Women in Management Review

A gender-sensitive study of McClelland's needs, stress, and turnover intent with work-
family conflict
Juliana D. Lilly Jo Ann Duffy Meghna Virick
Article information:
To cite this document:
Juliana D. Lilly Jo Ann Duffy Meghna Virick, (2006),"A gender-sensitive study of McClelland's needs, stress,
and turnover intent with work-family conflict", Women in Management Review, Vol. 21 Iss 8 pp. 662 - 680
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09649420610712045
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

Downloaded on: 10 February 2015, At: 08:02 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 61 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2936 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Vanessa Ratten, Timothy David Ryan, Michael Sagas, (2009),"Relationships between pay satisfaction,
work-family conflict, and coaching turnover intentions", Team Performance Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 3/4 pp. 128-140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527590910964919
I.M. Jawahar, Pegah Hemmasi, (2006),"Perceived organizational support for women's advancement and
turnover intentions: The mediating role of job and employer satisfaction", Women in Management Review,
Vol. 21 Iss 8 pp. 643-661 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09649420610712036
Katarina Katja Miheli#, (2014),"Work-family interface, job satisfaction and turnover intention: A
CEE transition country perspective", Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 9 Iss 4 pp. 446-466 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/BJM-09-2013-0141

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 310049 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0964-9425.htm

WIMR
21,8 A gender-sensitive study of
McClelland’s needs, stress, and
turnover intent with
662
work-family conflict
Received June 2006
Revised July 2006
Juliana D. Lilly and Jo Ann Duffy
Accepted July 2006 Department of Management and Marketing,
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA, and
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

Meghna Virick
Department of Organization and Management,
San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to study gender differences in the relationship between
McClelland’s needs, stress, and turnover intentions with work-family conflict.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey data were collected from 383 individuals representing 15
different industries. Multiple regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses.
Findings – Results suggest that McClelland’s needs act as an antecedent of work-family conflict, and
that they have a differential impact on work-family conflict for women and men.
Research limitations/implications – The subjects were college graduates, hence it was a
self-selected sample, and the results may not generalise to other populations.
Practical implications – Women are more affected by family obligations than men and this may
impact the performance and turnover intentions of women in organisations.
Originality/value – This paper enhances understanding of work-family conflict by specifically
examining individual differences such as need for power, need for achievement and need for affiliation
and evaluating their impact on turnover intention and job tension.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Personal needs, Sex and gender issues, Employee turnover
Paper type Research paper

Women in Management Review
Vol. 21 No. 8, 2006
pp. 662-680
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0964-9425
DOI 10.1108/09649420610712045
Introduction
Recent statistics indicate that women in the USA make up almost half of the labour force
today (US Census Bureau, 2004) and increasingly more workers are engaged in a dual
career lifestyle. These trends have led to extensive research on the relationship between
work and family roles (Eby et al., 2005). Early research focused on analyzing the various
dimensions of the work-family role system (Pleck, 1977) and more recently, a significant
amount of this research has been directed towards the examination of work family conflict.
Work-family conflict (WFC) occurs for men and women in the sense that anyone with a job
and a family may need to cope simultaneously with the demands of both. However, the
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Institute of Behavioral and Applied
Management (IBAM) Conference, October 2005. This research was sponsored by the Office of
Research and Sponsored Programs at Sam Houston State University, TX, USA.
 cultural pressure placed on women to take primary responsibility for family matters McClelland’s
seems to indicate that women may experience WFC to a greater extent than men. A recent
study indicated that while men leave the workforce mainly to reposition themselves for a
needs, stress, and
career change, the majority of women leave work to attend to family responsibilities at turnover
home (Hewlett and Luce, 2005). The purpose of this paper is to explore this premise and
study antecedents and consequences of WFC by using McClelland’s need theory
(McClelland, 1961; McClelland and Stahl, 1986), role theory (Kahn et al., 1964; Katz and 663
Kahn, 1978) and the theory of gender reproduction (West and Zimmerman, 1987).

Work-family conflict
WFC has been defined as “a form of inter-role conflict in which role pressures from
work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus and
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

Beutell, 1985, p. 77). Three major sources of conflict between work and family roles
have been identified namely:
(1) time-based conflict experienced due to incompatible time demands between
work and family;
(2) strain-based conflict experienced due to affective spillover from one domain to
another; and
(3) behaviour-based conflict which is experienced when in-role behaviour in one
domain is incompatible with role behaviour in the other domain (Greenhaus and
Beutell, 1985).
Research has proposed that conflict between work and family can originate in either
domain, that is work can interfere with family needs (WIF) or family can interfere with
work responsibilities (FIW) (Gutek et al., 1991). There is a direct positive relationship
between WIF and FIW (Huang et al., 2004) and in general people report greater WIF
than FIW (Ferber et al., 1991; Gutek et al., 1991; Frone et al., 1992a, b). The present
study examines both WIF and FIW with a general measure of conflict not
differentiated by time-based, strain-based, or behaviour-based conflict.
WFC has been associated with a number of work-related, family-related and
stress-related factors such as job dissatisfaction, life dissatisfaction, turnover
intentions, stress and psychological strain (Allen et al., 2000; Good et al., 1988;
Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Netemeyer et al., 1996; O’Driscoll et al., 1992; Kelloway et al.,
1999). Research has found that WIF and FIW are related but distinct. For example,
Gignac et al. (1996) found that FIW, but not WIF was related to absenteeism, and WIF,
but not FIW, predicted job dissatisfaction. Frone et al. (1992a) found that FIW, but not
WIF was related to job distress. Kinnunen et al. (2003, p. 1672) state that “it seems both
types of conflicts have the same kind of effect, or at least their differential effects have
not yet been clearly shown”. However, there is some support for the idea that the
outcomes of WIF are family related while the outcomes of FIW are work-related
(Wayne et al., 2004). The present study attempts to identify differential effects of
WIF and FIW on both stress and intent to leave as they pertain to working men
and women.

