WHEN WORK AND FAMILY ARE ALLIES: A THEORY OF WORK-FAMILY ENRICHMENT

WHEN WORK AND FAMILY ARE ALLIES: ATHEORY OF WORK-FAMILY ENRICHMENT

JEFFREY H. GREENHAUSDrexel University

GARY N. POWELLUniversity of Connecticut

We define work-family enrichment as the extent to which experiences in one roleimprove the quality of life in the other role. In this article we propose a theoreticalmodel of work-family enrichment and offer a series of research propositions thatreflect two paths to enrichment: an instrumental path and an affective path. We thenexamine the implications of the model for future research on the work-family enrich-ment process.

In the past twenty-five years, scholars haveproduced a substantial body of literature on theintersection of work and family lives (Barling &Sorensen, 1997; Greenhaus & Parasuraman,1999). Faced with an increasing representationof dual-earner partners and single parents inthe workforce, a blurring of gender roles, and ashift in employee values (Greenhaus & Singh,2004), researchers have sought to explain thenumerous ways in which work and family rolesare interdependent (Barnett, 1998, 1999; Edwards& Rothbard, 2000; Lambert, 1990; Repetti, 1987).Our purpose in this article is to present a theoryof work-family enrichment that specifies theconditions under which work and family rolesare “allies” rather than “enemies” (Friedman &Greenhaus, 2000).

As many scholars have observed, the work-family literature has been dominated by a con-flict perspective (Barnett, 1998; Greenhaus &Parasuraman, 1999; Haas, 1999). Derived from ascarcity hypothesis that assumes a fixedamount of time and human energy, proponentsof the conflict perspective assume that individ-uals who participate in multiple roles (such aswork and family) inevitably experience conflict

and stress that detract from their quality of life.Marks (1977) and Sieber (1974) were skeptical ofthe conflict perspective and suggested that theadvantages of pursuing multiple roles are likelyto outweigh the disadvantages—an expansion-ist hypothesis (Barnett & Baruch, 1985). However,much of the research on the work-family inter-face continues to emphasize conflict, stress, andimpaired well-being.

Recognizing the preoccupation with conflictand stress, in several recent reviews, research-ers have called for a more balanced approachthat recognizes the positive effects of combiningwork and family roles (Barnett, 1998; Frone, 2003;Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999), and Grzywacz(2002) has recently proposed one theory ofthe positive interdependencies between workand family roles. Indeed, researchers haveincreasingly examined positive relationshipsbetween work and family lives, employing suchconcepts as enrichment (Kirchmeyer, 1992a;Rothbard, 2001), positive spillover (Crouter,1984b; Grzywacz, 2000; Grzywacz, Almeida, &McDonald, 2002; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000a,b;Hammer et al., 2002; Hanson, Colton, & Hammer,2003; Kirchmeyer, 1992b, 1993, 1995; Stephens,Franks, & Atienza, 1997; Sumer & Knight, 2001;Voydanoff, 2001), enhancement (Ruderman,Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002; Tiedje et al., 1990),and facilitation (Frone, 2003; Tompson & Werner,1997; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). The in-creased emphasis on positive interdependen-cies between work life and family life is consis-tent with emerging trends in psychology(Seligman, 2002), organizational behavior

We appreciate the many helpful suggestions by formerassociate editor Elizabeth A. Mannix and three anonymousreviewers. We are also grateful for the valuable commentsmade by Dona DeCarolis and John Schaubroeck of DrexelUniversity and scholars at The Pennsylvania State Univer-sity (Jeannette Cleveland, Nan Crouter, Bob Drago, and JohnO’Neill) and Cornell University (Phyllis Moen, Pamela Tal-bot, and Monique Valcour), where the first author discussedan early version of the work-family enrichment model.

� Academy of Management Review2006, Vol. 31, No. 1, 72–92.

72

(Luthans, 2002), and family studies (Patterson,2002) that focus on strengths rather than weak-nesses—on health rather than illness—in un-derstanding the potential of individuals and so-cial systems. However, the absence of acomprehensive theoretical framework in whichto examine the positive effects of combiningwork and family roles (Frone, 2003) has hinderedresearch in this area.

ROLE ACCUMULATION AND WORK-FAMILYENRICHMENT

There are three ways in which participation inmultiple roles—often referred to as role accu-mulation—can produce positive outcomes forindividuals (Voydanoff, 2001). First, work experi-ences and family experiences can have additiveeffects on well-being. Research has consistentlydemonstrated that role accumulation can havebeneficial effects on physical and psychologicalwell-being (Barnett & Hyde, 2001), especiallywhen the roles are of high quality (Perry-Jenkins, Repetti, & Crouter, 2000). In addition,satisfaction with work and satisfaction withfamily have been found to have additive effectson an individual’s happiness, life satisfaction,and perceived quality of life (Rice, Frone, & Mc-Farlin, 1992; Rice, McFarlin, Hunt, & Near, 1985).Such research suggests that individuals whoparticipate in—and are satisfied with—workand family roles experience greater well-beingthan those who participate in only one of theroles or who are dissatisfied with one or more oftheir roles.

Second, participation in both work and familyroles can buffer individuals from distress in oneof the roles. For example, research has shownthat the relationship between family stressorsand impaired well-being is weaker for individ-uals who have more satisfying, high-qualitywork experiences (Barnett, Marshall, & Sayer,1992; Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1999). In a similarvein, the relationship between work stress andimpaired well-being is attenuated for individu-als who have a more satisfying, high-qualityfamily life (Barnett, Marshall, & Pleck, 1992).These moderator effects suggest that a diverseportfolio of social roles buffers an individualfrom distress stemming from one particular role,much like a diverse financial portfolio protectsan individual’s financial well-being from de-clining performance in one segment of the econ-

omy (Sieber, 1974). Individuals who accumulateroles may compensate for failure in one role byfalling back on gratification in another role(Sieber, 1974).

Third, experiences in one role can producepositive experiences and outcomes in the otherrole. This mechanism differs from the two previ-ous mechanisms because it represents a trans-fer of positive experiences from one role to theother role. Marks (1977) has argued that partici-pation in some roles creates energy that can beused to enhance experiences in other roles.Sieber (1974) has proposed that resources ac-quired in one role as a by-product of social re-lationships (e.g., recommendations to third par-ties, connections, inside tips) may be reinvestedin other roles. Also, as individuals accumulate avariety of roles, their personalities may be en-hanced as they learn to be tolerant of discrepantviews and flexible in adjusting to the demandsof diverse role senders; they may then benefitfrom their expanded personalities in all roles(Sieber, 1974).

For example, a manager reported how her per-sonal life enhanced her professional life: “Ithink being a mother and having patience andwatching someone else grow has made me abetter manager. I am better able to be patientwith other people and let them grow and de-velop in a way that is good for them” (Rudermanet al., 2002: 373). A factory worker in a participa-tive work system explained how work experi-ences benefited his family life: “I have a 16-year-old son and I use some of the things we do atwork with him instead of yelling. We listen bet-ter here, we let people tell their side” (Crouter,1984a: 81).

We believe that this third mechanism bestcaptures the concept of work-family enrichment,which we define as the extent to which experi-ences in one role improve the quality of life inthe other role. We consider work-family enrich-ment, like work-family conflict, to be bidirec-tional. Work-to-family enrichment occurs whenwork experiences improve the quality of familylife, and family-to-work enrichment occurs whenfamily experiences improve the quality of worklife.

Although our focus is on work-family enrich-ment, we do not mean to suggest that the addi-tive and buffering effects of role participationare unimportant. These effects pertain to howwork and family experiences enhance overall

2006 73Greenhaus and Powell

well-being or reduce deteriorations in overallwell-being, rather than how they enrich eachother. In this article we first review priorresearch on work-family enrichment. We thenpropose a theoretical model of work-familyenrichment and present a series of researchpropositions based on the model. Our modelgoes beyond descriptions of the enrichment pro-cess by Sieber (1974) and Marks (1977) by incor-porating a wider range of resources generatedin one role that may be applied to another roleand proposing two different paths by which re-sources from one role may be applied to another.Finally, we discuss the implications of themodel for future research on the enrichment pro-cess.

PRIOR RESEARCH ON WORK-FAMILYENRICHMENT

Here we review two streams of research inwhich scholars have examined the positive in-terdependencies between work and familyroles. In one stream, researchers have assessedwork-family enrichment with self-report scales,often examining the antecedents of enrichment.In the second, researchers have observed posi-tive relationships between work-related andfamily-related variables that are consistent withthe occurrence of work-family enrichment.

We have identified nineteen studies measur-ing work-family enrichment with self-reportscales. As Table 1 shows, most researchers usedterms other than enrichment (e.g., positive spill-over) to denote the concept. All but one study(Ruderman et al., 2002) used fixed-responseitems. Eleven studies measured both directionsof enrichment (work-to-family and family-to-work), seven measured only one direction, andone study did not classify the direction of enrich-ment. Also, fifteen of the nineteen studies as-sessed work-family conflict, as well as work-family enrichment.

