A Double-mediation and Three-way Interaction Model of the Nexus Between Work–Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from India

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the work–family interface by exploring the relationship between work–family conflict (WFC) and job satisfaction. A conceptual model is developed and tested for mediation of family–work enrichment (FWE) and job involvement, as well as moderation of job characteristics and perceived social support in the relationship between WFC and job satisfaction. Data were collected from 630 employees from healthcare, banking, insurance and information technology sectors in southern India. After checking the measurement properties of the survey instrument by using Lisrel software of structural equation modelling, PROCESS macros were used to test the hypotheses. The results indicate (a) the negative effect of WFC on job satisfaction, FWE and job involvement and (b) a positive effect of FWE and job involvement on job satisfaction. The findings also supported the mediation of FWE and job involvement as mediators in the relationship between WFC and job satisfaction. Further, perceived social support weakened the relationship between WFC and FWE and between WFC and job involvement. The results also supported the interaction of perceived social support (first moderator) and job characteristics (second moderator) with WFC in influencing job involvement. To the best of our knowledge, the double-mediation and two-way and three-way interactions between the variables have been tested for the first time and thus make a pivotal contribution to the advancement of burgeoning literature on WFCs.

Keywords

Work–family conflict family–work enrichment job involvement job characteristics job satisfaction perceived social support

1. Introduction

The last three decades have produced an impressive mass of studies on the antecedents and consequences of conflict between family and work (Byron, 2005; French et al., 2018; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Khalid et al., 2023; Ni et al., 2023; Nida et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024). There is a consensus among scholars from organizational behaviour and industrial psychology about the dysfunctional consequences of work–family conflict (WFC): job dissatisfaction, burnout, emotional exhaustion, performance and productivity (Gull et al., 2023; Hwang & Hoque, 2023; Lu et al., 2017; Montgomery et al., 2003). While WFCs are common and understandable, the recent global hit pandemic has increased these conflicts because individuals were forced to work from home (Kaur & Mandal, 2023; Ni et al., 2023). As the family–work landscape has undergone a phenomenal metamorphosis, which is evidenced by the majority of employees continuing to work from home, some recent scholars recommend reinvestigating the influence of WFC on organizational outcomes (Wang & Wang, 2023; Yadav & Sharma, 2023).

WFC is a type of role conflict that has two sides: work interfering with family (WIF) and family interfering with work (FIW), and both adversely affect the productivity and performance of employees (Bernuzzi et al., 2023; Fotiadis et al., 2019; Morrow et al., 2023; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Tran et al., 2024). Several studies documented the escalation of WFC during the pandemic period (Hsieh et al., 2022; Lawson et al., 2024; Reimann, 2023) and suggested family–friendly policies and supervisor support to mitigate the ill effects of WFC on productivity and job satisfaction. Despite exhaustive research conducted during the pre-pandemic and post-pandemic, relatively fewer studies focused on how WFC affects family–work enrichment (FWE), job involvement and job satisfaction.

1.1. Rationale and Context of the Study

The objective of this study is to revisit WFC and its consequences, especially in the context of a developing country—India. This study examines how perceived social support and job involvement affect the relationship between WFC, FWE and job satisfaction. Prior scholars reported a positive association of FWE with job autonomy, health and family satisfaction (Agrawal & Mahajan, 2021; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2018). Some researchers argue that family-induced WFC is associated with family dissatisfaction (Kinnunen & Mauno, 1998), and work-induced WFC is associated with job dissatisfaction (Kinnunen et al., 2006). The logic behind the argument is that both types of conflict (work-to-family and family-to-work) yield domain-specific items such that the outcomes are related to the source of the conflict (Wayne et al., 2007). Though the literature is rife with several studies, there is a noticeable gap in exploring the relationship between WFC, FWE, job involvement and job satisfaction. To bridge the gap, this study focuses on the following research questions (RQs).

RQ1: How WFC influences job satisfaction, FWE, job involvement and job satisfaction?

RQ2: How perceived social support moderates the relationship between WFC and FWE?

