A closer look at the positive crossover between supervisors and subordinates: The role of home and work engagement

Abstract

How can we explain the crossover of positive experiences from supervisors to their subordinates? Drawing on crossover research and social learning theory (SLT), our main goal in this study is to explore mechanisms and boundary conditions to understand how positive crossover occurs from supervisors to their subordinates. We focus on the nature and foundations of positive crossover in the domains of work and home, and explore the downstream consequences for subordinates’ domain-specific outcomes. Using matched supervisor–subordinate data, the results of multi-level analyses demonstrated that perceived organization support (POS) of subordinates does not impact the positive association between supervisors’ and subordinates’ work engagement. However, family supportive supervisor behaviours (FSSBs), as perceived by subordinates, strengthen the positive association between supervisors’ and subordinates’ home engagement. Importantly, subordinates’ work and home engagement explains why supervisors’ state of engagement in work and home domains, respectively, influences subordinates’ functioning in work and home domains, underscoring a trickle-down model. We contribute to crossover research through demonstrating that crossover occurs from supervisors to their subordinates in work and family domains. Firstly, we highlight the role of relational mechanisms as boundary conditions of crossover process. Secondly, we extend the understanding of how crossover impacts on subordinates’ key outcomes at work and home. Thirdly, we expand crossover research in an understudied context, Chile. In doing so, we contribute to the literature on hierarchical market economies, through providing further insights on the operation of interpersonal ties and relations in such contexts.

Keywords

crossover FSSB home engagement POS work engagement

Structural changes and uncertainty in the global economy have made it increasingly difficult for organizations to offer continuity and security to their employees, potentially undermining their well-being (Benko and Weisberg, 2007). In the context of increasing interdependence and team-work, understanding the micro-foundations through which well-being may be transmitted between individuals is of clear importance (Bakker and Demerouti, 2009). Although it is widely acknowledged that stress may be transmitted between peers, referred to as crossover (Bakker and Leiter, 2010; Westman, 2001), it is similarly possible that positive experiences and feelings may cross over on vertical lines, up and down the organizational hierarchy, and beyond workplace boundaries (Bakker et al., 2009; Westman et al., 2009). Accordingly, the main aim of this research is to extend the literature through more closely exploring positive crossover from supervisors to their subordinates (i.e. top-down approach) and the downstream consequences of this for subordinates within and beyond the work domain. The research is conducted in an emerging market setting, where, given institutional shortfalls, inter-personal ties assume greater importance (Schneider, 2009), and hence where crossover processes will be thrown into sharper relief. We draw on the mature literature on crossover (Westman, 2001) and social learning theory (i.e. SLT; Bandura, 1986) in forming our hypotheses.

The contribution of this study is three-fold. Firstly, we focus on a top-down transmission² process from supervisors to their subordinates, unravelling the crossover of positive experiences, that is, work and home engagement (Bakker et al., 2009; Westman, 2001). Focusing on the work and home domains, we propose that supervisors’ work and home engagement are positively associated with subordinates’ work and home engagement, respectively. We extend recent research that has mainly focused on crossover between peers (Bakker et al., 2009), and address calls for research to explore the dynamics of crossover from supervisors to their subordinates (Westman et al., 2009). Our focus on the crossover of positive experiences from supervisors to their subordinates is important. Organizations, along with HR departments, may invest in creating a resourceful work environment where subordinates can tune into, emulate and learn from the positive well-being of their supervisors. Furthermore, in exploring the crossover of positive experiences via supervisors’ and subordinates’ engagement, we introduce a novel concept – home engagement – into this research stream.

Our second contribution lies in exploring the mechanisms and boundary conditions of how crossover from supervisors to their subordinates takes place in the work and home domains. Crossover theory (Westman, 2006) suggests that communication, interaction and support among peers and partners constitute key mechanisms that may explain the crossover process. We introduce subordinates’ perceived organization support (POS) and subordinates’ perceived family supportive supervisor behaviours (FSSBs), as contextual conditions, that may influence the crossover of supervisors’ work and home engagement to their subordinates’ work and home engagement, respectively. By so doing – in addition to some other potential contextual conditions demonstrated in recent research, such as the frequency of communication between peers (Bakker and Xanthopoulou, 2009), supervisors’ supportive behaviours toward their subordinates (ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014) and supervisors’ positive emotions (ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014) – our findings emphasize the role of POS and FSSBs, in work and home domains, to account for the crossover process. In a related vein, our focus on the trickle-down effect of supervisors’ work and home engagement on subordinates’ domain-specific outcomes offers a novel perspective (Wo et al., 2015), supplementing and extending crossover research with key consequences for employees’ physical and attitudinal well-being at work (Bakker and Demerouti, 2013).

Third, the context of this study can be considered a strength. This study is based on the case of a large Chilean firm that straddles both retail and financial services; it explores the nature and extent to which well-being may be transmitted, within a national context associated with macro-economic volatility. At the macro-level, Chile is generally held up as an example of the Resource Curse, which suggests that non-resource sectors face shortages of skills, innovation and other capabilities (Frankel, 2010; Ross, 1999). Again, shortcomings in the particular institutional arrangements encountered in Chile meant that informal ties assume greater significance (Schneider, 2009); however, as yet, the literature on such hierarchical market economies has accorded only limited attention to the operation and consequences of interpersonal interactions within the firm, despite placing the latter at the centre of analysis (Wood et al., 2014). At the micro-level, Chile stands out among its Latin American HME peers in terms of the length of typical working hours. However, and more typical of the region, Chilean society is characterized by the persistence of traditionalist religious and family-centred values (UN, 2014); the latter may be a coping and supportive mechanism given macro-economic turbulence and a history of dictatorial rule (see Schneider, 2009). It can thus be argued that such context-specific dynamics vests personal ties and interactions, including the intra-organizational crossover process from supervisors to their subordinates, with particular importance. Whilst contexts cannot be seen as interchangeable, this study highlights key patterns of behaviour which, even if less immediately visible or accentuated, are likely to manifest themselves in a wide range of situations. In what follows, we develop our hypotheses, taking fuller account of contextual dynamics.

Context of Chile

We study our conceptual model in Chile (see Figure 1). Key aspects pertaining to macro- but mainly micro-level contextual characteristics of Chile have informed our decision.

Macro-context in Chile

Chile is considered to be a hierarchical market economy, characterized by a high degree of interdependence between larger firms, and their smaller counterparts (Schneider, 2009). Non-market hierarchical relations remain central in terms of capital, technology allocations, employee support and labour regulations (Ross, 1999). This is coupled with a tendency to under-invest in skills and competencies of employees, leading to high turnover issues for organizations. Thus, it could be argued that, in such settings, a greater load falls on the individual organization to devise compensatory strategies to motivate employees and keep them in the organizations.

Micro-context in Chile

Two key characteristics of Chilean organizational culture make it an interesting context for our study. First, organizational culture in Chile is defined by paternalism: key features include closed decision making, a notable lack of employee engagement and development, as well as the dominant role of obedience and commitment (Aycan, 2006); as noted above, such embedded features in part represent a response to wider institutional and associated cultural realities (Schneider, 2009). More importantly, one relevant aspect of paternalism is that it is relational; behaviours of the supervisors to their subordinates are functions of the relationships between them (Aycan et al., 2013). In such work environments, it is interesting to observe the transmission of work engagement and what influences this transmission between a supervisor and a subordinate, which constitutes the first goal of this study.