Examination of the nature of the self-reportitems sheds light on the concept of enrichment.Table 2 contains sample items. Kirchmeyer de-veloped fifteen items, each of which assessedone of Sieber’s (1974) four types of rewards ofrole accumulation (role privileges, overall statussecurity, status enhancement, personality en-hancement). In most of her studies, Kirchmeyer(1992a,b, 1993, 1995) had respondents separatelyassess the impact of three different nonwork

roles (parenting, community, recreational activ-ities) on their work or on their overall lives. Be-cause some of Sieber’s rewards reflect additive(role privileges) and buffering (overall status se-curity) effects, not all of Kirchmeyer’s items as-sessed what we would consider work-family en-richment. Grzywacz and his colleaguesassessed enrichment with six items, three as-sessing work-to-family enrichment and three as-sessing family-to-work enrichment, whereasWayne et al.’s (2004) scale included eight items,evenly split between the two directions of en-richment. All of these items, as well as Hill’s(2005) items, are consistent with our view ofwork-family enrichment because they assessthe positive effect of experiences in one role onexperiences or outcomes in the other role. Ham-mer and colleagues (Hammer et al., 2002; Han-son et al., 2003) also measured both directions ofenrichment. In one study, Hanson et al. (2003)reported the results of a factor analysis thatdistinguished two types of enrichment: (1) in-strumental, in which skills, abilities, and valuesare applied effectively in another role, and (2)affective, in which affect or emotion is carriedover from one role to another. We return to thisimportant distinction when we discuss our pro-posed model of work-family enrichment.

Stephens et al. (1997) focused on one aspect offamily life—caregiver responsibility for an ill ordisabled parent. Consistent with their definitionof enrichment, Stephens et al.’s (1997) itemsmeasured the transfer of self-confidence or pos-itive mood from one role to the other. Tiedje et al.(1990) developed a nine-item work-to-family en-richment scale to examine how women’s rela-tionship with their children was affected bytheir career or work responsibilities. Rudermanet al. (2002; Study 1) coded female managers’responses to an open-ended question (“Are thereany dimensions or aspects of your personal lifethat enhance your professional life?”) into sixthemes: interpersonal skills, psychological ben-efits, emotional support and advice, handlingmultiple tasks, personal interests and back-ground, and leadership. Unique among the stud-ies reviewed, Tompson and Werner’s (1997) as-sessed conflict and enrichment (which theytermed facilitation) as opposite ends of the samecontinuum.

The studies identified in Table 1 provide someinsight into work-family enrichment. In almostevery case in which a study assessed enrich-

74 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

TABLE 1Studies Measuring Work-Family Enrichment with Self-Report Scales

Study Name of Concept

Enrichment Conflict CorrelationBetween

Enrichmentand ConflictDirection Mean Direction Mean

Cohen & Kirchmeyer (1995) Resource enrichment Nonwork to work 2.99 Nonwork to work 1.32 .06Grzywacz (2000) Positive spillover Work to family 2.64 Work to family 2.63 Not reported

Family to work 3.41 Family to work 2.08Grzywacz et al. (2002) Positive spillover Work to family 2.62 Work to family 2.62 Not reported

Family to work 3.42 Family to work 2.10Grzywacz & Bass (2003) Facilitation Work to family 2.61 Work to family 2.65 Not reported

Family to work 3.42 Family to work 2.12Grzywacz & Marks (2000a) Positive spillover Work to family 2.64 Work to family 2.63 Not reported

Family to work 3.42 Family to work 2.08Grzywacz & Marks (2000b) Positive spillover Work to family 2.61 Work to family 2.65 �.02

Family to work 3.42 Family to work 2.12 �.04Hammer et al. (2002) Positive spillover

Wives Work to family 3.72 Work to family 2.85 �.16*Family to work 3.94 Family to work 2.20 �.16*

Husbands Work to family 3.61 Work to family 3.03 �.02Family to work 3.76 Family to work 2.12 �.07

Hanson et al. (2003) Positive spillover Work to family 3.20Family to work 3.67

Hill (2005) Facilitation Work to family 2.56 Work to family 2.98 Not reportedFamily to work 2.80 Family to work 2.01

Kirchmeyer (1992a) Resource enrichment Parenting to work 3.24Community to

work3.09

Recreation towork

3.10

Kirchmeyer (1992b) Positive spillover Parenting to work 3.16 Parenting towork

1.78 �.15

Community towork

3.09 Community towork

1.61 �.19

Recreation towork

3.10 Recreation towork

1.48 .13

Kirchmeyer (1993) Positive spillover Parenting to work 3.19 Parenting towork

1.98 �.20*

Community towork

3.34 Community towork

1.58 .18*

Recreation towork

3.05 Recreation towork

1.41 .35**

Kirchmeyer (1995) Positive spillover Nonwork to work 3.21 Nonwork to work 1.61 .15*Ruderman et al. (2002) Enhancement Personal to

professionalNA

Stephens et al. (1997) Positive spillover Work to caregiver 3.59 Work tocaregiver

2.90 .10

Caregiver towork

3.46 Caregiver towork

2.46 �.18

Sumer & Knight (2001) Positive spillover Work to home 3.34 Work to home 2.79 .00Home to work 3.47 Home to work 1.85 �.10**

Tiedje et al. (1990) Role enhancement Work to family 3.71 Work to family 2.95 �.16*Tompson & Werner (1997) Conflict/facilitation Not differentiated .03Wayne et al. (2004) Facilitation Work to family 2.88 Work to family 2.62 .00

Family to work 3.34 Family to work 2.08 .02

Note: To make comparisons across studies, the means on enrichment and conflict from Cohen and Kirchmeyer (1995),Kirchmeyer (1992a,b, 1993, 1995), Stephens et al. (1997), and Sumer and Knight (2001) were converted to a 5-point scale; themeans from Hill (2005) were combined across men and women; the means from Hanson et al. (2003: Table 1) were aggregatedacross instrumental and affective items; and the means and correlations from Hammer et al. (2002; Tables 1 and 2) wereaveraged across Waves 1 and 2.


ment and conflict, the average enrichment scorewas at least as high as the average conflictscore, and generally was substantially higher.At a minimum, this finding suggests that em-ployees perceive that their work and familyroles do enrich one another. Also, correlationsbetween work-family enrichment and work-family conflict generally were small. Only eightof the twenty-one correlations reported were sta-tistically significant (three positive and five

negative), and the mean value of these twenty-one correlations was �.02. Overall, these corre-lations suggest that work-family enrichmentand work-family conflict are unrelated and in-dependent constructs (Frone, 2003).

Regarding the directionality of enrichment,nine of the eleven studies that assessed bothdirections of enrichment found that family-to-work enrichment was substantially strongerthan work-to-family enrichment. Self-report

TABLE 2Sample Work-Family Enrichment Items

Study Work-Family Enrichment Items

Grzywacz & Marks (2000a), Wayne et al. (2004) Positive spillover from work to familyThe things you do at work help you deal with personal andpractical issues at home.

Positive spillover from family to workThe love and respect you get at home make you feel confidentabout yourself at work.

Hammer et al. (2002) Positive spillover from work to familyHaving a successful day at work puts me in a good mood tohandle my family responsibilities.

Positive spillover from family to workNo sample item given

Hanson et al. (2003) Positive spillover from work to familyAbilities developed at work help me in my family life.

Positive spillover from family to workBehaviors required in my family life lead to behaviors thatassist me at work.

Hill (2005) Work-to-family facilitationIn the past three months, how often have you had moreenergy to do things with your family or other importantpeople in your life because of your job?

Family-to-work facilitationIn the past three months, how often have you had moreenergy to do your job because of your family or personal life?

Kirchmeyer (1992b), Sumer & Knight (2001) Being a parent (being involved in the community, beinginvolved in recreation/hobby groups):● results in rewards that would be difficult to achieve

elsewhere (role privileges);● makes disappointments on the job seem easier to take

(overall status security);● gives me access to certain facts and information that can be

used at work (status enhancement); and● helps me understand the people at work better (personality

enhancement).Stephens et al. (1997) Positive spillover from employment role to caregiver role

Having a successful day at work puts you in a good mood toassist your parent.

Positive spillover from caregiver roles to employment roleYou have had greater confidence in yourself at work becauseyou have been able to handle caregiving responsibilitieswell.

Tiedje et al. (1990) Role enhancement from work to familyHaving a career helps me to better appreciate the time Ispend with my children.


studies suggest that many individuals experi-ence work-family enrichment, but they do notnecessarily indicate the types of role experi-ences that produce positive experiences andoutcomes in the other role. Although several ofthe studies explored antecedents of work-familyenrichment, such as organization support, psy-chological involvement in work, and personalityor interpersonal style (Cohen & Kirchmeyer,1995; Grzywacz et al., 2002; Grzywacz & Marks,2000b; Kirchmeyer, 1992b, 1993, 1995; Stephens etal., 1997; Sumer & Knight, 2001; Tiedje et al., 1990;Wayne et al., 2004), the findings do not provide

much theoretical insight into the process bywhich a full range of variables can producework-family enrichment.

