WORK-FAMILY BOUNDARIES OF INDIVIDUALISTS AND COLLECTIVISTS: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY ABOUT BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT AND WORK-FAMILY
REQUIREMENTS.
Éva Kelemen Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Lecturer: Iina Hellsten Date: 29.06.2017
Abstract
The globalization and the expansion of organizations across borders urge
researchers to examine the work and family domains cross-culturally (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). This thesis is examining the influence of collectivism and individualism on the relation between boundary management and work-family and family-work conflict among Hungarian, Chinese and Malaysian employees on national and individual level. Here, Hungary represents an
individualistic country and Malaysia and China collectivistic ones (Hofstede, 2001). Apart from the national level the individual level was measured which allows a fine-grained examination of the cultural influence on work-family and family-work conflict. Data was gathered via an online survey. The findings indicate that segmentation of work and family domains reduces the inter-domain conflict. Furthermore, no significant differences between individualistic and collectivistic countries as to work-family and family-work conflict could be found. However, the findings indicate that age, marital status and having children influence the individual orientation irrespective of the national level. Thus, opening up new directions for the individualism/collectivism theory.
Introduction
The globalization and the rise of multinational companies create the need of understanding cross-cultural differences and similarities because cultural norms and values influence the work and family domains (Schein, 1984). Thus, organizations need to employ strategies to diminish the inter-domain conflicts (Yang, Chen, Choi, & Zou, 2000) to ensure job satisfaction and well-being of their employees. This thesis is examining the differences in boundary management and work-family conflict (WFC) and family-work conflict (FWC) between individualistic and collectivistic countries and people.
People take on various roles and try to meet the demands of those roles using the resources available to them. They act differently at their workplace or at home because of the various expectations and behavioural patterns each domain requires (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000). Problems arise if one role is demanding too much of a limited resource such as time or effort. Then the resources have to be withdrawn from other domains causing inter-role conflict. To prevent the roles from interfering, people set boundaries and define how flexible and permeable those
boundaries can be (T. D. Allen, Cho, & Meier, 2014). Through boundary management people are able to create and maintain boundaries between their identities in order to reduce the complexity of their environment (Ashforth et al., 2000; Zerubavel, 1991). How individuals manage their boundaries can be anywhere on a continuum between the two extremes of segmentation and integration. Segmentation means that roles are strictly separated from each other, whereas integration refers to role boundaries being blurred (Nippert-Eng, 1996). If boundaries between work and family roles are weak, then work demands can easily interfere with family demands and the other way around. This, in turn, can lead to WFC or FWC (Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996).
Ashforth et al. (2000) proposed that the cultural dimension
individualism/collectivism may influence boundary management. Individualism is referring to putting the individual goals in front of the ones of the group, whereas
collectivism means that people focus on the goals of the group instead of their own (Hofstede, 2001). Cross-cultural research showed that the level of WFC and FWC differ between collectivistic and individualistic cultures (Ng & Feldman, 2014). Furthermore, individualism/collectivism can be measured on the individual level. People have their own orientation towards individualism or collectivism irrespective of living in a collectivistic or individualistic country (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, &
Gelfand, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). However, previous research (Spector et al., 2007) focused more on comparing countries on the national level. To address this gap and to include a more nuanced measurement of individualism/collectivism this thesis is combining national and individual level.
Empirical findings regarding boundary management, WFC, FWC, and individualism/collectivism on national and individual level suggest that there is a relation between boundary management, WFC, and FWC (Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, & Hannum, 2012; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010). This relation may be influenced by the national and individual level of individualism and collectivism (Ashforth et al., 2000; Billing et al., 2014). This thesis aims to test individualism and collectivism on the national as well as on the individual level as a moderator between boundary management and WFC and FWC. Therefore, the following research
question is formulated.
RQ: To what extent is the relation between boundary management and work-family and family-work conflict moderated by individualism and collectivism on national and individual level?
This thesis is contributing to the work-family field in three aspects: First, most researches either focused on boundary management (Loh, Restubog, & Gallois, 2010; Winkel & Clayton, 2010) or on WFC and FWC (Byron, 2005; Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes, 2011; Spector et al., 2007). The relation between boundary management, WFC, and FWC has only been examined by few empirical studies before (Hecht & Allen, 2009; Kossek et al., 2012; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010). However, this relation is crucial to gain insights on how boundary management
influences the inter-domain conflicts. Such conflicts influence e.g. job satisfaction and job performance (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005).
Second, the cultural aspect of individualism and collectivism was examined separately for each construct (Billing et al., 2014; Loh et al., 2010; Spector et al., 2007) and not as a moderator although Ashforth et al. (2000) already suggested it. To examine how individualism and collectivism on national level influence the relation between boundary management WFC and FWC, one individualistic and a group of two collectivistic countries will be compared. According to Hofstede (2001), Hungary is representing an individualistic country, whereas Malaysia and China are highly collectivistic oriented nations. Finally, in addition to the national level, the individual orientation towards individualism or collectivism is measured. This way, a fine-grained analysis of the effect of individualistic and collectivistic orientation on boundary
management, WFC, and FWC and their relationship can be conducted. On practical terms, this study provides important insights on the level of
role-conflict which is faced by employees with different cultural orientation and to what extent they separate or integrate their work and family domains. It is crucial for
organizations to promote a balance between work and family to ensure job
satisfaction, job performance (T. D. Allen et al., 2014) as well as mental and physical well-being of the employees (Poelmans & Caligiuri, 2008). Furthermore, the global expansion of organizations creates the need to learn about the cultural influence on role conflicts and boundary management to help employees balance their work and family lives (Galovan et al., 2010; Powell, Francesco, & Ling, 2009). This research offers insights for companies about employees with different orientations and some practical implications about minimizing WFC and FWC.
Theoretical background
This research is based on three main theories: boundary theory, work-family and family-work conflict, and the cultural dimensions individualism/collectivism on national and individual level. In the corporate communications field, all three topics
are part of the internal communication discipline. According to Verˇciˇc, Verˇciˇc, and Sriramesh (2012), internal communication is the umbrella term for communications of the organization with their internal public. Internal communication can positively influence organizational effectiveness if the communication from managers towards employees is clear and if there is a possibility for bottom-up communication from employees to managers (Robson & Tourish, 2005).
Furthermore, the rise of globalization and the expansion of organizations to other countries urges the need to examine internal communication through a cross-national and cross-cultural lens (Verˇciˇc et al., 2012). As Gudykunst (1997) emphasized, culture has an impact on communication because each culture has specific underlying rules according to which “the game is being played” (Keesing, 1974, p. 89). In other words, the cultural background influences the perception of the world and how communication is interpreted. Based on this, organizations need to take the cultural aspects into consideration when communicating with their
employees.