Second is that Chilean society is highly conservative, holding patriarchal social attitudes, reinforced by traditionalist religious and family-centred values (UN, 2014). As a result, Chileans keep close relations with family members, and, for example, taking care of children as well as the elderly constitute important roles ascribed to individuals in this society (e.g. Las Heras et al., 2017). Yet, at the same time, Chile ranks as one of the Latin American countries where employees work the longest number of hours (OECD, 2017; Vassolo et al., 2011), making work–family conflict a major problem for organizations (OECD, 2017) and families. Moreover, similar to other countries, Chile’s life expectancy at birth has grown over the recent past, reaching 80.5 years old in 2017 (77.4 for males and 83.4 for females), which means an increase of almost 8 years in the past three decades (in 1988 there was an average life expectancy of 72.8 years: 76.01 for females and 69.7 for males; World Life Expectancy, 2017). Many families feel under pressure to take care of elders at home, making the challenges of managing work and home more demanding.

Taking these unique characteristics into account, we note that organizations in Chile (including our own sample context) already acknowledge and realize the importance of work–family integration. Yet, they have been slow in adopting and implementing family-friendly policies (Carlier et al., 2012; Poelmans et al., 2003). For these reasons, from the onset of this project, our second goal was to explore how informal family-friendly policies of organizations (i.e. FSSBs) influence the transmission of home engagement between supervisors and their subordinates in Chile.

Theoretical framework

Crossover theory

The process whereby the psychological stress or well-being experienced by one person affects the level of well-being of another person is referred to as crossover (Westman, 2001; Westman and Vinokur, 1998). Crossover theory (Bakker and Demerouti, 2009; Westman, 2001) encompasses three broad perspectives (we should note that from now on we use crossover to refer to the transmission of positive experiences instead of strain). The first concerns the direct transmission of experiences between partners. The second suggests that the transmission of experiences between partners reflects the extent to which they are shared. Finally, relational components and interpersonal interactions, such as social support for the transmission of positive experiences, may act as mechanisms to explain the crossover between two partners (Westman, 2001).

Role modelling

According to SLT, learning takes place in a social context and it focuses on people learning from one another through imitation, observation and emulation of certain behaviours (Bandura, 1986). A key tenet of SLT is that learning takes place by observing, mimicking and emulating significant others’ behaviours (Bandura, 1986). In particular, managers are emphasized to be key parties in triggering learning because they embody organizational values and set norms that shape the behaviours and learning patterns of their subordinates (Hammer et al., 2009).

Crossover of work and home engagement: Effects on domain-specific outcomes

We propose that there is positive association between supervisors’ and their subordinates’ work engagement. In line with previous research, we examine work engagement as an overall construct, yet we expect the dimensions of work engagement (i.e. vigour, dedication and absorption) to cross over, for a range of different reasons. From an affect-emotion perspective, the crossover of dedication may result from subordinates’ conscious efforts to ‘tune in’ to the emotions of their supervisors and, as a consequence, experience the same feelings and attitudes (Bakker and Demerouti, 2009). This suggests that dedication expressed by supervisors may fuel that of subordinates because their thoughts are focused on these aspects of the job that make them enthusiastic about the work. Regarding vigour and absorption, we expect behavioural modelling to explain the crossover between supervisors and their subordinates. SLT emphasizes the importance of role models for employees’ behaviours and attitudes within the organizational context (Bandura, 1986). According to this theory, learning takes place by observing and mimicking significant others who act as role models for one’s own expectations (Neff et al., 2013). In the context of our research, we suggest that subordinates are likely to be more energetic as a result of working with and imitating the behaviours of vigorous supervisors. Similarly, subordinates who work with supervisors immersed in their work are likely to imitate and adopt these behaviours, leading them to be similarly absorbed into their jobs (Bakker and Xanthopoulou, 2009). In support of our argument, the results in ten Brummelhuis et al.’s (2014) study revealed that managers’ engagement was positively associated with subordinates’ engagement, owing to perspective taking and emphatic reactions of subordinates.

Adopting a similar rationale, we propose that there is positive association between supervisors’ and their subordinates’ home engagement. We conceptualize home engagement as a state of home-related well-being in which individuals (both supervisors and subordinates) use their ‘off-job time’ for reenergizing their depleted resources. Spending time in particular activities (e.g. attending to intimate relations, caregiving, chores etc.) within the home domain is likely to affect an individual’s emotional well-being and satisfaction (Edwards and Van Harrison, 1993). Greenhaus and Powell (2003) further note that engagement in home activities recharges individuals, and enhances positive feelings and a sense of achievement.

It can thus be argued that home-engaged managers are likely to be great at expressing and radiating their positive emotions to their subordinates and inspiring them through role modelling even they are at work (Bakker and Leiter, 2010). If supervisors are perceived to be dedicated to their family lives, subordinates are likely to adopt a similar point of view and experience similar feelings towards their families. We thus expect that feelings of supervisors’ dedication to their family lives would encourage subordinates to give more attention to their own family lives (e.g. enjoying a relaxing evening with them; talking about the needs of children). Moreover, working with supervisors who feel energetic about their family lives (e.g. doing family trips, travelling abroad with family members) may trigger subordinates to model and emulate such behaviours.

It may be possible that what happens in the home domain of a supervisor’s life may remain unobservable by their subordinates. However, the effect of being reenergized and engaged at home tends to influence a supervisor’s mood and emotional state, which we believe is embedded within supervisor–subordinate dyadic interactions (e.g. Gutermann et al., 2017). In line with the actor–partner interdependence model (Bakker and Xanthopoulou, 2009), we consider the supervisor and their subordinates as nested within dyads that facilitate the transfer of well-being through actor–partner effects, in which subordinates as partners compare, observe, learn and adapt their emotional states from those of their supervisors (actor) (Bandura, 1977; Kenny et al., 2008). In our study, the crossover of home engagement is likely to be facilitated through the interactions between the supervisor and subordinate.

During these interactions, subordinates are likely to pick up on supervisors’ actions, feelings and thoughts as observable affective states influencing supervisor behaviour (Lefkowitz, 2000). In relation to these points, Gutermann et al. (2017), drawing upon the LMX theory (e.g. Schriesheim et al., 1999), suggest that these interactions act as mechanisms for the transference of positive experiences and well-being that in turn effect subordinates’ positive experiences and well-being. Given that the context of Chile is predominantly shaped by close supervisor–subordinate interactions (i.e. Vassolo et al., 2011), paternalistic leadership style (Aycan, 2006) and a central role placed on family (e.g. in Chile, family plays a prominent role and people often talk about family life in the work domain: Chileans appreciate that others, even in the work domain, show a genuine interest in their family; Vassolo et al., 2011), we expect to observe positive crossover of home engagement from supervisors to their subordinates.

As home engagement is a novel concept, there is not, to the best of our knowledge, evidence supporting its crossover between supervisors and subordinates. However, and indirectly supporting our arguments, the findings of Carlson et al. (2011) demonstrated that supervisors’ work–family enrichment was positively associated with subordinates’ work–family enrichment, unravelling an affective route mechanism. The results in Braun and Peus (2018) revealed that supervisors’ work–life balance was positively associated with subordinates’ work–life balance. Integrating the above arguments, and combining the affective route and behavioural modelling approaches, our first hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 1a: There is a positive crossover of work engagement from supervisors to their subordinates.

Hypothesis 1b: There is a positive crossover of home engagement from supervisors to their subordinates.

Furthermore, we argue that work and home engagement represent mechanisms through which the impact of supervisors’ work and home engagement translate to subordinates’ domain-specific outcomes. In forming our arguments, we draw on a key tenet of SLT (Bandura, 1986) that people only imitate or model the behaviours of others if they expect positive outcomes by executing these behaviours: ‘By thinking about the consequences of model’s behaviour, an observer is likely to gain information that will help to form outcome expectances’ (Manz and Sims, 1981: 106). This suggests that a person performs certain behaviours by observing a model and the (potential) consequences of that behaviour. According to Bandura (1986), most behaviours demonstrated by people are learned through example. Model characteristics (e.g. status) are usually considered when judging whether the behaviour is appropriate to imitate and whether it will lead to valued outcomes in work and non-work domains (e.g. Bakker et al., 2016). Therefore, models are very important, because they allow people to predict outcomes and consequences, but also because they enable them to acquire larger units of behaviours in a shorter period of time, that otherwise would require constant trial and error experiments.