RQ3: How do perceived social support (first moderator) and job characteristics (second moderator) interact with WFC to influence job involvement?

This study makes five significant contributions to the literature on WFC by answering the above questions. First, as predicted, WFC was negatively related to FWE and job satisfaction, thus adding to the existing studies in the literature. Second, FWE acts as a precursor to job satisfaction, which was not studied by previous scholars and thus contributes to the studies on WFC. Third, adverse effects of WFC on job involvement were found to be evident from this study. It is logical to expect that when employees face conflict between the demands from family and work, their involvement in the job gets adversely affected. Fourth, perceived social support minimizes the negative effect of WFC on FWE and job involvement. Social support helps the employees to understand the importance of FWE and the job they are engaging in. Fifth, the job characteristics moderating the moderated relationship between WFC and perceived social support in influencing job involvement is a novel idea explored in this study. The novelty of the present study stems from one two-way interaction between FWC and perceived social support influencing FWE and a three-way interaction between FWC, perceived support and job characteristics influencing job involvement. To sum up, the conceptual model developed and tested primarily in the context of a developing nation, India, to the best of our knowledge, is the first of its kind and hence adds significantly to the burgeoning literature on WFC.

2. Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Hypotheses development based on literature review and theoretical underpinnings are explained in this section.

The theoretical underpinning for the present research stems from the conservation of resources (COR) (Hobfoll, 1989). Several scholars have used COR as a theoretical platform to explain the effects of WFC on job involvement and job satisfaction (Agrawal & Mahajan, 2023; Liu et al., 2022). The employees experiencing WFC tend to use resources (e.g., social support) to mitigate the ill effects of WFC on job involvement and FEW. Resource gain can also be seen in terms of FWE, as work roles improve the quality of family life (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Yu et al., 2020). The basic tenet of COR is that individuals try to acquire and maintain the resources to manage the work demands significantly when the existing resources are depleted (Hobfoll, 1989). Since WFC results in the depletion of resources, albeit psychologically, individuals seek to acquire new resources to maintain a balance between work and family. In this study, we argue that the workplace resources (e.g., perceived social support) buffer the negative impact of WFC on FWE so that individuals can manage the work demands, thereby focusing on the jobs and deriving job satisfaction (Pan et al., 2022). COR helps individuals to gain new resources to compensate for the loss of resources (Halbesleben et al., 2014). For example, employees who receive social support from family members and organizational participants (peers and supervisors) are more likely to have a positive effect on FWE (Merkuz & Mihelic, 2023).

2.1. WFC and Job Satisfaction

An individual experiences inharmonious demands between work and family roles, resulting in WFC. Extant research reported a negative relationship between WFC and job satisfaction (Duarte et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2022; Viegas & Henriques, 2021). In one of the recent studies conducted among Chinese correctional staff, researchers reported a strong negative association of WFC with job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Lambert et al., 2020), which is consistent with the previous studies (Glaveli et al., 2013; Kengatharan, 2017). Recently, the global pandemic has escalated the family-induced work stress stemming from inflexible working hours, working from home, limited autonomy and increased roles and responsibilities, apart from health concerns (Kaur & Mandal, 2023). Undoubtedly, WFC experienced by employees during-and-post-pandemic period has a potentially adverse effect on productivity and job satisfaction (Bernuzzi et al., 2023; Morrow et al., 2023; Tran et al., 2024)

In a study conducted on 280 young faculty members from Pakistan, researchers found a robust negative association between WFC and job satisfaction (Soomro et al., 2018). Some scholars provided empirical evidence that WFC resulted in lower levels of engagement in work, low productivity and increased turnover intention, in addition to lowering job satisfaction (Gutiérrez Vargas et al., 2023; Priyanka et al., 2022; Ribeiro et al., 2021; Tuffour & Bortey, 2022). When employees find WIF, they feel less satisfied, whereas employees, who do not find work interferes with family are more likely to be satisfied. Thus, based on abundant available empirical evidence and logos, we offer the following hypothesis:

H₁: WFC is significantly and negatively related to job satisfaction.