Boundary theory
Boundary theory is a framework examining the transition between roles people take on in different situations (Ashforth et al., 2000). People create and maintain boundaries between roles in order to keep them from interfering with each other; this process is called ’boundary management’ (Zerubavel, 1991). In their model, Ashforth et al. (2000) differentiate between work-home transitions, work-work transitions and work-’third place’ transitions. The first refers to switching between work roles like being an employee and family roles like being a father. The second means a
transition between different roles at work, e.g. being a supervisor in one situation and an employee in another. The last one defines transitions from a work role to a role of another domain like church or sports club. According to Ashforth et al. (2000), the work-family literature is focusing on micro-role transitions, i.e. changing roles on a daily basis or even more often. This thesis focuses on the daily shifts between work
and family roles. Macro-role transitions triggered by life changing events such as getting a promotion, or the birth of a child are not the topic of this study (T. D. Allen et al., 2014; Ashforth et al., 2000).
The two main characteristics of boundaries are their degree of flexibility and their degree of permeability (Hall & Richter, 1988). Flexibility is referring to how easily roles can be enacted anywhere at anytime. Permeability of boundaries means how easily one can switch to another role while being in one role (T. D. Allen et al., 2014). Those two characteristics determine the strength of the boundary, i.e. to what extent a flow between the two domains is allowed (Matthews, Barnes-Farrell, & Bulger, 2010). Through organizational policies like day-cares and gym memberships, the boundary strength between work and family may be weakened, whereas policies like flexible work arrangements may diminish the boundary strength between family and work (Hecht & Allen, 2009). Prior research suggested that the family-work boundary is more permeable and flexible than the work-family boundary probably because the rules at work restrict switching to the family role while being at work (Eagle, Miles, & Icenogle, 1997; Hecht & Allen, 2009).
Nippert-Eng (1996) characterizes boundary management as a continuum ranging from segmentation to integration. People who segment their roles keep inflexible and impermeable boundaries between work and family. This means that segmenting employees do not answer for example work-related phone calls or emails while being at home. Whereas those who integrate work even after-hours or take family-related calls during working hours (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006).
Individual preferences and behaviours to keep stable or more permeable and flexible boundaries vary along this continuum. The integration of work and family domains can happen in both directions. Integration of roles may lead to easier transitions but to more interruptions and conflicts between domains. In contrast, segmentation allows people to prevent interruptions from another role but at the same time makes it more difficult to change between different roles (Ashforth et al., 2000).
role is positively related to integrating work into other non-work related domains, whereas a strong identification with the non-work role is positively related to integrating the non-work role into the work domain.
Research showed that people who segment experience less WFC (Kossek et al., 2012; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010) and FWC (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2005) whereas those who integrate experience more bidirectional conflict (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006). The longitudinal study by Hecht and Allen (2009) found that weak boundaries between work and non-work domains are positively related to WFC and FWC. Those findings indicate that people who keep impermeable and stable
boundaries between their roles will face less conflict. In line with those results, Matthews and Barnes-Farrell (2010) found that the more transitions one makes between work and family domains the more conflict one will experience.
In summary, research shows that the boundaries between work and family domains are bidirectional, asymmetrically permeable and, as shown by Hecht and Allen (2009), stable over time. This means that boundary management can be measured at one representative point in time but both directions (work to family and family to work transitions) need to be included. Furthermore, keeping weak
boundaries between work and family domains and letting the two domains blur leads to higher levels of WFC and FWC.
Work-family and family-work conflict
Work-family conflict is defined as “a form of inter-role conflict whereby the role demands of one domain interfere with meeting the demands of a role in another domain” (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007, p. 596). According to Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000), there are two aspects of work-family conflict; either work
interfering with family (WIF) or family interfering with work (FIW). The first refers to the way how work demands can diminish the time and energy one has for family duties causing a conflict. The latter refers to family responsibilities intruding the work role (Voydanoff, 2005). An example of WIF would be if a father could not attend his son’s
football game on Sunday because he has to prepare a presentation for work for Monday. FIW would be if a father could not finish his presentation for work because he had to attend his son’s football game Friday afternoon. Experiencing bidirectional conflict depends on the person’s perception of the demands of each role and the resources that are available to fulfill those demands (Voydanoff, 2005).
Researchers examined possible antecedents and consequences influencing WFC and FWC. According to Byron (2005), antecedents can be grouped into three categories: work domain variables, non-work domain variables, and individual and demographic variables. The first category contains variables like work demands or job involvement, which have a stronger influence on WFC than on FWC. The second category entails variables like family demands or family stress, which are stronger predictors for FWC. Those findings can be explained by the scarcity of resources argument based on the role conflict theory (Kahn, 1964). This argument states that people have finite resources like time, physical strength, and attention. If one role demands a huge amount of those resources there will not be enough left for other roles. This in turn can lead to inter-role conflict. (Hassan, Dollard, & Winefield, 2010).
Finally, individual and demographic variables include gender or income and have the same effect on both directions of the conflict (Byron, 2005). The predictors positively related to WFC are including high work demands (Spector et al., 2007; Voydanoff, 2005), high family permeability or weak family-work boundaries (Furtado, Sobral, & Peci, 2016; Hecht & Allen, 2009; Qiu & Fan, 2015). Well understood
consequences of the inter-role conflict are decreased job performance (Nohe, Michel, & Sonntag, 2014), decreased job satisfaction (Spector et al., 2007) and increased turnover intentions (Masuda et al., 2012).
Less empirical research has been conducted on FWC probably because work is more often interfering with family responsibilities than the other way round (Hecht & Allen, 2009). Nevertheless, research on FWC showed that increased amount of family stress, and conflict at home, as well as the number of children, and marital status lead to more FWC. Prior research (Byron, 2005) found that males experience
more WFC, whereas females experience more FWC. This indicates that gender has an impact on the level of the bidirectional conflict. This indicates that marital status, gender and number of children need to be controlled for in this thesis.
Based on prior research (Hecht & Allen, 2009; Kossek et al., 2012; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010), it is expected that segmentation will be negatively related to WFC and FWC, whereas integration will be positively related to both directions of the conflict. Therefore, the first hypothesis is:
H1: Respondents segmenting their work-and family roles will experience less work-family and family-work conflict than respondents who integrate the roles.
Individualism/collectivism
Hofstede (1991, 2001) laid the foundations of today’s cross-cultural research by defining four cultural value dimensions: individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity/femininity.
