Family-specific Social Support at Work: The Role of Open and Trustworthy Communication
Charlotte Schulz-Knappe (11368446)
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme: Communication Science
Research Master
Supervisor: Dr. Claartje ter Hoeven Date: 28.01.2019
Abstract
Family-friendly organizational policies are important for employees to manage work and family responsibilities. Besides formal policies, research has emphasized the importance of informal social support by organizational actors. The positive effects of organizational and supervisor support are already known, but findings are limited regarding family-specific support by coworkers and a suitable measurement is missing. First, this study developed and successfully validated a multidimensional coworker-family-support measurement with 307 English-speaking employees. Second, following the perspective that social support is communication, this study tests the assumption that it is contingent on trustworthy and open communication. For this, 724 German employees participated in an online survey. Results confirm a significant relationship between family-specific support and open and trustworthy communication, suggesting that communication mediates the relationship between support and outcomes (job satisfaction, work-family conflict and policy use). Additionally, the study illuminates the distinct roles of organizational actors’ (i.e. coworker, supervisor,
organization) support on employee outcomes.
Keywords: family-friendly policies, social support, work-family conflict, open communication, communication climate, scale validation
Family-specific Social Support at Work: The Role of Open and Trustworthy Communication
Since the 1980s, the demographic composition of the workforce has continuously shifted away from the traditional male-breadwinner model towards an increased number of dual-earner families and working single parents, resulting in employees experiencing an increased inter-role conflict to manage both their work and family life (Frone, Yardley, & Markle, 1997). For this reason, organizations have increasingly implemented family-friendly policies (e.g., flexible working arrangements, part-time employment, and parental leave) to help employees, especially those with young children or family members in need of care, fulfill both work and family responsibilities (Peper, van Dulk, & van Doorne-Huiskes, 2009).
While the use of formal work-life policies did lower employees’ work-family conflict, stress, and risk for burnout (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011), informal work-family support has received increasing attention in recent years (Kossek, Pichler, Bodener, & Hammer, 2011). Informal support is the perception that the organization supports their employees’ ability to balance both work and family (Allen, 2001), or the promotion of a family-friendly culture (Thompson & Prottas, 2005). Findings suggest that supervisors often disapprove of family-friendly policies, as they regularly involve inconveniences such as generating the need to find replacements and
rearranging work tasks (Ter Hoeven, Miller, Peper, & Den Dulk, 2017). Supervisors may also send ambiguous messages regarding which type of policy use is acceptable (Kirby, 2000). Further, coworkers derive consensus amongst each other as to how such policies should be used, resulting in concertive control among them (Barker, 1993). Thus, the lack of informal support can inhibit employees’ use of work-life policies, as they feel constrained or fear potential career consequences (Kirby & Krone, 2002; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). Therefore, the efficiency of organizational policies in mitigating work-life conflict depends
largely on the family-friendly culture of the overall organization, as well as the support of supervisors and coworkers.
Previous research on organizational support in mitigating work-life conflict has drawn on social support theory (e.g. Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009;
O’Driscoll, Brough, & Kalliath, 2004; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Social support is defined as an interpersonal transaction (House, 1981), or as a process that develops and is maintained through the ongoing interactions of organizational members (Wellman, 1981). For example, support in the workplace could be providing helpful information or being able to talk about personal problems (Boren, 2014; Zimmermann & Applegate, 1994). Thus, social support can be seen as a form of communication (Burleson, Albrecht, & Sarason, 1994). It is therefore surprising that, to date, only qualitative research (e.g. Boren, 2014; Kirby, 2000) on this matter exists. This study therefore employs a quantitative approach to investigate social support in the workplace by analyzing its relationship with the organizations communication climate, specifically its sub-dimensions openness and trust. It is argued that social support from organizational actors results in higher perceptions of open and trustworthy
communication, which in turn is beneficial for individual work outcomes like job satisfaction and work-family conflict. Besides its theoretical importance, studying how social support is communicated also offers pragmatic value, such as providing advice to communication managers.
Aside from the extensive research on social support from the overall organization, scholars have also focused on the role of supervisor support (e.g. Hammer et al., 2009; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Yet, research on coworker support, especially in the work-family domain, falls short (Kossek et al., 2011). The importance of coworker support should not be underestimated since coworkers depend on each other for fulfilling work tasks and thus, interact frequently, which can result in friendly relationships and talking about personal
issues (Sias & Cahill, 1998). In existing studies, the operationalization of coworker support has varied widely, limiting the generalizability of the effects (Thompson & Prottas, 2006). While some studies combined items on coworker support with supervisor and organizational support items (e.g. O’Driscoll et al., 2004), only a few have measured coworker support independently (e.g. Hammer, Saksvik, Nytro, Torvatn, & Bayazit, 2004; Thompson & Prottas, 2006). However, no known study thus far has used a validated measurement that encompasses the commonly employed social support dimensions – emotional, instrumental and informational support (House, 1981).
Therefore, this study contributes to existing research in three ways. First, it develops and validates a measure for family-specific coworker support using two independent
employee samples. Then, this measure is employed in a structural equation model, alongside organizational and supervisor support measures, to test and compare their effects on
employee outcomes. Finally, to account for the theorized communicative nature of social support, this study sheds light on the role of open and trustworthy communication, proposing it as a mediator between social support and work outcomes.
Theoretical Perspectives
Work-family Conflict and Family-friendly Organizational Policies
An employee’s work-family conflict stems from the degree to which responsibilities in both domains are incompatible, meaning “participation in the work (family) role is made more difficult by participation in the family (work) role” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). Work-family conflict is therefore conceptualized as bidirectional: work interfering with family (work-to-family conflict) and vice versa (family-to-work conflict; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). This conflict between the work and family domain has led to numerous studies on how family- and job-related stressors impact employees. These have shown that potential outcomes of increased work-family conflict include higher psychological strain
(Amstad et al., 2011; O’Driscoll et al., 2004), burnout (Allen et al., 2000), lower job and life satisfaction (e.g. Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; O’Driscoll et al., 2004), as well as lower
organizational commitment and higher intention to turnover (e.g. Allen et al., 2000). Organizational family-friendly policies serve the purpose of decreasing work-family conflict. Flexible work designs such as part-time work, job-sharing, or telecommuting are aimed at facilitating the compatibility of work and family demands (Beauregard & Henry, 2008). It has become apparent, however, that despite organizations increasingly adopting family-friendly benefits, work-family conflict and its negative outcomes did not disappear. This is seen in the modest effects of policies alone (Butts, Caspar, & Yang, 2013; Thompson & Prottas, 2006) and the negative career consequences employees still experience when making use of such policies (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002). Research provides several explanations for this phenomenon. First, the ideal worker still works full-time, on a schedule that is suitable for the employer, and without long periods of interruption (Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002; Kelly et al., 2010). Further, employees’ use of policies creates an additional effort required from the organization: Supervisors have to redistribute tasks, potentially hire replacements, or coworkers have to take on additional workload (Peper & Den Dulk, 2009; Ter Hoeven et al., 2017).
