the families provide emotional support (Zaman, Anis-ul-Haque, & Nawaz, 2014). Hence, because they are more likely to sustain a separation between the work and family domains, their WLBS might be on average more positive, than for individuals with other personality traits. This might partly be explained through the segmentation model as agreeable individuals might maintain the perspective that work and life spheres are separated. Moreover, Digman (1990) described agreeable people as being more flexible and tolerant, which might be helpful in balancing the two domains.
These insights lead to the following hypothesis.
2.4 Empowering Leadership
Empowering leadership builds on the capacity to influence people, and the propensity to be influenced by it, depends on an individuals personality (Hetland, Sandal, & Johnsen, 2008). It includes methods that were already proven to positively influence WLBS, for example, the autonomy in deciding working hours (Valcour, 2007).
At the core of the empowering leadership concept is the employees’ motivation that George and Jones (2012, p. 183) described as ‘psychological forces that determine the direction of peoples’ behaviour in an organization, peoples’ level of effort and peoples’ level of persistence’. Furthermore, Quinn & Spreitzer (1997) described it as a form of psychological empowerment, creating a feeling of not only personal control but also enhanced motivation in the work environment. Thus, it has the capacity to significantly influence organizational outcomes. Zhang & Gheibi (2015) added that the interactions between leader and employee and the resulting relationships are of immense importance in describing and explaining the employees’ behaviour in the workplace and subsequent organizational outcomes. As illustrated previously, also the personality influences these attitudes and behaviours. Moreover, past research found that the empowering leadership style positively influences employees’ job satisfaction (Wong & Laschinger, 2012). Empowering leadership also aspires to challenge employees to improve their skills, raise their involvement and productivity (Bartunek & Spreitzer, 2006). Bandura (1997) complemented this through the finding that empowered employees developed better skills to achieve set goals. Zhang and Gheibi (2015) also stated that a part of this empowerment consists of assuring confidence in the employees’ abilities and capacities to perform accordingly. Ford and Fottler (1995) clarified that this concept entails a higher responsibility for the individual employee, but also the power to decide work-related aspects on their own which, in turn, might increase their motivation. Lam, Chen, and Schaubroeck (2002) concluded that because of the autonomy in decision making and empowerment, these employees perform better. This empowerment and motivation improves the relationship of the employee with the organization (Men, 2011) and culminates in better results for the organization (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997).
2.5 Empowering Leadership as a Moderating Variable
Empowering leadership may influence the relation between the agreeable personality trait and the individuals WLBS in a variety of ways, also indirectly.
According to Wong & Laschinger (2012), the empowering leadership style is positively related to the job satisfaction of employees. According to the spillover model, the increased job satisfaction might then in turn influence the satisfaction in the life domain and thus predict an increased WLBS. Increased job satisfaction comes according to Landy (1989) from an increased performance at work.
Because the concept of empowering leadership entails a higher responsibility for the individual employee and the autonomy for making their own decisions (Ford & Fottler, 1995), this might increase their motivation as these employees also tend to be more cooperative (Digman,1990). Simultaneously this empowerment improves the employee-employer relationship (Men, 2011) and thereby may influence peoples’ attitude towards work and, as such, their WLBS. Additionally, greater responsibility might mean that employees can determine their working hours more freely, being part of job control. Previous research identified this to be a predictor of a higher WLBS (Valcour, 2007). Furthermore, House (1981) explained that support has the capacity to lessen the negative impact of work-related stress factors. Thus, it might influence the WLB perception through empowering leadership. Generally, the empowering leadership style equips employees with the ability `to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments` (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Thus, they might be able to perform all of their tasks in the given time frame, hence the tasks might not conflict with the dedicated family time. Because agreeable individuals are more likely to prefer this type of empowerment (Parmer, Green, Duncan, & Zarate, 2013), this effect might be emphasized in them.
In addition, research showed that agreeable people are more likely to see their superiors as engaging in this kind of leadership (Felfe & Schyns, 2010). Because they prefer this leadership style (Parmer, Green, Duncan, & Zarate, 2013), they are more likely to respond positively to it, which might have an influence on their WLBS. This effect might be pronounced by the already on average high level of job satisfaction in individuals, who are rated to be agreeable (Organ & Lingl, 1995). Also, Hancke, Igl, Toth, Bühren, Ditsch & Kreienberg (2014) and Kumari (2012) have shown that there is a positive relation between job satisfaction and WLB. In contrast to this, individuals, who show low levels of agreeableness,
are not only less accessible for empowering leadership (Hetland, Sandal, & Johnsen, 2008), but were also found to show increased involvement in their work even without the leadership (Bozionelos, 2004). Taken together, past research supports hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between the agreeable personality trait and WLBS is moderated by empowering leadership. In particular, individuals with a high agreeableness score achieve a higher WLBS through empowering leadership.