Therefore, we turn to a second stream of re-search in which scholars have examined relation-ships between work-related variables and family-related variables. Although not all of the studieswere designed to examine work-family enrich-ment, they often have shown positive relation-ships between experiences or outcomes in onerole and experiences or outcomes in the other role.Tables 3 and 4 provide a representative samplingof these findings. In Table 3 work-related factors

TABLE 3Studies Examining Relationships Between Work-Related Independent Variables and Family-

Related Dependent Variables

Work-Related IndependentVariable

Family-Related DependentVariable Support for Relationships

Income Marital quality and stability,parental time withchildren, children’s health,satisfaction with childcare

Barnett & Hyde (2001), Friedman & Greenhaus (2000),Haas (1999), Voydanoff (2001)

Job scope/discretion/complexity Marital quality, stimulatingand warm parenting(women), valuing self-direction in children,positive parenting andhome environment, qualityof parent-child interaction,physically andemotionally healthychildren, satisfaction withchild care (women),children’s reading skills(women)

Friedman & Greenhaus (2000), Haas (1999), Perry-Jenkins et al. (2000), Voydanoff (2001)

Supportive and flexible workenvironment

Time spent on home andchildren, quality ofinteraction with infants(men), performance,satisfaction, and well-being in family domain

Friedman & Greenhaus (2000), Frone et al. (1997);Haas (1999), Parasuraman et al. (1996), Voydanoff(2001)

Networking in the organization andacceptance by peers

Children’s physical healthand school performance(women), satisfaction withchild care (women), familysatisfaction

Friedman & Greenhaus (2000)

Job performance Performance as parent Friedman & Greenhaus (2000)Work engagement Family engagement (men) Rothbard (2001)Work satisfaction Family satisfaction, positive

parenting, goodrelationship with children(women), children’semotional health,children’s schoolperformance (women)

Barling (1986), Friedman & Greenhaus (2000),Greenhaus & Parasuraman (1999), Stewart &Barling (1996)


are presented as independent variables and fam-ily factors as dependent variables. In Table 4 fam-ily factors are presented as independent variablesand work factors as dependent variables. Giventhe cross-sectional nature of much of this re-search, the specification of a variable as indepen-dent or dependent is somewhat speculative. Nev-ertheless, we organize the findings in this mannerto illustrate the potential for experiences in onerole to have a positive effect on experiences oroutcomes in the other role.

As seen in Table 3, income derived from workhas been found to be positively related to severalindicators of marital quality and well-being (Bar-nett & Hyde, 2001; Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000;Haas, 1999; Voydanoff, 2001). Moreover, a support-ive and flexible work environment has been asso-ciated with positive behaviors and outcomes inthe family domain (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000;Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Haas, 1999; Para-suraman, Purohit, Godshalk, & Beutell, 1996; Voy-danoff, 2001). Substantial evidence links job con-tent (job scope, discretion, or complexity) with apositive home environment, marriage, child-rearing practices, and child outcomes (Friedman& Greenhaus, 2000; Grimm-Thomas & Perry-Jenkins, 1994; Haas, 1999; Perry-Jenkins et al., 2000;Voydanoff, 2001). Networking activities and accep-tance by peers have been related positively tochild-related outcomes, especially for women(Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). In one of the fewstudies designed explicitly to test an enrichmentperspective, Rothbard (2001) found that psycholog-

ical engagement (attention and absorption) inwork was positively related to positive affect atwork, which, in turn, was related to men’s psycho-logical engagement in family life. The positiveimpact of work-related affect on family life alsohas been suggested by studies that have observedrelationships of work satisfaction with family sat-isfaction, positive parenting, or positive child out-comes (Barling, 1986; Friedman & Greenhaus,2000; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Stewart &Barling, 1996).

As seen in Table 4, positive relationships havebeen observed between social support receivedfrom a family member and career success, careerdevelopment, or satisfaction at work (Adams,King, & King, 1996; Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000;Frone et al., 1997; Voydanoff, 2001). Also, marriageand the presence of children have been found tobe positively related to three widely used indica-tors of career success—income, advancement, andsatisfaction—but primarily for men (Bretz & Judge,1994; Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Jacobs, 1992;Judge & Bretz, 1994; Landau & Arthur, 1992; Mel-amed, 1996; Pfeffer & Ross, 1982; Schneer & Reit-man, 1993). In light of these findings, it is notewor-thy that psychological engagement in family lifehas been associated with work engagement onlyfor women (Rothbard, 2001).

Taken together, the studies assessing work-family enrichment with self-report scales andthe studies observing positive relationships be-tween work and family variables lend support tothe notion that work experiences can enrich

TABLE 4Studies Examining Relationships Between Family-Related Independent Variables and

Work-Related Dependent Variables

Family-Related Independent Variable Work-Related Dependent Variable Support for Relationships

Marriage Income, organizational level, advancement,work satisfaction (all primarily men)

Bretz & Judge (1994), Friedman &Greenhaus (2000), Jacobs(1992), Judge & Bretz (1994),Landau & Arthur (1992),Melamed (1996), Pfeffer & Ross(1982), Schneer & Reitman(1993)

Presence of children Income and work satisfaction (men) Friedman & Greenhaus (2000),Landau & Arthur (1992)

Support from family Income, positive work attitudes andsatisfaction, job scope, careerdevelopment activities, acceptance atwork

Adams et al. (1996), Friedman &Greenhaus (2000), Frone et al.(1997), Voydanoff (2001)

Family engagement Work engagement (women) Rothbard (2001)


family life and that family experiences can en-rich work life. However suggestive these find-ings are, we still do not understand the processby which certain role experiences enhance ex-periences and outcomes in the other domain. Forexample, why is a complex, challenging job as-sociated with positive parenting and maritalquality? How does a supportive work or familyenvironment enhance the quality of life in theother role? With few exceptions (e.g., Grimm-Thomas & Perry-Jenkins, 1994; Rothbard, 2001),researchers have not systematically examinedthe factors that might mediate or moderate pos-itive cross-role relationships.

Accordingly, we have developed a theoreticalmodel of the work-family enrichment process tooffer a more complete understanding of positivework-family linkages, to place prior research ina larger context, and to guide future research in

the area. This model builds on early writings onthe subject (Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974) and on thetwo streams of empirical research reviewed. Themodel goes beyond the prior literature by (1)identifying five types of work and family re-sources that have the capacity to promote work-family enrichment, (2) specifying two mecha-nisms or paths by which these resources canpromote work-family enrichment, and (3) propos-ing several moderator variables that determinethe conditions under which resources in one roleare most likely to enrich the quality of life in theother role.

THEORETICAL MODEL OF WORK-FAMILYENRICHMENT

Figure 1 illustrates how experiences in Role A(work or family) can improve the quality of life in

FIGURE 1Model of Work-Family Enrichment


Role B (family or work). We consider quality oflife as having two components: high perfor-mance and positive affect. We propose that theresources generated in Role A can promote highperformance and positive affect in Role B andthat the extent to which a resource heightensperformance and positive affect is moderated bythe salience of Role B, the perceived relevanceof the resource to Role B, and the consistency ofthe resource with the requirements and norms ofRole B.

A resource is an asset that may be drawn onwhen needed to solve a problem or cope with achallenging situation. The generation of re-sources is a crucial driver of the enrichmentprocess (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Green-haus & Parasuraman, 1999; Grzywacz, 2002), andit is likely that role characteristics and personalcharacteristics determine the extent to whichrole participation produces resources. However,because our focus is on cross-role relationships,a discussion of the factors that generate re-sources is beyond the scope of the present arti-cle.

Figure 1 identifies five types of resources thatcan be generated in a role: skills and perspec-tives, psychological and physical resources,social-capital resources, flexibility, and mate-rial resources. As the name implies, skills andperspectives has two components. Skills refer toa broad set of task-related cognitive and inter-personal skills, coping skills, multitaskingskills, and knowledge and wisdom derived fromrole experiences (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister,1998; Holman & Wall, 2002; McCauley, Ruder-man, Ohlott, & Morrow, 1994; Ruderman et al.,2002). Perspectives involve ways of perceiving orhandling situations, such as respecting individ-ual differences (Ruderman et al., 2002), valuingdifferences in cultural background (Cox, 1993),being understanding of other people’s problems(Crouter, 1984b), and learning the value of trust(Crouter, 1984a); in short, work and family expe-riences can expand one’s “world view” (Kanter,1977).

Psychological and physical resources includepositive self-evaluations, such as self-efficacy(Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992) and self-esteem (Brockner, 1988). These resources alsoinclude personal hardiness (Blaney & Ganellen,1990; Kobasa, 1979), positive emotions about thefuture, such as optimism and hope (Seligman,1991, 2002), and physical health.

Role experiences also provide resourcesthrough the acquisition of social capital: “thegoodwill that is engendered by the fabric ofsocial relations and that can be mobilized tofacilitate action” (Adler & Kwon, 2002: 17). Thetwo social-capital resources included in ourmodel—influence and information—are derivedfrom interpersonal relationships in work andfamily roles that may assist individuals inachieving their goals.

Flexibility in our model refers to discretionto determine the timing, pace, and location atwhich role requirements are met. This hasbeen recognized frequently in the work-familyliterature as a potent resource (Friedman &Greenhaus, 2000; Miller, 1997; Thomas & Gan-ster, 1995; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness,1999).

Finally, material resources include money andgifts obtained from work and family roles.