Individualism emphasizes values like independence and personal goal
orientation and focuses on the person itself over the group. In contrast, collectivistic cultures centre the collectivistic goals of the group, while individuals define
themselves as part of the group and put group interests before their own (Bochner, 1994; Gudykunst, 1997). The focus in this thesis is on individualism/collectivism because as suggested by Ashforth et al. (2000), this dimension could have an effect on boundary management and has an effect on WFC and FWC (Hassan et al., 2010; Ng & Feldman, 2014). Ashforth et al. (2000) suggest that the cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede (1991) may influence the segmentation or integration of roles. So far however, those factors were not linked to segmentation or integration in
empirical research (T. D. Allen et al., 2014; Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault, 2017). National culture and individual cultural orientation play an important role in defining the personal identity which in turn influences the management of work and family domains (Powell et al., 2009). Especially the individualism/collectivism
dimension was tested in relation to WFC and FWC (T. D. Allen, French, Dumani, & Shockley, 2015; Ollo-López & Goñi-Legaz, 2015; Spector et al., 2007). The majority of the findings (Galovan et al., 2010; Hassan et al., 2010; Ng & Feldman, 2014) show that people from collectivistic cultures like China and Malaysia experience less WFC and more FWC than people from individualistic cultures like the US and Germany. In turn, people from individualistic cultures experience more WFC and less FWC than people from collectivistic cultures. Those findings could be explained by the fact that in collectivistic cultures, work is seen as a tool that brings honour to the family
therefore, decreasing WFC (Galovan et al., 2010) but at the same time the strong focus on family well-being increases FWC (T. D. Allen et al., 2015).
Individualism and collectivism can be measured on the individual level as well (Parkes, Bochner, & Schneider, 2001). Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, and Sinha (1995) proposed to extend individualism and collectivism with vertical and horizontal dimensions. The vertical dimension refers to the importance of hierarchy, whereas the horizontal dimension embodies the value of equality. This results in vertical individualists (VI), horizontal individualists (HI), vertical collectivists (VC), and
horizontal collectivists (HC) (Singelis et al., 1995). According to this classification, VI value independence and strive to be distinct from others, HI also desire
independence but do not want to be distinct from others; VC want to be
interdependent and strive to be different from others, and HC are interdependent and see themselves as equal to the others (Singelis et al., 1995).
The dimension power distance refers to the extent of the acceptance of unequal distribution of power. Those with high power distance approve the unequal
distribution of power, whereas those with low power distance need legitimization of power (Hofstede, 1984). The vertical dimension is related to accepting hierarchical structures, which is comparable to the power distance dimension (Hofstede, 2001). Horizontal collectivism is closest related to the collectivism dimension of Hofstede (2001).
more HI, whereas Singaporeans tended to be more VC. The US scores low on power distance and high on individualism (Hofstede, 2001). Hungary scores lower on the power distance and higher on the individualism dimension than Malaysia and China (Hofstede, 2001). This indicates that Hungarians will probably score higher on horizontal individualism than Malaysians and Chinese. On the other hand, empirical research (Noordin, 2009; Triandis, 1995) found that Malaysians and Chinese are more VC than individualistic countries.
Individualists try to keep clear boundaries between work and family roles
(Triandis, 1989). This indicates that individualists do not like if demands of other roles interfere with their work role, which in turn may lead to inter-role conflict (Aycan, 2008; Billing et al., 2014). Empirical research supports this assumption by showing that respondents from individualistic countries report higher WFC because of the segmentation of the roles (Galovan et al., 2010; Poelmans, 2005). Contrasting, research in the boundary management field found that segmentation is negatively related to WFC and FWC (Kossek et al., 2012; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010). This contrast may result from the fact that cross-cultural research did not measure actual segmentation and integration behaviours just assumed that individualists segment and collectivists integrate the work and family roles. This thesis tries to close this gap by measuring segmentation and integration behaviour as well as
individualism/collectivism on national and individual level. In line with boundary theory (Ashforth et al., 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996) and cross-cultural research on role conflict between work and family (Poelmans, 2005; Spector et al., 2007), it is
expected that individualism/collectivism on national and individual level will moderate the relation between boundary management and WFC and FWC.
H2a: The cultural dimension individualism and collectivism will moderate the relation between boundary management and work-family conflict as well as family-work conflict.
H2b: Individualistic and collectivistic orientation on individual level will moderate the relation between boundary management and work-family
conflict as well as family-work conflict.
Based on the findings by Hassan et al. (2010), it is proposed that collectivism on national level is positively related to FWC and negatively related to WFC. In contrast, individualism on national level is negatively related to FWC and positively related to WFC.
H3a: Respondents from collectivistic cultures will experience higher levels of family-work conflict and lower levels of work-family conflict than
respondents from individualistic cultures.
H3b: Respondents from individualistic cultures will experience lower levels of family-work conflict and higher levels of work-family conflict than
respondents from collectivistic cultures.
Vertical individualists prefer to see themselves as unique and different from others. Therefore, they emphasize their achievements and their status (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002). According to Triandis (1989), work-related performance and position in the hierarchy helps people to differentiate themselves from others. This indicates that VI will let work interfere with their family lives if its necessary to obtain better performance or to be promoted, which in turn may lead to higher levels of WFC (Billing et al., 2014; Michel et al., 2011). Horizontal individualists appreciate
interdependence but do not emphasize their own achievements (Lalwani, Shavitt, & Johnson, 2006). Robinson and Betz (2008) showed that HI value work-life balance and are less achievement oriented than VI. Therefore, it is likely that HI is less strongly correlated with WFC than VI. For vertical collectivists competitiveness and achievements are important (Green, Deschamps, & Páez, 2005), which would lead to more WFC but the collectivistic nature lessens the effect. This is the case because collectivists acknowledge and accept that more work is required in order to be promoted (Spector et al., 2004). Finally, horizontal collectivists see themselves as part of their in-group and do not wish to be distinct from the others. Therefore, it is unlikely for HC to experience WFC (Billing et al., 2014; Mortazavi, Pedhiwala, Shafiro,
& Hammer, 2009). At the same time collectivists emphasize the importance of the well-being of their families (T. D. Allen et al., 2015), therefore, it is likely that horizontal collectivism will positively correlate with FWC. In line with empirical research (Billing et al., 2014) and theory (Singelis et al., 1995), it is hypothesized that vertical
individualism is positively related to WFC and negatively related to FWC, whereas horizontal collectivism is negatively related to WFC and positively related to FWC.
H4a: Respondents with vertical individualistic orientation will experience higher levels of work-family conflict and lower levels of family-work conflict than respondents with horizontal collectivistic orientation.
H4b: Respondents with horizontal collectivistic orientation will experience higher levels of family-work conflict and lower levels of work-family conflict than respondents with vertical individualistic orientation.
Boundary Management
Individualism/Collectivism (National and individual level)
Work-Family Conflict Family-Work Conflict H1
H2a/b
H3a/b, H4a/b
Figure 1. Conceptual model illustrating the hypotheses.
Methodology Design
This research is examining the different behaviours when fulfilling work and family related tasks as well as perceptions of conflicts between work and family domains in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. For testing the hypotheses and answering the research question, an online self-report survey was designed. This method was chosen because of the following considerations:
Quantitative research focuses on gathering data in form of numbers, which allows statistical analyses and ensures the repeatability of the study with other samples. In contrast to that, qualitative research is used for in-depth research
focusing on few cases, without using statistical data (Bryman, 2012). This thesis has the goal to compare groups of respondents with different cultural orientation and nationality. This is not possible without quantifiable data, therefore, the quantitative research method is used.