2.6 Working Hours
While the previous sections explained the specific relation and the potential influence of empowering leadership, also working hours were included as a variable in past research within a variety of work-related contexts. Most often this was the case in the domains of job satisfaction and job performance. For example, White, Hill, McGovern, Mills & Smeaton (2003) showed that excessive working hours put consistent pressure on employees and thereby lead to spillovers of a negative nature towards the life domain. They also suggested that flexible arrangements, regarding the working time, significantly improve this situation. This is in line with Valcour (2007), who described this as part of job control. Schor (1991) elaborated that the mainstream assumption of decreased average working hours in advanced nations is false and asserted that instead, the average working hours increased over time despite of automation. She further showed that the average rise in working hours tends to be higher for women, leading to subsequent time-related constraints in relations. According to Coser (1974), both spheres require attention and action thus drying up the energy reserve, potentially leading to a WLB conflict. Therefore, he labelled both as `greedy institutions`. This results in a situation in which the work domain has used up the majority of energy, also through longer working hours, so that not enough remains to maintain a harmonic family domain and to meet the interests of the family sphere. Further, working hours, in contrast to the autonomy to determine the times of working more freely through empowering leadership, cannot be determined by individuals. Instead, they are fixed in labour contracts and are normally not negotiable. Hence, they demonstrate an unchangeable component of work, making it worthwhile to investigate their impact on WLBS.
2.7 Working Hours as a Moderating Variable
As explained in an earlier section, the behaviour and preferences of an individual with regard to WLB, depend on its agreeableness score. Thus, whether the amount of working hours influences the relation between agreeableness and WLBS, is dependent on whether the individual has a high or low score on the agreeableness scale.
Shaver and Brennan (1992) found, as mentioned earlier, that individuals, who are more secure, also tend to have higher agreeableness scores. This also implies that individuals, who have a lower agreeableness score tend to be more insecure. Personal insecurity, in turn, might mean that these individuals require more external validation for a better personal feeling, which they think can be achieved through work accomplishments. Hence, a low agreeableness score might even have a positive relation with increased working hours on WLBS, as these individuals focus on accelerating their career (Bozionelos, 2004). The author also stated that individuals low on agreeableness are more tangled into their work, to climb the career ladder and gratify their egoistic needs through this.
In contrast to this, increased working hours might have an adverse effect on the WLBS of agreeable individuals. Valcour (2007) already noted that working hours negatively influence WLBS. This might be the case because agreeable employees are more focused on a facilitation of the family sphere with the work sphere, thus placing greater emphasis on the family domain (Wayne, Music, & Fleeson, 2004). That is also in line with the conclusion that in general employees want to satisfy both work and family demands (Friedman & Greenahaus, 2000; Rapoport, Fletcher, Pruitt, & Bailyn, 2002). Regardless Ng, Eby, Sorensen, and Felman (2005) stated that greater career satisfaction might be correlated with increased working hours and Valcour (2007) illustrated that according to the spillover model this might then result in a greater WLBS.
In conclusion, not agreeable individuals might not be as affected as agreeable individuals by higher working hours, aiding the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: Working hours moderate the relationship between agreeableness and WLBS. For employees with a low agreeable personality score, higher working hours are linked to a higher WLBS. A negative link between higher working hours and WLBS can be found for individuals with a high agreeableness score.
2.8 Summary of the Conceptual Model
Current and past research has identified that agreeableness is a key variable in predicting work and life satisfaction (Organ & Lingl, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1991). The agreeable personality trait might then impact WLBS in a variety of both direct and indirect ways. These relations are summarized below.
It might negatively affect it, by facilitating burnout in people with a low agreeableness score through their reduced psychological resources and creating a negative reinforcement cycle (Rothmann & Storm, 2003; Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 1998). However, the opposite might hold for agreeable people, who generally tend to have a higher life and work satisfaction (Organ & Lingl, 1995; Shaver and Brennan, 1992) and stronger psychological resources (Rothmann & Storm, 2003). Therefore, it is expected that individuals with a high agreeableness score have a higher WLBS. In addition, employees with a high agreeable score, are more open to alternative means of leadership (Parmer, Green, Duncan, & Zarate, 2013). These may then respond positively, resulting in a higher WLBS. Conversely, not agreeable people do not respond to it (Hetland, Sandal, & Johnsen, 2008).