2.2. WFC and FWE

FWE is ‘the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other’ (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006, p. 73). Instead of improving the quality of life, if the source of conflict (family) results in role conflict with work, it is more likely that the FWE will be adversely affected. In a study conducted among university professors in Bolivia, researchers found a strong negative impact of WFC on FWE (Daniel et al., 2012). In a large study conducted on 2,340 Finnish healthcare employees, Mauno et al. (2012) found that WFC and FWE are negatively related, and coping strategies help mitigate WFC and enhance enrichment. Some of the antecedents of FWE identified by earlier scholars include family, organizational and job characteristics (Zhang et al., 2024). WFC negatively affects enrichment because of stress created by incoherence between work and home (Elahi et al., 2022). In a meta-analytic investigation involving a large sample (N = 459,846), researchers have documented a negative association of WFC with FWE, suggesting that vigour and exhaustion play a vital role in influencing the work–family interface (Pak et al., 2022). Considering available empirical evidence, we offer the following hypothesis:

H₂: WFC is significantly and negatively related to FWE.

2.3. Perceived Social Support as a Moderator Between WFC and FWE

Perceived social support refers to the perceived accessibility and availability of social connections from co-workers or family members (Wan et al., 2022). Some studies have provided empirical evidence that perceived social support from supervisors and co-workers decreases WFC (Adu et al., 2023; Selvarajan et al., 2013). In a recently conducted study by Firdaus et al. (2023), data collected from banking agencies in Indonesia revealed that social support played a significant role in increasing employee performance.

To mitigate the negative effect of WFC on outcomes (Uddin et al., 2020), employees look for resources in the organization. One such resource is perceived social support. As prior scholars empirically found that generating positive feelings and enhanced esteem, reciprocal patterns of supportive exchange may augment the psychological benefits associated with receiving emotional support (Nahum-Shani et al., 2011) and help mitigate the negative influence of WFC on enrichment (Galardo & Trottier, 2022). A recent study found that familial support is essential to successfully minimizing WFC and maximizing work–family enrichment (Kelley et al., 2021). Based on direct relationships, we offer the following exploratory mediation hypothesis:

H_2a: Perceived social support moderates the relationship between WFC and FWE, such that higher (lower) levels of perceived social support weaken (strengthen) the relationship.

2.4. FWE and Job Satisfaction

FWE is related to improving the quality of life when the experience of individuals in performing one role function benefits another (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). In other words, work and family benefit from each other, which enriches family and work. Employees with higher levels of enrichment are more likely to contribute to the organization (Wayne et al., 2007), perform well and enhance job satisfaction. Previous scholars found a positive effect of FWE on job satisfaction (Beutell & Witting-Berman, 2008; Hammer et al., 2005) and work–life balance (Allis & O’Driscoll, 2008). In one study conducted on 334 employees in South Africa, researchers revealed that FWE has increased job satisfaction and work engagement (Koekemoer et al., 2020). Since FWE plays a crucial role in influencing job satisfaction, organizations are encouraged to implement strategies (e.g., human resource flexibility) (Daniel & Sonnentag, 2016) that foster enrichment (Roche & Haar, 2011). Based on several empirical studies documenting a positive link between FWE and job satisfaction (Gutiérrez Vargas et al., 2023; Tang et al., 2014; Tiwari et al., 2024), we offer the following hypothesis:

H₃: FWE has a positive relationship with job satisfaction.