Research on the constraining power of social structures (Sewell, 1992) shows how everyday practices and interactions regarding work-family-friendly policies can shape how they are enacted in the organization. A deceptive comment by a supervisor or colleague about
family-friendly benefits can send a signal to the employee that it is not acceptable to make use of this policy and, on a larger scale, develop a system in which the non-use of these policies becomes the standard (Kirby & Krone, 2002). Therefore, the adoption of family-friendly organizational policies alone does not suffice in alleviating stress caused by
and values (Allen, 2001; Thompson et al., 1999), expressed in social support by organizational actors for balancing work and family life.
Social Support from the Organization and Supervisors
While several definitions of social support exist, one of the most prominent to date is by House (1981), who defines social support as an interpersonal transaction of emotional expression of concern, instrumental assistance, and provision of relevant information. This outlines the three commonly employed dimensions of social support (emotional,
instrumental, and informational). Social support for balancing both work and family can stem from organizational actors (i.e. organization as a whole, supervisor, and coworkers) and private life actors (i.e. family, spouse, and friends). Notably, studies that distinguished between general social support (e.g. Eisenberger et al., 2002) and family-specific social support, found that the latter was more effective in decreasing work-family conflict (Kossek et al., 2011), underlining the importance of differentiating between the two.
In the workplace, family-specific social support for work-family conflict has been investigated by considering the organization’s work-family culture. Thompson et al. (1999) defined work-family culture as the “extent to which an organization supports and values the integration of employees’ work and family lives” (p.394), and found that it increases the likelihood of employees’ utilization of family-friendly policies, since they are less afraid of negative career consequences. Connected to this is the concept of family supportive
organizational perceptions (FSOP), which is defined as “the global perceptions that
employees form regarding the extent the organization is family supportive” (Allen, 2001, p. 416) and was found to benefit individual work-outcomes such as job satisfaction, affective commitment to the organization, and intentions to stay (Butts et al., 2013).
Besides the overall organizational support, supervisors maintain a key role in
granting policy requests, but also for their interpretation and enactment (Hammer et al., 2009; Kirby, 2000). Thomas and Ganster (1995) define a supportive supervisor as someone who “empathizes with the employee’s desire to seek balance between work and family
responsibilities” (p. 7). Hammer et al. (2009) developed and validated a scale for family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB), which is comprised of four dimensions. In addition to emotional and instrumental support, informational support was included by measuring whether the supervisor provides a good example of balancing the work and family domains. Finally, the dimension “creative work-family management,” assessed the extent to which a supervisor approaches work-family issues proactively and strategically. Their study
confirmed the beneficial effects of a supportive supervisor, since FSSB showed a reduction in work-family conflict while increasing job satisfaction, which can be defined as the
contentedness and fulfillment the individual derives from their work (Spector, 1997).
Family-specific Social Support from Coworkers
Coworkers represent the third organizational source of social support, and they can provide this in a number of ways. For example, coworkers extend emotional support by listening to a colleague’s problems, or by showing concern and compassion. Informational support can include giving advice on how to balance family and work, as well as acting as a good role model in this area. Further, coworkers can provide instrumental support, for example, by taking over others’ tasks or exchanging shifts to help them manage their work and family life. Arguably, coworker work-family support should play an important role in managing work-life conflict, especially since the relationship among coworkers is distinct from relationships with supervisors. This is due to the “authority differential” (Homans, 1950), which means that coworkers might be hesitant to share their personal problems with their supervisor, but not with their immediate peers.
At the same time, coworkers can also increase work-family conflict and decrease job satisfaction by showing hostility towards their coworkers’ use of work-family policies. Research has found that women who became pregnant faced resentment from coworkers or were accused of intentionally exploiting organizational policies (Halpert & Burg, 1997), while men faced the same when taking an extended leave to care for a newborn (Thompson et al., 1999). Non-support can have various causes, one being that employees without family dependents might perceive it as favoritism when their colleagues take paternity leave or stay home when their child is sick (Kirby & Krone, 2002). Further, when employees perceive differential treatment by supervisors as unfair, it can have negative consequences on the communication between coworkers and result in a collective dislike of the individual in question (Sias, 1996). As coworkers potentially have to take over tasks from colleagues’ who stay home, their workload increases (Ter Hoeven et al., 2017), which can pose a threat to the solidarity among coworkers (Peper et al., 2009). This results in coworkers negotiating rules through interactions amongst each other regarding the acceptability of using family-friendly benefits. This is referred to as concertive control (Barker, 1993), which can constrain employees’ use of family-friendly policies.
Given the role coworkers can play regarding employees’ use of policies, work-family conflict, and overall job satisfaction, it is surprising that family-specific coworker support has, to date, not been the focus of ample research. As Thompson and Prottas (2006) state: “The research available suggests that coworker support does make a difference, although it is difficult to disentangle the effects of supervisor versus coworker, because in some studies the items were combined into a single measure (…)” (p. 103). Thus, coworker social support must be measured independently of other organizational support sources. Based on the theoretical background, such a measure should be family-specific and include the social support dimensions: emotional, informational, and instrumental support (House, 1981).
The Communication of Social Support: Trustworthy and Open Communication
As previously stated, House (1981) defines social support as an “interpersonal
transaction,” while Albrecht and Adelman (1984) theorize the enactment of social support as a communicative behavior. Building on this, Burleson, Albrecht, and Sarason (1994) argue that social support should be viewed as a communicative process between people. While psychological and sociological approaches to social support do not explicitly include communication, it represents the channel through which supportive cues are transmitted in the network, thereby creating and maintaining relationships. The communicative nature of social support in the context of work-family conflict and the use of family-friendly policies is especially evident since the previously described phenomena (e.g., the interpretation of policies and the enactment of concertive control) are constructed through communication (Barker, 1993; Kirby & Krone, 2002).