Furthermore, not agreeable people are more focused on individual goals (Bozionelos, 2004), which might be based on insecurity (Shaver and Brennan, 1992). Thus, they might be spending more time at work (Bozionelos, 2004), also to achieve external validation, and hence they are indifferent towards higher working hours’ impact on their WLBS. In contrast higher working hours might have a negative consequence for the WLBS of agreeable employees (Wayne, Music, & Fleeson, 2004).
These relations are addressed in this paper as part of the elaborated conceptual model.
3. Method
3.1 Design, Sample and Procedure
The thesis was executed through explanatory research. This is combined with a quantitative method, which was chosen because it is more suitable for testing the hypotheses and confirming potential relations and influences. To gain reliable data and thus reach reliable results with a high degree of both external validity as well as conclusion validity, that allow a wider generalization, this study made use of a cross-sectional design. As there was limited time to achieve a sufficient sample size, this paper applied convenience sampling. Moreover, this study required a sample of the general working population, including any type of employment, such as part-time, full-time, temporary or permanent employment. Because some of the researchers are expatriates, their network includes employees of other countries. Thus, the sampling technique enabled to specifically sample an international employee population. A potential bias that might have arisen because individuals have specific subgroups as part of their network, which might have been overrepresented through convenience sampling, was reduced. This is the case because the data for this thesis was collected by a group of five bachelor students of the Amsterdam Business School of the University of Amsterdam. As each one has its own specific network, the sample was more likely to represent a more complete population. Moreover, the data was collected through the means of a standardized online questionnaire. This questionnaire was written in English because the scope of this research goes beyond the Netherlands, to capture a more international and diverse sample. Thus, this also eliminates a potential bias that might have arisen when translating the survey into different languages (Weijters, Geuens, Baumgartner, 2013). In the following, the online survey was distributed among personal contacts and within professional social networks such as LinkedIn. Furthermore, the collection period was 12 days and featured a response rate of approximately 91.2%. However, it is difficult to establish the exact rate, since the questionnaire was also distributed via social media. The distribution resulted in the collection of 228 unique samples. Because only samples with complete answers could be considered, 103 responses were removed. In the following, the sample was, with the help of z-scores, analyzed for extreme values, which could potentially distort the results. Therefore, 3 responses revealed extreme values and thus were removed, resulting in a final data set of 122 responses.
Additionally, the sample revealed that 57.4% of the participants are female, representing a total number of 70. The age of the participants ranges from a minimum of 17 years to a maximum of 75 (M= 36.06, SD= 16.059). Further, the average participant holds a Bachelors’ degree, representing 46% of the sample (SD= .767). The lowest weekly working hours represented were 4 and the highest 55 (SD= 12.807). Moreover, people worked on average 29 hours per week.
3.2 Measurements
This study consists of four main variables, of which all are solely focused on the individual. Additionally, these variables were measured, based on a 5-point Likert scale, and the average weekly working hours were established based on simple quantitative indications. On the 5-point Likert scale a high score equals to completely agree and a low score corresponds to completely disagree. The measurements are based on the same 5-point Likert scale because it enables a better comparison and analysis of the effect and its size.
Personality. The degree to which the respondent features the agreeable personality
trait was measured, by using the HEXACO personality inventory (Lee & Ashton, 2009). Questions in the personality inventory are similar to ‘I am usually quite flexible in my opinions when people disagree with me.’. Because questions 3,6,8 and 9 were negatively weighted, they were recoded. Further, the reliability of this scale is good with a Cronbachs’ alpha of .746.
Work-Life Balance Satisfaction. The degree to which the employee is satisfied with
his/ her WLB was assessed by employing the satisfaction with the WLB scale, being based on a 5-point Likert scale customized by Valcour (2007), but also including items from Rothausen (1994), Wright & Cropanzano (2000) and Milkie & Peltola (1999). Questions of this scale about the satisfaction correspond to ´the way you divide your time between work and personal or family life´. After removing the item, that was added to adjust to the circumstances and asked participants about the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on their WLBS, the reliability of the scale was significantly improved and an alpha of .855 was achieved.
Empowering Leadership. The empowering leadership as a moderating variable was
determined, which measures the extent to which leaders have an empowering influence on their employees, by applying a scale worked out by Zhang, Xiaomeng, and Bartol (2010). This scale makes use of questions that are similar to `My leader encourages my team to take control of its work’ and has excellent reliability with a Cronbachs’ alpha of .876.