2.5. FWE as a Mediator Between WFC and Job Satisfaction

While WFC hurts job satisfaction, the indirect effect of WFC on job satisfaction is mediated through FWE. The possibility of indirect effect stems from the spillover of WFC on FWE. Though FWE has a direct positive effect on job satisfaction, the total effect of WFC on job satisfaction is a combination of direct and indirect effects (mediated through FWE). Some early scholars found well-being to moderate the relationship between WFC and task performance (Wayne et al., 2007). A recent Moreira et al. (2023) study argues that well-being mediates the relationship between WFC and task performance. In the work–family interface, a spouse’s FWE sometimes contributes to a happy life and performance in organizations (van Steenbergen et al., 2014). In one study conducted among 280 public secondary teachers in Malaysia, FWE mediated the relationship between job autonomy, job characteristics and job satisfaction (Fung et al., 2014). The literature review reveals that prior studies have not investigated the mediating effect of FWE between WFC and job satisfaction. Thus, based on the lack of earlier studies and logical reasoning, we offer the following exploratory mediation hypothesis.

H₄: FWE mediates between family–work conflict and job satisfaction.

2.6. WFC and Job Involvement

Job involvement is the psychological state of employees that determines participation in work, profession and organizations (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). When employees experience role conflict between work and family, it is more likely they do not wholeheartedly get involved in their jobs. Nearly three decades back, Frone and Rice (1987) demonstrated that WFC adversely affects job involvement. In a study conducted on 558 employees of small and medium-sized enterprises from 19 organizations in China revealed that WFC resulted in lower job involvement (Liu et al., 2016). Contemporary researchers have echoed the earlier findings from the literature and empirically demonstrated that WFC is negatively associated with job involvement (Liu et al., 2020). For example, in a study of 827 police officers from India, researchers found a significant negative relationship between WFC and job involvement (Frank et al., 2022). From the above discussion, we offer the following hypothesis.

H₅: WFC negatively affects job involvement.

2.7. Perceived Social Support as a First Moderator Between WFC and Job Involvement

While work and family provide enormous reservoirs of resources, a potential threat loss or gain in one domain is more likely to affect another domain’s essential state significantly (Hobfoll, 1989). Following COR, individuals attempt to find other resources to compensate for the loss of resources, and perceived social support plays a vital role. While juggling between family and work, fewer resources will be available if individuals experience more conflict in one of the domains (either family or work). To compensate, individuals may become deeply involved in their jobs and seek social support (e.g., perceived social support, job involvement), which acts as an additional resource. Social support is a vital resource that helps people cope with job stress through supportive relationships with others (Kanungo, 1982; Thompson & Goodvin, 2016). In a study, Liu et al. (2016) documented that perceived supervisor support moderated the relationship between WFC, job involvement and organizational commitment. Perceived social support helps buffer the adverse effects of stressful life on individuals. Social support could enhance employees’ job performance, partially mediated by organizational commitment and innovative work behaviour (Vuong et al., 2023). In a recent study conducted in banking institutions in Ghana, researchers reported the negative effect of social support on family–work conflicts (Osei Boakye et al., 2022). The impact of social support on the job performance of the employees by considering the role of job enrichment and innovative work behaviour was investigated, and the findings indicated that social support has a significant and positive effect on innovative work behaviours, job enrichment and job performance (Salari et al., 2023). In a study conducted on 220 female officers in Ghana, researchers found that perceived social support buffered the negative relationship between WFC and professional ability and career goals (Adu et al., 2023). Thus, based on the above literature, this study hypothesizes that:

H_5a: Perceived social support positively moderates between WFC and job involvement such that at higher (lower) levels of perceived social support the relationship between WFC and job involvement becomes weaker (stronger).

2.8. Job Characteristics as a Second Moderator Between WFC and Job Involvement

Nearly four decades back, Hackman and Oldham (1975) pointed out that job characteristics—skills variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback, play a crucial role in influencing employees at work. Subsequent researchers reported that job characteristics have a positive association with an individual’s work motivation, performance and satisfaction and a negative association with turnover intention and absenteeism (Bohlander & Snell, 2013; Cascio, 2010; Fernández-Salinero et al., 2020). In this study, we argue that while perceived social support dissipates the negative effect of WFC on job involvement, job characteristics also play a vital role in enhancing job involvement. One study on 175 military employees revealed that WFC mediated the relationship between job characteristics and employee well-being (Carvalho et al., 2018). While previous scholars have examined the direct relationship between job characteristics on performance and satisfaction, how do job characteristics change the strength of the relationship between WFC and job involvement?