When adopting the view that social support in the workplace is primarily enacted through communication, it should be related to the organizational communication climate. Communication climate can be defined as the perception employees hold regarding both the quality of mutual relations and the communication within an organization (Goldhaber, 1993). To date, communication climate has been operationalized in various ways. Among the dimensions are trust that the communication is honest (Guzley, 1992; Smidts, Pruyn, & Van Riel, 2001), openness of communication (Dennis, 1975; Rogers, 1987), perceived
participation in decision-making (Smidts et. al. 2001), vertical information flow, and reliability of information (Dennis, 1975). In the context of family-friendly social support in the workplace, this study proposes that trustworthy and open communication, specifically, mediate the relationships between social support from organizational actors and individual work outcomes.
Trust is defined as the “willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (…)” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712) and is built upon the belief that the person one interacts with is candid and honest (Smidts et al., 2001). Social support concerns the degree to which an individual believes that organizational actors care for their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 2002) and as such, it is likely that perceived social support should increase the employees’ beliefs that the other party has good intentions and communicates in a trustworthy manner. This is further supported by the fact that
benevolence, defined as a positive orientation of one party to another, has been identified as a condition for trust (Mayer et al., 1995). Open communication involves both message sending and message receiving between all organizational hierarchical levels (Redding, 1972). Consequently, it is an essential characteristic for the efficient flow of communication in an organization (Rogers, 1987); it promotes free disclosure of information (Eisenberg & Witten, 1987) and enables the discussion of ideas without judgment. An organizational environment that is perceived as (family-) supportive should, thus, promote open communication within the organization.
Hypotheses
Based on the literature reviewed, this study tests the following hypotheses. The first two hypotheses address the effect of social support in the workplace on two commonly researched outcome variables: job satisfaction and work-family conflict. While the
hypothesized directions have already been confirmed (e.g. Frone et al., 1997; Hammer et al., 2009; Kelly et al. 2014; Kossek et al., 2011; Thomas & Ganster, 1995), this study can add to existing findings by measuring the effects of organizational, supervisor, and coworker family-specific social support simultaneously. As such, comparisons of effect sizes between the three are possible. The hypotheses are thus,
H1: Family-specific social support by (a) the organization, (b) the supervisor, and (c)
coworkers all have an independent positive relationship with job satisfaction.
H2: Family-specific social support by (a) the organization, (b) the supervisor, and (c)
coworkers all have an independent negative relationship with work-family conflict.
Further, employees’ use of family-friendly policies depends on whether they perceive it to be acceptable in their organization. Since supervisors are in charge of granting and interpreting such policies, and coworkers can constrain employees from using them (e.g. by exerting concertive control), the perceived support is essential. It is therefore expected,
H3: Family-specific social support by (a) the organization, (b) the supervisor, and (c)
coworkers all have an independent positive relationship with policy use.
Finally, social support in the workplace should positively affect the organizational communication climate, specifically the openness and trustworthiness of communication. In turn, research has shown that trustworthy and open communication between organizational actors promotes feelings of comfort and psychological safety (Singh et al., 2013). It is
therefore argued that higher levels of trust will result in individuals being more likely to make use of organizational policies and lower work-family conflict; this can be attributed to a lack of fear of negative consequences from the organizational actors, and the belief that the organization has their best interest at heart. As such, an open and trustworthy work-environment should also increase employees’ overall job satisfaction (Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey; 2013; Trombetta & Rogers, 1987). It is therefore proposed that,
H4-6: The relationship between (a) organizational, (b) supervisor, and (c) coworker
family-specific social support on (a) job satisfaction, (b) work-family conflict, and (c) policy use is mediated by open and trustworthy communication.
The validation of the Coworker-Family-Support (CFS) scale and hypothesis testing consists of four phases:
Phase 1—Operationalization: For the CFS scale, this study will employ the deductive scale development approach. This means that the scale is developed based on theoretical assumptions about the construct to be tested (Hinkin, 1998).
Phase 2—Scale validation: To validate the multidimensional CFS measurement, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is conducted on a sample of German employees, using structural equation modeling (SEM). Model fit is assessed through incremental indices (the Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] and the Comparative Fit Index [CFI], cut-off value >.90) and absolute fit indices (the standardized version of the root mean squared residual [SRMR], cut-off value <.10, and the root mean square of approximation [RMSEA], cut-cut-off value <.06). The χ2 statistic primarily serves as a relative measure to evaluate model fit between the retained and alternative models, or the nested models using a Δχ2 test (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2015). Construct validity is assessed by both convergent and discriminant validity. Each item’s factor loading must be above .60 (Kline, 2015) and, for reasons of parsimony, only the three highest loading items per factor are retained (Hinkin, 1998). Subsequently, the results are replicated on a second sample collected from English-speaking employees.
Phase 3—Validating the measurement model: The measurement model with the new CFS scale is constructed with the German sample. To test hypotheses 1-3, a measurement model with the support variables and outcome variables is constructed first. To test the mediation hypotheses 4-6, the constructs of trust and communication openness are included in a second model. Model fit and construct validity are assessed by employing the same criteria as in Phase 2.
Phase 4—Structural model and hypotheses testing: Finally, the hypothesized structural models are tested with SEM.
Method Sample and Procedure
Two independent samples were collected in November 2018 via an online survey. To participate, respondents must have worked at an organization with at least five members and for at least 20 hours per week, at the time of data collection. To validate the CFS scale, 381 English-speaking employees were self-recruited by sharing the survey link in several Facebook-groups (75.2% female, 35.9 years on average [SD = 5.84], 39% held a
management position, 71% obtained a university degree). These respondents only answered items from the CFS measurement. Two attention check items were included to remove respondents who did not follow the instructions. In total, 74 were deleted due to wrong answers on the attention check items, resulting in 307 respondents in this sample.
The second sample was recruited via the German-speaking SoSci-Panel, which
includes a large respondent pool with respondents working in a diverse range of industries, to enhance the generalizability of the data (Leiner, 2014). All constructs were translated from English to German using the back-translation technique (Brislin, 1970). To test the
conceptual model, 801 members of the German workforce participated. Seventy-seven respondents were deleted based on their answers to the attention-check item, resulting in 724 respondents for analysis. The sample was divided in gender, with 58.2% women and 41.8 % men, and the average age was 42.9 years (SD = 11.13). Those in management positions made up 28.2% of the sample, and the average hours worked per week was 39.6 (SD = 8.10). Regarding family makeup, 32.0% of respondents had one or more children under 18 and 10.2% had dependents requiring special care. The sample was more educated than the general German population with 61.8% holding at least a bachelor’s degree.