Work-family conflict and individual differences

Antecedents of WFC include demographic and situational factors, and individual
differences. Demographic factors include gender, marital status, number of children
 WIMR (Greenhaus et al., 1997; Gutek et al., 1991), and number of hours worked per week
21,8 (Frone et al., 1997; Gutek et al., 1991; Tausig and Fenwick, 2001). Two situational
sources of WFC include role ambiguity and role conflict (Barling and MacEwen, 1992;
Bedeian et al., 1988; Jones and Butler, 1980; Greenhaus et al., 1987). Several researchers
have examined how individual differences are related to WFC. For example, Grzywacz
and Marks (2000) found that neuroticism was positively related to both work-to-family
664 conflict and family-to-work conflict and extraversion was negatively related to
work-to-family conflict. Kinnunen et al. (2003) studied moderating effects of the big five
personality dimensions on WIF, FIW, and well-being among working fathers.
Emotional stability moderated the relationships of WIF and job exhaustion and
between WIF and depression. Agreeableness moderated the relationship between FIW
and marital satisfaction. Moreover, both personality dimensions had main effects on
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

well-being. In another study of the big five personality dimensions, Wayne et al. (2004)
found that extraversion was not related to WFC. However, conscientiousness was
associated with reduced conflict and neuroticism with increases in conflict.
A number of other personality variables have also been related to WFC. Negative
affectivity has been linked to greater WFC (Carlson, 1999). Results of Type A
behaviour and WFC studies have had mixed results (Noor, 2002). While internal locus
of control orientation did not moderate the effect of WFC on job satisfaction, locus of
control did appear to reduce women’s perceptions of conflict (Noor, 2002). The success
that researchers have had in exploring the relationship of individual differences on
WFC suggests that further research in this area will be beneficial.

McClelland’s needs in work-family conflict

Since, conflict can result when people’s fulfilment of their needs is thwarted, a
promising area to explore would be the relationship of needs to WFC. McClelland’s
theory of needs (McClelland, 1961; McClelland and Stahl, 1986) focuses on three types
of needs that are important to understand motivation. They are need for
achievement – the drive to excel, to succeed; need for power – the need to control
other’s behaviour; and need for affiliation – the desire for close interpersonal
relationships. These intrinsic motivators are rewards themselves. The importance of
each of these needs varies from person to person. When a person’s effort to meet their
needs is thwarted, they experience stress and conflict. We, therefore, suggest that high
needs for achievement, power, and affiliation would tend to increase WFC because the
pressures to fulfil the roles at work and home are incompatible and will tend to impede
need fulfilment. For example, a person with a high need for achievement will not settle
for anything less than excellence. When family responsibilities take away from the
time it takes to be successful at work or when work responsibilities take time away
from being “Super Mom or Dad” this person may experience increased WFC:
H1a. As need for achievement increases, WIF increases.
H1b. As need for achievement increases, FIW increases.
A person with a high need for power has a strong need to influence other people and
wants to make a significant impact on others. When demands at work or at home
increase, individuals may be forced to choose one realm of influence over the other,
leaving them with an unfulfilled power need either at home or at work. As work
responsibilities become more demanding, the individual’s influence at home often
 diminishes. As home responsibilities become more demanding, the individual’s McClelland’s
influence at work is affected. McClelland’s (1961) theory proposes that an unmet need needs, stress, and
motivates the individual to fulfil that need; thus, someone with a need that cannot be
met will become frustrated and more likely to experience conflict: turnover
H2a. As need for power increases, WIF increases.
H2b. As need for power increases, FIW increases. 665
Individuals with a high need for affiliation have a strong desire to establish and
maintain friendly, compatible interpersonal relationships. Because these people
typically want to like others and want others to like them, they prefer to avoid conflict
and competition with others. Sometimes individuals with a high need for affiliation
exhibit strong conformity to the wishes of other people to maintain a friendly
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

relationship. When conflict between work and family erupts, the person who has a
strong need for affiliation may be forced to choose between maintaining a good
relationship with people at work or maintaining a good relationship with family
members. If the need cannot be fulfilled in both the work and family realm, the
individual is likely to become frustrated and experience even higher levels of conflict:
H3a. As need for affiliation increases, WIF increases.
H3b. As need for affiliation increases, FIW increases.

Work-family conflict and organisational consequences

Researchers have shown that human resources practices may predict WFC and
turnover intentions (Batt and Valcour, 2003) and that WFC is positively correlated with
emotional exhaustion (Senecal et al., 2001). Other studies have suggested that WIF and
FIW may lead not only to withdrawal at work (Greenhaus et al., 2001), but also to
turnover intentions (Boyer et al., 2003). These studies, along with the knowledge that
some individuals react to stress by increasing absenteeism at work or quitting (Hardy
et al., 2003; Johns, 1997), suggest that there could be a direct relationship between WFC
and turnover intentions. In addition, if WFC is positively correlated with emotional
exhaustion, it is likely that there is a direct relationship between WFC and stress
experienced at work, leading to increased levels of turnover. Thus:
H4a. As WIF increases, intent to turnover increases.
H4b. As FIW increases, intent to turnover increases.
H5a. As WIF increases, job induced tension increases.
H5b. As FIW increases, job induced tension increases.
H6. As job induced tension increases, intent to turnover increases.

Gender differences in work-family conflict

Role theory in work-family conflict
When a person cannot fulfil the need for achievement or one of the other needs
identified by McClelland, the resulting conflict may not be equal in both domains of
WFC. Role theory offers an explanation for the possible differences in how needs
predict changes in the conflict of the two domains. Role theory also suggests why there
 WIMR may be differences between men and women in this area. A role is an expected pattern
21,8 or set of behaviours. Role theorist, Thoits (1992) pointed out the importance of
examining not just the number of roles a person has, but also how the person combines
and structures those roles. Based on the assumptions of role theory, boundary
management and role embracement of the roles affects how a person manages those
roles (Nippert-Eng, 1996; Goffman, 1961; Kossek et al., 1999).
666 Boundary management refers to the way one organises and separates role demands
and expectations to the specific domains or work and home. Some individuals segment
them and create mutually exclusive worlds. Under this scenario, a person keeps work
and family roles completely separated and deals with family matters during non work
time and work matters only during work time. This person never brings work home.
Having non overlapping boundaries means that the domains have little impact on each
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

other. However, it is also possible that one domain’s boundary is more permeable than
the others which would decrease the likelihood that the person could meet their need
for achievement in the domain with the more permeable boundary as well as they could
in the domain with the impermeable boundary. Role embracement refers to the
intensity with which one enacts a role. Intensity is shown by the amount of time and
energy devoted to the role. Some employees may elect to devote most of their time and
energy to their job; others may choose to be more intensely involved in the family role.
Differences in role embracement would be expected to result in differences in perceived
conflict when the there is a high need for achievement. Societal pressures for women to
embrace their role in the family and expectations that men embrace their work role
suggest that we will find differences in terms of how needs predict conflict within the
two domains.