Survey method is mainly suited to gather descriptive, behavioural and attitudinal information about people. The benefits of conducting a survey lies in obtaining
quantifiable data in form of a ‘snapshot of the population’ (Rea, 2014, p. 7). For this research, quantification is crucial for comparing cultures. Data gathered with
qualitative interviews is not quantifiable, therefore, a survey is better option (Bryman, 2012).
The survey was also preferred over an experiment, as an experiment is a scientific method for testing causalities. During an experiment, the independent variable is manipulated and the respondents are randomly assigned to different conditions (Bryman, 2012). Since the goal of this thesis is to compare individualistic and collectivistic cultures, a survey is more suitable.
A web based implementation was chosen because it allows quick data collection, cost-effective convenient distribution in different countries, and an uncomplicated way to follow-up (Rea, 2014). The online self-report questionnaire contained boundary management as the independent variable, individualism and collectivism on national and individual level as the mediators and WFC and FWC as the dependent variables. The online nature allowed respondents to fill out the survey at any time and anywhere on their smartphones, computers or laptops. The
questionnaire was in English and was designed to take the respondents approximately 10-15 minutes to finish.
Sample
The target sample consisted of adults living and working full-time or part-time in Hungary and in Malaysia or China. These three countries are suitable for comparison because according to Hofstede (1991, 2001), at national level Hungary is
individualistic, whereas Malaysia and China are collectivistic. The sample was recruited via snowball sampling which is a non-probability or convenience sampling method. Snowball sampling was chosen over purposeful sampling because there are no available statistical data on WFC/FWC or segmentation and integration of the populations. Snowball sampling means that participants who were contacted by the researcher suggest other suitable participants for the research. Those suggested participants refer the researcher to other potential participants and so on (Noy, 2008).
This method allows to conveniently reach out to Hungarian, Malaysian, and Chinese respondents. Furthermore, people are more likely to respond if they are asked by people they know personally. The following criteria had to be met in order for respondents to participate: they were born in Hungary, in Malaysia or in China and are currently living there, they work at least 20 hours per week in one of those
countries, and they have a decent knowledge of the English language. In this research, the snowball sampling was implemented by asking the respondents to forward the survey link to their families and friends if they fulfilled the criteria. It was important that the respondents worked because otherwise there would be no work demands conflicting with family duties. The minimum of 20 hours was chosen
because this way working students could also participate and part-time workers often face more conflict because they overcompensate by working more hours (Kirby & Krone, 2002). This survey was created in English due to limited time and resources. Furthermore, no validated scales for all the main ethnic groups in Malaysia and China exist. The recruitment was carried out via email, Facebook, and WhatsApp. The survey was online for three weeks in April-May 2017.
Measures
Boundary Management. For measuring if the respondents are segmenting or integrating their work and family roles, the boundary strength scale developed by Hecht and Allen (2009) was used. This scale was chosen because it measures the strengths of the boundary in both directions from work to family and from family to work. It is important to capture the construct bidirectionally because the
characteristics may differ. The scale consists of eight items measuring boundary strengths at work (BSW) and eight items measuring boundary strength at home (BSH). An example item for BSW is ‘When I am working, I focus completely on work-related issues’ and for BSH ‘I often do work at home’. The whole questionnaire including all items can be found in Appendix A. The only changes were that the term ‘personal time’ was altered into ‘family time’ because the focus is on the work and the family role and the word ’dislike’ was used in one item instead of ’detest’ to make the items easier to understand and avoid confusion. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (5). The higher the score on the BSW and on the BSH scale the more the respondents separate their home and work domains. Cronbach’s alpha of the BSW scale was .84 (M = 3.52, SD = .68) and the one of the BSH scale was .81 (M = 2.92, SD = .82). This shows that both scales have good reliability.
Work-family and family-work conflict. To capture the bidirectional conflict between work and family roles, the scale of Carlson et al. (2000) was used. Prior research (Hassan et al., 2010; Spector et al., 2007) proved the reliability of the scale in cross-cultural settings. The scale measuring WFC consists of nine items. Another nine items cover FWC. An example item for WFC is ‘My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like’ and for FWC ‘The time I spend on family responsibilities often interfere with my work responsibilities’ (see Appendix A). The items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (5). The higher the WFC and FWC score the more conflict
.88 (M = 3.02, SD = .80) and of the FWC scale was .86 (M = 2.44, SD = .70) showing a good reliability for both scales.
Individualism and collectivism on national level. According to Hofstede (2001, p. 500) Hungary has an individualistic culture, whereas Malaysia and China belong to the collectivistic cultures. Furthermore, prior research (Galovan et al., 2010; Hassan et al., 2010; Syed, Arain, Schalk, & Freese, 2015) showed significant
differences in work-family and family-work conflict between individualistic and collectivistic countries. Based on the differentiation by Hofstede (2001) the sample was divided into individualists (1) and collectivists (2) at national level to test if significant differences regarding boundary management and bidirectional conflict emerge.
Individualistic and collectivistic orientation. In order to measure the individual orientation of the respondents, the horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism were examined. Sivadas, Bruvold, and Nelson (2008) reduced the original 32-items scale developed by Singelis et al. (1995) to 14 items. Both scales showed to be reliable (Billing et al., 2014; Sivadas et al., 2008). The shortened version is used because of its compactness and good reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha ranging between .65-.81). Vertical and horizontal individualism were measured with three statements each and vertical and horizontal collectivism were measured with four statements each. Example statements are ’I feel good when I cooperate with others‘ for HC, ’I am a unique individual’ for HI, ’I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group’ for VC, and ‘Competition is the law of nature’ for VI (see Appendix A). The items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (5). Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .64 (M = 3.94, SD = .56) for HC, .71 (M = 3.58, SD = .73) for HI, .59 (M = 3.41, SD = .59) for VC, and .77 (M = 3.38, SD = .84) for VI. The reliability is quite low for HI but, as prior research pointed out, the scales cover the interaction between different dimensions therefore, the reliability is not very high (Sivadas et al., 2008).
Control variables. Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007) found that managers reported a stronger positive relation between communication technology use and work-life conflict. This indicates that employees in managerial positions work more outside working hours, which in turn leads to higher levels of work-family conflict. Therefore, job position was controlled for in the current study. Furthermore, research found that variables like gender, age, and educational level may have an influence on the cultural orientation of an individual (Triandis et al., 1995; Watkins et al., 1998). Finally, nationality, the country of residence, the industry the respondent is working in, family status and flexible working hours were included as control variables (see
Appendix A).