Thus, a person (here the subordinates) induces association between certain behaviours and their consequences (Postmes et al., 2001). Reflecting on this, by observing their supervisors, subordinates are likely to infer which behaviours are appropriate and rewarding in the work and in the home domains. Turning to the context of our study, when subordinates observe that their supervisors are engaged in their work, they (subordinates) are likely to feel the same, owing to crossover, and exhibit rewarding behaviours while working on their own tasks. We adopt a similar logic in explaining the role of home engagement: when subordinates observe that their supervisors enjoy the positive consequences of being engaged in their home domains (e.g. satisfied with their home lives; positive and energetic), they are likely to emulate similar behaviours and feel the same. Research on crossover broadly supports our arguments, underpinning a positive spiral of behaviours and emotions in a dyadic relationship, in different domains (Bakker et al., 2014; Zimmermann et al., 2011):

Hypothesis 2a: Subordinates’ work engagement mediates the positive association between supervisors’ work engagement and subordinates’ work performance.

Hypothesis 2b: Subordinates’ home engagement mediates the positive associations between supervisors’ home engagement and subordinates’ satisfaction with their family lives.

The moderating roles of POS and FSSBs on the crossover process

Crossover theory proposes that interactions between partners (i.e. supervisors and their subordinates, here) explain how and why crossover unfolds (Westman et al., 2009). To expand our model further and in line with crossover theory, we integrate the role of POS and FSSBs to account for the crossover of work and home engagement, respectively. POS refers to employees’ work-related general perceptions concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). The perceptions of subordinates play a key role in establishing the norms and therefore shaping the perceptions of POS. From subordinates’ perceptions, high POS indicates that the organization cares for the contributions, performance and well-being of its employees (Bhave et al., 2010). A key tenet of POS is that perceived supportiveness of the organization shapes the degree to which there is on-going interaction and communication between supervisors and their subordinates (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).

Turning to our model, from a subordinate perspective, expecting that the organization as a whole will value and acknowledge their efforts and contributions in the future, subordinates are more likely to model the behaviours and tune into the emotions of their supervisors. In contrast, low perceptions of POS show that supervisors feel unsure about the (future) intentions of the organization (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Thus, they might be more cautious in their interactions with their subordinates, and be less open toward them, rendering the transmission of work engagement from supervisors to their subordinates less likely. Furthermore, subordinates are less likely to model and adopt the behaviours and emotions of their supervisors because they realize that their organization is not likely to value their efforts and contributions in the future (e.g. Eisenberger et al., 2014). This suggests that, even if supervisors are engaged to their works (i.e. high work engagement), working in a context where POS is low (i.e. low POS) makes it less likely for subordinates to look up to and emulate the behaviours and emotions of their supervisors. We thus hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3a: Subordinates’ POS moderates the crossover of work engagement from supervisors to their subordinates; this crossover is strongest (vs weakest) in the case of supervisors whose POS is high (vs low).

Crossover theory proposes that interactions, behaviours and communications between dyad partners may explain how and why crossover takes place (Westman, 2006). Specifically, Westman (2006) states that social support (either in the work domain or home domain) may moderate the crossover process between the members of a dyad (i.e. supervisors–subordinates). From this angle, we focus on FSSBs, which offer employees resources and flexibility for coping with responsibilities at home (e.g. Lapierre and Allen, 2006; Matthews et al., 2014). These behaviours consist of providing employees with emotional and cognitive support, being role models, and coming up with creative solutions to work–family problems. FSSBs provide cues to subordinates, signalling that their family life is valued (Kossek et al., 2011a).

In a context where supervisors display FSSBs (high FSSBs), we propose that the positive association between supervisors’ and subordinates’ home engagement strengthens. FSSBs entail role-modelling behaviours aimed at contributing to one’s family life, and displaying more FSSBs indicate that these supervisors communicate with and share family-related issues with their subordinates (Hammer et al., 2009). By doing so, subordinates understand that their family lives are valued by their supervisors (Hammer et al., 2013). Moreover, these subordinates are more likely to model, emulate and adopt the emotions and attitudes of their supervisors (i.e. home engagement of supervisors), because the display of FSSBs is an indication that engaging with family is a priority and norm in this work setting (Rofcanin et al., 2017). Therefore, observing that the behaviours of supervisors (high FSSBs) and their engagement of family lives (high home engagement) are in congruence; subordinates are likely to feel the same, and exhibit high home engagement. In a context where supervisors display high levels of FSSBs (high FSSBs), even if supervisors are not engaged with their family lives (low home engagement), subordinates may still focus on and engage with their family lives (high home engagement), because engaging with one’s family is valued and appreciated in such a work setting (as indicated by the display of high FSSBs), and subordinates are likely be rewarded and expect positive consequences of engaging in their family lives (Bandura, 1986).

Conversely, if supervisors do not display FSSBs (low FSSBs), subordinates are not likely to model and emulate the moods and attitudes of their supervisors even if their supervisors are engaged in their family lives (high supervisor home engagement), making the crossover less likely from supervisors to subordinates. This is because the lack of family-oriented supervisor behaviours indicates that family lives of subordinates are not considered a priority in the organizational context, and in cases where subordinates experience family issues, employees do not have the leeway to openly communicate and discuss their issues with their supervisors. This suggests that, even if supervisors are dedicated to their family lives (high family engagement), lack of organizational context and norms to support subordinates’ family lives (low FSSBs) create an environment where subordinates feel reluctant and even hesitant to model their supervisors (Kossek et al., 2011b). We thus hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3b: Subordinates’ perceptions of FSSBs moderate the crossover of home engagement from supervisors to their subordinates: this crossover will be strongest (vs weakest) in the case of subordinates whose perceptions of FSSBs are high (vs low).

Method

Research context and procedure

We investigated our conceptual model in the relatively under-investigated context of Chile as part of a larger research project carried out by the research centre of a European business school. The participants in this study were full-time employees of a large company (e.g. UTI-SA) operating in retail and financial services. We accessed our company through non-academic partners,³ and coordinated⁴ with the HR division of the company to select most representative supervisor–subordinate dyads from the company (Ellis, 2010). Before the study began, the company managers and employees were briefed about the purpose, procedure and confidentiality of the study.

We used online surveys. We back-translated the survey items to increase face validity (Brislin, 1986; Prieto, 1992). We used emails as IDs to match the data from the subordinates and their direct supervisors. We invited 423 employees to participate in the study as subordinates, and obtained 293 fully usable responses (68%). We invited 143 employees to participate as supervisors, and obtained 109 responses (76%). Owing to missing data, we finally had matched data for 289 responses (289 subordinates; 102 supervisors). The average age of subordinates was 37 years (SD = 9.8 years); 38% were male. The average age of supervisors was 39 years (SD = 8.1 years), and 52% were male. On average, supervisors had 2.3 subordinates reporting to them.

Measures

Unless otherwise stated, all items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

Work engagement

To evaluate supervisors’ and employees’ work engagement, we utilized the nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; vigour, dedication, absorption; Schaufeli et al., 2006), and aggregated vigour, dedication and absorption to a composite work engagement score (α = .88 for supervisors; α = .90 for subordinates). Example items are as follows: ‘I feel bursting with energy’ (vigour), ‘My job inspires me’ (dedication) and ‘I am immersed in my work’ (absorption).

Home engagement

To measure supervisors’ and employees’ home engagement, we adapted the original Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for the home domain, naming it as home engagement (UWES; i.e. vigour, dedication, absorption; Schaufeli et al., 2006) and aggregated vigour, dedication and absorption into a composite home engagement score (eight items; α = .81 for supervisors; α = .73 for subordinates). Example items are as follows: ‘When at home, I feel bursting with energy’ (vigour,), ‘I am proud of my family’ (dedication) and ‘I get carried away when I am with my family’ (absorption).