Working Hours. The individual working hours as a moderating variable were
established, by asking participants `What is your average weekly working time?`
Control Variables. Control variables were included in this study to dismiss alternative
explanations and disclose the true relations between the variables (Atinc, Simmering, & Kroll, 2012; Carlson & Wu, 2012; Spector & Brannick, 2011). Age was included as a numerical control variable because past research found that as people get older their life satisfaction generally increases (Argyle, 2001). This effect is of importance within the context of this paper since age might otherwise distort the real influence of the main variable on WLBS for older participants. Gender was explicitly not included as a control variable because the findings in the context of WLB are ambiguous (Frone, 2003; Rothbard & Dumas, 2006). Supplementary, Valcour (2007) was unable to manifest that gender is a moderator for the relation of working hours on WLBS. Hence, there is no difference in effect between genders. In addition, Weaver (1980) found that there is no difference in job satisfaction across genders. That means that although agreeable individuals tend to have a higher job satisfaction (Organ & Lingl, 1995), which might influence their WLBS, gender does not deceive the originally researched relations. Moreover, as Abendroth & Den Dulk (2011) suggested, education was introduced as a categorical control variable and subsequently recoded into a dummy variable for the regression analysis. Furthermore, Milliken & Dunn- Jensen (2005) found that the higher the education is, the more challenging the responsibilities are, which might lead to WLB conflicts, hence being of importance for this study.
3.3 Analytical Plan
To be able to establish the significance of the relation between agreeableness and WLBS and thereby test hypothesis 1, linear regression was used. The study analyzed the variables through linear regression because these have a quantitative nature. Moreover, linear regression allows to predict changes in WLBS, and offers more insights about the significance of those influences than correlations. Regardless, also a correlation analysis was
carried out, to establish potential relations and the strength of those. Furthermore, after successfully determining the significance of the model, hypothesis 2 was tested in the second step. Namely the moderating effect of empowering leadership on the relation between the agreeable personality and WLBS. In addition hypothesis 3 was tested, namely the impact of working hours on the hypothesized relation. To do this the PROCESS macro 1 (Hayes, 2018), was used because it allows to analyze the degree to which the effect of the agreeableness score depends on either empowering leadership or working hours.
4. Results 4.1 Correlations
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of the dependent, independent, and control variables are summarized in table 1. First, it is noticeable that for both WLBS (µ= 3.6637), as well as empowering leadership (µ= 3.6675), the mean has a higher tendency towards the ‘moderately agree’ category. This implies that the sample employees might on average be relatively empowered and are more likely to be moderately satisfied with their WLBS. Simultaneously the agreeable personality variable (µ= 3.1697) has a higher tendency towards the ‘neither agree nor disagree’ category.
Moreover, the independent variable, the agreeable personality score, has a weak negative correlation (r= -.124, p= ≥ .05) with WLBS. This implies that as the score on the agreeableness scale goes down, WLBS goes up. In addition, the first moderator, the empowering leadership style has a very weak negative correlation (r= -.058, p= ≥ .05) with WLBS. Simultaneously the second moderator, the average weekly working hours, has a weak negative correlation (r= -.138, p= ≥ .05) with WLBS, implying that as the hours increase, WLBS decreases. Supplementary as the education level increases, WLBS also tends to increase slightly (r= .117, p= ≥ .05). The strongest correlation (r=.341, p= ≤ .01) can be found between the average weekly working hours and the age of the participants, showing that as the employee gets older the working hours increase. Also, there is a moderately strong correlation between education and working hours (r= .296, p= ≤ .01). Meaning that as the education of the employee increases, so do the average weekly working hours. This is complemented by the weakly positive correlation between age and education (r= .167, p= ≥ . 05), implying as the job gets more demanding through higher education, the working hours increase. Furthermore, there is a weak correlation between the average weekly working hours
and the empowering leadership style (r= .105, p= ≥ .05). It is also visible that age moderately positively correlates with WLBS (r= .179, p= ≤ .05), implying that as age increases, so does the WLBS. However one must keep in mind that most of these correlations are insignificant.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) N= 122
4.2 Test of Hypothesis 1
To be able to test the first hypothesis, stating that high agreeableness scores are linked to an increased WLBS, a simple two-step linear regression analysis was carried out. During the first step the outcome variable (WLBS), as well as the control variables were included, while the second step also included the independent variable (agreeableness).