Results Demographics
The questionnaire was completed by 214 people. The descriptive statistics of the demographics of the whole sample are presented in Table 1. The results show that more Hungarians (n = 135) filled out the survey than Malaysian and Chinese (n = 79). The majority of the respondents were living in the country of their nationality but 6% were living in other countries. Those respondents were not excluded because Hungarians were still working in an individualistic country like Germany, UK or France. Malaysian and Chinese respondents lived in collectivistic countries like Indonesia or Hong Kong. The sample consisted of similar amount of male (45.8%) and female (54.2%) participants. The age ranged from 19 to 63 with the average of 35 years (M = 35.68, SD = 11.96). The majority of the respondents had a university degree (85.5%). This indicates that the sample consisted of highly educated
respondents. Most respondents (69.2%) had their own family at least in the form of a partner and 42.5% had children. The respondents were working in various industries like Oil and Gas, or IT. Finally, the amount of employees in managerial and
non-managerial positions and the amount of employees having flexible working times and fixed working times were similarly big.
Table 1
Demographics of the whole sample & Chi-Square values of the comparison of the individualistic and collectivistic groups.
Control variables Sample (N = 214) Chi-Square
1. Nationality 214* Hungarian 63.1% Malaysian or Chinese 36.9% 2. Currently living in 174.20* Hungary 57.5% Malaysia 19.6% China 16.8% Other 6.1% 3. Gender 6.81* Male 45.8% Female 54.2% 4. Education 25.29*
High school or lower 8.9%
University degree 85.5% PhD 5.6% 5. Marital status 23.56* Married/In a relationship 69.2% Single 30.8% 6. Children 11.09* No children 57.5%
Children living at home 28.0% Children not living at home 14.5%
7. Industry 73.08*
Oil & Gas industry 13.6% IT/Marketing & Communication 9.5%
Education 8.9% Health care 7.5% Others 51.0% 8. Management position 2.11 Yes 39.3% No 60.7%
9. Flexible working hours 29.03*
Yes 57.9%
No 42.1%
Note. Difference between the individualistic (1) and collectivistic (2) groups is significant
Main research variables
The descriptive statistics (Table 2) showed that the majority of the respondents have stronger boundaries between work and home than between home and work domains. This indicates that people do not let family issues spill over into their work lives but they let work issues spill over into their family lives. This is in line with the sample reporting slightly higher levels of WFC than FWC. In other words, the sample separated their family domain from entering their work domain while they integrated their work domain into their family lives which led to conflict between their work and family domains but not the other way round. Finally, the sample scored slightly higher on horizontal collectivism than on horizontal individualism. Both vertical collectivism and vertical individualism were rated as neutral. This indicates that the identification with the values of horizontal collectivism like teamwork and with the values of
horizontal individualism like work-life balance were stronger than with the vertical values.
Comparison of the nations
To investigate if the collectivistic and individualistic groups significantly differed in their demographics crosstabulations were conducted. Significant differences emerged for the control variables gender, nationality, current home town, education, industry, marital status, having children, and flexible working hours (see Table 1). An independent t-test was executed to test if the age significantly differed between individualists (M = 38.75, SD = 12.29) and collectivists (M = 30.42, SD = 9.31), t (196) = 5.57, p < .001, 95% CI [5.37, 11.57]. This indicates that these control
variables might influence BSH, BSW, WFC and FWC. Therefore, they were taken as control variables in the further analyses.
Surprisingly the individualistic group reported higher levels of horizontal collectivism than the collectivistic group (see Table 2).The other unexpected result was that the collectivistic group showed slightly higher levels of WFC and FWC than the individualistic group but the difference was not significant. For the other variables
Table 2
Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) of the main research variables & t-test values from comparing the individualistic and collectivistic groups
Individualistic culture (n = 135) Collectivistic culture (n = 79)
Variables M SD M SD t-test BSH 2.89 .89 2.97 .72 -.72 BSW 3.75 .67 3.42 .70 1.61 WFC 2.94 .74 3.14 .87 -1.79 FWC 2.38 .68 2.57 .72 -1.89 HC 4.08 .47 3.72 .63 4.44** HI 3.65 .71 3.45 .75 1.95 VC 3.47 .59 3.56 .69 .91 VI 3.41 .82 3.32 .88 .77 *p < .05,**p < .01
Note. BSH = boundary strength at home, BSW = boundary strength at work, WFC =
work-family conflict, FWC = family-work conflict, HC = horizontal collectivists, HI = horizontal individualists, VC = vertical collectivists, VI = vertical individualists. All scales ranged from ”strongly disagree” (1) to ”strongly agree” (5).
BSW, BSH, HI, VC, VI, no significant differences between the groups were found.
Testing the hypotheses
The first hypothesis proposed that the more people segment, the less WFC and FWC they will experience. To test this hypothesis, regression analyses were
conducted with BSH/BSW as the independent variables and WFC/FWC as the
dependent ones. The findings are presented in Table 3. The results show that BSH is a significant weak predictor of WFC accounting for 9% of the variation in WFC. Hence the weaker the boundary between home and work domains, the more WFC will be experienced. BSH is also a significant but weak predictor of FWC responsible for 4% of the variation in FWC. In other words, people who have strong boundaries
protecting their home domain from their work demands will experience less FWC. Even after including the control variables, both relations remained significant.
Testing the relation between BSW and WFC resulted in a non-significant regression model. This means that work-family conflict is not predicted by the
strength of the boundary between the work and the family domain. However, BSW is a significant but weak predictor of FWC accounting only for 7% of the variation in
Table 3
Regression analysis between boundary management, VI, HC, and WFC/FWC (N = 214). WFC FWC b SE 95% CI R2 F b SE 95% CI R2 F LL UL LL UL BSH -.29** .06 -.42 -.17 .09 20.89** -.18* .06 -.29 -.07 .04 9.72* BSW -.08 .08 -.24 -.08 .00 .91 -.28** .07 -.41 -.15 .07 17.06** VI .13* .06 .01 .26 .02 4.37* .07 .06 -.04 .19 .01 1.68 HC -.03 .10 -.23 .16 .00 .11 -.10 .09 -.27 .07 .01 1.38 *p < .05,**p < .01
Note. BSH = boundary strength at home, BSW = boundary strength at work, VI = vertical individualists, HC = horizontal collectivists, WFC = work-family conflict, FWC = family-work conflict. All scales ranged from ”strongly disagree” (1) to ”strongly agree” (5).
FWC. Even after including the control variables, the relation remained significant. In other words, people who have strong boundaries protecting their work domain will experience less FWC. Therefore, H1 is fully supported for BSH but only partly
supported for BSW. If people separate their family lives from their work lives they will experience less WFC and less FWC whereas if they keep their work out of their family domain, they will experience less FWC but not necessarily less WFC.