Reproduction of gender and work-family conflict

Sex and gender are considered to be two different things. An individual’s sex is
classified according to biology, while gender is constructed by society to guide
individuals into activities that are expressively masculine or feminine (Henley, 1985).
These activities are defined by a culture to determine the roles that men and women are
expected to play in that society. The literature on gender is very rich in distinguishing
the various theories (Chafetz, 1990; Collins et al., 1993), but this paper will focus on
“doing gender” the production and reproduction of gender through interactions with
others (West and Zimmerman, 1987).
The premise of “doing gender” is that differences are created between men and
women on a basis other than anatomy. These differences are constructed through
everyday interactions such as dating or working. For instance, women who are
physically big and strong tend to pair themselves with men who are bigger and
stronger than themselves to fit into society’s typical expectation of couples, with the
man being visibly bigger and stronger than the woman (West and Zimmerman, 1987).
A female physician who is highly respected for her medical skills is often evaluated by
normative expectations of her sex, and she may feel pressure to prove that she is a
good mother as well to colleagues, friends, family, and even herself (West, 1984).
“Doing gender” in the workplace refers to the production of gender at work. Since,
women are responsible for an excessive amount of labour at home when compared to
men (Hartmann, 1981; Kalleberg and Rosenfeld, 1990; Shelton, 1990; Shelton and John,
1996), the tasks that are normatively considered “female” become part of the process of
 reproducing gender. In essence, women take on the role of child care provider, and McClelland’s
general household organiser, and enact this role at home, in social interactions, and in needs, stress, and
work interactions. As a result, women are often expected to take care of family issues
even if they interfere with social activities or work activities. turnover
Because the gender research clearly shows that societal norms and individual
actions create a situation in which women and men are expected to perform different
tasks based on gender, we expect these differences to be found when studying the 667
conflict between work and family. Because women are expected to be more responsible
for family issues than men, we expect the relationship between FIW and job induced
tension and between FIW and intent to turnover to be stronger for women than for
men:
H7. The relationship between FIW and job-induced tension will be stronger for
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

women.
H8. The relationship between FIW and intent to turnover will be stronger for
women.
Because men are typically expected to be the breadwinner for the family and less
typically expected to manage household issues, we expect men to experience more
problems with WIF than with FIW conflict. Although society does not expect men to
manage family issues the same way as women, this does not mean that men do not
want to be involved in family issues. It simply means that societal expectations for men
are different. Thus, the man who spends excessive amounts of time at work trying to
get promoted because that is what men do, may feel pressure from work to succeed and
may feel resentful that he does not spend more time with his family, creating much
stress:
H9. The relationship between WIF and job-induced tension will be stronger for
men.
Since, men are less likely to feel pressure from society about family issues, when a
man’s work interferes with family, the man is expected to perform his primary role as
provider. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to feel pressure from society about
family matters. Thus, when a woman’s work interferes with family, the woman is
likely to engage in gender production and leave her job for one that does not interfere
with family:
H10. The relationship between WIF and intent to turnover will be stronger for
women.

McClelland’s needs and reproduction of gender

Need for power, need for achievement, and need for affiliation (McClelland, 1961;
McClelland and Stahl, 1986) are considered to be personal traits that could influence the
amount of work/family conflict experienced. When coupled with the production of
gender theory, the impact of these personal traits on WIF and FIW could differ for men
and women.
Men are generally stereotyped as being strong and powerful whereas women
generally are stereotyped as being nurturing. As such, the personal traits of need for
power and need for achievement may be perceived as more prevalent for men than for
 WIMR women, while need for affiliation may be perceived as more prevalent for women than
21,8 for men. If the stereotype is based on societal expectations of male and female
behaviour, then it is possible that men and women produce their gender and perceive
their needs accordingly. As such, the relationship between McClelland’s needs and
work-family conflict will differ between men and women:
H11a. The relationship between need for power and WIF will be stronger for
668 women.
H11b. The relationship between need for power and FIW will be stronger for men.
H12a. The relationship between need for achievement and WIF will be stronger
for women.
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

H12b. The relationship between need for achievement and FIW will be stronger
for men.
H13a. The relationship between need for affiliation and WIF will be stronger for
men.
H13b. The relationship between need for affiliation and FIW will be stronger for
women.

Method
Subjects for the study were contacted through the alumni association of a university in
the Southwest USA in 2003. About 20,000 letters were sent to a random sample of
alumni asking them to participate in a longitudinal study on work attitudes. About
1,207 alumni returned cards stating that they would participate, and this survey
conducted in February of 2004 generated 383 usable surveys for a response rate of
31.73 per cent, with subjects working in 15 different industries. The data in this paper
are from the third survey in a series of four. The first six hypotheses were tested with
all data while the gender-specific hypotheses were tested with 315 surveys due to
missing demographic data. The final sample characteristics, shown in Table I, are
broken down by gender.
The manifest needs questionnaire (Steers and Braunstein, 1976) is used to measure
need for power, need for achievement, and need for affiliation. There are 12 questions,
three for power, four for achievement, and five for affiliation, that are measured using a
7-point Likert scale. Example questions include “I take moderate risks and stick my
neck out to get ahead at work” for need for achievement; “I strive to gain more control
over events around me at work” for need for power; and “I get satisfaction from being
with others more than a lot of other people do” for need for affiliation. This scale has
been used in the past with good reliabilities (O’Connor and Morrison, 2001). WIF and
FIW are measured using items from scales developed by Netemeyer et al. (1996). There
are three items measuring each type of conflict using a 7-point Likert scale. An
example of an item measuring work interference in family is “My work takes up time
that I’d like to spend with family/friends” and family interference in work is “My
personal demands are so great that it takes away from my work”. Job-induced tension
is measured with seven items from the anxiety-stress questionnaire (House and Rizzo,
1972). Responses to the job-induced tension measures are true or false, and averaged,
based on the original conceptualisation of the construct. Turnover intention is
 Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