POS

Subordinates evaluated their perceptions of POS with four items from the scale of Eisenberger et al. (1986) which were used in recent research (e.g. Las Heras et al., 2015). An example item was: ‘The organization is sincerely concerned about my well-being’ (α = .94).

FSSBs

Subordinates evaluated FSSBs using the seven items from the scale developed by Hammer et al. (2009). Items capture emotional support (2 items; e.g. ‘My supervisor takes time to learn about my personal needs’), instrumental support (2 items; e.g. ‘I can depend on my supervisor to help me with scheduling conflicts if I need it’), role model (2 items; e.g. ‘My supervisor is a good role model for work and non-work balance’) and creative work–family management dimensions (1 item; ‘My supervisor thinks about how the work in my department can be organized to jointly benefit employees and the company’). Owing to resource constraints, we used two items which had the highest factor loadings in their corresponding sub-dimensions. We combined these sub-dimensions to an aggregate FSSB score (.99).

Subordinate work performance

For each of their subordinates, managers evaluated the work performance using three items (Williams and Anderson, 1991). An example item for work performance was: ‘S/he adequately completes assigned duties’ (α = .73).

Subordinate satisfaction in non-work life

Subordinates evaluated the extent to which they were satisfied with their non-work domains, using the four-item scale developed by Glenn and Weaver (1981). An example item is ‘I am satisfied with my family life’ (α = .84).

Controls

We included the age, gender and number of children of subordinates and their supervisors, and the length of the dyadic relationship between subordinate and supervisor (measured as a continuous variable). Age and the number of children were measured as continuous variables. Gender was assigned the values of 1 = male and 2 = female.

Furthermore, we controlled for work-to-family (nine items, Carlson et al., 2009) as well as family-to-work (FTW; nine items, Carlson et al., 2009) enrichment and conflict. In line with previous research on spillover between work and home (e.g. Siu et al., 2015), we initially controlled for these two constructs to strengthen our focus on crossover and go above and beyond the potential impact of spillover on conflict and enrichment between domains in our model. The strengths and directions of our hypotheses did not change after having controlled for these constructs. Therefore, in line with suggestions to achieve parsimony, we excluded these control variables from our analyses (Becker et al., 2016).

Analytical strategy

To control for the nested structure of our data (work performance was evaluated by managers; on average 2.82 employees), we applied multi-level regression analyses using MLwiN software. In order to evaluate whether multi-level modelling was the right approach, we calculated the ICC(1) values for supervisor-rated work performance. The ICC(1) for work performance was 19%, meaning that 19% of variance in work performance is attributable to supervisor evaluations (Hox, 2002). These findings suggested that it was appropriate to use multi-level analysis. For our centring strategy,⁵ we followed suggestions in multi-level analyses (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002) and strategies adopted in recent research utilizing similar constructs (e.g. Las Heras et al., 2017).

To test our mediation hypothesis, we conducted Monte Carlo (MC) simulations with 20,000 iterations to obtain confidence intervals for our proposed indirect effects (MacKinnon and Fairchild, 2009). We used an online tool developed by Selig and Preacher (2008) to calculate confidence intervals. When confidence intervals do not contain zero, the indirect association is significant. To test our moderation hypotheses, we plotted simple slopes at one standard deviation below and above the mean of the moderator (Aiken and West, 1991).

Results

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, correlations and internal reliability values of our study variables.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations.

	Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	Supervisors’ work engagement	4.79	1.00	(.87)
2	Subordinates’ work engagement	5.30	1.08	.18**	(.90)
3	Supervisors’ home engagement	6.35	.69	.13*	.11	(.81)
4	Subordinates’ home engagement	6.36	.61	.01	.27**	.31**	(.73)
5	POS	4.73	1.53	.20**	.55**	.04	.18**	(.94)
6	FSSBs	6.86	.41	.03	.19**	.10	.53**	.06	(.93)
7	Work performance	5.35	1.14	.03	.34**	.05	.12*	.18**	.16**	(.74)
8	Satisfaction in non-work life	4.79	1.43	.07	.41**	.06	.20**	.28**	.22**	.21**	(.84)

Reliabilities are along the diagonal in parentheses, where applicable. POS = Perceived organizational support; FSSBs = Family supportive supervisor behaviours.

n = 289 subordinates; 102 supervisors.

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

We conducted CFAs (AMOS 18), including constructs that are evaluated only by subordinates (measured at the same time) and by supervisors (measured at the same time).⁶

Hypothesis 1a postulated positive crossover of work engagement from supervisors to their subordinates. Results supported this hypothesis (γ = .22, p < .01; please see Table 2, Model 1). Hypothesis 1b proposed positive crossover of home engagement from supervisors to their subordinates, which is also supported (γ = .27, p < .001; please see Table 2, Model 3). Hypothesis 2a postulated that subordinates’ work engagement mediates the positive association between supervisors’ work engagement and subordinates’ work performance. Results supported this hypothesis (95% CI = [.026/.139). Hypothesis 2b postulated that subordinates’ home engagement mediates the positive association between supervisors’ home engagement and subordinates’ satisfaction with their family lives. Results supported this hypothesis (95% CI = [.041/.222).

Table 2.

Direct and indirect associations (Hypotheses 1 and 2).

	Subordinates’ work engagement			Work performance			Subordinates’ home engagement			Satisfaction in non-work life
	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4
Variables	Estimates	SE	t	Estimates	SE	t	Estimates	SE	t	Estimates	SE	t
Intercept	5.31	.07	75.85	5.39	.08	67.38	6.37	.04	159.25	4.79	.82	5.84
Supervisors’ work engagement	.22	.07	3.14**	−.03	.08	.37
Supervisors’ home engagement							.27	.05	5.40***	.01	.13	.08
Subordinates’ work engagement				.35	.06	5.83***
Subordinates’ home engagement										.46	.15	3.07**
Change in 2 log likelihood
Level 1 intercept variance (SE)	.15	.08		.23	.09		.02	.02		.01	.002
Level 2 intercept variance (SE)	.98	.07		.94	.09		.32	.03		1.96	.03

For all values, gamma coefficients, their corresponding standard error and t values are reported. SE = standard error.

Level 1 variables: Subordinates’ work and home engagement. Level 2 variables: Work performance and satisfaction in non-work life.

N = 289 subordinates; 102 supervisors.

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Hypothesis 3a proposed that subordinates’ POS would strengthen the positive association between supervisors’ and subordinates’ work engagement, facilitating the crossover process. The interaction term was not significant; hence, this hypothesis was not supported (γ = –.04, ns; please see Table 3, Model 2). This finding suggests that the level of supportiveness as perceived by subordinates of the organization does not influence the positive crossover of work engagement from supervisors to their subordinates. Furthermore, findings reveal that subordinates’ POS does not moderate the mediation of subordinates’ work engagement between supervisors’ work engagement and subordinates’ work performance, as the interaction is non-significant.

Table 3.

Moderation analyses (Hypothesis 3).

	Subordinates’ work engagement						Subordinates’ home engagement
	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4
Variables	Estimates	SE	t	Estimates	SE	t	Estimates	SE	t	Estimates	SE	t
Intercept	5.31	.06	61.83	5.31	.06	88.51	6.37	.03	212	6.37	.03	212
Supervisors’ work engagement	.12	.06	2.00*	.12	.06	2.00*
POS	.39	.03	13.00***	.38	.03	12.66***
Supervisors’ work engagement × POS				−.04	.03	−1.33
Supervisors’ home engagement							.23	.04	5.75***	.23	.04	5.75***
FSSBs							.75	.07	10.71***	.82	.08	10.25***
Supervisors’ home engagement × FSSBs										.18	.09	2.00*
Change in 2 log likelihood
Level 1 intercept variance (SE)	.17	.06		.17	.06		.02	.02		.01	.01
Level 2 intercept variance (SE)	.63	.06		.63	.06		.23	.02		.22	.02

For all values, gamma coefficients, their corresponding standard error and t values are reported. SE = standard error. POS = Perceived organizational support; FSSBs = Family supportive supervisor behaviours.