Hypothesis H2a claimed that individualism and collectivism on national level moderated the relation between boundary management and WFC and FWC. In total, four moderation analyses were conducted with BSH/BSW as the independent
variables, individualism/collectivism on national level as the moderator and
WFC/FWC as the dependent variables. The results are presented in Table B1 (see Appendix B). The moderation analyses showed no significant interaction between BSH/BSW and individualism/collectivism. Hence, individualism and collectivism on national level does not moderate the relation between BSH/BSW and WFC/FWC. Based on those findings hypothesis H2a is rejected.
Hypothesis H2b stated that individualism and collectivism on individual level (HC, HI, VC, VI) moderated the relation between BSH/BSW and WFC/FWC. To test this hypothesis, 16 moderation analyses were conducted: four for each moderator with BSH/BSW as the independent variables and WFC/FWC as the dependent ones.
The moderation analyses showed no significant interaction effect of BSH/BSW and individualism/collectivism on individual level (see Table B1). Hence, none of the moderator variables influenced the relation between BSH/BSW and WFC/FWC. Based on those findings H2b is rejected.
The third hypothesis stated that respondents from collectivistic cultures will experience higher levels of FWC and lower levels of WFC than respondents from individualistic cultures. The difference between the groups was tested with two independent t-tests. The level of WFC and FWC ranged between "strongly disagree" (1) and "strongly agree" (5). The level of WFC did not differ significantly between individualists (M = 2.94, SD = .74) and collectivists (M = 3.14, SD = .87), t (212) = -1.79, p = .075, 95% CI [-.42, .02]. The level of FWC did not differ significantly between individualists (M = 2.38, SD = .68) and collectivists (M = 2.57, SD = .72), t (212) = -1.89, p = .060, 95% CI [-.38, .01]. Therefore, H3a and H3b are rejected.
Finally, H4a postulated that vertical individualists will experience higher levels of WFC and lower levels of FWC than horizontal collectivists. H4b stated that horizontal collectivists will experience lower levels of WFC and higher levels of FWC than
vertical individualists. The regression analysis between VI and WFC resulted in a significant regression model (see Table 3). Vertical individualism is a significant but very weak predictor of WFC accounting for 2% of the variation in WFC. Thus, the stronger the vertical individualistic orientation, the more WFC will be experienced. The regression analyses between VI and FWC, HC and WFC and HC and FWC were not significant (see Table 3). Therefore, hypotheses H4a and H4b are both rejected.
Discussion
This thesis examined the relation between boundary management and
bidirectional work-family conflict and if individualism and collectivism on national and individual level moderated that relation. Furthermore, Hungary, Malaysia, and China were compared in terms of inter-role conflict.
from work demands the less WFC and FWC they experience. The protection of the work domain (BSW) is only negatively correlated with FWC but had no significant influence on WFC. The findings indicate that if work interferes with the family domain, both directions of conflict will be enhanced but if family interferes with work, only FWC will be higher. A possible explanation might be that if people bring work home, they may experience WFC because they can not fulfill family duties, and also experience FWC because the family may try to interfere with the work. The results are also in line with the findings of Hecht and Allen (2009) who found for a Canadian sample that BSH negatively correlated with both WFC and FWC but BSW only predicted FWC. Hecht and Allen (2009) explained this finding with the proposition that if family issues arise while working, people attend to the problem, solve it quickly, and go back to their work duties, not experiencing FWC. Another reason could be that people ask other family members to take care of the issues preventing family matters conflicting with work.
The empirical research on boundary management is relatively new, therefore, no standardized measurements have been developed yet. As a consequence, comparing the studies is in principal difficult because each researcher applied
different measures. This thesis used the measurement developed by Hecht and Allen (2009) and showed that the BSH/BSW scales are suitable to measure boundary management reliably not only for Canadians but also for European and Asian samples. The results of this thesis are still comparable with previous empirical research (Kossek et al., 2012; Matthews & Barnes-Farrell, 2010) because the majority measured the strength or permeability of the boundaries bidirectionally. Therefore, the results of this thesis are in line with prior research (Kossek et al., 2012; Matthews & Barnes-Farrell, 2010) stating that segmentation is negatively related to bidirectional conflict.
In addition, the first empirical researches (Kossek et al., 2005; Kreiner, 2006) measured boundary management as a unidimensional construct, but later research (Bulger, Matthews, & Hoffman, 2007; Hecht & Allen, 2009) showed that boundary
management is a more complex construct than initially assumed. Furthermore, more research on boundary management is needed with respondents outside of North America to get a cross-cultural understanding of the construct (Kossek et al., 2012).
The moderation analysis showed that individualism/collectivism on national and individual level did not moderate the relation between boundary management and WFC and FWC. This is because no significant differences between the individualistic (Hungary) and collectivistic cultures (Malaysia and China) regarding bidirectional conflict were found. This contradicts the majority of the cross-cultural research (Galovan et al., 2010; Hassan et al., 2010), showing that collectivistic cultures experienced higher levels of FWC, whereas individualistic cultures reported higher levels of WFC. In contrast to that, T. D. Allen et al. (2015) and Ollo-López and
Goñi-Legaz (2015) found that the cultural dimension individualism/collectivism has no significant influence on the level of WFC. This finding indicates that the family domain is probably gaining importance in individualistic cultures and more emphasis is put on work-life balance, which in turn can lead to reduced conflicts. This assumption is also backed by the finding of this study in which Hungarians were significantly more
horizontal collectivistic than Malaysians and Chinese. This finding is in contrast with previous research (Billing et al., 2014; Soh & Leong, 2002) stating that collectivistic countries are more horizontal collectivistic and individualistic countries are more vertical individualistic. A possible explanation could be that the collectivistic sample was significantly younger and contained significantly less respondents married or with children than the individualistic sample. This indicates that older married Hungarians with children are valuing the goals of the team more than young Malaysians and Chinese with no children. This signals that irrespective of culture, younger people without children tend to focus more on their individual goals and the individualistic values. But once people get older and are responsible for their children, the focus will shift to collectivistic goals and the well-being of the group or family will become more important than the individual goals and well-being. Thus, age, marital status and having children probably influence the individualistic and collectivistic orientation of
people.
Based on the findings of this study, the assumption that individualists prefer to segment their work and family domains experiencing more WFC and less FWC seems not to be supported. Also, the assumption that collectivists prefer to integrate their domains experiencing more FWC and less WFC is not confirmed. A possible explanation could be that due to the globalization, individualistic and collectivistic cultures converge (Triandis, 2001). This indicates that especially young Malaysian and Chinese employees shift from being family oriented to being more self-centred. It may also be a tendency of Hungarians to emphasize their family lives and
concentrate more on work-life balance. Another explanation could be the incorrect classification of Hungary as an individualistic country by Hofstede (2001). According to the GLOBE study (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), Hungarians -along with other Eastern Europeans- value In-Group Collectivism and are close to their families. Also, Malaysia and China score high on In-Group Collectivism
indicating that in all three countries, family orientation is equally important. Furthermore, the research by Furka (2013) combined the literature analysis of
previous cultural research on Hungary and qualitative interviews with Hungarians and concluded that Hungary is high in power distance and only slightly more
individualistic than collectivistic. This is in contrast to the classification of Hungary as a low power distance country by Hofstede (2001). Those findings signal that
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions may need to be revisited and refined.