It should be noted that many of the resourcesgenerated by role experiences are interdepen-dent. For example, the availability of personalresources, such as skills and information, canenhance self-efficacy (Gist & Mitchell, 1992) andcan facilitate the acquisition of social capital(Friedman & Krackhardt, 1997). Moreover, hardi-ness, a psychological resource, can promote ef-fective coping skills (Kobasa, 1982) and physicalhealth (Wiebe & McCallum, 1986). As a result ofthese interdependencies, the acquisition of oneresource can trigger the acquisition of other re-sources.

The model specifies two mechanisms or pathsby which a resource generated in Role A canpromote high performance and positive affect inRole B. First, a resource can be transferred di-rectly from Role A to Role B, thereby enhancingperformance in Role B. Consistent with Hansonet al. (2003), we refer to this mechanism as theinstrumental path, because the application of aresource has a direct instrumental effect on per-formance in another role. Second, a resourcegenerated in Role A can promote positive affectwithin Role A, which, in turn, produces highperformance and positive affect in Role B. Be-cause this process operates through positive af-fect, we refer to this mechanism as the affectivepath (Hanson et al., 2003). In the following sec-tions we discuss the instrumental path and theaffective path, respectively.


The Instrumental Path to Work-FamilyEnrichment

In this path, different types of resources aredirectly transferred from Role A to Role B, im-proving performance in the latter role (arrow 1 inFigure 1). The literature suggests that skills andperspectives are transferred from one role toanother (Crouter, 1984b; Kanter, 1977; Pi-otrkowski, Rapoport, & Rapoport, 1987; Repetti,1987), either directly or mediated by generalknowledge structures (Edwards & Rothbard,2000). Supporting empirical evidence comesfrom two sources: self-reports and cross-role re-lationships. Ruderman et al.’s (2002) femalemanagers reported how a variety of qualitiesderived from their personal life (e.g., interper-sonal skills, ability to multitask, respect for in-dividual differences) enhanced their manage-rial effectiveness, a finding that is consistentwith reports from McCall, Lombardo, and Morri-son’s (1988) male executives. The use of activelistening by one of Crouter’s (1984a) respondentscited earlier suggests that perspectives andskills nurtured at work can improve one’s par-enting behavior.

Correlational findings, although potentiallyvulnerable to the threat of confounding vari-ables, are also consistent with the transfer ofskills and perspectives. For example, the posi-tive relationship between job complexity andpositive parenting (Haas, 1999; Perry-Jenkins etal., 2000) may reflect the impact of complex jobson the development of leadership skills (McCau-ley et al., 1994) that are applied, in turn, to par-ent-child interactions. Moreover, parents whohold jobs with opportunities for self-directiontend to value self-direction in their children(Haas, 1999), suggesting that a perspective (theimportance of self-direction for personal devel-opment) can be transferred from the work do-main to the family domain.

Psychological and physical resources devel-oped or nurtured in one role can increase per-formance in another role, as suggested by ablend of self-report and correlational findings. Itis likely that self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-confidence enhance performance in another rolebecause they stimulate motivation, effort, per-sistence, and goal setting (DiPaula & Campbell,2002; Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001;Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000; Murray, Holmes,MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998; Wood & Bandura,

1989). For example, 23 percent of Ruderman etal.’s (2002) female managers reported that psy-chological benefits of their personal lives, suchas self-esteem and confidence, enhanced theirmanagerial effectiveness. Grimm-Thomas andPerry-Jenkins (1994) found that the effect of jobcomplexity on positive parenting behavior wasmediated by self-esteem, suggesting that self-esteem derived from experiences in one role canincrease performance in another role. Becausehigh performance enhances self-efficacy (Ban-dura, 1997), the positive relationship observedbetween job performance and parental perfor-mance (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000) may re-flect causal linkages among job performance,self-efficacy, and performance as a parent. Sim-ilarly, the positive relationship between spousalsupport and career success (Friedman & Green-haus, 2000) may be due to the self-esteem de-rived from emotional support (House, 1981).

The positive emotions of optimism and hopenurtured in Role A can promote effective perfor-mance in Role B by increasing persistence andresilience in the face of failure and challenge(Seligman, 1991, 2002). Hardiness has been asso-ciated with effective coping, which can promotepositive outcomes (Blaney & Ganellen, 1990).Physical health is likely to provide energy, men-tal sharpness, and stamina, promoting high roleperformance, whereas the costs of poor healthare seen in lost time (e.g., work absenteeism)and diminished role performance (Cartwright &Cooper, 1997).

Individuals may apply information acquiredas a result of social capital in one role to solveproblems in another role. For example, informa-tion provided by a corporate-sponsored eldercare resource service can help an employeesolve problems related to the care of an elderlyor ill relative. In a similar manner, informationprovided by an employee’s spouse may be use-fully applied by the employee to his or her ca-reer (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). Work con-tacts can exert influence to enhance one’sfamily life, such as when a powerful colleagueuses his or her clout to help one’s child gainadmission to a highly selective college. Con-versely, family contacts can use their influenceto help an individual compete successfully for apromotion, get a bank loan to open up a newbusiness, or gain admission to a social club thatprovides exposure to potential sponsors of one’scareer. The relationships of networking and ac-


ceptance at work with positive family outcomes(Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000) and the relation-ship of family support with positive career out-comes (Adams et al., 1996; Friedman & Green-haus, 2000; Frone et al., 1997; Voydanoff, 2001)are also consistent with the notion that informa-tion and/or influence derived from social capitalin one role can enhance performance in anotherrole.

Flexibility within the work role enables anindividual to devote more time to family respon-sibilities (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000), therebyenhancing the individual’s performance in thefamily role. The negative relationships of flexi-ble work arrangements, family-supportive orga-nizational cultures, and supportive supervisionwith work-family conflict (Allen, 2001; Thomas &Ganster, 1995; Thompson et al., 1999) also sug-gest that workplace flexibility permits an indi-vidual to participate more fully in family life.Moreover, individuals who experience flexibil-ity in their family responsibility because theirspouses spend extended time on child care ac-tivities make fewer adjustments to their workschedule for family reasons and perform moreeffectively on the job (Friedman & Greenhaus,2000).

Material resources gathered in one role, workor family, can also promote performance in theother role. Money derived from employment canbe used to enhance the quality of family lifethrough the purchase of goods and services thatmake family life easier or more enjoyable(Miller, 1997). Income’s positive relationshipwith marital stability and quality (Barnett &Hyde, 2001; Haas, 1999; Voydanoff, 2001), alongwith children’s health and the adequacy of theirchild care (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000), re-flects the utilization of money to better one’sfamily life. Similarly, financial resources ac-quired within the family role (e.g., gifts, no-interest loans, inheritance) can be used to start,promote, or upgrade a business venture; partic-ipate in activities that provide business con-tacts; or invest in career-enhancing education.

The findings cited in this section are consis-tent with an instrumental path toward work-family enrichment. Therefore, we offer the fol-lowing proposition:

Proposition 1: Skills and perspectives,psychological and physical resources,social-capital resources, flexibility,

and material resources generated inRole A directly promote high perfor-mance in Role B.

The Affective Path to Work-Family Enrichment

MacDermid, Seery, and Weiss (2002) have ob-served that most theoretical perspectives under-play the importance of emotion at the work-family interface. Their conclusion seemsespecially relevant to the positive interdepen-dencies between work and family roles; an af-fective path as well as an instrumental pathmay promote work-family enrichment. Affectconsists of moods—generalized affective statesnot associated with a specific stimulus—andemotions—more intense discrete states, such asanger or elation, that are linked to specificevents (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Weiss & Cropan-zano, 1996). In our model of work-family enrich-ment, we do not distinguish between these twocomponents of affect. Instead, we view positiveaffect as including positive moods and positiveemotions derived from role experiences.

We suggest that when individuals receive ex-tensive resources from a role, their positive af-fect in that role is increased, which, in turn,facilitates their functioning in the other role.Therefore, there are two components of the af-fective path to enrichment: (1) the effect of re-sources on positive affect in a role and (2) theeffect of positive affect in a role on functioningin the other role. We discuss these two compo-nents in turn.

There are two ways in which resources gen-erated in Role A can produce positive affect inRole A. First, some of the resources in the modelcan have direct effects on positive affect in RoleA (arrow 2). For example, psychological re-sources such as self-esteem, optimism, hope,and hardiness derived from a role can trigger apositive mood, positive emotions, or satisfactionwith that role (Isen & Baron, 1991). Additionally,the accumulation of social resources at work isassociated with positive feelings about one’scareer (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001), as is thedegree of flexibility and support in the work-place (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). Financialrewards from work are related to positive feel-ings about one’s career (Judge, Cable, Boudreau,& Bretz, 1995), and total family income promotesmarital stability (Haas, 1999).


Second, resources generated in Role A canpromote high performance in Role A (arrow 3),which, in turn, enhances positive affect in thatrole (arrow 4). In our discussion of the instrumen-tal path, we focused on how performance in onerole can be enhanced through the transfer ofresources generated in another role. These verysame resources can also promote within-roleperformance. For example, work-derived self-esteem (Korman, 1976), skill development (Mc-Call et al., 1988), and social resources (Seibert etal., 2001) can promote job performance or suc-cess; information acquired from a mentor can beused to make a significant contribution on avisible work assignment; and material re-sources obtained from an inheritance can beused to support family travel. In turn, since mostindividuals like to do something well ratherthan poorly, the consequences of performingwell in a role are likely to be reflected in in-creased positive affect (Judge, Thoreson, Bono, &Patton, 2001).