Education level attained Job type (self reported)

n Bachelor Masters Doctorate Employee Manager Executive Professional Avg. age Avg. hours worked per week

Male 162 (51.4) 87 (53.7) 65 (39.2) 10 (6.0) 34 (21.0) 35 (21.6) 32 (19.8) 61 (37.7) 44.2 46.5
Female 153 (48.6) 87 (58.0) 60 (40.0) 3 (2.0) 37 (24.2) 21 (13.7) 5 (3.3) 90 (58.8) 42.5 42.1
Note: Figures within the parentheses represent percentage

Sample demographics
Table I.
McClelland’s

turnover
needs, stress, and

669
 WIMR measured using a three-item scale from Cammann et al. (1979) on a seven-point Likert
21,8 scale. Table II shows the correlation matrix of all measured variables along with
reliabilities. All reliabilities were satisfactory.

Results
An initial confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was done to test the measurement model.
670 All variables except job-induced tension, which was a dichotomous variable, were
included. The x 2 for the confirmatory factor analysis was significant at 317.19 (df, 174,
p , 0.00). Additional measures of fit included the goodness of fit index (GFI), the
normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). Estimation of the CFA model generated a GFI of 0.93, a CFI
of 0.96, an NFI of 0.92 and an RMSEA of 0.046, suggesting that the measurement model
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

is appropriate for these data.

Regression was used to test the causal relationships between variables, as
job-induced tension was a dichotomous measure. Results are listed in Tables III and IV.
The first hypothesis, H1a, stated that there is a positive relationship between need for
power and WIF. The results support this hypothesis (F ¼ 8.81, p , 0.01). Two per cent
of the variance in work/family conflict is explained by need for power. H1b stated that
there is a positive relationship between need for power and FIW. This hypothesis was
not supported (F ¼ 1.48, p , 0.23).

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Need for power 14.93 3.23 (0.81)

2. Need for achievement 21.23 3.57 0.52 * * (0.78)
3. Need for affiliation 24.72 6.16 0.21 * * 0.14 * * (0.88)
4. Work/family conflict 10.44 4.93 0.15 * * 0.14 * * 0.09 (0.83)
5. Family/work conflict 6.00 2.91 0.06 2 0.20 0.13 * 0.21 * * (0.68)
6. Job-induced tension 1.33 0.28 0.13 * 0.09 2 0.07 0.40 * * 0.20 * * (0.73)
Table II. 7. Intent to turnover 7.96 5.62 2 0.07 2 0.07 2 0.05 0.04 0.13 * 0.24 * * (0.89)
Descriptive statistics and
correlations Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; coefficient a representing scale reliabilities are in parentheses

Independent variable Dependent variable F-statistic ba R2

H1a Need for power WIF 8.81 * * 0.15 * * 0.02

H1b FIW 1.48 0.06 0.00
H2a Need for Achv WIF 7.24 * * 0.14 * * 0.02
H2b FIW 0.15 2 0.02 0.00
H3a Need for affil WIF 3.41 0.10 0.00
H3b FIW 6.35 * * 0.13 * * 0.02
H4a WIF Intent to turnover 0.51 0.04 0.00
H4b FIW 5.95 * 0.13 * 0.02
H5a WIF JIT 72.27 * * * 0.40 * * * 0.16
H5b FIW JIT 16.04 * * * 0.20 * * * 0.04
Table III. H6 JIT Turnover 23.78 * * * 0.24 * * * 0.06
Regression results for
H1-H6 Notes: aStandardised b, * p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001
 McClelland’s
Independent variable Dependent variable F-statistic ba R2
needs, stress, and
H7 FIW Job-induced tension Men 3.20 0.14 0.02 turnover
Women 10.00 * * 0.25 * * 0.06
H8 FIW Intention to turnover Men 0.46 0.05 0.00
Women 5.19 * * 0.18 * * 0.03
H9 WIF Job induced tension Men 42.96 * * * 0.46 * * * 0.21 671
Women 28.87 * * * 0.40 * * * 0.16
H10 WIF Intention to turnover Men 1.80 0.11 0.01
Women 0.33 0.05 0.00
H11a Need for power WIF Men 4.75 * 0.17 * 0.03
Women 4.22 * 0.16 * 0.03
H11b Need for power FIW Men 0.06 0.02 0.00
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

Women 2.14 0.12 0.01

H12a Need for achv WIF Men 2.09 0.11 0.01
Women 6.35 * * 0.20 * * 0.04
H12b Need for achv FIW Men 3.82 * 2 0.15 * 0.02
Women 1.66 0.10 0.01
H13a Need for affil WIF Men 6.41 * * 0.19 * * 0.04
Women 0.00 0.00 0.00
H13b Need for affil FIW Men 1.69 0.10 0.01
Women 1.81 0.11 0.01 Table IV.
Regression results for
a
Notes: Standardised b; * p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001 H7-H13

H2a looks at the relationship between need for achievement and WIF. Data results
show a significant positive relationship between these two variables (F ¼ 7.24,
p , 0.01), with explained variance being relatively low (R 2 ¼ 0.02). H2b stating that
there is a positive relationship between need for achievement and FIW was not
supported (F ¼ 0.15, p , 0.70). The third hypothesis stated that there is a positive
relationship between need for affiliation and the two types of conflict between work
and family. Whereas H3a, which looked at the relationship between need for affiliation
and WIF was not supported (F ¼ 3.41, p , 0.07), H3b, did show a significant positive
correlation between need for affiliation and FIW (F ¼ 6.35, p , 0.01). In summary,
results of the first three hypotheses show that there are significant positive
relationships between:
.
need for power and WIF;
.
need for achievement and WIF; and
.
need for affiliation and FIW.