All the variables in the model, except for policy use, were assessed on a five-point Likert-scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”). Table 1 includes descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and alpha coefficients. Table 2 includes the wording of all items included in the final analysis.
--- INSERT TABLE 1 HERE ---
Dependent Variables
The employees' Work-Family Conflict was measured on the five-item scale by Netemeyer et al. (1996). Three items of the Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire job-satisfaction-subscale were used to measure Job Satisfaction (Bowling & Hammond, 2008). Policy Use was measured by providing respondents with a list of 12 common family-friendly policies of which they selected the ones they have used. In addition, respondents had the opportunity to indicate additional policies they used, which were coded afterwards. Policy examples include organizational childcare facilities or flexible work designs. Policy Use was created by calculating the sum of policies used per respondent (M = 1.63, SD = 1.22).
Independent Variables
Five items of the validated scale by Allen (2001) assessed FSOP. Seven items of the FSSB scale by Hammer et al. (2009) measured support from supervisors. As discussed, no validated measurement of CFS exists, thus a scale with nine final items (three per dimension) was validated. Trustworthiness and openness of communication served as mediating
variables. Trust in the organizational members to be honest was comprised of three items from the communication climate scale by Smidts et al. (2001). Openness was measured with seven items from the corresponding measurement by Rogers (1987).
Three control variables were introduced into the model. First, weekly working hours, since it can be expected that working more increases work-family conflict. Further, it was included whether respondents had children or dependents in need of special care, as it is reasonable to assume that this increases work-family conflict or the use of policies. Finally, gender was included, since women remain the primary care givers and, therefore, experience higher work-family conflict (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998).
Results Phase 1—Item Development
Based on the operationalization of social support by House (1981), five items were developed from the emotional, instrumental, and informational support sub-dimensions. A researcher specialized in the field and a communication science student provided feedback on the comprehensibility and wording of the items, which were then adapted accordingly. All items were formulated as statements following the introduction “To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements regarding your coworkers’ behavior at work?”
Responses were indicated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Before administering the questionnaire, the items were randomized.
Phase 2—Validation of the CFS Scale
To validate the measurement, the means and standard deviations of all 15 items in the German sample were examined. The means of the items ranged from 2.44 to 3.76 and all standard deviations greatly exceeded 0.50, indicating adequate variability (Stumpf, Colarelli, & Hartman, 1983). The proposed factor structure of the CFS scale was examined using CFA in AMOS. The measurement model showed satisfactory model fit: χ2 (87) = 353.45, CFI = .95, TLI = .95, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.06 [CI: 0.05, 0.07]. All the factor loadings on the intended dimensions were significant and sizable, ranging from .66 to .83. For reasons of parsimony, only the three highest loading items without high cross-loadings per construct
were retained. This left nine items in the scale, with factor loadings ranging from 0.65 to 0.84 (see Table 2). This measurement model showed excellent fit: χ2 (24) = 71.31, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, SRMR = 0.03, RMSEA = 0.05 [CI: 0.04, 0.07].
To ensure internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated; this showed satisfactory reliability for all three subscales (emotional = .82, instrumental = .84 and informational = .77) and excellent reliability for the overall CFS scale ( = .90; Hinkin, 1998). The average variance extracted (AVE) was also satisfactory (emotional AVE = .61, instrumental AVE = .64, and informational AVE = .53). Regarding construct validity, correlation coefficients between all three constructs ranged from .78 to .84, indicating acceptable discriminant validity (Kline, 2015). The CFS was then treated as a higher order factor of the three dimensions, with factor loadings ranging between .87 (informational) and .94 (emotional). The AVE for CFS was .81.
This factor structure was replicated on the English-speaking sample to enhance its generalizability. According to Hinkin (1998), the CFA, model comparison, internal
consistency, and the construct validity assessments should be replicated. The factor loadings for this model ranged between .72 and .84, and the fit is good: χ2 (24) = 52.96, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, SRMR = 0.03, RMSEA = 0.06 [CI: 0.040, 0.086]. The reliabilities of the subscales were satisfactory (emotional = .84, instrumental = .85, and informational = .78), as was the reliability for the entire CFS scale ( = .90). Regarding construct validity, correlation coefficients between all three constructs were between .75 and .78, indicating acceptable discriminant validity, but slightly lower than in the first sample. Overall, results indicate that the scale was successfully validated.
--- INSERT TABLE 3 HERE ---
First, to test hypotheses 1-3, a measurement model with the three independent variables and the outcome variables (i.e. job satisfaction, work-family conflict, and policy use) was specified in AMOS. The newly validated CFS scale was introduced as a higher order factor with the emotional, instrumental, and informational support dimensions. Policy use was included as an observed variable. The initial measurement model indicated excellent fit: χ2 (388) = 886.75, CFI = .96, TLI = .96, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.04 [CI: 0.04, 0.05]. The model was further examined by assessing discriminant and convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was determined by examining cross‐factor correlations, which were between −.40 to .56 (see Table 1), demonstrating the distinctiveness of the latent constructs in the model (Kline, 2015). All loadings on the intended latent constructs were significant and sizable. The factor loadings ranged from .65 to .95 (see Table 2), which indicates satisfactory convergent validity. Thus, the retained measurement model adequately measures all latent constructs, indicating that further examination of the structural model is justified.
Phase 4(a)—Structural Model for Testing Hypotheses 1-3 (Main Effects Model)
The structural model was specified by adding direct effects from the independent support variables to each of the outcome variables; from this, excellent model fit emerged: χ2 (391) = 903.73, CFI = .96, TLI = .96, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.04 [CI: 0.04, 0.05]. H1a-c concerns the effects from the organizational actors’ support on job satisfaction. All three exert significant positive effects on job satisfaction, with supervisor support being the strongest (β = .38, p < .001), before organizational (β = .21, p < .001) and coworker support (β = .17, p < .001), thus confirming H1a-c. H2a-c posits that support from organizational actors decreases work-family conflict. Both organizational (β = -.31, p < .001) and supervisor support (β = -.15 p = .001) exert significant negative effects on work-family conflict, but the effect of coworker support is not significant (β = -.06, p = .148). This confirms H2a-b but rejects H2c. Finally, H3a-c hypothesizes that family-specific support from organizational
actors will lead to an increased use of family-friendly policies by employees. Here, only H3a is supported, since organizational support exerts a positive effect on policy use (β = .12, p = .014), while supervisor (β = -.02, p = .725) and coworker support (β = .07, p =.136) were not significant, indicating that only perceived organizational family support increases policy use.