N = 289 subordinates; 102 supervisors.

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Hypothesis 3b postulated that subordinates’ perceptions of FSSBs would strengthen the crossover of home engagement from supervisors to their subordinates. The interaction term was significant, supporting this hypothesis (γ = .18, p < .05; see Figure 2 for a visual representation of the interaction; Table 2, Model 4). We plotted the interaction at 1+ (–) of the mean value of the moderator. At high levels of FSSB, the crossover of home engagement from supervisors to their subordinates strengthened (gradient of simple slope = 1.49, t value of simple slope = 2.26, p < .05). At low levels of FSSB, the crossover of home engagement was still significant and positive (gradient of simple slope = 1.28, t value of simple slope = 2.30, p < .05).

Additional analyses

To strengthen the validity of our findings, we ran alternative models. In Alternative Model 1, we re-ran all of our hypotheses assuming and testing crossover from subordinates to their supervisors. The results demonstrated that: the reversed associations were not statistically significant for the association between subordinates’ and supervisors’ home engagement (γ = .02, ns, for the crossover effect from subordinates’ work engagement to supervisors’ work engagement; γ = .01, ns, for the crossover effect from subordinates’ home engagement to supervisors’ home engagement). The indirect associations from subordinates to supervisors for both work and home domains were not statistically significant. In Alternative Model 2, we have explored the positive associations between work and home engagement: the association between supervisors’ work and home engagement is non-significant (γ = .08, ns, for when supervisors’ home engagement predicts supervisors’ work engagement; γ = .03, ns, for when supervisors’ work engagement predicts supervisors’ home engagement). However, the association between subordinates’ work and home engagement is significant (γ = .51, p < .001, for when subordinates’ home engagement predicts subordinates’ work engagement; γ = .16, p < .001, for when subordinates’ work engagement predicts subordinates’ home engagement). Together, the findings from the first alternative model support the presence of top-down process of crossover in work and family domains, and the findings from the second alternative model support that there is no spillover effect between the work and home domains of supervisors.

Discussion

The definition of crossover has recently evolved into ‘a bi-directional transmission of positive and negative emotions, mood, and dispositions between intimately connected individuals such as spouses or organizational team members’ (Westman et al., 2009: 589). Reflecting on this definition and drawing on the argument that the scope of crossover should include the transmission of positive experiences, dispositions and emotions (Westman et al., 2009), we set out to explore crossover of work and home engagement between supervisors and their subordinates, with consequential impact on subordinates’ domain-specific outcomes.

The first contribution of this study relates to our focus on a top-down transmission process from supervisors to subordinates, underlining and exploring the crossover of positive experiences, that is, work and home engagement (Bakker et al., 2009; Westman, 2001).

Westman (2001) proposed that crossover not only takes places among colleagues occupying the same hierarchies, but also at different hierarchical levels (Westman et al., 2009). Similarly, Bakker et al. (2009) argued that crossover research, to date, has mainly focused on family members as incumbents of crossover process. However, according to role theory that forms the backbone of crossover theory, the scope of crossover research can be extended to include employees as role senders in the work environment. By so doing, the conceptualization of the unit of analysis in the crossover research can be broadened to include dyads of supervisors and their subordinates (Bakker et al., 2009).

Despite the acknowledgment, only recently studies have started exploring the role managers play in transmitting their emotions, dispositions and behaviours to their subordinates in the context of crossover research: the findings in Braun and Peus (2018) revealed that managers’ servant leadership is positively associated with subordinates’ job satisfaction via contributing to subordinates’ work–life balance satisfaction. ten Brummelhuis et al. (2014) revealed that supervisors’ family-to-work conflict (FWC) and enrichment (FWE) influence subordinates’ work engagement / burnout via influencing first supervisors’ and then consequently subordinates’ emotions (both positive and negative), providing support for the affective mechanism of crossover. Interestingly, their findings did not provide support for the behavioural mechanism (i.e. leader supportive behaviours) of crossover. The findings in Carlson et al. (2011) provide support for the affective mechanism in crossover, demonstrating that supervisors’ work-to-family enrichment is positively associated with subordinates’ work-to-family enrichment because supervisors’ experiences of enrichment encourage outwardly oriented thoughts, emotions and actions that promote subordinates’ perceptions of a family-friendly work environment. Beyond the earlier research that has focused on leadership styles (Braun and Peus, 2018) or leaders’ experiences of enrichment or conflict in both domains (ten Brummelhuis et al., 2014), our findings support the role of work and home engagement, as separate constructs and representing two separate domains, to explain the crossover between supervisors and their subordinates.

This focus is in line with a few studies that have solely focused crossover between intimate partners, without necessarily focusing on the spillover process that may precede it (Bakker et al., 2005; Demerouti et al., 2005). Indeed, recent review studies on spillover–crossover point out that the integration and examination of spillover–crossover into one conceptual model may be most appropriate involving focal employees, intimate partners and co-workers (e.g. couples, partners; Bakker and Demerouti, 2013). This is because the positive and negative experiences from one domain may first spill over to the other domain (e.g. from work to home), and then impact on the partner of the focal individual (e.g. co-worker, spouse, kid or partner). Drawing on this logic, we carried out several post-hoc analyses to explore whether the spillover from work-to-home and from home-to-work (for both the supervisors and their subordinates) may explain the crossover within the two domains. Our results support that, irrespective of the enrichment or conflict that supervisors and their subordinates experience within the two domains, crossover of engagement takes place. Our results therefore go above and beyond the impact of spillover and point out to the role of other potential mechanisms in accounting for how crossover takes place in these domains (Westman et al., 2009).

In following the arguments above, our second contribution lies in exploring the boundary conditions that explain when and how crossover of work and home engagement unfolds between supervisors and their subordinates. Westman (2006) suggested that communication and interaction of partners is one mechanism that may explain the crossover process. Our findings indeed demonstrated that the crossover of home engagement was moderated by subordinates’ perceived FSSBs, respectively. In relation to a lack of the moderating role of POS on the crossover of work engagement, recent work and review on work engagement supports that work engagement is a high-activation state of well-being and emotional state; those who are engaged are likely to radiate positive emotions to others and inspire them with their active and follower-focused positive energy, irrespective of the context and norms of the organization (Bakker, 2017). Furthermore, our focus on POS contributes to a few recent studies emphasizing the role of communication and interactions; for example, Bakker and Xanthopoulou (2009) revealed that the crossover of work engagement between colleagues at day level was moderated by the frequency of communication between these colleagues, such that on days when colleagues communicated more frequently, the crossover of work engagement strengthened. Our findings expand this study by demonstrating the crossover from supervisors to their subordinates and examining the role of supervisors’ POS as a boundary condition, at the between-level of analysis. It may be that the role of communication and perceived supportiveness of the organization differs in between-levels compared to within-levels of analyses. As such, engaged managers are known to focus on their own emotions and radiate positive affective states to their followers, and this is likely to be prevalent and observed in work contexts irrespective of the varying levels of POS.

Relatedly, another contribution of our study is that we focus on a new construct, ‘home engagement’, and demonstrate that, similar to work engagement, supervisors are able to transmit their states of home engagement to their subordinates. Home-engaged managers are likely to be great at expressing enthusiasm, radiating positive emotions and influencing their followers to mimic and adopt similar dispositions for their own states of home engagement (Tims et al., 2011). We note that, similar to the characteristics of work engagement, home engagement is an active state of mind, long lasting and enduring in the work domain as well (Bakker, 2009). Supervisors’ FSSBs might explain how supervisors’ home engagement translates into subordinates’ home engagement, underlining the role of consistency and integrity in supervisors’ behaviours and affective experiences (Illies et al., 2007). The latter helps ensure sufficient social information and cues are communicated to their subordinates (Rofcanin et al., 2017). Thus, when subordinates observe that their supervisors are home engaged and reflect their engagement in exhibiting FSSBs, these subordinates are likely to tune into, mimic and adopt a similar state of mind and be more home-engaged. FSSBs, in combination with home engagement, may be considered as novel affective and behavioural mechanisms, shedding light on how crossover of positive experiences takes place in the home domain.