Finally, the result that vertical individualism is a predictor of WFC is in line with prior research (Billing et al., 2014). Billing et al. (2014) explained this finding with VI aiming to stand out in their workplace. Therefore, spending much time with work interferes with the family domain creating WFC. However, in contrast to the finding of Billing et al. (2014) that horizontal collectivism is negatively related to WFC, this research found no significant relation between HC and WFC. A possible explanation could be that HC help each other if work demands augment because the group goals are valued more than the personal ones. This in turn, indicates that employees do not
have too much work demands, hence work does not interfere with the family domain and no WFC emerges.
Conclusion
This thesis is contributing to the cross-cultural work-family literature with two main findings. First, segmenting work and family domains through strong boundaries decrease WFC and FWC. Therefore, organizations and employees should strive for keeping the work and family domains separated to experience less conflict.
Furthermore, work is more often interrupting the family domain than the other way around. Thus, strategies like no work after working hours should be employed to reduce work-family conflict.
Second, the results imply that a more collectivistic orientation comes with age, marriage, and having children. Thus, individual orientation may differ and be more important than the national culture. This assumption raises some interesting questions that further research should examine.
Further research and limitations
This research resulted in controversial findings on the role of
individualism/collectivism on national and individual level when it comes to boundary management and conflicting work and family domains. The findings indicate that age, marital status , and having children might play a role in people adapting a more
collectivistic orientation. Thus, future research could compare older versus younger and married with children versus single samples from one country to see if older married people with children are more collectivistic oriented than younger, single ones without children.
Furthermore, further research is required to clarify if individualism and collectivism play a role in experiencing WFC and FWC (Poelmans, O’Driscoll, & Beham, 2005). Future research could also include other cultural dimensions like power distance or personality traits (Kossek et al., 2012) to examine to what extent
they influence the relation between segmentation and integration and the conflict between work and family domains.
In addition, further validation of the boundary strength measure is required. There is no standardized measure, therefore, the results cannot be directly
compared. It would also be interesting to further examine possible antecedents of strong or weak boundaries like preference for segmentation or integration (Kreiner, 2006) and consequences like job satisfaction, job performance, or well-being (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005).
The limitations of this research lie on one hand, on the methodology because of the cross-sectional character of the study. This is problematic because the causality of the relations and long term stability of the constructs can not be established
(Kossek et al., 2012). Regardless, to overcome possible bias in the answers and test the stability of the variables, further longitudinal studies and experiments are
required. On the other hand, the small sample size especially from Malaysia and China might influenced the results. Furthermore, because of the online restrictions in China some respondents could not open the survey on their computers. Future research should rely on online and paper based surveys when trying to reach out to Chinese employees. Moreover, the English language of the survey and the snowball sampling method led to a skewed sample consisting of highly educated respondents. Although the individualistic and collectivistic groups significantly differed in many aspects such as gender, age and educational background, those had no effect on the testing of the hypotheses. Nevertheless, more homogeneous samples should be compared in the future.
Practical implications
The results of this thesis not only provide implications for future research but also some practical implications for organizations and individuals. The finding that the respondents were similarly collectivistic irrespective of their nationality signals that collectivistic values like keeping strong ties with the family play a major role in those
countries. This should be respected by organizations and the government and appropriate work-family policies like caring for children and elderly should be offered (Hassan et al., 2010).
The relation between boundary management and bidirectional conflict indicates that employees need to keep strong boundaries between the work and family
domains to reduce the conflict. This indicates that if organizations stimulate keeping clear boundaries, employees will face less conflict thus, will have higher levels of job satisfaction and will show better performance (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). A possible strategy is to employ supervisiors who become work-life friendly role models thus, enhancing employees’ work-family segmentation behavior, and reducing WFC and FWC (Koch & Binnewies, 2015). Furthermore, organizations should employ and promote policies that enable segmentation or integration depending on the preference of the employee thus, enhancing satisfaction, and well-being of the employee and at the same time improving organizational performance (Kossek et al., 2012). (Koch & Binnewies, 2015).
Reverting back to the importance of communication organizations should actively communicate the available policies via newsletters and meetings (Hassan et al., 2010). Furthermore, supervisors could act as good role models by promoting these policies. Finally, employees as well as managers should communicate their boundary management preferences (Kossek et al., 2012) and voice their concern if the work or family demands are getting out of hand. This way, WFC and FWC can be prevented from emerging.
References
Allen, T. D., Cho, E., & Meier, L. L. (2014). Work–Family Boundary Dynamics. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1),
99–121. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091330
Allen, T. D., French, K. A., Dumani, S., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). Meta-analysis of work-family conflict mean differences does national context matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 90–100. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.07.006
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.3363315
Aycan, Z. (2008). Cross-cultural approaches to work-family conflict. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration (pp. 353–370). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-012372574-5.50022-3
Billing, T. K., Bhagat, R., Babakus, E., Srivastava, B., Shin, M., & Brew, F. (2014). Work–family conflict in four national contexts: A closer look at the role of
individualism–collectivism. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(2), 139–159. doi:10.1177/1470595813502780
Bochner, S. (1994). Cross-Cultural Differences in the Self Concept: A Test of Hofstede’s Individualism/Collectivism Distinction. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(2), 273–283. doi:10.1177/0022022194252007
Boswell, W. R. & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2007). The Use of Communication
Technologies After Hours: The Role of Work Attitudes and Work-Life Conflict. Journal of Management, 33(4), 592–610. doi:10.1177/0149206307302552 Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods / Alan Bryman (4th ed). Oxford
University Press.
Bulger, C. A., Matthews, R. A., & Hoffman, M. E. (2007). Work and personal life boundary management: boundary strength, work/personal life balance, and the segmentation-integration continuum. Journal of Occupational Health
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67 (2), 169–198. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009 Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and Initial
Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Work–Family Conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 249–276. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713
Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole Conflicts and the Permeability of Work and Family Domains: Are There Gender Differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(2), 168–184. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1569 Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and
family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 124–197.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.003
Furka, I. (2013). Cultural value orientation studies in foreign language education in Hungary Establishing a Hungarian cultural value orientation profile for
application in foreign language education in Hungary (Doctoral dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest Faculty of Education and Psychology, Budapest). Retrieved June 8, 2017, from
http://www.ppk.elte.hu/file/Furka_Ildiko_dissz.pdf
Furtado, L., Sobral, F., & Peci, A. (2016). Linking demands to work-family conflict through boundary strength. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(8), 1327–1342. doi:10.1108/JMP-11-2015-0408
Galovan, A. M., Fackrell, T., Buswell, L., Jones, B. L., Hill, E. J., & Carroll, S. J. (2010). The Work–Family Interface in the United States and Singapore: Conflict Across Cultures. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 646–656. doi:10.1037/a0020832 Green, E. G. T., Deschamps, J.-C., & Páez, D. (2005). Variation of Individualism and
Collectivism within and between 20 Countries: A Typological Analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(3), 321–339. doi:10.1177/0022022104273654 Gudykunst, W. B. (1997). Cultural Variability in Communication: An Introduction.