Phase 3(b)—CFA Measurement Model to Test Mediation Hypotheses 4-6
To test the mediation hypotheses, a second measurement model was developed that included the communication climate variables (i.e., trust and communication openness) as the higher-order factor termed communication climate. This measurement model has acceptable model fit: χ2 (715) = 1979.21, CFI = .93, TLI = .93, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.05 [CI: 0.05, 0.05]. Two factor loadings were below the proposed cutoff point of .60 and were therefore deleted: “People ask their coworkers for suggestions” from the communication openness scale had an insufficient factor loading (λ = .54), as well as the trust item “When my colleagues tell me something, I trust them to tell me the truth” (λ = .47). The new
measurement model achieved excellent fit: χ2 (635) = 1512.34, CFI = .95, TLI = .95, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.04 [CI: 0.04, 0.05]. All correlations ranged from −.40 to .78 (see
Table 1), which demonstrates sufficient discriminant validity. All factor loadings ranged from .65 to .95 (see Table 3), indicating satisfactory convergent validity.
--- INSERT TABLE 2 HERE ---
Phase 4(b)—Structural Model to Test Hypotheses 4-6 (Mediation Model)
The structural model was specified by adding effects from the three independent variables to communication climate, and from communication climate to the three outcome variables (see Figure 1). To estimate indirect effects, 2,000 bootstrap samples were extracted from the data to calculate all parameter estimates and confidence intervals. The model fit of the structural model was good: χ2 (652) = 1608.56 CFI = .95, TLI = .94, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.05 [CI: 0.04, 0.05].
All effect sizes with significance levels are indicated in Figure 1. Table 4 presents the bootstrapping results for all indirect pathways from coworker, supervisor, and organizational support through communication climate to job satisfaction, work-family-conflict, and policy use. All indirect effects were significant and in the hypothesized direction, hence family-specific support from all sources via communication climate increases job satisfaction and policy use, while decreasing work-family conflict. H4-6 are thus confirmed. Further, the model overall explains 82% of the variance of communication climate, 46% of job satisfaction, 14% for work-family conflict, and 2% of policy use.
--- INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE --- --- INSERT TABLE 4 HERE ---
Control Variables and Alternative Models
The control variables (i.e., gender, working hours per week, and whether employees had dependents) were introduced into the model consecutively. When controlling for these variables, all the parameters estimated in the final model held. This indicated that they had no influence on the overall findings and were therefore excluded due to parsimony.
Alternative models were examined to determine whether there would be acceptable correspondence to the data with other possible explanations.First, the main effects model was re‐specified as a CFA model. In this model, the hypothesized uni-directional effects between factors are exchanged with non‐directional unanalyzed associations (i.e. covariances). Model fit indices suggest significant model deterioration as opposed to the main effects model (Δχ2 = 91.16, p < .001). Second, the causal order was changed, suggesting that the work outcomes predict the social support variables. Model fit indices suggest a significantly inferior model fit compared to the main effects model (Δχ2 = 69.52, p < .001), thus rejecting the reverse order model.
For the mediation model, the re-specified CFA model indicated significant model deterioration compared to the structural model (Δχ2 = 325.77, p < 0.001). Further, the causal order was changed, suggesting that communication climate predicts the extent to which an organization and its actors show family-specific support. Indeed, this model suggests
significantly better model fit (Δχ2 = 26.92, p < .001), such that communication climate acts as an antecedent to social support. The overall model fit of this model is excellent: χ2 (649) = 1581.64, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.05 [CI: 0.04, 0.05]. In this model, communication climate exerts strong and significant effects on organizational family support (β = .55, p < .001), supervisor family support (β = .89, p < .001), and coworker family support (β = .49, p < .001). For this model, indirect effects were also inspected (see Table 5): Results indicate that the effect of open and trustworthy communication on job satisfaction is partially mediated through the support variables. The effect on work-family conflict is partially
mediated through organizational and supervisor support, and the effect on policy use is partially mediated through organizational communication.
--- INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE --- --- INSERT TABLE 5 HERE ---
Discussion The CFS Scale
Due to the lack of an appropriate measurement for family-specific coworker support, this study developed the CFS scale. It was successfully validated using CFA, with two independent samples of both German- and English-speaking employees, proving its generalizability. The final measurement consisted of nine items encompassing the three commonly employed dimensions of social support—emotional, instrumental, and
informational support. Aside from the scale’s excellent validity, each subscale also achieved satisfactory reliability, thus allowing for independent use in future research. As such, the CFS
measurement adds to the research of social support for work-family issues, since it reliably assesses family-specific coworker support independently from organizational or supervisor family-support by covering the relevant dimensions.
Comparing the Effects of Social Support from Different Organizational Actors
This study also measured the effects of perceived family-specific organizational, supervisor, and coworker support on job satisfaction, work-family-conflict, and the use of family-friendly policies. In line with H1a-c, all three organizational social support sources affect employees’ job satisfaction positively and independently. Therefore, the results confirm existing research about the positive effects of family-specific social support on job satisfaction (e.g., Kelly et al. 2014; Kossek et al., 2011; Thomas & Ganster, 1995), and showed that supervisor support exerts the strongest effect overall.
Further, only organizational and supervisor support significantly decreased work-family conflict, while the effect of coworker support was insignificant. These findings are in line with previous meta-analyses, which showed that organizational support exerts stronger effects on work-family conflict than supervisor support (Kossek et al.,2011), while both are stronger than coworker support (French et al., 2018). Additionally, despite studies showing the effect of coworker support on work-family conflict (e.g. Hammer et al., 2004; Thompson & Prottas, 2006), the results of this study suggest otherwise. This may be because the effect of coworker support becomes insignificant when modeling it alongside organizational and supervisor support.