In sum, resources derived from Role A caneither have a direct effect on positive affect inthat role or can have an indirect effect throughhigh performance.

Proposition 2: Skills and perspectives,psychological and physical resources,social-capital resources, flexibility,and material resources generated inRole A produce positive affect in RoleA.

The second component of the affective pathrepresents the facilitating effect of positive af-fect in Role A on performance in Role B (arrow 5).In their discussion of mood spillover, Edwardsand Rothbard (2000) propose that a positivemood in one role can enhance cognitive func-tioning, task and interpersonal activity, and per-sistence in another role, thereby increasing per-formance and rewards and promoting a positivemood in the second role.

Rothbard (2001) offers three explanations forthe effect of positive affect in one role on en-gagement (attention and absorption) in anotherrole, which can ultimately produce high perfor-mance in the latter role (Kahn, 1992). First, be-cause positive affect is related to benevolenceand helping behavior (Isen & Baron, 1991), it canincrease one’s psychological availability to en-gage in another role. Second, positive affect isassociated with an outward focus of attention,

which is more likely to stimulate positive inter-actions than a more self-focused orientation, of-ten associated with negative affect. Third, con-sistent with Marks (1977), positive affect canexpand one’s level of energy, thereby increasingthe likelihood of being highly engaged in an-other role. Rothbard (2001) provides partial sup-port for her predictions, finding that positiveaffect at work triggers high attention in the fam-ily role (for men) and that positive affect withinthe family stimulates absorption with work (forwomen).

Proposition 3: Positive affect in Role Apromotes high performance in Role B.

Propositions 2 and 3 collectively capture theaffective path to work-family enrichment. An im-portant distinction between the instrumentalpath and the affective path is the mechanism bywhich resources derived from one role enhancefunctioning in the other role. In the instrumentalpath, resources in Role A have direct effects onperformance in Role B, whereas in the affectivepath, resources in Role A have indirect effects onperformance in Role B through positive affect inRole A. It should be noted that both paths canultimately promote positive affect in Role B be-cause of the effect of performance in Role B onpositive affect in that role (arrow 6).

Moderators of the Instrumental Path

The instrumental path requires that a re-source generated in Role A be applied to Role Band that the application of the resource lead tohigh performance in Role B. With the exceptionof psychological and physical resources, we as-sume that the decision to apply a resource fromone role to another is intentional (Edwards &Rothbard, 2000). For example, the use of informa-tion from a coworker to solve a family problem,the use of an influential relative to gain advan-tage in a job search, the use of a bonus as adown payment on a summer home, the use offlexibility in the work schedule to spend moretime with a spouse or children, and the use of ajob-related skill to interact more effectively withfamily members are intentional decisions to in-vest resources acquired in one role in anotherrole. The application of psychological and phys-ical resources does not appear to be intentional,because individuals do not necessarily make aconscious decision to apply high self-esteem,


hardiness, optimism, or physical health to situ-ational demands.

Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) can help ex-plain the likelihood that an individual willtransfer skills and perspectives, social-capitalresources, flexibility, and material resourcesacross roles. According to expectancy theory, anindividual is most likely to engage in a behaviorwhen the potential outcome of the behavior ishighly valued and when engaging in the behav-ior is thought to lead to the attainment of theoutcome. In the instrumental path, the behaviorin question is the application of a resource toRole B, and the outcome is high performance inRole B.

We suggest that high performance in Role B ismost valued when the role is highly salient tothe individual. According to social identity the-ory, social roles form the basis of a person’ssense of self or identity (Burke, 1991; Frone, Rus-sell, & Cooper, 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Indi-viduals who participate in different social roleshave a variety of social identities that providemeaning and purpose in life. However, socialidentities are often organized in a hierarchy ofsalience or subjective importance such thatsome roles are more central than others in one’sself-concept (Thoits, 1991). Achieving high per-formance in a highly salient role is more likelyto enhance well-being than achieving high per-formance in a less salient role, because salientrole identities provide greater meaning and pur-pose (Thoits, 1991). The more salient a role is toan individual, the more time and emotion theindividual invests in the role (Burke & Reitzes,1991; Lobel, 1991; Lobel & St. Clair, 1992; Stryker& Serpe, 1994). Therefore, individuals intention-ally apply resources to a salient role becausethey place a high value on performing well in arole that is central to their self-concept. Con-versely, individuals make less deliberate effortto apply resources to a role that is not a signif-icant source of self-identity.

Proposition 4: Skills and perspectives,social-capital resources, flexibility,and material resources generated inRole A are more likely to directly pro-mote high performance in Role Bwhen Role B is highly salient thanwhen it is not highly salient.

Consistent with expectancy theory (Vroom,1964), we also expect that an individual is most

likely to apply a resource generated in Role A toRole B when he or she believes that applicationof the resource will have positive consequences.Just as individuals expend effort on a job whenthey believe that effort will result in high per-formance (Porter & Lawler, 1968), individualsalso transfer a resource from one role to anotherwhen they believe that the resource can helpthem achieve high performance.

The factors that affect the perceived relevanceof a resource are likely to vary across resources.The perceived relevance of a particular skill orperspective is likely to be stronger when there isa small contrast between work and family roleidentities (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000).When work and family role identities are simi-lar, individuals can express themselves in sim-ilar ways across roles and can see the connec-tion between the skill or perspective acquired inone role and the requirements of the other role.For example, a parent who sees her work andfamily roles as settings in which to express nur-turance (small role identity contrast) may bemore likely to view a particular communicationstyle learned at work as relevant to the familydomain than a parent who sees herself as anurturing manager and an authoritarian parent.

The perceived relevance of information ac-quired in Role A to a situation in Role B is likelyto be influenced by the credibility of the source.For example, a coworker’s information aboutavailable elder care options may be pursuedmore vigorously if that coworker has a trackrecord of being knowledgeable and trustworthy.Similarly, a family member’s advice about awork project is more likely to be sought andapplied to the project when he or she is per-ceived as more familiar with the nature of theparticular work situation.

In the case of influence and money, perceivedrelevance is heightened when opportunitiesarise that require the investment of social con-tacts or money and when the influence or moneyis expected to enhance performance in the role.In contrast, when Role B does not provide poten-tial opportunities (e.g., to expand a business orto enroll a child in a high-priced day care facil-ity), or when a resource is seen as insufficient orinappropriate, an individual is unlikely to trans-fer money or influence from one role to another.Similarly, flexibility derived from Role A is mostlikely to be seen as relevant to Role B whenthere are strong expectations to participate in


Role B from other role members or from oneself(Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964)and when the individual perceives that the ad-ditional role participation will enable him or herto meet role expectations. In other words, flexi-bility is most likely to be applied to another rolewhen time commitment to the other role is ex-pected and when it is believed that the timecommitment will promote high performance.

Proposition 5: Skills and perspectives,social-capital resources, flexibility,and material resources generated inRole A are more likely to directly pro-mote high performance in Role Bwhen the resources are perceived tobe relevant to Role B than when theyare not perceived to be relevant toRole B.

Propositions 4 and 5 suggest that an individ-ual is most likely to transfer a resource fromRole A to Role B when Role B is highly salientand when the individual thinks the resource isrelevant to Role B. However, the application ofa resource does not guarantee it will promotehigh performance in another role. Attainmentof high performance depends on whether theresource is compatible with the actual de-mands of Role B.

For example, a collaborative problem-solvingskill or a team perspective fostered in the familydomain could impede rather than improve jobperformance if an individual applies it to a workenvironment with an aggressive-defensive cul-ture (Cooke & Szumal, 2000). Similarly, a direc-tive decision-making style developed in an au-tocratic work environment could dampenperformance in a family that values nurturanceand self-direction. Yet collaborative or directiveskills can enhance performance in a role inwhich task requirements and norms are compat-ible with these approaches.

Similarly, information applied to a role mayeither promote or dampen performance in therole, depending on its compatibility with therequirements of the role. A key determinant ofthe compatibility of information is its accuracy.Although some information that is applied to arole may be objective (e.g., tuition charged by aday care center), much of it is subjective (e.g.,assessment of the quality of care the center pro-vides), taking the form of advice (e.g., “This daycare center would be an excellent choice for

your children”). Therefore, a coworker’s sugges-tion to use a particular day care center may beunhelpful if the coworker underestimates tuitionor if his or her high regard for the quality of thefacility is unjustified. In either case, the infor-mation is inconsistent with the family’s require-ment for high-quality and reasonably pricedday care. As another example, a family mem-ber’s advice to seek a promotion through indi-vidual accomplishments and assertive self-nomination (Gould & Penley, 1984) may backfirein a company with a culture that encouragesteam performance and discourages self-aggran-dizement.