Although the R 2 values are low, it should be noted that there are clear differences
between the impact of the three needs on WIF and FIW.
H4a was not supported, but H4b, which predicted a positive relation between FIW
and turnover intention was supported (F ¼ 5.95, p , 0.02).
The fifth set of hypotheses looked at the relationship between the two types of
conflict and job-induced tension. H5a stated there was a positive relationship between
WIF and job-induced tension, while H5b stated there was a positive relationship
between FIW and job-induced tension. Both hypotheses were supported (H5a:
F ¼ 72.27, p , 0.001; H5b: F ¼ 16.04, p , 0.001). H6 was also supported (F ¼ 23.78,
 WIMR p , 0.001), suggesting that as job-induced tension increases, intention to turnover also
21,8 increases.
The next set of hypotheses compare responses of men and women to see if they
differ in the types and amounts of conflict experienced. Table IV lists these results. H7
states that the relationship between FIW and job-induced tension will be stronger for
women. The hypothesis was supported, with the relationship being significant for
672 women (F ¼ 10.00, p , 0.01), but not for men (F ¼ 3.20, p , 0.08). H8 states that the
relationship between FIW and intention to turnover will be stronger for women. Again
we found a relationship that was significant for women (F ¼ 5.19, p , 0.01), but not for
men (F ¼ 0.46, p , 0.49). H9 was not supported because both men and women showed
a strong positive relationship between WIF and job-induced tension (F ¼ 28.87,
p , 0.001 for women and F ¼ 42.96, p , 0.001 for men), but the R 2 value for men
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

(R 2 ¼ 0.21) was slightly higher than the value for women (R 2 ¼ 0.16). H10 was not
supported.
H11a was not supported as both men and women showed significant positive
relationships between the two variables (F ¼ 4.22, p , 0.05 for women and F ¼ 4.75,
p , 0.05 for men). H11b was also not supported.
The 12th set of hypotheses proposed that there would be a difference between men
and women in the relationship between need for achievement and WIF (H12a) and in
the relationship between need for achievement and FIW (H12b). Both of these
hypotheses were supported. For H12a, there was a stronger relationship between need
for achievement and WIF for women (F ¼ 6.35, p , 0.01) than for men (F ¼ 2.09,
p , 0.15). For H12b, there was a stronger relationship between need for achievement
and FIW for men (F ¼ 3.82, p , 0.05) than for women (F ¼ 1.66, p , 0.20).
H13a was supported, with men having a significant positive relationship between
need for affiliation and WIF (F ¼ 6.41, p , 0.01), but not women (F ¼ 0.00, p , 0.99).
H13b was not supported.

Discussion
Results of the first six hypotheses tests indicated that individuals with a high need for
power and a high need for achievement are likely to experience WIF, but not FIW.
These findings suggest that someone who has a high need for power or achievement is
more likely to let work become the focal point for meeting those needs. The family
needs, while they may or may not be important to the individual, are secondary,
possibly resulting in an escalation of family-related problems for these workers. The
implication of these findings for society is sobering as well, since family-related
problems often turn into societal-level problems. The third hypothesis looked at the
relationship between need for affiliation and conflict between work and family. The
results show that as need for affiliation increases, FIW also increases, but WIF does
not. In other words, an individual with a strong need for affiliation is likely to allow
family-related matters to become a focal point for meeting those needs. In a work
setting, individuals with a high need for affiliation are most likely to be in jobs that
require much social interaction and often excel in these types of jobs. These same
individuals, however, are also motivated to maintain good interpersonal relationships
with family members. The end result is that the desire to get along with everyone may
cause the individual to be unable to say “No”. This situation may result in an employee
 being less productive, but may also help prevent some of the family issues mentioned McClelland’s
above since the employee wants to be involved both at work and with the family. needs, stress, and
The finding that FIW, but not WIF, was positively linked to intention to turnover
appears to support Wayne et al.’s (2004) contention that FIW has a different set of turnover
outcomes than WIF. Turnover intention is a work related outcome which may explain
why it is linked to FIW but not to WIF. The finding that increases in job induced
tension are associated with both FIW and WIF becomes more important in light of a 673
related finding that job induced tension is associated with turnover intention. Job
induced tension appears to be a role permeable variable meaning that either type of
role conflict can lead to tension. The fact that WIF and FIW have a reciprocal
relationship (Huang et al., 2004) only exacerbates the likelihood that a person will
experience stress. Therefore, developing strategies for reducing job tension is critical
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