In addition, this study was the first to quantitatively test whether perceived social support by supervisors and coworkers affects the employees’ use of family-friendly policies. In line with existing findings (Thompson et al., 1999), only organizational support
significantly increased policy use, while the other two actors did not. These results are contrary to qualitative studies that discuss how a family-friendly culture and support should
mitigate negative talk about family-friendly policies by organizational actors (Kirby & Krone, 2002), supervisors’ mixed messages about policies (Kirby, 2000), and coworkers’ coercive control (Barker, 1993; Ter Hoeven et al., 2017), all of which result in coworkers’ hesitation toward policy use.
Importantly, the discussed effects held when controlling for whether employees had children or dependents in need of special care. This indicates that family-specific social support by organizational actors is positively related to job satisfaction for all employees, not only for those responsible for family members. This links to findings by Butts et al. (2013), who found that employees had higher job satisfaction when they perceived their organization as family supportive, which was due to the availability of family-friendly policies, but
independent of whether they used family-friendly benefits themselves. Family-specific social support was also beneficial for those without dependents regarding their work-family
conflict, because it helps them to arrange both their work and private life (e.g., making use of flextime or teleworking), without fearing negative consequences.
The Relationship of Social Support with Open and Trustworthy Communication
This study also investigated the communicative nature of social support by analyzing its relationship with the organizational communication climate, specifically whether it is perceived as open and trustworthy. Indeed, the results suggest medium to strong relationships between the communication climate constructs and all types of social support. Regarding the direction of the effects, alternative model testing suggested that open and trustworthy
communication precede family-specific social support, which was contrary to the proposed direction (i.e., when the organization and its actors are family-supportive, perceived
trustworthiness and openness of communication increases). This implies that trustworthy and open communication promote a supportive environment within the organization, which then affects work outcomes. Nevertheless, the initially proposed model also had excellent model
fit, and since the cross-sectional nature of this study does not allow for the interpretation of a causal order, it may be possible that both constructs reinforce each other over time.
The initial model shows that the effects of social support and work outcomes are partially mediated through trustworthy and open communication. Perceived trustworthy and open communication result in higher job satisfaction, which is in line with previous findings (Trombetta & Rogers, 1988). It is also positively related to policy use, while negatively related to work-family conflict. This may be due to employees perceiving a supportive organization as more open and trustworthy, which is why they do not fear negative
consequences when speaking about private issues or making use of family-friendly policies. On the other hand, the alternative model suggests that the effect of communication climate on work outcomes is partially mediated by social support. This indicates that the positive
relationship between the communication climate and job satisfaction, work-family conflict, and policy use may be, to an extent, due to the supportive environment it promotes.
Practical Implications
The findings of this study provide important implications for communication
practitioners and organizations. First, organizations should not underestimate the importance of promoting family-specific social support, since this is associated with higher job
satisfaction and lower work-family conflict for all employees. In turn, these are related to other beneficial outcomes: Job satisfaction is associated with higher performance,
organizational commitment, and lower turnover intentions (e.g., Mathieu, Fabi, Lacousière, & Raymond, 2016), and decreasing work-family conflict is linked to lower levels of
psychological strain (Amstad et al., 2011) and risks of burnout (Allen et al., 2000).
Consequently, this study shows that it is not only important to offer family-friendly policies, but also to actively live and promote a family-friendly culture. Findings suggest that supervisors in particular should lead by example, as they are in charge of granting and
interpreting organizational policies. Nevertheless, coworkers showing family-specific support to their colleagues should also be promoted within the organization. This can be achieved by encouraging open conversations between coworkers in which every member feels free to share information, even if it is problematic (e.g., challenges in balancing both work and family), and is open to listen. Closely linked to this is trust, meaning that the individual feels as if the organization and its members communicate honestly and take them seriously.
Limitations and Future Research
The findings of this study do not come without limitations. As mentioned, the cross-sectional design of the research does not allow for inferences regarding the causal order of effects. To account for this, future research should analyze the proposed relationships
longitudinally. This would enable insights into whether trustworthy and open communication actually precede social support, and whether the two constructs reinforce each other over time. In a similar vein, it is not possible to concretely say whether organizational support leads to more policy use, or if the use of policies increases the perception of the organization being family-supportive, even though reverse model testing suggests that the former fits better statistically.
Future research should also look into additional communication climate variables (e.g. participation in decision-making), or consider the degree of closeness among organizational members. It is also important to note that the results are subject to common source bias, since this study only measured respondents’ perceptions regarding the support and communication variables, not actual acts of support or communication. Future research may consider
measuring actual support through either detailed questions about supportive actions or external data, such as observations of supportive behavior. In addition, support measures cannot be clearly separated from each other, especially for supervisor or organizational support, since employees’ perceptions of the supportiveness of their organization may be
shaped by the behavior of their supervisors or vice versa (French et al., 2018). Furthermore, the weak measure of trust must be addressed. Only two of the three items for trust in the communication climate subscale by Smidts, Pruyn, and Van Riel (2001) loaded sufficiently on the factor, thus leaving out important aspects of the concept.
Another limitation concerns the representativeness of the two samples. Women were overrepresented in both the German- and speaking samples, and the
English-speaking sample was relatively young. This may be due to the fact that the topic attracts mostly women and working parents who are dealing with the issue of arranging both their work and family lives. Further, both samples were more educated than the general population with more than two-thirds of respondents holding a university degree. For the German
sample, this can be explained by the composition of the SoSci-Panel, whose respondent pool is higher educated (Leiner, 2014).
Conclusion
This study provides several contributions. First, it validated a reliable
multidimensional measurement of family-specific coworker support. Second, it shed light on the unique roles of organizational, supervisor, and coworker support. While all of them affect job satisfaction positively, only supervisor and organizational support decreased work-family conflict, and only organizational support showed a positive relationship with policy use. Third, a strong relationship between workplace social support and organizational
communication climate was confirmed. Findings indicate that organizational support promotes open and trustworthy communication, and vice versa.
Balancing both work and family remains a challenge for employees and it is in the organization’s interest that they overcome it. In line with previous research, this study provides a rationale for the stance that formal organizational support alone (i.e., policies) does not suffice, but that informal support is also important, if not the basis for formal
support. This study further points out that the way organizational members communicate amongst each other is important for work-family issues. Organizations are thus advised to ensure that their members communicate trustworthy and openly. This way, organizational actors can generate a family supportive environment, which leads to overall beneficial outcomes. Exploring social support further by analyzing how it is communicated promises interesting avenues for future research and important implications for practice.