The use of social influence to advance work orfamily outcomes may also be helpful or harmfulto performance in Role B depending on the cir-cumstances. For example, although a cowork-er’s attempt to influence the acceptance of one’schild into a prestigious private school couldyield a positive outcome, it could fail should theschool view the intervention as meddlesome.Similarly, a relative’s attempt to secure a jobinterview for an individual could help the indi-vidual but could also backfire should the hiringofficial resent the intrusion.

Even flexibility, with all of its advantages(Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000), can have either anegative impact or no impact on performance inRole B if the additional time devoted to Role B isresisted by others within the role set or is notnecessary to fulfill the requirements of the role.For example, flexibility at work that allows anemployee to spend after-school time with a teen-age child may not enhance the employee’s per-formance as a parent if the child would ratherbe spending the same time in other ways.

The use of money to purchase goods or ser-vices can enhance or detract from performancein Role B, depending on whether the goods orservices meet the requirements of the situationand are consistent with its norms. For example,the hiring of live-in assistance for children maydetract from family life if it produces less fre-quent or less intimate interactions between par-ents and children. In addition, the investment ofmoney derived from family sources to pursue anadditional degree may not improve performancein a job with low-skill requirements or in anorganization that does not value higher educa-tion.


Proposition 6: Skills and perspectives,social-capital resources, flexibility,and material resources generated inRole A are more likely to directly pro-mote high performance in Role Bwhen the resources are consistentwith the requirements and norms ofRole B than when they are inconsis-tent with the requirements and normsof Role B.

Moderator of the Affective Path

As noted earlier, the affective path has twocomponents: (1) resources generated in Role Apromote positive affect in Role A, and (2) positiveaffect in Role A increases performance in Role B.We believe that the second component of theaffective path is moderated by the salience ofRole B.

Recall Rothbard’s (2001) three explanations forwhy positive affect may influence engagement,and ultimately performance, in another role: be-nevolence and helping behavior, an outward fo-cus, and an expansion of energy. We suggestthat the tendencies to be benevolent and to holdan outward focus derived from Role A are morelikely to lead to positive interactions and psy-chological availability in Role B when the latterrole is highly salient to the individual, becausesuccess and well-being are particularly mean-ingful in highly salient roles (Thoits, 1991). Inother words, general tendencies to be available,engaged, and energetic in a role translate intoattention and absorption in another role onlywhen they provide a significant source of self-identity. Therefore, although positive affect de-rived from one’s family (work) role may expandthe tendencies to be helpful, available, and en-ergized, these tendencies may not be applied toa work (family) domain that is peripheral ratherthan central to one’s self-concept.

Proposition 7: Positive affect in Role Ais more likely to promote high perfor-mance in Role B when Role B is highlysalient than when it is not highly sa-lient.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

We recommend that a comprehensive re-search program be conducted to test the validity

of the model proposed in this article. This en-tails the development and validation of newmeasures and the use of a variety of methodol-ogies. We believe that there is value in continu-ing to assess work-family enrichment throughself-reports; just as we have learned a greatdeal about negative relationships between workand family from self-reports of work-family con-flict, self-reports of enrichment should provideinsights into positive relationships betweenwork and family. However, consistent with ourdefinition of enrichment, new measures areneeded to assess the extent to which each re-source included in our model (the instrumentalpath) and positive affect (the affective path)have beneficial effects on performance in theother role. Both directions of enrichment (work tofamily and family to work) should be assessed,and perceptions of enrichment should be gath-ered from the focal person and others in theindividual’s work and family environments. Inaddition, a measure of global work-family en-richment should be developed to determinewhich factors contribute most prominently tooverall enrichment. Furthermore, measures ofthe proposed moderators (salience of each role,perceived relevance of a resource, consistencyof each resource with the requirements andnorms of each role) should be developed or mod-ified from the existing literature.

After the necessary measures are developedand validated, empirical testing of the model inFigure 1 can proceed in two stages. First, theimpact of resources on performance and posi-tive affect in Role A should be determined. Sec-ond, relationships between resources and posi-tive affect in Role A and performance in Role B,including moderating influences, should be in-vestigated. Because the testing of each stagewill require a longitudinal design, an examina-tion of the entire model in the same study willcall for data to be collected at several points intime.

An alternative approach to testing the modelor portions of it would be to use a critical inci-dent approach (Flanagan, 1954) to examine self-reported episodes of work-family enrichment.Individuals could be asked to think of a specifictime in their lives when their experiences ineither a work or family role enhanced their per-formance in the other role. They could then beasked questions about the factors they perceiveas having contributed to the enrichment, includ-


ing the generation of resources and positive af-fect in Role A, the positive outcomes in Role B,and the proposed moderator variables. This ap-proach could yield insights into the enrichmentprocess by focusing on a specific enrichmentepisode as the unit of analysis.

However, the limitations of such an approachshould not be underestimated. It would have thedisadvantages common to all research methodsthat rely on retrospective accounts, particularlyfaulty memories (Golden, 1992; Schwenk, 1985).In addition, self-reports at best capture individ-uals’ perceptions of enrichment rather than en-richment per se. Because self-reports of enrich-ment may be biased and inaccurate, a parallelline of research examining relationships of ex-periences and outcomes in one role with expe-riences and outcomes in another role should bevigorously pursued. Although many scholarshave followed this strategy (see Tables 3 and 4),most of their studies were not designed to test amodel of work-family enrichment and most didnot include mediating variables. The two mostnotable exceptions provide insight into the roleof self-esteem (Grimm-Thomas & Perry-Jenkins,1994) and positive affect (Rothbard, 2001) inwork-family enrichment. Ideally, this line of re-search should include resources, performance,and positive affect in work and family roles, aswell as moderator variables, to trace the causallinkages proposed in Figure 1.

Researchers should continue to examine therelationship between work-family enrichmentand work-family conflict. Although, as notedearlier, in prior research scholars have observedweak and inconsistent relationships betweenenrichment and conflict, it is possible that en-richment derived from some of the resources inour model has a different relationship with con-flict than enrichment derived from other re-sources. It is also possible that instrumental en-richment and affective enrichment havedifferential relationships with conflict. More-over, although enrichment and conflict havebeen found to have different correlates (Grzy-wacz & Marks, 2000b; Stephens et al., 1997), ad-ditional research is necessary to develop andtest theory-driven predictions regarding thesedifferences.

Also, beyond simply having main effects onrole-related and global outcomes, enrichmentand conflict may interact to predict outcomes.Enrichment, like social support (Greenhaus &

Parasuraman, 1994), could serve a buffering rolethat protects an individual from the negativeconsequences of a stressor (work-family con-flict). Further, accumulating roles (employee,spouse, parent, community volunteer) may haveboth advantages and disadvantages for individ-uals (Sieber, 1974). That is, role accumulationcan provide more extensive resources to be ap-plied to other roles that promote enrichment, aswell as time constraints and stressors that pro-duce conflict. Therefore, in future researchscholars should examine the conditions underwhich role accumulation promotes enrichmentto a greater versus lesser extent than it pro-motes conflict.

We also recommend further investigation ofthe role of gender in the work-family enrichmentprocess. Because men and women historicallyhave experienced quite different connectionsbetween work and family lives (Greenhaus &Parasuraman, 1999), they may experience theenrichment process differently. The limited re-search on gender differences in work-to-familyenrichment (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000b; Rothbard,2001) and family-to-work enrichment (Kirch-meyer, 1993; Rothbard, 2001) has produced incon-sistent results. Although these inconsistenciesmay be due to differences in conceptualizationsof enrichment and research methodologies, theyhighlight the need to understand whether (and,if so, why) men and women experience differentlevels of enrichment.

In future research scholars should also exam-ine the impact of role characteristics and per-sonal characteristics on resource generation.For example, the structure of a role and thepresence of supportive interpersonal relation-ships in a role are likely to influence the gener-ation of resources within the role (McCauley etal., 1994; Morrison, 1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999).Similarly, personal characteristics, such as de-mographic background (Ibarra, 1993), may deter-mine the extent to which the individual has ac-cess to certain resources.

Indeed, it would be fruitful to examine theimpact of an individual’s dispositional charac-teristics on several linkages in the work-familyenrichment model. For example, a proactive per-sonality (Seibert, Gant, & Kraimer, 1999) may bean important prerequisite for work-family en-richment, because individuals who are proac-tive in their relationships may be particularlylikely to develop skills, receive information and


social support, seek flexibility in the time theyare expected to commit to role activities, andapply resources generated in one role to an-other. In addition, trait affectivity may play aprominent role in work-family enrichment, notonly because it determines one’s satisfaction ormood (Schaubroeck, Ganster, & Kemmerer, 1996;Shaw, Duffy, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1999) but alsobecause it determines how constructively onereacts to stressful challenges in the environ-ment (Stoeva, Chiu, & Greenhaus, 2002). In asimilar vein, an individual’s relationship attach-ment style (Sumer & Knight, 2001) warrants re-search attention because the acquisition andapplication of resources often involve effectiverelationships with other people.