Further, it will be interesting to investigate how the two-way interaction between WFC and perceived social support on job involvement is influenced by job characteristics. In other words, the three-way interaction between WFC, perceived social support and job characteristics affecting job involvement is worth investigating. Therefore, in this study, we offer the following exploratory hypothesis.

H_5b: Job characteristics (second moderator) moderate the relationship between WFC and perceived social support (first moderator) to influence job involvement. At higher (lower) levels of job characteristics, higher (lower) levels of perceived social support and lower (higher) WFC results in stronger (weaker) job involvement.

2.9. Job Involvement and Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction refers to an employee’s enjoyment or fulfilment (Thompson & Phua, 2012). Job involvement demonstrates how much the employees participate wholeheartedly in their work. Job involvement is the psychological state of employees that determines participation in work, profession and organizations. Some scholars contend that job involvement reflects an employee’s self-image and contributes significantly to the growth of an organization (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). Previous studies documented a positive association of job involvement with job satisfaction (Ollo-López et al., 2016; Pfeffer, 1994; Wood & de Menezes, 2011). Garcia et al. (2018) documented that millennial workers experienced higher satisfaction when they participated in decisions concerning general aspects of the company in addition to their primary tasks. A higher level of job involvement motivates employees to perform better and derive job satisfaction (Diefendorff et al., 2002). Aligning with the early scholars, contemporary researchers found that employee involvement in different forms of participative decision-making significantly influenced performance and satisfaction (Talukder, 2022). Based on the above arguments, the following hypothesis is offered:

H₆: Job involvement is positively and significantly related to job satisfaction.

2.10. Job Involvement as a Mediator Between WFC and Job Satisfaction

While the direct effect of WFC on job satisfaction is understandable, it is also likely that WFC may indirectly affect job satisfaction through job involvement. Some previous scholars found that job involvement mediated the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Culibrk et al., 2018). Though job involvement, job characteristics and organizational commitment positively affect employee performance and satisfaction, the indirect effect of WFC on job satisfaction through job involvement cannot be underestimated. Further, a recent study documented that among four types of WFC (time-based conflict, strain-based conflict, behaviour-based conflict and family-to-work-based conflict), behaviour-based and family-to-work-based conflict has a negative association with job involvement. In contrast, time-based and strain-based conflicts did not impact job involvement (Liu et al., 2020). Based on the complex relationships explained above, we offer the following mediation hypothesis:

H₇: Job involvement mediates between family–work conflict and job satisfaction.

The conceptual model is presented in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sample

This research aims to see the effect of change management on employee productivity and job satisfaction. This research is carried out in a developing country, India. Since the global pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes in almost all sectors, we considered four critical sectors: healthcare, banking, insurance and information technology. We developed a carefully crafted survey instrument and distributed the survey among employees working in these four sectors in southern India. Due to social distancing problems and health restrictions, we preferred to use a Google form to collect data, which several researchers practised during the global pandemic (and post-global pandemic, too) (Antony et al., 2023; Jayaraman et al., 2023; Shaik et al., 2023).

Further, to collect data, we first contacted known people and requested them to provide information about their friends and colleagues. We mentioned that this is purely academic research and their voluntary participation. Through snowball sampling, we have collected 630 completed surveys. Since Google Forms only allows a respondent to proceed further after responding to questions, all the surveys received were complete. To check non-response bias, we compared the first 75 respondents with the last 75 respondents. We found no statistical differences between these two groups in terms of all the variables.

3.2. Demographic Profile

The respondents consisted of 186 (29.5%) male and 444 (70.5%) female. Standard deviation _gender = 0.457; skewness _gender = −0.90; kurtosis _gender = −1.194; standard deviation _education = 1.72; skewness _education = 0.268; kurtosis _education = 0.048; standard deviation _income = 1.85; skewness _income = 0.985; kurtosis _income = −0.019; standard deviation _{family type} = 0.41; skewness _{family type} = 1.408; kurtosis _{family type} = −0.019; standard deviation _{number of dependents} = 0.778; skewness _{number of dependents} = 0.492; kurtosis _{number of dependents} = −0.104. The demographic profile of the respondents is mentioned in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Profile.