Our study also contributes to research on the trickle-down models of positive experiences (Wo et al., 2015). Our findings underlined the trickle-down effect of supervisors’ work and home engagement, revealing that crossover in work and home explains why and how employees function better at work and home, respectively. More specifically, we demonstrated that owing to crossover of work engagement, subordinates showed enhanced work performance. Adopting a similar logic in a home domain, our findings supported that supervisors who are in a state of engagement express and reflect their positive experiences on their subordinates, leading them to enjoy more satisfaction with non-work. This is a novel perspective, supplementing and extending crossover research, which, as noted above, has mainly focused on the crossover within the work domains or, in a limited number of studies, from the work to home domains (i.e. spillover), overlooking the possibility that crossover at home is itself a unique process, with key consequences for employees’ physical and attitudinal well-being at work (Bakker and Demerouti, 2013).

Finally, this study is unique in terms of its context. Previous research on crossover has been conducted mainly in Anglo-Saxon (Anand et al., 2010) and continental European contexts (one of the limited exceptions is Bakker et al., 2011); our study provides empirical evidence on how crossover operates in less-developed economies, with very different institutional conditions. Our findings suggest that the concept of crossover between supervisors and subordinates is important and relevant in Chile, where keeping close family ties, and separation of gender roles in terms of work and home, remain cultural norms (Larrañaga, 2004). Again, Chile has undergone major political and economic changes, and continues to experience macro-economic volatility and other negative resource curse effects (Frankel, 2010). The latter has included a historical tendency to under-invest in skills and capabilities at systemic level; this would highlight the importance of compensatory practices at firm level, and the extent to which the localized inter-personal ties may be vested with a particular importance in helping secure organizational competitiveness.

Strengths and limitations

The first limitation relates to the cross-sectional design of the study, which limits rigorous testing of the causality underlying our hypotheses. We mainly built on the crossover theory and frameworks of POS and FSSBs in forming the directions of associations. However, we tested three alternative models to eliminate potential explanations from our proposed conceptual model. In the first alternative model, we explored the crossover from subordinates to their supervisors. In the second alternative model, we explored the spillover of engagement from work to home (and vice versa). In the third alternative model, we explored the moderating role of FSSBs on the association between supervisors’ and subordinates’ work engagement and the moderating role of POS on the association between supervisors’ and subordinates’ home engagement. Results from additional analyses mostly support that our conceptual model holds true (results are available upon request). It can thus be concluded that CMB is unlikely to have affected our findings. We suggest the use of a longitudinal design for future research, with a pre-determined time lag between each variable (e.g. 6 months to 1 year, which would be consistent with research on work engagement; Bakker and Schaufeli, 2014).

In this research, we focused on work and home engagement to explore crossover between supervisors and their subordinates. This was mainly because engaged employees are sources of inspiration and role models for others, radiating positive energy and creating a cohesive team environment (Engelbrecht, 2006). These characteristics of engaged employees make it relevant to explore how crossover takes place at work and at home. However, future research could explore other mechanisms, one potential avenue being to integrate work-self and family-self facilitation (Demerouti, 2012) concepts into crossover research. Work-self facilitation (WSF) and family-self facilitation (FSF) occur when resources generated at work and home help one function better and develop positive affect while pursuing personal interests. Another avenue of future research may be to focus on whether and how prosocial (motivation to help co-workers at the work domain; Grant, 2007) and family (motivation to help family members at the home domain; Menges et al., 2017) motivation cross over between supervisors and their subordinates. Furthermore, given the lack of significance of subordinates’ POS, it may be interesting to explore the moderating role of other organizational contextual variables, such as team orientation, team cohesiveness or task interdependence that may shape the mediation of subordinates’ work engagement.

Crossover theory underlines that the transmission of positive experiences between two people may be owing to the impact of a shared environment and being subject to the same conditions, creating a spurious effect in the crossover process (Westman, 2001). In the context of our study, we argued that for supervisors whose perception of organizational supportiveness is higher (vs lower), the transmission of work engagement to subordinates is stronger because POS indicates a supportive and resourceful work environment where supervisors approach their subordinates and facilitate engaging and learning environments. However, the reason underlying crossover of work engagement may be other factors, such as the provision of training, development opportunities and enhancement-oriented HR practices made available to all employees. Bakker et al. (2009) argued that positive perceptions of climate may strengthen the crossover of positive experiences; future research is suggested to disentangle how and why being subject to the same working environment and conditions may account for the crossover process. One possible way to approach this question is to evaluate the climate of the work environment (e.g. team cohesiveness, team support, organizational culture).

In developing our arguments for the crossover of home engagement from supervisors to their subordinates, we built on the argument that home-engaged supervisors experience an activated positive state of well-being, radiating positive emotions to their subordinates and influencing them (Bakker, 2009). This perspective builds on the assumption that home-engaged supervisors maintain their positive affective states at work, and subordinates are thus likely to tune into their emotions. Moreover, this is in line with the context of Chile, where supervisors develop and maintain informal, high-quality LMX relationships with their supervisors and reflect the central role of family in their interactions (e.g. Vassolo et al., 2011). Although this perspective is in line with Westman’s (2001) argument that individuals can imagine and mimic others’ emotions, sharing the same environment, that is, home, may be a stronger indicator for the crossover of home engagement. Future research could explore how the state of engagement at home crosses over between spouses or members of the family (i.e. children, elderlies or partners). Another avenue of research is to expand our model in contexts where sharing of family experiences at work is not relevant and central in forming supervisor–subordinate LMX relations (e.g. in countries which rate highly on work orientation or individualism).

In our study, we adopted a top-down approach and explored how supervisors’ work and home engagement cross over to their subordinates. Our choice was mainly driven by the leadership as well as supervisor–subordinate dynamics observed in this context: leadership in Chile is characterized by paternalism, where managers are viewed as dominant fatherly figures (Aycan, 2006). Moreover, research conducted in South and Central American contexts (e.g. El Salvador) supports that subordinates look up to, imitate and emulate the behaviours of their supervisors (e.g. Las Heras et al., 2017; Rofcanin et al., 2018). Nevertheless, we carried out post-hoc analyses to explore if crossover of work and home engagement takes place from subordinates to supervisors. Findings did not support these alternative propositions. Future research may explore under which conditions the crossover of work and home engagement unfolds from subordinates to supervisors.

The generalizability of our results is limited by the contextual characteristics of Chile: in work contexts, supervisor–subordinate relations are characterized by paternalism. In non-work contexts, keeping close family ties and taking care of family members are important, and gender roles are segregated. Although women often work and generate income outside their homes, they are almost exclusively responsible for housework and childcare. These aspects might have thrown our findings into clearer relief, but they may also have biased them, emphasizing the importance of context in the crossover process between the work and home domains; other features of work–life and supervisor–subordinate dynamics may become visible in different institutional settings. In order to generalize our findings to other contexts, future research might be undertaken integrating culture-related measures such as collectivism, the relative effectiveness of institutional arrangements, and family orientation unique to this context (Fouad and Arbona, 1994; House et al., 2004), and through replicating the study in other social contexts.