A boundary-crossing perspective may be fruit-fully applied to the study of work-family enrich-ment. Nippert-Eng (1995) identifies two forms of“boundary work”: (1) boundary placement, bywhich one erects and maintains boundaries be-tween home and work, and (2) boundary tran-scendence, by which one moves back and forthbetween the two roles. Ashforth et al. (2000) andNippert-Eng (1995) propose a continuum of rolerelationships, ranging from integration to seg-mentation. Two roles are integrated when therole boundaries are flexible and permeable andwhen an individual’s role identities are similarfor the two roles, whereas two roles are seg-mented when the role boundaries are inflexibleand impermeable and when there is a high con-trast between role identities for the two roles(Ashforth et al., 2000). In future research scholarsshould examine whether individuals take lessof themselves in specific resources and positiveaffect across rigid boundaries associated withhighly segmented roles than across flexibleboundaries associated with highly integratedroles.

The impact of organizational, family, andcommunity interventions on work-family enrich-ment also deserves research attention. Becausemany work-family linkages are the result of con-scious intention (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000),problem-solving instruction, marital counseling,and peer support groups may help individualssee the virtues of enrichment and develop thegeneral skills and perspectives (e.g., self-awareness, proactivity, understanding the re-quirements and norms of a particular role) thatcan make enrichment more likely to occur. Itwould be worthwhile to examine the ultimate

effect of such interventions on individuals’ ap-proaches to the enrichment process, as well astheir success at it.

The work-family interface is influenced by thelarger social, economic, and political context(Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). Becausecountries can vary significantly in culturalnorms and values, gender-role ideology, andpublic policy regarding work-family issues(Lewis, 1997), comparative studies would behelpful in assessing the effect of culture on en-richment. For example, Ashforth et al. (2000) pro-pose that collectivist, feminine, low uncertaintyavoidant, and/or low power distance culturespromote more role integration than individual-istic, masculine, high uncertainty avoidant,and/or high power distance cultures; research-ers should examine whether individuals in theformer cultures experience more work-familyenrichment than individuals in the latter cul-tures.

Finally, the concept of work-family enrich-ment may be extended to include “work-life”enrichment, just as work-family issues morebroadly may be viewed as a subset of work-lifeissues (Lewis & Dyer, 2002). We recommend re-search on the ways in which experiences inroles outside work and family (e.g., communityvolunteer) enrich or are enriched by experiencesin work and family roles.

In conclusion, prior thought and research onthe interface between work and family suggestthat participation in one role may enrich thequality of life in the other role. However, anoverriding theoretical model of the process bywhich enrichment takes place has been lacking.This article proposes such a model, which maybe used as a guide for future research incorpo-rating different types of methodologies. Such re-search is recommended to increase our under-standing of the conditions under which workand family are allies rather than enemies.

REFERENCES

Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. 1996. Relationships ofjob and family involvement, family social support, andwork-family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 81: 411–420.

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for anew concept. Academy of Management Review, 27: 17–40.

Allen, T. D. 2001. Family-supportive work environments: The


role of organizational perceptions. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 58: 414–435.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in a day’swork: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academyof Management Review, 25: 472–491.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NewYork: Freeman.

Barling, J. 1986. Fathers’ work experience, the father-childrelationship and children’s behaviour. 1986. Journal ofOccupational Behaviour, 7: 61–66.

Barling, J., & Sorensen, D. 1997. Work and family: In search ofa relevant research agenda. In C. L. Cooper & S. E.Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations: 157–169. New York: Wiley.

Barnett, R. C. 1998. Toward a review and reconceptualizationof the work/family literature. Genetic, Social, and Gen-eral Psychology Monographs, 124: 125–182.

Barnett, R. C. 1999. A new work-life model for the twenty-firstcentury. ANNALS, AAPSS, 562: 143–158.

Barnett, R. C., & Baruch, G. K. 1985. Women’s involvement inmultiple roles and psychological distress. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 49: 135–145.

Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. 2001. Women, men, work, andfamily. American Psychologist, 56: 781–796.

Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., & Pleck, J. H. 1992. Men’smultiple roles and their relationship to men’s psycho-logical distress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54:358–367.

Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., & Sayer, A. 1992. Positive-spillover effects from job to home: A closer look. Women& Health, 19(2/3): 13–41.

Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. 1998. Organi-zational socialization: A review and directions for futureresearch. Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 16: 149–214.

Blaney, P. H., & Ganellen, R. J. 1990. Hardiness and socialsupport. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce(Eds.), Social support: An interactional view: 297–318.New York: Wiley.

Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. 1994. Person-organization fit andtheory of work adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behav-ior, 44: 32–54.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. 2002. Organizational behavior:Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology,53: 279–307.

Brockner, J. 1988. Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA: Lex-ington Books.

Burke, P. J. 1991. Identity processes and social stress. Amer-ican Sociological Review, 56: 836–849.

Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. 1991. An identity approach tocommitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54: 239–251.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. 1997. Managing workplacestress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen, A., & Kirchmeyer, C. 1995. A multidimensional ap-proach to the relation between organizational commit-

ment and nonwork participation. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 46: 189–202.

Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. 2000. Using the organizationalculture inventory to understand the operating culturesof organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom,& M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational cul-ture and climate: 147–162. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cox, T., Jr. 1993. Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory,research and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Crouter, A. 1984a. Participative work as an influence onhuman development. Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 5: 71–90.

Crouter, A. 1984b. Spillover from family to work: The ne-glected side of the work-family interface. Human Rela-tions, 37: 425–442.

DiPaula, A., & Campbell, J. D. 2002. Self-esteem and persis-tence in the face of failure. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 83: 711–724.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms linkingwork and family: Clarifying the relationship betweenwork and family constructs. Academy of ManagementReview, 25: 178–199.

Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1270–1279.

Flanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 51: 327–355.

Friedman, R. A., & Krackhardt, D. 1997. Social capital andcareer mobility: A structural theory of lower returns toeducation for Asian employees. Journal of Applied Be-havioral Science, 33: 316–334.

Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. 2000. Allies or enemies?What happens when business professionals confront lifechoices. New York: Oxford University Press.

Frone, M. R. 2003. Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E.Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychol-ogy: 143–162. Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. 1995. Job stressors,job involvement and employee health: A test of identitytheory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 68: 1–11.

Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. 1997. Developingand testing an integrative model of the work-familyinterface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50: 145–167.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoreticalanalysis of its determinants and malleability. Academyof Management Review, 17: 183–211.

Golden, B. R. 1992. The past is the past—or is it? The use ofretrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy.Academy of Management Journal, 35: 848–860.

Gould, S., & Penley, L. E. 1984. Career strategies and salaryprogression: A study of their relationships in a munici-pal bureaucracy. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 34: 244–265.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. 1994. Work-family con-


flict, social support, and well-being. In M. J. Davidson &R. J. Burke (Eds.) Women in management: Current re-search issues: 213–229. London: Chapman.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. 1999. Research on work,family, and gender: Current status and future directions.In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work:391–412. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Singh, R. 2004. Work-family relationships.In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psy-chology: 687–698. San Diego: Elsevier.

Grimm-Thomas, K., & Perry-Jenkins, M. 1994. All in a day’swork: Job experiences, self-esteem, and fathering inworking-class families. Family Relations, 43: 174–181.

Grzywacz, J. G. 2000. Work-family spillover and health dur-ing midlife: Is managing conflict everything? AmericanJournal of Health Promotion, 14: 236–243.

Grzywacz, J. G. 2002. Toward a theory of work-family facili-tation. Paper presented at the 2002 Persons, Processes,and Places: Research on Families, Workplaces andCommunities Conference, San Francisco.

Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. 2002.Work-family spillover and daily reports of work andfamily stress in the adult labor force. Family Relations,51: 28–36.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. 2003. Work, family, and mentalhealth: Testing different models of work-family fit. Jour-nal of Marriage and Family, 65: 248–262.

Grzywacz, J. H., & Marks, N. F. 2000a. Family, work, work-family spillover, and problem drinking during midlife.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62: 336–348.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. 2000b. Reconceptualizing thework-family interface: An ecological perspective on thecorrelates of positive and negative spillover betweenwork and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-chology, 5: 111–126.

Haas, L. 1999. Families and work. In M. Sussman, S. K. Stein-metz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage andthe family (2nd ed.): 571–612. New York: Plenum Press.

Hammer, L. B., Cullen, J. C., Caubet, S., Johnson, J., Neal,M. B., & Sinclair, R. R. 2002. The effects of work-family fiton depression: A longitudinal study. Paper presented atthe 17th Annual Meeting of SIOP, Toronto.

Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B. 2003. Develop-ment and validation of a multidimensional scale ofwork-family positive spillover. Paper presented at the18th Annual Meeting of SIOP, Orlando.

Hill, E. J. 2005. Work-family facilitation and conflict, workingfathers and mothers, work-family stresses and support.Journal of Family Issues, 26: 793–819.

Holman, D. J., & Wall, T. D. 2002. Work characteristics, learn-ing-related outcomes, and strain: A test of competingdirect effects, mediated, and moderated models. Journalof Occupational Health Psychology, 7: 283–301.

House, J. S. 1981. Work stress and social support. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ibarra, H. 1993. Personal networks of women and minorities

in management: A conceptual framework. Academy ofManagement Review, 18: 56–87.

Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. 1991. Positive affect as a factor inorganizational behavior. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 13: 1–53.