References
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 414-435.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278-308.
Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta- analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 151-169.
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related
outcomes. Journal of Management, 28(6), 787-810.
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3) 408-437.
Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19(1), 9-22.
Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2002). Employees' use of work-family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80(3), 813-845.
Boren, J. P. (2014). The relationships between co-rumination, social support, stress, and burnout among working adults. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 3-25. Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job
satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270-283.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
Burleson, B. R., Albrecht, T. L., & Sarason, I. G. (1994). Communication of social support: Messages, Interactions, Relationships, and Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Yang, T. S. (2013). How important are work–family support
policies? A meta-analytic investigation of their effects on employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 1-25.
Dennis, H. S. (1975, April). The construction of a managerial communication climate
inventory for use in complex organizations. In Annual Convention of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
Eisenberg, E. M., & Witten, M. G. (1987). Reconsidering openness in organizational communication. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 418-426.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573.
French, K. A., Dumani, S., Allen, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2018). A meta-analysis of work family conflict and social support. Psychological Bulletin, 144(3), 284-314.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(2), 145-167. Goldhaber, G. M. (1993). Organizational Communication. Dubuque: Brown and Benchmark. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.
Guzley, R. M. (1992). Organizational climate and communication climate: Predictors of commitment to the organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 5(4), 379-402.
Halpert, J. A., & Burg, J. H. (1997). Mixed messages: Co-worker responses to the pregnant employee. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12(2), 241-253.
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35(4), 837-856.
Hammer, T. H., Saksvik, P. Ø., Nytrø, K., Torvatn, H., & Bayazit, M. (2004). Expanding the psychosocial work environment: workplace norms and work-family conflict as correlates of stress and health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), 83-97.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121.
Homans, G. C. (1950). The Human Group. New York: Harpers.
House, J. S. (1981). Work Stress and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Kelly, E. L., Ammons, S. K., Chermack, K., & Moen, P. (2010). Gendered challenge,
gendered response: Confronting the ideal worker norm in a white-collar organization. Gender & Society, 24(3), 281-303.
Kelly, E. L., Moen, P., Oakes, J. M., Fan, W., Okechukwu, C., Davis, K. D. & Mierzwa, F. (2014). Changing work and work-family conflict: Evidence from the work, family, and health network. American Sociological Review, 79(3), 485-516.
Kirby, E. L. (2000). Should I do as you say or do as you do? Mixed messages about work and family. Electronic Journal of Communication, 10 [Online]. Available:
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, 50-77.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Publications.
Kossek, E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life
satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 139-149.
Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and work family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel
Psychology, 64(2), 289-313.
Leiner, D. J. (2014). Convenience samples from online respondent pools: A case study of the SoSci Panel. International Journal of Internet Science, 20(5), 1-18.
Mathieu, C., Fabi, B., Lacoursière, R., & Raymond, L. (2016). The role of supervisory behavior, job satisfaction and organizational commitment on employee turnover. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(1), 113-129.
Meyer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
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.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Brough, P., & Kalliath, T. J. (2004). Work/family conflict, psychological well being, satisfaction and social support: A longitudinal study in New Zealand. Equal Opportunities International, 23(1/2), 36-56.
Peper, B., den Dulk, L., & van Doorne-Huiskes, A. (2009). Work-family policies in a contradictory culture: a Dutch financial sector corporation. Work, Families and Organisations in Transition. European Perspectives, 113-128.
Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication within the organization: An interpretive review of theory and research. Industrial Communication Council.
Rogers, D. P. (1987). The development of a measure of perceived communication openness. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 24(4), 53-61.
Sewell Jr, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29.
Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The development of peer friendships in the workplace. Western Journal of Communication, 62(3), 273-299. Sias, P. M. (1996). Constructing perceptions of differential treatment: An analysis of
coworker discourse. Communications Monographs, 63(2), 171-187.
Singh, B., Winkel, D. E., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2013). Managing diversity at work: Does psychological safety hold the key to racial differences in employee
performance?. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(2), 242-263.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee
communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051-1062.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stumpf, S. A., Colarelli, S. M., & Hartman, K. (1983). Development of the career exploration survey (CES). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22(2), 191-226.
role of employee and managerial communication in the use of work-life policies. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(2), 194-229.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6-15.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–family benefits are not enough: The influence of work–family culture on benefit utilization,
organizational attachment, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392-415.
Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 100-118.
Trombetta, J. J., & Rogers, D. P. (1988). Communication climate, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: The effects of information adequacy, communication openness, and decision participation. Management Communication Quarterly, 1(4), 494-514.
Wellman, B. (1981). Applying network analysis to the study of support. Social Networks and Social Support, 4, 171-200.
Zimmermann, S., & Applegate, J. L. (1994). Communicating Social Support in
Appendix
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, correlations and alpha coefficients
Variable M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Org. Family Support 3.46 (0.98) .87 2. Sup. Family Support 3.13 (1.10) .48*** .93 3. Cow. Fam. Support 3.19 (0.89) .31*** .45*** .90 4. Trust 3.74 (0.89) .45*** .78*** .35*** .71 5. Comm. Openness 3.31 (0.90) .46*** .71*** .41*** .70*** .91 6. Job Satisfaction 4.12 (0.86) .45*** .56*** .41*** .61*** .52*** .85 7. Work-Family Con. 2.74 (1.14) -.40*** -.33*** -.22*** -.26*** -.18*** -.37*** .91 8. Policy Use 1.63 (1.22) .13** .07 .10* .09* .13** .11** -.06 9. Gender 1.43 (.51) .09 .07 -.05 -.04 .04 -.03 -.06 -.06 10.Dependents 1.40 (.49) -.03 -.04 .02 -.05 -.02 .01 .08 .18*** .00 11. Working Hours 39.62 (8.10) -.11*** -.07 -.11*** -.08 .01 -.02 .33*** -.20*** .22*** -.12**
Table 2 Measurement Model Item R2 (AVE) St. Factor loadinga Unst. Factor loadingb Se
Coworker Support (higher-order factor)
Emotional Support
.81
.90 .947 1.000b
My coworkers are willing listen to my personal problems. .62 .778 1.000b
My coworkers are interested in my life outside of work. .63 .785 .958 .045
My coworkers show concern for my general well-being. .60 .786 .938 .044
Instrumental Support .88 .898 .951 .055
My colleagues assist me, when I have difficulties arranging work and nonwork tasks. .62 .784 1.000b
If I was unable to fulfill my work tasks due to issues in my personal life, my colleagues would offer to help.