The validity of the regression analysis relies on several factors that need to be fulfilled. After identifying three influential outliers, which were found through the z-scores, and deleting them, the data could be tested for the regression assumptions. Because the independence of observations is confirmed through the Durbin-Watson test (D= 1.675), linearity is ensured (r-square linear= .015), no multicollinearity problems were detected, residuals are normally distributed and homoscedasticity was confirmed through a Zpred vs. Zresid plot, the variables are suitable for a regression analysis.
Through the regression analysis, it was established that the first model is significant (p= .039) with an r-square of .082. This means that the first model explains 8.2% of the variance. When adding the independent variable, agreeableness, as part of the second model it
Variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. Work-Life Balance Satisfaction 3.6637 .65261 -2. Agreeableness 3.1697 .62982 -.1240 -3. Empowering Leadership 3.6675 .64749 -.0580 .0160
-4. Weekly Working Hours 28.94 12.807 -.1380 .0490 .1050
-5. Age 36.06 16.059 .1790* .0210 -.1220 .3410**
-leads to a p-value change of .079 resulting in a higher significance (p= .022) as indicated by the ANOVA table. Furthermore, the second model achieves a higher explanatory power (adjusted r-square= .068), implying an r-square change of .024. Hence, the independent variable explains an additional 2.4% of the variance and the complete second model 10.6% (r-square= .106). In addition, the coefficient table shows that none of the variables are significant in isolation, hence no variable has a main effect. As such agreeableness is nearly significant (p= .079, f= -1.7772, CI= -.345 , .019). The effect size of agreeableness is the largest with a standardized beta of -.157. However, this is not the case when taking the unstandardized ß- coefficient into consideration, which is better for the interpretation of individual variables. When looking at the unstandardized ß, the advancement in education level towards the PhD has the greatest effect size. As it increases towards the PhD level, WLBS improves by .387 (standardized ß= .076, p= .400, CI= -.521 , 1.295). This means that as the education level increases, the WLBS also increases. However, one must acknowledge that these variables are not significant in isolation.
In conclusion, the first hypothesis must be rejected, even though model 2 is significant (p= . 022).
4.3 Test of Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 states that the relationship between the agreeable personality and WLBS is moderated by empowering leadership. In particular, individuals with a high agreeableness score achieve a higher WLBS through empowering leadership. This hypothesis was tested with the PROCESS macro (model 1) of Hayes (2018).
With a p-value of .1217 the model is not significant (r-square= .3106, f= 1.6781). Further the moderation table signifies that the interaction effect is not significant (ß= .11224, se= .1143, t= .9827, p= .3279, CI= -.1142 , .3390), so there is no moderation effect and hypothesis 2 needs to be rejected.
Table 2. Moderation Table 1
Note. R- square= .0965
4.4 Test of Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 describes that working hours moderate the relationship between agreeableness and WLBS, such that for employees with low agreeableness scores, higher working hours are linked to a higher WLBS. The analysis used again the PROCESS macro (model 1) of Hayes (2018).
The macro shows that the model is significant (p= .0121, r-square= .1490, f= 2.7256). Furthermore, of all variables, age is the only one that is significant (p= .0242).
Regardless no significant interaction effect could be found (ß= .0036, se= .0070, f= .5118, p= .6098, CI= .0102 , .0174), thus hypothesis 3 is rejected.
Table 3. Moderation Table 2
Note. R-square= .1490 ß SE t p Constant 5,4325 (2,4847 , 8.3803) 1.4875 3.6522 .0004 Agreeablenss -.5685 (-1.4371 , .3001) .4383 -1.2971 .1973 Empowering Leadership (-1.1537 , .3758)-.3889 .3859 -1.0079 .3157 Agreeableness x Empowering Leadership .1124 (-.1142 , .3390) .1143 .9827 .3279 ß SE t p Constant 4.4778 (3.0532 , 5.9024) .7188 6.2296 .0000 Agreeablenss -.2607 (-.6939 , .1726) .2186 -1.1924 .2357 Average Weekly Working Hours (-.0685 , .0216)-.0235 .0227 -1.0323 .3042 Agreeableness x Average Weekly Working Hours .0036 (.0102 , .0174) .0070 .5118 .6098
4.5 Results of the Explorative Analysis
Supplementary, additional correlation and linear regression analyses were performed that established alternative relations. As such it was found that a higher education might be linked to an increased WLBS, even though it might also be linked to increased working hours. However, in general there is a negative relation between working hours and WLBS (ß= -.013, t= -2.511, p= .013, CI= -.023 , -.003). The correlation analysis revealed that the master level has the strongest positive correlation with WLBS (r= .2150, p= ≤ .05). Simultaneously the master level has the strongest positive correlation with working hours (r= .2450, p= ≤ .01), meaning that master graduates work longer but still have a higher WLBS. This exemplifies that higher education, and hence more interesting jobs might lead to a higher WLBS. Hence, the job content might drive the increase in WLBS and absorb the negative effects of higher working hours. Furthermore, it is visible that the bachelor level only weakly correlates with working hours (r= .0890, p= ≥ .05) but moderately negative with WLBS (r= -.2190, p= ≤ .05). Thus, the decreased WLBS might not result from working hours but rather from uninteresting jobs. Regardless these conclusions are mostly based on correlations and hence must be endorsed with caution.