Practical implications

Organizations should facilitate work and home engagement among its employees, because this spreads from supervisors to their subordinates and drives their functioning in both domains. Accordingly, the allocation of job (e.g. feedback, coaching, autonomy) and home (e.g. flexible work times, schedules, spouse support) resources could facilitate both work and home engagement, respectively. Second, our findings showed that in organizations where FSSBs are more prevalent, the transmission of home engagement from supervisors to their subordinates strengthened. Accordingly, with regard to the role of FSSBs, HR departments should work in collaboration with supervisors to train, educate and increase awareness of exhibiting family supportive behaviours (Li and Bagger, 2011). Similar to Odle-Dusseau et al.’s (2016) implementation, we suggest periodic interventions and face-to-face workshops to assess employees’ family needs (e.g. elderly care). After face-to-face workshops, which might be delivered by HR executives and senior managers on the importance of balancing family and work, follow-up procedures might track employees, for example through self-monitoring tools or cards (as developed by Hammer et al., 2009) to explore how they perform in their home and work domains. Third, in order to facilitate the trickle-down effects of supervisors’ work and home engagement to drive better work and family outcomes, we suggest behavioural modelling techniques that would involve viewing an appropriate model (e.g. a manager), determining how the behaviour is implemented (FSSBs), discussing the effectiveness of the behaviour, and practising the behaviour, for example through simultaneous role plays (Gibson, 2004).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our thanks to Associate Editor Professor Olga Tregaskis and the three anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful and constructive guidance and feedback.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

ORCID iD

Yasin Rofcanin

Yasin Rofcanin is a reader (Associate Professor) of Organizational Behaviour and HRM at the University of Bath, School of Management, UK. He is the Deputy Director of the Future of Work Research Centre at University of Bath, School of Management. He obtained his PhD in Organizational Behaviour and HRM from Warwick Business School, University of Warwick. He earned his BA in Management from Bogazici University, Istanbul. His research focuses on flexible work practices, family supportive supervisor behaviours (FSSBs), HRM differentiation, i-deals, job crafting and employee work engagement. His research has appeared in journals including Human Relations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Occupational Organizational Psychology and Human Resource Management Journal, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Journal of Vocational Behavior, among others. [Email: y.rofcanin@bath.ac.uk]

Mireia Las Heras is an Associate Professor at IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Spain, where she serves as the Director of the International Center for Work and Family. She chairs the International Work–Family Conference every 2 years. She has widely published in the journals Human Relations, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior and Journal of Business Research, among others. Her research interests include idiosyncratic deals (i-deals), family supportive supervisor behaviours (FSSBs), family-prosocial-intrinsic motivation, and emotions at work, among other topics. She can be reached at @mireialasheras and [Email: mlasheras@iese.edu]

Maria Jose Bosch is Director of the Work & Family Research Center and Associate Professor in the Department of Organizational Behavior at ESE Business School in Chile. She holds a PhD and MSc from IESE, Universidad de Navarra, and a BS from Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. She has published and researched on leadership and work–family issues. Her areas of interest are work‒life balance, family supportive supervisor behavior (FSSB), perceived organizational support (POS) and differences across cultures, among others. [Email: mjbosch.ese@uandes.cl]

Geoffrey Wood is Dean and Professor of International Business, Essex Business School, UK. Previously he was Professor of International Business at Warwick Business School, UK. He has authored/co-authored/edited 17 books, and over 170 articles in peer-reviewed journals. He holds honorary positions at Griffith and Monash Universities in Australia, and Witwatersrand and Nelson Mandela Universities in South Africa. Geoff’s research interests centre on the relationship between institutional setting, corporate governance, firm finance, and firm-level work and employment relations. [Email: gtwood@essex.ac.uk]

Farooq Mughal is an Assistant Professor in Strategy and Organisation at the School of Management, University of Bath, UK. He has over a decade of global management, academic and consulting experience. His specialization as a scholar and consultant spans the design and delivery of high-impact learning that redefines organizational processes and work systems, creates opportunities for shared leadership, and mobilizes self-managing teams. He holds a PhD in Management Learning & Leadership and an MA in HRD & Consulting from Lancaster University, UK. [Email: f.mughal@bath.ac.uk]

References

Aiken

West

(1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Anand

Vidyarthi

Liden

Rousseau

(2010) Good citizens in poor-quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal 53(5): 970–988.

Aycan

(2006) Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In: Yang

Hwang

Kim

(eds) Scientific Advances in Indigenous Psychologies: Empirical, Philosophical and Cultural Contributions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 445–466.

Aycan

Shyncs

Sun

Felfe

Saher

(2013) Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leadership: A cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. International Journal of Business Studies 44: 962–969.

Bakker

(2009) The crossover of burnout and its relation to partner health. Stress & Health 25(4): 343–353.

Bakker

(2017) Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement. Organizational Dynamics 46: 67–75.

Bakker

(2018) Job crafting among health care professionals: The role of work engagement. Journal of Nursing Management 26(3): 321–331.

Bakker

Demerouti

(2009) The crossover of work engagement between working couples: A closer look at the role of empathy. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24(3): 220–236.

Bakker

Demerouti

(2013) The spillover-crossover model. In: Grzywacs

Demerouti

(eds) New Frontiers in Work and Family Research. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 54–70.

10.

Bakker

Leiter

(eds) (2010) Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. New York: Psychology Press.

11.

Bakker

Schaufeli

(2014) Work engagement. In: Flood

Freeney

(eds) Organizational Behaviour. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management. Chichester: Wiley.

12.

Bakker

Xanthopoulou

(2009) The crossover of daily work engagement: Test of an actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(6): 1562–1571.

13.

Bakker

Demerouti

Schaufeli

(2005) Crossover of burnout and work engagement among working couples. Human Relations 58(5): 661–689.

14.

Bakker

Westman

Van Emmerik

IJH

(2009) Advancements in crossover theory. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24(3): 206–219.

15.

Bakker

Shimazu

Demerouti

Shimada

Kawakami

(2011) Crossover of work engagement among Japanese couples: Perspective taking by both partners. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 16(1): 112–125.

16.

Bakker

Shimazu

Demerouti

Shimada

Kawakami

(2014) Work engagement versus workaholism: A test of the spillover-crossover model. Journal of Managerial Psychology 29: 63–80.

17.

Bakker

Rodriguez-Munoz

Sanz-Vergel

(2016) Modelling of job crafting behaviours: Implications for work engagement. Human Relations 69(1): 169–189.

18.

Bandura

(1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

19.

Bandura

(1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

20.

Becker

Atinc

Breaugh

, et al. (2016) Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(2): 157–167.

21.

Benko

Weisberg

(2007) Mass Career Customization: Aligning the Workplace with Today’s Nontraditional Workforce. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

22.

Bhave

Kramer

Glomb

(2010) Work–family conflict in work groups: Social information processing, support, and demographic dissimilarity. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(1): 145–158.

23.

Braun

Peus

(2018) Crossover of work–life balance perceptions: Does authentic leadership matter. Journal of Business Ethics 149(4): 875–893.

24.

Brislin

(1986) The wording of translation of research instruments. In: Lonner

Berry

(eds) Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, 137–164.

25.

Carlier

Llorente

Grau Grau

(2012) Comparing work-life balance in Spanish and Latin-American countries. European Journal of Training and Development 36(2/3): 286–307.

26.

Carlson

Grzywacz

Zivnuska

(2009) Is work–family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Human Relations 62(10): 1459–1486.

27.

Carlson

Ferguson

Kacmar

, et al. (2011) Pay it forward: The positive crossover effects of supervisor work-family enrichment. Journal of Management 37(3): 770–789.

28.

Demerouti

(2012) The spillover and crossover of resources among partners: The role of work-self and family-self facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 17(2): 184–195.

29.

Demerouti

Bakker

Schaufeli

(2005) Spillover and crossover of exhaustion and life satisfaction among dual-earner parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior 67(2): 266–289.

30.

Edwards

Van Harrison

(1993) Job demands and worker health: Three-dimensional re-examination of the relationship between person-environment fit and strain. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(4): 628–648.