for both men and women, but probably more so for women who tend to experience
greater role overload and WFC than men (Glass and Camarigg, 1992).
The last seven hypotheses look specifically at gender differences. Although we did
not test role theory or reproduction of gender theory in this study, we use these theories
to offer possible explanations for our findings. Results clearly show that FIW is a
greater problem for women. H7 and H8 suggest that there is a direct, positive
relationship between FIW and job-induced tension and between FIW and intention to
turnover for women, but not for men. These results indicate that women may feel more
pressure to take on the role of family manager and caretaker at the expense of work
responsibilities. The explanation that women leave the work force because they “want
to spend more time with their family” may not adequately capture what is happening.
A woman may consider leaving her job not because her job is interfering with her
family responsibilities as the stereotype implies, but rather because her family is
interfering with her work responsibilities. Women, who have lower boundary
separation between their work and family roles, may find it difficult to segment their
work and family roles, unlike some men who can compartmentalise their roles.
The theory of reproduction of gender proposes that women believe society judges
them based on gender expectations; that women are expected to be responsible for
family issues; and that when women believe they are responsible for this role, they
begin to enact that role at work and in social interactions. Women who enact the
feminine gender role may find that increases in FIW lead to increases in job-induced
tension because they are expected to perform just as efficiently as men whose role
expectations revolve primarily around work. This situation is exacerbated by the fact
that women typically have greater family responsibilities than men (Shelton and John,
1996). Thus, men, are less likely to experience FIW and less likely to be overworked
and experience job-induced stress as a result of family-related matters.
From a societal perspective, a potential problem for women who enact the typical
feminine gender role concerns turnover. Results of H8 showed that there is a direct,
positive relationship between FIW and intention to turnover for women, but not for
men. The earnings gap between men and women still exists many years after the
Equal Pay Act of 1963 was passed, and it is possible that the gap is due in part to
the difficulty women have in maintaining the demands of both work and family while
competing with men who have fewer demands on their time. Since, family matters
are considered feminine work, the woman who experiences a great deal of FIW may see
quitting as the only solution. If women quit their jobs when experiencing FIW but men
 WIMR do not, women are automatically at a disadvantage in the workplace in terms of
21,8 experience and tenure, and this difference in experience is often reflected in the salary.
There were no differences between men and women when looking at the
relationship between WIF and job induced tension. Both experienced job induced
tension when work interfered with family. There were also no differences between
men and women in the relationship between WIF and intention to turnover. These
674 findings are interesting in the sense that WIF should create the same type of
gender expectations that FIW creates. However, the emphasis that society places
on income-earning work may have caused a slight shift in opinion. Women are
often expected to work, even if they have a family, and the term “housewife” is
sometimes used as a derogatory term since housework is unpaid labour.
H11, H12, and H13 look at differences between men and women in terms of
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

McClelland’s needs and conflict between work and family. There were no
differences between men and women in H11a and H11b. Results indicated there
was a significant positive relationship between need for power and WIF for men
and women, but there was no significant relationship for men or women between
need for power and FIW.
Results of H12a indicated that there was a significant positive relationship between
need for achievement and WIF for women, but not for men. Results of H12b indicated
that there was a significant negative relationship between need for achievement and
FIW for men, but not for women. The results of H12a and H12b suggest that women
may be more mindful than men of the family sacrifices that must be made to be
successful. For men with a strong need for achievement, FIW actually decreased,
indicating that these men simply do not allow family matters to interfere with work.
This behaviour would fit with the theory of reproduction of gender by society
expecting men to be responsible for matters relating to the work world and providing
for their family without being directly responsible for family management or family
caretaking. Women with a strong need for achievement, however, reported that WIF
increased, suggesting that even women who desire success in the workplace are
conscious of family obligations and the expectation that women are responsible for
both domains.
An interesting finding was the direct positive relationship between need for
affiliation and WIF for men but not for women. There was no significant relationship
between need for affiliation and FIW for men or women. Men with a high need for
affiliation appear to find that their work responsibilities interfere with family
responsibilities more than women. Men are expected to have a strong investment in
their job so when they attempt to meet their need for close relationships within their
families they tend to experience more tension than women. Men may experience this
tension more than women because they are reproducing male gender expectations such
as attributing more importance to the work role than the family role (Cinamon and
Rich, 2002) or setting high boundaries separating work from family roles. Expectations
for women are not the same so they do not experience as much work family conflict as
men.

Limitations and future research

Although this study augments our knowledge of WFC, some questions remain
unanswered. One limitation is the sample which, although represented a wide range of
 industries, jobs, and ages of the working population, is a self-selected sample located McClelland’s
primarily in the Southwest USA that is overwhelmingly Caucasian. Despite the needs, stress, and
self-selected sample, however, the respondents were divided into roughly equal
sections of men (51.4 per cent) and women (48.6 per cent), an important aspect of any turnover
paper studying differences between the genders. In addition, the respondents were all
college graduates, suggesting that the women could be more motivated to advance in
the work place than women not attending college. If this assumption is correct, the 675
differences between men and women are more meaningful since the educated women
in this study would have been exposed to more role models of successful women than
non-educated women. Even after this exposure, however, the women chose to
reproduce gender and conform to society’s expectations of what it means to be
feminine.
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

As with any research study, there is always a danger of leaving out key variables
that could influence the relationships tested. Note also needs to be made of the some
criticisms that have been leveled against McClelland’s need theory. For example, critics
argue that the saliency and contextual relevance of needs change over time. Needs are
constantly changing, both in light of our individual experiences and in reference to
what people around us do and achieve (Pasmore and Fagans, 1992). Since, need
satisfaction is a dynamic process, the relationship between a person’s needs and other
variables can change. Some of the R 2 values were low, suggesting that further research
is needed to determine which additional variables need to be included. Specific
variables related to the causes of conflict between work and family such as amount of
time spent on household chores or perceived role expectations could be useful in
fleshing out more antecedents of WIF and FIW. For instance, work and family
centrality may be key variables that could help explain additional variance in gender
differences. Also, additional outcome variables such as absenteeism or work
performance might help identify specific organisational problems that can be
addressed by this stream of research.
Future research testing reproduction of gender theory and role theory in the context
of individual needs would be beneficial in understanding these relationships more
completely. We use the theories to develop our hypotheses and explain the results, but
a direct test of the theories to determine if the process of “doing gender” creates the
differences in the relationships between McClelland’s needs and the outcome variables
would be helpful. It would also be useful to obtain a more racially diverse sample to
test for racial differences.