Table 4. Correlations of Explorative Analysis
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) N= 117
5. Discussion
This study analyzed the relationship between agreeableness and WLBS and potential interaction effects of empowering leadership and average working hours. Particularly, the paper investigated the degree to which empowering leadership influences the WLBS of
Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. Work-Life Balance Satisfaction
-2. Bachelor Education -.2190*
-3. Master Education .2150* -.4680**
-4. PhD Education .0670 -.1190 -.0660
-agreeable employees and the extent to which WLBS is dependent upon working hours. This analysis was carried out to answer the following research question: To what extent does the agreeable personality influence WLBS and is this relationship moderated by empowering leadership or working hours?
The first hypothesis stated that high agreeableness scores are linked to a higher WLBS. Through the analysis evidence against this hypothesis was found. Hence, being in contrast with the expectation that agreeableness influences WLBS. Accordingly, hypothesis 1 was rejected.
The second hypothesis illustrated that empowering leadership influences the relation between agreeableness and WLBS. So that the empowering leadership style leads to a higher WLBS in employees with an agreeable personality. Nevertheless, the analysis unexpectedly revealed that there is no significant interaction effect and hypothesis 2 did not find support. This, in turn, means that empowering leadership has no impact on the relation between agreeableness and WLBS.
The third hypothesis asserted that working hours moderate the relationship between the agreeable personality trait and WLBS. In particular, for employees with high agreeableness scores, higher working hours are linked to a lower WLBS. Further, the results show that neither the variables nor the tested interaction are significant. Thus, this hypothesis was against the expectations not supported by the data and hence was rejected. The consequence of this is that working hours do not have a different impact on employees with either a high or low agreeableness score. Hence, the relationship between agreeableness and WLBS is not influenced by working hours.
In conclusion, it was unexpected that neither of the hypotheses was supported.
5.1 Discussion of Results
This paper demonstrated through the analysis, that neither working hours, nor empowering leadership had a moderation effect. It thereby contributes to the literature on WLBS, personality research, empowering leadership as well as working hours.
5.1.1 Discussion of the Insignificant Influence of Agreeableness
In general, these findings are in stark contrast with previous research in the personality field with a focus on agreeableness. Amongst past researchers, Devadoss & Minnie (2013)
pointed out the importance of agreeableness, as a moderator of interpersonal behaviour, in predicting WLBS. Regardless, this study could not provide any evidence for this, since there is neither a significant correlation with empowering leadership, nor education or working hours, which might be influenced by personality and thus the behaviour of the participants (Hampson, Goldberg, Vogt, & Dubanoski, 2007). This might be the case because the sample revealed that the participants on average selected ‘neither agree nor disagree’ for the personality-related questions. Thus, indicating that the sample did not contain a sufficient number of not/agreeable individuals to have a significant impact on the mentioned variables. Moreover, these days employees find themselves in exceptional circumstances, as they might be required to work from home. Thereby, increased pressure is put on them as they are likely to be nearly constantly connected to the employer (Milliken & Dunn Jensen, 2005; Valcour & Hunter, 2005). Hence, it might be more difficult to separate the work and life spheres to maintain a WLB. However, according to previous literature (Digman, 1990), agreeable individuals are more flexible, approachable, and happy (McCrae and Costa, 1991). This might help them to adapt to the new circumstances better. Thus, it is astonishing that this study could not establish an impact of agreeableness. These surprising results might be due to the fact that agreeable individuals might also be stressed by the current situation, as there are blurring boundaries between the work and family domain (Hill, Miller, Weiner, & Colihan, 1998). Therefore, they might approach their limits, which might weaken their flexibility. Moreover, the mentioned constant connection to work (Milliken & Dunn Jensen, 2005; Valcour & Hunter, 2005) might be even more visible while working from home, as people might associate specific rooms in their flat, which they use for work, more intensely with work than family life. Hence, they might get the feeling of work conquering their private life. Also, Hill, Ferris & Märtinson (2003) found that working from home negatively impacts the family life, thus representing an additional point of pressure, which might explain reduced flexibility. Therefore, agreeableness might not have shown an influence on WLBS in this paper. Additionally, Zaman, Anis-ul-Haque, & Nawaz (2014) showed that family support is of key importance in explaining agreeable individuals’ ability to separate the work and life spheres. Accordingly the result of this study, that agreeableness does not influence WLBS, is exceptional, since agreeable individuals might receive even more family support now, as they are working from home. Then in combination with the segmentation model (Elizur, 1986; Staines, 1980) they should be even more capable to separate the spheres. A potential