Hall, D. T. & Richter, J. (1988). Balancing Work Life and Home Life: What Can Organizations Do to Help? The Academy of Management Executive, 2(3), 213–223. doi:10.5465/AME.1988.4277258
Hassan, Z., Dollard, M. F., & Winefield, A. H. (2010). Work-family conflict in east vs western countries. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17 (1), 30–49. doi:10.1108/13527601011016899
Hecht, T. D. & Allen, N. J. (2009). A longitudinal examination of the work–nonwork boundary strength construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 839–862. doi:10.1002/job.579
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values (Abridged edition). Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications, Inc. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind Intercultural
Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill International Ltd.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications, Inc.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (1 edition). Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Kahn, R. L. (1964). Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Keesing, R. M. (1974). Theories of Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3(1), 73–97. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.03.100174.000445
Kirby, E. & Krone, K. (2002). "The policy exists but you can’t really use it":
communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(1), 50–77. doi:10.1080/00909880216577
Koch, A. R. & Binnewies, C. (2015). Setting a good example: Supervisors as work-life-friendly role models within the context of boundary management.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), 82–92. doi:10.1037/a0037890
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2005). Flexibility Enactment Theory: Implications of Flexibility Type, Control, and Boundary Management for Work-Family Effectiveness. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 243–261). LEA’s organization and management series. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Kossek, E. E., Ruderman, M. N., Braddy, P. W., & Hannum, K. M. (2012).
Work-Nonwork Boundary Management Profiles: A Person-Centered Approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(1), 112–128. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003 Kreiner, G. E. (2006). Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: a
person-environment fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27 (4), 485–507. doi:10.1002/job.386
Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What Is the Relation Between Cultural Orientation and Socially Desirable Responding? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165–178. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.165 Loh, J. ( I., Restubog, S. L. D., & Gallois, C. (2010). Attitudinal outcomes of boundary
permeability: A comparison of Australian and Singaporean employees. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17 (2), 118–134.
doi:10.1108/13527601021038697
Masuda, A. D., Poelmans, S. A., Allen, T. D., Spector, P. E., Lapierre, L. M.,
Cooper, C. L., . . . Moreno-Velazquez, I. (2012). Flexible Work Arrangements Availability and their Relationship with Work-to-Family Conflict, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: A Comparison of Three Country Clusters. Applied Psychology, 61(1), 1–29. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00453.x
Matthews, R. A. & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010). Development and initial evaluation of an enhanced measure of boundary flexibility for the work and family domains.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 330–346. doi:10.1037/a0019302
Matthews, R. A., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Bulger, C. A. (2010). Advancing
measurement of work and family domain boundary characteristics. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77 (3), 447–460. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.008
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67 (2), 215–232. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.004
Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011). Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 689–725. doi:10.1002/job.695
Mortazavi, S., Pedhiwala, N., Shafiro, M., & Hammer, L. (2009). Work–family conflict related to culture and gender. Community, Work & Family, 12(2), 251–273. doi:10.1080/13668800902779023
Nelson, M. R. & Shavitt, S. (2002). Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and
Achievement Values: A Multimethod Examination of Denmark and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 439–458.
doi:10.1177/0022022102033005001
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
Ng, T. W. H. & Feldman, D. C. (2014). Embeddedness and well-being in the United States and Singapore: the mediating effects of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 360–375.
doi:10.1037/a0036922
Nippert-Eng, C. (1996). Calendars and keys: the classification of “home” and “work”. Sociological Forum, 11(3), 563–582. doi:10.1007/BF02408393
Nohe, C., Michel, A., & Sonntag, K. (2014). Family–work conflict and job
performance: A diary study of boundary conditions and mechanisms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 339–357. doi:10.1002/job.1878
Noordin, F. (2009). Individualism-collectivism: A tale of two countries. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 7 (2), 36–45.
Noy, C. (2008). Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327–344. doi:10.1080/13645570701401305
Ollier-Malaterre, A. & Foucreault, A. (2017). Cross-National Work-Life Research: Cultural and Structural Impacts for Individuals and Organizations. Journal of Management, 43(1), 111–136. doi:10.1177/0149206316655873
Ollo-López, A. & Goñi-Legaz, S. (2015). Differences in work–family conflict: which individual and national factors explain them? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–27. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1118141 Olson-Buchanan, J. B. & Boswell, W. R. (2006). Blurring boundaries: Correlates of
integration and segmentation between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 432–445. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.006
Parkes, L., Bochner, S., & Schneider, S. (2001). Person-Organisation Fit Across Cultures: An Empirical Investigation of Individualism and Collectivism. Applied Psychology, 50(1), 81–108. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00049
Poelmans, S. A. Y. (2005). Work and Family: An International Research Perspective. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Poelmans, S. A. Y. & Caligiuri, P. (2008). Harmonizing work, family, and personal life: from policy to practice - University of Liverpool. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Poelmans, S. A. Y., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beham, B. (2005). An overview of international research on the work-family interface. In A. Y. Poelmans Steven (Ed.), Work and Family: An International Research Perspective. Applied Psychology Series. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Ling, Y. (2009). Toward culture-sensitive theories of the work-family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5),
597–616. doi:10.1002/job.568
Powell, G. N. & Greenhaus, J. H. (2010). Sex, Gender, and the Work-to-Family Interface: Exploring Negative and Positive Interdependencies. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 513–534. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468647
Qiu, L. & Fan, J. (2015). Family boundary characteristics, work–family conflict and life satisfaction: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Psychology, 50(5), 336–344. doi:10.1002/ijop.12107
Rea, L. M. (2014). Designing and conducting survey research: a comprehensive guide / Louis M. Rea, Richard A. Parker (4th ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Robinson, C. H. & Betz, N. E. (2008). A Psychometric Evaluation of Super’s Work Values Inventory—Revised. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(4), 456–473. doi:10.1177/1069072708318903
Robson, P. J. & Tourish, D. (2005). Managing internal communication: an organizational case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(3), 213–222. doi:10.1108/13563280510614474
Schein, E. H. (1984). Culture as an environmental context for careers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 71–81. doi:10.1002/job.4030050107
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275.
doi:10.1177/106939719502900302
Sivadas, E., Bruvold, N. T., & Nelson, M. R. (2008). A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. Journal of Business Research. Cross-Cultural Business Research, 61(3), 201–210. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016