.61 .780 1.010 .047
When I need help fulfilling both my work and private responsibilities, I can count on my colleagues to back me up.
.70 .835 1.077 .047
Informational Support .64 .858 .778 .054
My coworkers give me advice on how to fulfill both work and personal responsibilities.
.43 .653 1.000b
My colleagues and I talk about how we arrange both our work and personal life. .60 .774 1.195 .073
My colleagues talk openly about how they manage their work and nonwork tasks. .57 .754 1.116 .069
Organizational Support .57
Work should be the primary priority in a person’s life. .55 .741 1000b
Individuals who take time off to attend to personal matters are not committed to their work.
.63 .793 1.053 .051
Employees who are highly committed to their personal lives, cannot be highly committed to their work.
.61 .783 1.033 .051
It is assumed that the most productive employees are those who put their work before their family life.
.62 .789 1.140 .056
Attending to personal needs, such as taking time off for sick children is frowned upon.
.43 .653 .833 .050
Supervisor Support .67
My supervisor is able to manage the department as a whole team to enable everyone’s needs to be met.
.73 .856 1000b
My supervisor makes me feel comfortable talking to him or her about my conflicts between work and nonwork.
.75 .866 1.010 .035
I can depend on my supervisor to help me with scheduling conflicts if I need it. .67 .823 1.103 .036
My supervisor works effectively with workers to creatively solve conflicts between work and nonwork.
.76 .871 .995 .035
My supervisor is a good role model for work and nonwork balance. .44 .659 1.043 .033
My supervisor is creative in reallocating job duties to help the department work better as a team.
.62 .788 .788 .039
My supervisor is willing to listen to my problems in juggling work and nonwork life. .69 .831 .946 .036
Communication Climate (higher-order factor) .70
Trust .77 .866 1.000b
When my direct boss tells me something, I trust him/her to be candid and honest. .78 .881 1000b
If the general management of my organization tells us something (about how we are doing our job), I trust them to tell us the truth.
.45 .668 .789 .044
Openness .65 .803 .869 .046
Supervisors follow up on peoples’ opinions .76 .869 1.000b
Supervisors listen to bad news .53 .731 .806 .034
People listen to new ideas from coworkers .39 .628 .652 .035
Supervisors listen to new ideas .71 .844 .965 .032
Supervisors follow up on suggestions .73 .852 .985 .033
Supervisors ask for personal opinions .69 .829 1.038 .036
Job Satisfaction .67
All in all I am satisfied with my job. .70 .835 1.000b
In general, I don’t like my job. (R) .52 .718 .866 .042
In general, I like working here. .78 .882 1.032 .040
Work-Family Conflict ..67
The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life. .55 .741 1000b
The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities. .73 .852 1.193 .051
Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me.
.51 .714 .994 .052
Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activities. .81 .897 1.223 .050
Table 3
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for the Coworker Family Support Scale
German-speaking sample (N=724) English-speaking sample (N= 307)
Item R2 St. Factor loadinga Unst. Factor loadingb Se R2 St. Factor loadinga Unst. Factor loadingb Se Emotional Support .88 .86
My coworkers are willing listen to my personal problems.
.62 .784 1.000b .64 .802 1.000b
My coworkers are interested in my life outside of work.
.63 .791 .958 .044 .66 .814 .898 .061
My coworkers show concern for my general well-being.
.60 .776 0.920 .044 .63 .795 .834 .058
Instrumental Support .88 .80
My colleagues assist me, when I have
difficulties arranging work and nonwork tasks.
.62 .785 1.000b .60 .776 1.000b
If I was unable to fulfill my work tasks due to issues in my personal life, my colleagues would offer to help
.61 .778 1.007 .047 .69 .829 .991 .067
When I need help fulfilling both my work and private responsibilities, I can count on my colleagues to back me up.
.70 .836 1.076 .047 .70 .836 1.022 .069
Informational Support .64 .71
My coworkers give me advice on how to fulfill both work and personal responsibilities.
.43 .660 1.000b .57 .717 1.000b
My colleagues and I talk about how we arrange both our work and personal life.
.60 .774 1.197 .073 .56 .749 0.862 .072
My colleagues talk openly about how they manage their work and nonwork tasks.
Table 4
Indirect pathways between support variables to outcome variables through communication climate
Bootstrapping BC 95% CI
Indirect effect through communication climate Estimate SE Lower Upper p
Organizational support Job Satisfaction 0.128 .026 .079 .181 .000 Organizational support Work-Family Conflict -0.101 .024 -.150 -.056 .000 Organizational support Policy Use 0.035 .013 .013 .065 .001 Supervisor support Job Satisfaction 0.382 .029 .331 .446 .000 Supervisor support Work-Family Conflict -0.298 .035 -.371 -.233 .000
Supervisor support Policy Use 0.103 .032 .042 .165 .002
Coworker support Job Satisfaction 0.063 .025 .014 .113 .014 Coworker support Work-Family Conflict -0.049 .021 -.093 -.011 .012
Table 5
Indirect pathways between communication climate to outcome variables through support variables
Bootstrapping BC 95% CI
Indirect effect from communication climate (CC) Estimate SE Lower Upper p
CCOrganizational support Job Satisfaction 0.105 .026 .057 .159 .000 CCOrganizational support Work-Family Conflict -0.217 .039 -.300 -.147 .000 CCOrganizational support Policy Use 0.085 .038 .012 .164 .021 CCSupervisor support Job Satisfaction 0.314 .044 .233 .407 .000 CCSupervisor support Work-Family Conflict -0.165 .059 -.285 -.050 .005 CCSupervisor support Policy Use 0.107 .068 -.022 .247 .104 CCCoworker support Job Satisfaction 0.076 .022 .037 .123 .000 CCCoworker support Work-Family Conflict -0.043 .031 -.108 .017 .147
Note. Significance at p < .05. = *, Significance at p < .01 = **, Significance at p < .001 = *** Figure 1. Mediation Model
Note. Significance at p < .05. = *, Significance at p < .01 = **, Significance at p < .001 = *** Figure 2. Alternative Model