explanation for this anomaly, that previous research is not supported, is that 45% of study participants are between 20 to 25 years old. This is of relevance, as Wade, Howell & Wells (1994) found that the current marital status is of importance in determining whether an individual seeks family support or not during stressful times. They further explained that married people are more likely to seek support. According to Kamer (2020), people between the ages of 20 to 25 are unlikely to be married. This might explain, why potential increased family support, while working from home, does not have an impact and hence why this study contrasts Zaman, Anis-ul-Haque, & Nawaz (2014). Other important elements are the enjoyment of work-related tasks and job satisfaction, which were shown to impact WLB (Hancke, Igl, Toth, Bühren, Ditsch & Kreienberg, 2014; Kumari, 2012). According to Shaver & Brennan (1992), agreeable individuals have a higher enjoyment of work-related tasks and a higher job satisfaction (Organ & Lingl, 1995), hence this should translate into a higher WLBS. Regardless, this could not be confirmed by this study, as agreeableness is not linked to WLBS. A potential explanation for this result might be the finding of AbuRuz (2014), who found that stress negatively impacts job satisfaction, which in turn influences WLBS. Additionally, the crisis is likely to cause a great amount of uncertainty, especially in the work environment, and thereby be a source of stress. This might manifest itself in role ambiguity, meaning it is unclear what is expected of employees. For example, it might be unclear how fast they should adapt or how available they should be, thereby negatively impacting job satisfaction (Stamper & Johlke, 2003). Furthermore, coworker support, which normally reduces stress (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999), might be less available. Thus a fundamental pillar of stress reduction, being of even higher importance these days, suddenly misses or is only available in significantly reduced levels. Moreover, virtual teams were shown to have a lower satisfaction, with regard to group work, than face-to-face teams (Warkentin, Sayeed, & Hightower, 1997), thereby representing another negative influence. Hence, any positive effect agreeableness might have on WLBS might be absorbed by the negative effects of exponentially increased stress and ambiguity during the crisis.
5.1.2 Discussion of Aspects Weakening the Influence of Empowering Leadership
The empowering leadership literature explained a variety of ways through which the leadership style not only affects work-related outcomes, but also individual perceptions. Amongst those Felfe & Schyns (2010) and Parmer, Green, Duncan, & Zarate (2013)
mentioned that agreeable individuals are more susceptible and receptive to empowering leadership. Thus, they have a positive attitude towards it, implying that it would have a positive effect on them. However, the findings of this study are contrasting their conclusions, as no significant interaction effect could be found. This unexpected result might potentially be due to the fact that this study was largely conducted within the Netherlands. This might be problematic because participative management is rather common there (Verburg, Drenth, Koopman, Van Muijen & Zhong- Ming Wang, 1999). Hence, the empowerment that forms the key pillar of empowering leadership, might not be seen as something special as it is a common aspect of their job, based on the cultural context. Because people grow up and are socialized with these values and components of empowerment, it might not be perceived as empowering leadership, thereby explaining why there is no significant interaction effect. Additionally Wong & Laschinger (2012) elaborated that the empowering leadership style positively influences job satisfaction. Similarly, Hancke, Igl, Toth, Bühren, Ditsch & Kreienberg (2014) and Kumari (2012) found a positive relation between job satisfaction and WLB. Moreover, according to the spillover model, satisfaction in one sphere should translate into satisfaction in the other. Hence, there should be an indirect effect of empowering leadership on WLBS through job satisfaction for agreeable individuals. Regardless, the regression analysis found no supporting evidence for the empowering leaderships’ influence on WLBS through increased job satisfaction, thus being in conflict with previous research. A possible factor in expounding this unexpected insignificance might be the fact that the Netherlands was described to be a country where overall satisfaction is relatively high (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2015). Thus, this might reduce the effect of empowering leadership on WLBS. This reduction in effect power would happen in an indirect way. Thereby, the high overall satisfaction would translate into a higher job satisfaction (Iris & Barrett, 1972) and thus substitute for the effect of empowering leadership on job satisfaction to finally result in increased WLBS (Hancke, Igl, Toth, Bühren, Ditsch & Kreienberg, 2014; Kumari, 2012). Regardless, also individuals from other cultural segments participated, where overall satisfaction might not be as high as in the Netherlands. Hence, the data should have shown an effect if there would be one. Furthermore, the already higher job satisfaction of agreeable individuals (Organ & Lingl, 1995) might reduce the effect of empowering leadership. However, the correlation matrix and regression analysis showed that the increased WLBS might come from career satisfaction through better jobs enabled by a higher
educational level that was attained. Thus, empowering leadership might not indirectly influence WLBS through increased job satisfaction. Rather a combinational influence of career satisfaction through increased education and the translation of a high satisfaction into job satisfaction might predict a higher WLBS.