31.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986) Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 500–507.

32.

Eisenberger

Shoss

Karagonlar

, et al. (2014) The supervisor POS–LMX–subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35(5): 635–656.

33.

Ellis

(2010) The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Engelbrecht

(2006) The implementation of inclusive education in South Africa after ten years of democracy. European Journal of Psychology of Education 21(3): 253–264.

35.

Frankel

(2010) The natural resource curse: A survey (no. w15836). National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15836 (accessed 23 May 2018).

36.

Fouad

Arbona

(1994) Careers in a cultural context. Career Development Quarterly 43(1): 96–104.

37.

Gibson

(2004) Social learning (cognitive) theory and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources 6(2): 193–210.

38.

Glenn

Weaver

(1981) The contribution of marital happiness to global happiness. Journal of Marriage and Family 43(2): 161–168.

39.

Grant

(2007) Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review 32(2): 393–417.

40.

Greenhaus

Powell

(2003) When work and family collide: Deciding between competing role demands. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 90(2): 291–303.

41.

Gutermann

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Boer

Born

Voelpel

(2017) How leaders affect followers’ work engagement and performance: Integrating leader−member exchange and crossover theory. British Journal of Management 28(2): 299–314.

42.

Hammer

Kossek

Yragui

, et al. (2009) Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management 35(4): 837–856.

43.

Hammer

Kossek

Bodner

Crain

(2013) Measurement development and validation of the Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior—Short Form (FSSB-SF). Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 18(3): 285–296.

44.

House

Hanges

Javidan

, et al. (eds) (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

45.

Hox

(2002) Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

46.

Ilies

Nahrgang

Morgeson

(2007) Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(1): 269–277.

47.

Kenny

Kashy

Cook

(2008) Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.

48.

Kossek

Baltes

Matthews

(2011a) How work–family research can finally have an impact in organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice 4(3): 352–369.

49.

Kossek

Pichler

Bodner

Hemmer

(2011b) Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology 64(2): 289–313.

50.

Lapierre

Allen

(2006) Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications for work–family conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11(2): 169–181.

51.

Larrañaga

(2004) Participación Laboral de la mujer en Chile: 1958–2003. Departamento de Economia, Universidad de Chile.

52.

Las Heras

Bosch

Raes

(2015) Sequential mediation among family-friendly culture and outcomes. Journal of Business Research 68(11): 2366–2373.

53.

Las Heras

Rofcanin

Bal

Stollberger

(2017) How do flexibility i-deals relate to work performance? Exploring the roles of family performance and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38(8): 1280–1294.

54.

Lefkowitz

(2000) The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance ratings: A literature review and proposed causal model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73(1): 67–85.

55.

Bagger

(2011) Walking in your shoes: Interactive effects of child care responsibility difference and gender similarity on supervisory family support and work-related outcomes. Group & Organization Management 36(6): 659–691.

56.

MacKinnon

Fairchild

(2009) Current directions in mediation analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18(1): 16–20.

57.

Manz

Sims

(1981) Vicarious learning: The influences of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review 6: 105–113.

58.

Marsh

Lüdtke

Nagengast

Morin

AJS

von Dvaier

(2013) Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right—camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods 18(3): 257–284.

59.

Matthews

Mills

Trout

English

(2014) Family-supportive supervisor behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being: A contextually dependent mediated process. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 19(2) 168–181.

60.

Menges

Tussing

Wihler

Grant

(2017) When job performance is all relative: How family motivation energizes effort and compensates for intrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Journal 60(2): 695–719.

61.

Neff

Niessen

Sonnentag

Unger

(2013) Expanding crossover research: The crossover of job-related self-efficacy within couples. Human Relations 66(6): 803–827.

62.

Odle-Dusseau

Hammer

Crain

Bodner

(2016) The influence of family-supportive supervisor training on employee job performance and attitudes: An organizational work–family intervention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 21(3): 296–308.

63.

OECD (2017) Hours worked. Available at: https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm (accessed 15 March 2018).

64.

Petrou

Bakker

Van den Heuvel

(2017) Weekly job crafting and leisure crafting: Implications for meaning-making and work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 90(2): 129–152.

65.

Pfeffer

Salancik

(1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

66.

Poelmans

Chinchilla

Cardona

(2003) The adoption of family-friendly HRM policies. Competing for scarce resources in the labour market. International Journal of Manpower 24(2): 128–147.

67.

Postmes

Tanis

de Wit

(2001) Communication and commitment in organizations: A social identity approach. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(3): 227–246.

68.

Prieto

(1992) A method for translation of instruments to other languages. Adult Education Quarterly 43(1): 1–14.

69.

Raudenbush

Bryk

(2002) Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd edn). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

70.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

(2002) Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 698–714.

71.

Rofcanin

Las Heras

Bakker

(2017) Family supportive supervisor behaviours and culture: Effects on work engagement and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22(2): 207–217.

72.

Rofcanin

Las Heras

Bal

van der Heijden

Erdogan

(2018) A trickle-down model of task and developmental i-deals. Human Relations 71(11): 1508–1534, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717751613.

73.

Ross

(1999) Political economy of resource curse. World Politics 51: 297–322.

74.

Schaufeli

Bakker

Salanova

(2006) The measurement of work engagement with a brief questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66(4): 701–716.

75.

Schneider

(2009) Hierarchical market economies and varieties of capitalism in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies 41(3): 553–575.

76.

Schriesheim

Cogliser

Scandura

Lankau

Powers

(1999) An empirical comparison of approaches for quantitatively assessing the content adequacy of paper-and-pencil measurement instruments. Organizational Research Methods 2: 140–156.

77.

Selig

Preacher

(2008) Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [computer software]. Available at: http://quantpsy.org/ (accessed 28 September 2018).

78.

Siu

Bakker

Brough

, et al. (2015) A three-wave study of antecedents of work-family enrichment: The roles of social resources and affect. Stress and Health 31(4): 306–314.

79.

ten Brummelhuis

Haar

Roche

(2014) Does family life help to be a better leader? A closer look at crossover processes from leaders to followers. Personnel Psychology 67(4): 917–949.

80.

Tims

Bakker

Xanthopoulou

(2011) Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly 22(1): 121–131.

81.

UN (2014) UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice finalizes country mission to Chile. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15005&LangID=E (accessed 22 March 2018).

82.

Vassolo

De Castro

Gomez-Mejia

(2011) Managing in Latin America: Challenges and a research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives 25(4): 20–34.

83.

Westman

(2001) Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations 54(6): 557–591.

84.

Westman

(2006) Models of work-family interactions: Stress and strain crossover. In: Suri

(ed.) International Encyclopedia of Organizational Behavior. New Delhi: Pentagon Press, 498–522.

85.

Westman

Vinokur

(1998) Unravelling the relationship of distress levels within couples: Common stressors, emphatic reactions or crossover via social interaction? Human Relations 51(2): 137–156.

86.

Westman

Brough

Kalliath

(2009) Expert commentary on work–life balance and crossover of emotions and experiences: Theoretical and practice advancements. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 30(5): 587–595.

87.

Williams

Anderson

(1991) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behavior. Journal of Management 17(3): 601–617.

88.

DXH

Ambrose

Schminke

(2015) What drives trickle-down effects? A test of multiple mediation processes. Academy of Management Journal 58(6): 1848–1868.

89.

Wood

Dibben

Ogden

(2014) Comparative capitalism without capitalism, and production without workers: The limits and possibilities of contemporary institutional analysis. International Journal of Management Reviews 16(4): 384–396.

90.

World Life Expectancy (2017) World health rankings: Life expectancy: Chile. Available at: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/chile-life-expectancy (accessed 21 March 2018).

91.

Zimmermann

Dormann

Dollard

(2011) On the positive aspects of customers: Customer-initiated support and affective crossover in employee–customer dyads. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84(1): 31–57.