Conclusions
This study enhances our understanding of WFC and specifically contributes to the
literature on how individual differences relate to WFC. Firstly, we apply McClelland’s
theory of needs to investigate the impact of need for power, need for achievement and
need for affiliation on both domains of WFC. These individual differences have not
been examined in the context of WFC as yet. Secondly, for the first time, we use
McClelland’s theory of needs to explicate the differential effects of gender on the
consequences of WIF and FIW.
In general, our findings show that there are clear differences between the
perceptions of men and women when it concerns family interference with work.
Women, for the most part, are more affected by family obligations than men. This
 WIMR finding has potential repercussions in the workplace that could include lower
21,8 performance by women on the job, lower salaries for women, and more turnover
for women. Because popular culture has suggested that housework, and by
extension, a housewife, is not valuable enough to be considered paid labour,
women may feel pressured to work and earn a paycheck outside the home. If that
same culture sends the message that women are responsible for all family-related
676 issues as well, women could be trapped into a situation of never-ending work in
both work and family domains.
Historically, women have faced a number of obstacles to equality with men. Some of
the inequality is political in nature, such as women’s suffrage, while some is culturally
based, as in the gender aspects of women’s work being different from men’s work.
Changing the way society looks at gender is not an easy task, and Williams (2000)
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

suggests that feminists should change their strategy from focusing on treating women
in the workplace exactly the same as men to acknowledging that the work patterns of
men and women are different. This does not imply that the way men work is more
valuable, but rather that society should redefine work in a way that does not
marginalize work that women typically perform, such as childcare. Other authors also
suggest the traditional male model of work should be changed (Lewis et al., 2003).
These authors argue that the traditional gendered division of labour assumes that time
spent in the workplace represents commitment, and that employees have wives at
home to take responsibility for any non-work issues. The reality is that both men and
women have non-work responsibilities, and many would prefer to spend less time at
work to do other things. Thus, the issue of work-life balance needs to be reconsidered
at all levels of society, and it is critical to include men’s needs in the debate rather than
just looking at ways to help women. Indeed, our finding that there is a positive
relationship between need for affiliation and WIF for men suggests that some men
might prefer to engage more in a caretaker role.
The findings in this study support the idea that men and women may have different
sets of expectations concerning their responsibilities at work and at home; thus, it
seems logical that changing the way work is performed in organizations would allow
both men and women to achieve higher levels of productivity. Some of the changes
Williams (2000) suggests involve government intervention, such as legislation
forbidding discrimination against parents and requiring equal pay for equal work
performed by full-time and part-time employees. However, organisations wishing to
become proactive could implement policies that support the idea of men and women
having different work patterns, thereby allowing women and men the opportunity to
become more productive in ways that benefit the organisation, the individual, and
society.

References
Allen, T., Herts, D., Bruck, C. and Sutton, M. (2000), “Consequences associated work
work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 278-308.
Barling, J. and MacEwen, K.E. (1992), “Linking work experiences to facets of marital
functioning”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, pp. 573-83.
Batt, R. and Valcour, P.M. (2003), “Human resource practices as predictors of work-family
outcomes and employee turnover”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 189-220.
 Bedeian, A.G., Burke, B.G. and Moffett, R. (1988), “Outcomes of work-family conflict among McClelland’s
married male and female professionals”, Journal of Management, Vol. 14, pp. 475-91.
needs, stress, and
Boyer, S.L., Maertz, C.P., Pearson, A.W. and Keough, S. (2003), “Work-family conflict: a model of
linkages between work and family domain variables and turnover intentions”, Journal of turnover
Managerial Issues, Vol. 5, pp. 175-90.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1979), “The michigan organizational
assessment questionnaire”, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, unpublished 677
manuscript.
Carlson, D.S. (1999), “Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family
conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 55, pp. 236-53.
Chafetz, J.S. (1990), Gender Equity: A Theory of Stability and Change, Sage, London.
Cinamon, R.G. and Rich, Y. (2002), “Gender differences in the importance of work and family
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

roles: implications for work-family conflict”, Sex Roles, Vol. 47 Nos 11/12, pp. 531-41.
Collins, R., Chaftez, J.S., Blumberg, R.L., Coltrane, S. and Turner, J. (1993), “Toward an integrated
theory of gender stratification”, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 36, pp. 185-216.
Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C. and Brinley, A. (2005), “Work and family
research in IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002)”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 66, pp. 124-97.
Ferber, M.A., O’Farrell, B. and Allen, L.R. (Eds) (1991), Work and Family: Policies for a Changing
Workforce, Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992a), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 77, pp. 65-78.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992b), “Prevalence of work-family conflict: are work
and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 13, pp. 723-9.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1997), “Relation of work-family conflict to health
outcomes: a four-year longitudinal study of employed parents”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 325-35.
Gignac, M.A., Kelloway, E.K. and Gottlieb, B.H. (1996), “The impact of caregiving on
employment: a meditation model of work-family conflict”, Canadian Journal on Aging,
Vol. 15, pp. 525-42.
Glass, J. and Camarigg, V. (1992), “Gender, parenthood and job-family compatibility”, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 98, pp. 131-51.
Goffman, I. (1961), Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction, Bobbs-Merrill,
Indianapolis, IN.
Good, L.K., Sisler, G.F. and Gentry, J.W. (1988), “Antecedents of turnover intentions among retail
management”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, pp. 295-314.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 76-88.
Greenhaus, J.H., Bedeian, A.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1987), “Work experiences, job
performance, and feelings of personal and family well-being”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 200-15.
Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S. and Collins, K.M. (2001), “Career involvement and family
involvement as moderators of relationships between work-family conflict and withdrawal
from a profession”, Journal of Occupational Health and Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 91-100.
 WIMR Greenhaus, J.H., Collins, K.M., Singh, R. and Parasuraman, S. (1997), “Work and family influences
on departure from public accounting”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 249-70.
21,8
Grzywacz, J.G. and Marks, N.F. (2000), “Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: an
ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work
and family”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 111-26.
Gutek, B.A., Searle, S. and Klepa, L. (1991), “Rational versus gender role expectations for
678 work-family conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 560-8.
Hardy, G.E., Woods, D. and Wall, T.D. (2003), “The impact of psychological distress on absence
from work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 306-14.
Hartmann, H.I. (1981), “The family as the locus of gender, class and political struggle: the
example of housework”, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 6, pp. 366-94.
Henley, N.M. (1985), “Psychology and gender”, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

Vol. 11, pp. 1100-29.