Jacobs, J. A. 1992. Women’s entry into management. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 37: 282–301.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—withjob satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 80–92.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. 1994. Political influence processesand career success. Journal of Management, 20: 43–65.

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. 1995.An empirical investigation of the predictors of executivecareer success. Personnel Psychology, 48: 485–519.

Judge, T. A., Thoreson, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. 2001.The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: Aqualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bul-letin, 127: 376–407.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal,R. A. 1964. Organizational stress. New York: Wiley.

Kahn, W. A. 1992. To be fully there: Psychological presence atwork. Human Relations, 45: 321–349.

Kanter, R. M. 1977. Work and family in the United States: Acritical review and agenda for research and policy. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kirchmeyer, C. 1992a. Nonwork participation and work atti-tudes: A test of scarcity vs. expansion models of per-sonal resources. Human Relations, 45: 775–795.

Kirchmeyer, C. 1992b. Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spill-over: Challenging the common view of conflict-riddendomain relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychol-ogy, 13: 231–249.

Kirchmeyer, C. 1993. Nonwork-to-work spillover: A more bal-anced view of the experiences and coping of profes-sional women and men. Sex Roles, 28: 531–552.

Kirchmeyer, C. 1995. Managing the work-nonwork boundary:An assessment of organizational responses. Human Re-lations, 48: 515–536.

Kobasa, S. C. 1979. Stressful life events, personality, andhealth: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 37: 1–11.

Kobasa, S. C. 1982. Commitment and coping in stress resis-tance among lawyers. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 42: 707–717.

Korman, A. K. 1976. Hypothesis of work behavior revisitedand an extension. Academy of Management Review, 1:50–63.

Lambert, S. J. 1990. Processes linking work and family: Acritical review and research agenda. Human Relations,43: 239–257.

Landau, J., & Arthur, M. B. 1992. The relationship of maritalstatus, spouse’s career status, and gender to salarylevel. Sex Roles, 27: 665–681.


Lewis, S. 1997. An international perspective on work-familyissues. In S. Parasuraman & J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), In-tegrating work and family: Challenges and choices for achanging world: 91–103. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Lewis, S., & Dyer, J. 2002. Towards a culture for work-lifeintegration? In C. L. Cooper & R. J. Burke (Eds.), The newworld of work: Challenges and opportunities: 302–316.Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Lobel, S. A. 1991. Allocation of investment in work and familyroles: Alternative theories and implications for research.Academy of Management Review, 16: 507–521.

Lobel, S. A., & St. Clair, L. 1992. Effects of family responsibil-ities, gender, and career identity salience on perfor-mance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35:1057–1069.

Luthans, F. 2002. The need for and meaning of positive or-ganizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 23: 695–706.

MacDermid, S. M., Seery, B. L., & Weiss, H. M. 2002. Anemotional examination of the work-family interface. InR. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions inthe workplace: Understanding the structure and role ofemotions in organizational behavior: 402–427. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marks, S. R. 1977. Multiple roles and role strain: Some noteson human energy, time and commitment. American So-ciological Review, 42: 921–936.

McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. 1988. Thelessons of experience: How successful executives de-velop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E.1994. Assessing the developmental components of man-agerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 544–560.

Melamed, T. 1996. Career success: An assessment of a gen-der-specific model. Journal of Occupational and Orga-nizational Psychology, 69: 217–242.

Miller, S. 1997. The role of a juggler. In S. Parasuraman & J. H.Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: Chal-lenges and choices for a changing world: 48–56. West-port, CT: Quorum.

Morrison, A. M. 1992. The new leaders: Guidelines on lead-ership diversity in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. 2000. Self-esteemand the quest for felt security: How perceived regardregulates attachment processes. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 78: 478–498.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., MacDonald, G., & Ellsworth, P. C.1998. Through the looking glass darkly? When self-doubts turn into relationship insecurities. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 75: 1459–1480.

Nippert-Eng, C. E. 1995. Home and work: Negotiating bound-aries through everyday life. Chicago. University of Chi-cago Press.

Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell,N. J. 1996. Work and family variables, entrepreneurialcareer success, and psychological well-being. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 48: 275–300.

Patterson, J. M. 2002. Integrating family resilience and familystress theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64:349–360.

Perry-Jenkins, M., Repetti, R. L., & Crouter, A. C. 2000. Workand family in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 62: 981–998.

Pfeffer, J., & Ross, J. 1982. The effects of marriage and aworking wife on occupational and wage attainment.Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 66–80.

Piotrkowski, C. S., Rapoport, R. N., & Rapoport, R. 1987. Fam-ilies and work. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.),Handbook of marriage and the family: 251–283. NewYork: Plenum Press.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. 1968. Managerial attitudes andperformance. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. 1999. Mentor functions andoutcomes: A comparison of men and women in formaland informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 84: 529–550.

Repetti, R. L. 1987. Linkages between work and family roles.In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Family processes and problems: So-cial psychological aspects: 98–127. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Rice, R. W., Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. 1992. Work-nonwork conflict and the perceived quality of life. Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 155–168.

Rice, R. W., McFarlin, D. B., Hunt, R. G., & Near, J. P. 1985.Organizational work and the perceived quality of life:Toward a conceptual model. Academy of ManagementReview, 10: 296–310.

Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamicsof engagement in work and family roles. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 46: 655–684.

Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. 2002.Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 45: 369–386.

Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Kemmerer, B. 1996. Doestrait affect promote job attitude stability? Journal of Or-ganizational Behavior, 17: 191–196.

Schneer, J. A., & Reitman, F. 1993. Effects of alternate familystructures on managerial career paths. Academy ofManagement Journal, 36: 830–843.

Schwenk, C. R. 1985. The use of participant recollection inthe modeling of organizational decision processes.Academy of Management Review, 10: 496–503.

Seligman, M. E. P. 1991. Learned optimism. New York: Knopf.

Seligman, M. E. P. 2002. Authentic happiness: Using the newpositive psychology to realize your potential for lastingfulfillment. New York: Free Press.

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. 1999. Proactivepersonality and career success. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 84: 416–427.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. 2001. A socialcapital theory of career success. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 44: 219–237.

Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Jenkins, G. D., & Gupta, N. 1999.


Positive and negative affect, signal sensitivity and paysatisfaction. Journal of Management, 25: 189–197.

Sieber, S. D. 1974. Toward a theory of role accumulation.American Sociological Review, 39: 567–578.

Stephens, M. A. P., Franks, M. M., & Atienza, A. A. 1997. Wheretwo roles intersect: Spillover between parent care andemployment. Psychology and Aging, 12: 30–37.

Stewart, W., & Barling, J. 1996. Fathers’ work experienceseffect children’s behaviors via job-related affect andparenting behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 17: 221–232.

Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R. K., & Greenhaus, J. H. 2002. Negativeaffectivity, role stress, and work-family conflict. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 60: 1–16.

Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. 1994. Identity salience and psycho-logical centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or comple-mentary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57: 16–35.

Sumer, H. C., & Knight, P. A. 2001. How do people withdifferent attachment styles balance work and family? Apersonality perspective on work-family linkage. Journalof Applied Psychology, 86: 653–663.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory ofintergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.): 7–24. Chi-cago: Nelson-Hall.

Thoits, P. A. 1991. On merging identity theory and stressresearch. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54: 101–112.

Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. 1995. Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict andstrain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 80: 6–15.

Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. 1999. Whenwork-family benefits are not enough: The influence of

work-family culture on benefit utilization, organization-al attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vo-cational Behavior, 54: 392–415.

Tiedje, L. B., Wortman, C. B., Downey, G., Emmons, C., Bier-nat, M., & Lang, R. 1990. Women with multiple roles:Role-compatibility perceptions, satisfaction, and mentalhealth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52: 63–72.

Tompson, H. B., & Werner, J. M. 1997. The impact of roleconflict/facilitation on core and discretionary behaviors:Testing a mediated model. Journal of Management, 23:583–601.

Voydanoff, P. 2001. Incorporating community into work andfamily research: A review of basic relationships. HumanRelations, 54: 1609–1637.

Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. 1999. Multiple roles andpsychological distress: The intersection of the paidworker, spouse, and parent roles with the role of theadult child. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61:739–751.

Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. 2004. Consideringthe role of personality in the work-family experience:Relationships of the big five to work-family conflict andfacilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64: 108–130.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory:A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes andconsequences of affective experiences at work. Re-search in Organizational Behavior, 18: 1–74.

Wiebe, D. J., & McCallum, D. M. 1986. Health practices andhardiness as mediators in the stress-illness relation-ship. Health Psychology, 5: 425–438.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory oforganizational management. Academy of ManagementReview, 14: 361–384.

Jeffrey H. Greenhaus is professor and William A. Mackie Chair in the Department ofManagement at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business. He received his Ph.D.in industrial organizational psychology from New York University. His research fo-cuses on work-family relationships and career dynamics.

Gary N. Powell is professor of management and Ackerman Scholar in the School ofBusiness at the University of Connecticut. He received his Ph.D. in organizationalbehavior from the University of Massachusetts. His research interests include thework-family interface and issues regarding diversity in the workplace, especiallygender-related issues.


Documents

WHEN WORK AND FAMILY ARE ALLIES: A THEORY OF WORK-FAMILY ENRICHMENT