According to Bandura (1997), empowering leadership equips employees with the ability to better organize and the capacity to perform tasks properly, thus it should enable them to perform those tasks in a way that does not negatively influence their WLBS and the family domain. Still the results cannot confirm a positive influence of empowering leadership on WLBS. Regardless, this found insignificance may not be due to empowering leadership having no impact, but rather be explained again by the current crisis. A possible reason is delivered by Hill, Ferris & Märtinson (2003), who established that working from home negatively affects the family life, hence might negatively impact WLBS. Therefore, while empowering leadership might have an effect in general, it might be outweighed by the increased stress that working from home puts on the family domain. Hence, is not moderating the relation in this study. Additionally, during the crisis leaders might be less capable to empower their employees because the drastic shift to virtual teams brings a number of other problems for both leaders and followers. For example, under normal circumstances, aspects like the autonomy to determine working hours would fall under the concept of empowering leadership but might be the new norm when working from home. Thus, they do not constitute an aspect of empowering leadership anymore. Moreover, leaders might have other priorities during these times than to empower their employees, as they also need to adjust to the new situation. This might especially be the case since research established that it is more difficult to manage virtual teams (Nydegger & Nydegger, 2010). Also to work effectively in virtual teams, managers need to first build trust and collective knowledge, develop team cohesion, and coordinate team members (Townsend, DeMarier, & Hendrickson, 1998; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Larson & DeChurch, 2020). Hence, as this research was conducted after the first month of the lockdown, the transition to the virtual teams and the accompanying adjustments might have had a more significant influence, which might explain why empowering leadership did not have an effect.
5.1.3 Discussion of Working Hours and Potential Factors Weakening the Influence
Further, research previously identified working hours as a factor that puts pressure on employees that can cause negative spillovers towards the life domain (White, Hill, McGovern, Mills & Smeaton, 2003) and hence negatively impacts WLBS (Valcour, 2007). The negative effect of working hours was supported through an additional regression analysis. Moreover, Wayne, Music, & Fleeson (2004) established that agreeable individuals want to facilitate the integration of the family with the work domain, but place a greater weight on the family domain. Thus increased working hours would negatively impact WLBS. However, these aspects cannot be supported through the data of this research, as it did not indicate a moderation effect, neither positive nor negative, on the relation between agreeableness and WLBS. This might be explained by a greater flexibility and capacity to divide working hours according to an employees’ own schedule in the home office, which might then reduce the negative effect of working hours (Hill, Miller, Weiner, & Colihan, 1998). Complimentary less time is wasted for commuting to work, when working in a home office (Hill, Miller, Weiner, & Colihan, 1998), hence more time can be used for the family domain. While it was assumed that shorter commute hours would translate into longer working hours (Nilles, 1994) and thereby constrain the WLB, the research of Hill, Miller, Weiner, & Colihan (1998) found that this is not the case. Thus, greater flexibility to divide the working hours, coupled with more time that can be spent with the family might reduce any negative impact of working hours. Additionally, working hours might not have a negative influence in this study because the majority of participants only works 29 hours per week, thus not representing full-time employment. Furthermore, the primary motivation for low agreeable individuals to be more engaged in work and work longer is to enhance their career progress (Bozionelos, 2004). Nevertheless, under current circumstances, their increased work might not be noticed by their leaders and hence they are less motivated to work longer.
5.1.4 Research Contributions
This paper generated multiple contributions to the existing literature through these findings. It complements the existing literature, by analyzing the previously neglected impact of personality on WLBS (Sumer & Knight, 2001; Watanabe, Takahashi & Minami, 1997). First, it was explained that agreeableness is not linked to WLBS. Secondly, this paper concluded that the relation between agreeableness and WLBS is not being moderated by