Hewlett, S.A. and Luce, C.B. (2005), “Off-ramps and on-ramps”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83,
pp. 43-54.
House, R.H. and Rizzo, J.R. (1972), “Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of
organizational behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 7,
pp. 467-505.
Huang, Y., Hammer, L.B., Neal, M.B. and Perrin, N.A. (2004), “The relationship between
work-to-family conflict and family-to work conflict: a longitudinal study”, Journal of
Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 79-100.
Johns, G. (1997), “Contemporary research on absence from work: correlates, causes and
consequences”, International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12,
pp. 115-73.
Jones, A.P. and Butler, M.C. (1980), “A role transition approach to the stresses of organizational
induced family role disruption”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 42, pp. 367-76.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964), Organizational Stress,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Kalleberg, A.L. and Rosenfeld, R.A. (1990), “Work in the family and in the labor market: a
cross-national, reciprocal analysis”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 52, pp. 331-46.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Kelloway, E.K., Gottlieb, B.H. and Barham, L. (1999), “The source, nature, and direction of work
and family conflict: a longitudinal investigation”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 337-46.
Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J. and Makikangas, A. (2003), “Work-family conflict and its
relations to well-being: the role of personality as a moderating factor”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 35, pp. 1669-83.
Kossek, E.E. and 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, Vol. 83, pp. 139-49.
Kossek, E.E., Noe, R.A. and DeMarr, B.J. (1999), “Work-family role synthesis: individual and
organizational determinants”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 102-30.
Lewis, S., Rapoport, R. and Gambles, R. (2003), “Reflections on the integration of paid work and
the rest of life”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 824-41.
McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
 McClelland, D.C. and Stahl, M.M. (1986), Managerial and Technical Motivation: Assessing Needs McClelland’s
for Achievement, Power and Affiliation, Praeger, New York, NY.
needs, stress, and
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation of
work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
turnover
Vol. 81, pp. 400-11.
Nippert-Eng, C. (1996), Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday Life,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 679
Noor, N.M. (2002), “Work-family conflict, locus of control and women’s well-being: tests of
alternative pathways”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 142 No. 5, pp. 645-63.
O’Connor, W.E. and Morrison, T.G. (2001), “A comparison of situational and dispositional
predictors of perceptions of organizational politics”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 135,
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

pp. 301-13.
O’Driscoll, M.P., Ilgen, D.R. and Hildreth, K. (1992), “Time devoted to job and off-job activities,
interrole conflict, and affective experiences”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77,
pp. 272-9.
Pasmore, W.A. and Fagans, M.R. (1992), “Participation, individual development, and
organizational change: a review and synthesis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 18,
pp. 375-97.
Pleck, J.H. (1977), “The work family-role system”, Social Problems, Vol. 24, pp. 417-27.
Senecal, C., Vallerand, R.J. and Guay, F. (2001), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: toward a motivational model”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 27,
pp. 176-86.
Shelton, B.A. (1990), “The distribution of household tasks: does wife’s employment make a
difference?”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 11, pp. 115-35.
Shelton, B.A. and John, D. (1996), “The division of household labor”, Annual Review of Sociology,
Vol. 22, pp. 299-322.
Steers, R.M. and Braunstein, D.N. (1976), “A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in
work settings”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 9, pp. 251-66.
Tausig, M. and Fenwick, R. (2001), “Unbinding time: alternate work schedules and work life
balance”, Journal of Family & Economic Issues, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 101-19.
Thoits, P.A. (1992), “Identity structures and psychological well-being: gender and marital status
comparisons”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 55, pp. 236-56.
US Census Bureau (2004), “Facts for features”, available at: www/releases/archives/
facts_for_features_special_editions/006232.html">www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/
releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/006232.html
Wayne, J.H., Musisca, N. and Fleeson, W. (2004), “Considering the role of personality in the
work-family experience: relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and
facilitation”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64, pp. 108-30.
West, C. (1984), “When the doctor is a ‘lady’: power, status and gender in physician-patient
encounters”, Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 7, pp. 87-106.
West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1987), “Doing gender”, Gender & Society, Vol. 1, pp. 125-51.
Williams, J. (2000), Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to do about It,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
 WIMR About the authors
Juliana D. Lilly is an Assistant Professor of Management at Sam Houston State University. Her
21,8 work on psychological contracts, downsizing, outsourcing, and executive compensation has been
published in such journals as Journal of Business Strategies, Journal of Applied School
Psychology, Journal of Business and Public Affairs, and Managerial Finance. Her current research
interests include organizational justice, work family conflict, and layoffs. She received her PhD
from the University of Texas at Arlington. E-mail: lilly@shsu.edu
680 Jo Ann Duffy (MA, PhD, the University of Texas at Austin) is Director of the Gibson D. Lewis
Center for Business and Economic Development and Professor of Management at Sam Houston
State University in Huntsville, Texas. Her research interests include service productivity, health
care quality, and gender issues relating to leadership. She has published in the Journal of
Educational Administration, Journal of Management, Health Care Management Review, SAM
Advanced Management Journal, Journal of Managerial Issues, International Journal of Bank
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)

Marketing, Benchmarking: An International Journal and the Journal of Aging Studies. Jo Ann
Duffy is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: duffy@shsu.edu
Meghna Virick is an Assistant Professor of Management at San Jose State University. Her
work on diversity, strategic human resource management, reward systems, and turnover has
been published in such journals as the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Human Resource
Management Review, Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, and the Journal
of Business Strategies. Her current research focuses work and family conflict, underemployment
and the effects of job loss. She received her PhD from the University of Texas at Arlington.
E-mail: virick_m@cob.sjsu.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Dorien T. A. M. Kooij, Annet H. De Lange, Paul G. W. Jansen, Ruth Kanfer, Josje S. E. Dikkers.
2011. Age and work-related motives: Results of a meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32:2,
197-225. [CrossRef]
2. Shawn M. Carraher. 2011. Turnover prediction using attitudes towards benefits, pay, and pay satisfaction
among employees and entrepreneurs in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Management 6:1,
25-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Artemis Chang, Paula McDonald, Pauline Burton. 2010. Methodological choices in work-life balance
research 1987 to 2006: a critical review. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21:13,
2381-2413. [CrossRef]
4. Orly Shapira‐Lischshinsky. 2009. Israeli male versus female teachers' intent to leave work. Gender in
Management: An International Journal 24:7, 543-559. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Sam Houston State University At 08:02 10 February 2015 (PT)