Category	Profile	Total Number	Percentage
Gender	Male	186	29.5
	Female	444	70.5
Age	Below 25	73	11.6
	25–35	177	28.2
	35–45	131	20.8
	45–55	168	26.6
	Over 55	81	12.8
Annual income	Below ₹240,000 ($3,000)	387	61.4
	Below ₹240,000–480,000 ($3,000–6,000)	22	3.5
	₹480,000–720,000 ($6,000–9,000)	56	8.9
	₹720,000–960,000 ($9,000–12,000)	37	5.9
	₹960,000–1,200,000 ($12,000–15,000)	55	8.7
	Over ₹1,200,000 ($15,000)	73	11.6
Education	High school	28	4.4
	Vocational	55	8.7
	Undergraduate bachelor	318	50.5
	Master’s degree	107	17.0
	Professional (law, chartered accountancy)	100	15.8
	Others (e.g., diploma)	22	3.6
Occupation	Government employee	104	16.5
	Employee in private sector	234	37.2
	Self-employed	80	12.7
	Professional	106	16.8
	Business	106	16.8
Family type	Nuclear	496	78.7
	Joint	134	21.3
Number of dependents	Less than 2	172	27.3
	2–4	318	50.5
	3–6	117	18.6
	Above 6	23	3.6

3.3. Measures

All the constructs used in this study were borrowed from previously tested and used in the literature. The indicators for all the constructs were measured on 7-point Likert-type scale (‘7’ = strongly agree; ‘1’= strongly disagree).

WFC was measured with five items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82) adapted from Netemeyer et al. (1996), and the sample item reads as: ‘The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life’. FWE was measured with eight items (α = 0.85) adapted from Carlson et al. (2006), and the sample item reads as: ‘My involvement in my family helps me gain knowledge and this helps me be a better worker’. We did not include one item because of low factor loadings.

Job involvement was measured with five items (α = 0.74) adapted from Kanungo (1982), and the sample item reads as: ‘I am very much involved personally in my job’. Perceived social support was measured with twelve items (α = 0.78) adapted from Zimet et al. (1988), and the sample item reads as: ‘There is a special person who is around when I am in need’. Job characteristics were measured with six items (α = 0.81) adapted from Hackman and Oldham (1975), and the sample item reads as: ‘Stimulating and challenging work’. Job satisfaction was measured with five items (α = 0.84) adapted from Schriesheim and Tsui (1980), and the sample item reads as; ‘I am satisfied with my current job’.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Check for Normality and Common Method Bias

Before analyzing the data, we checked for normality and found that skewness and kurtosis values were within the range [between +3 and −3 (Hair et al., 2014)].

In survey-based research, it is mandatory to check for CMB, and we used three statistical techniques in this process. First, we performed traditional Harman’s single-factor test and found that the study items explained 32.43% through a single factor, less than 50%, suggesting that CMV is not a problem with the data (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Second, we compared the six-factor model with five alternative models and found that the six-factor model was the best fit of the data [χ²/df = 2.16; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)= 0.057; root mean-square error (RMR) = 0.062; standardized RMR = 0.051; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.92; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.80]. Since the RMSEA (<0.08) and CFI (>0.90) indicate a good fit for the model. On the contrary, the single factor yielded a poor fit to the data [χ²/df = 21.45; RMSEA = 0.148; RMR = 0.242; standardized RMR = 0.178; CFI = 0.58; GFI = 0.51]. As a third check, we used the latent variable method by loading all the indicators into a factor each time and found that the inner variance inflation factor (VIF) values were less than 3.3, indicating that the data was not infected by CMB (Kock, 2015).

4.2. Measurement Model and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

As suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we followed a two-step process and checked the measurement model first before testing the structural model. We used co-variance based structural equation modelling (SEM) to conduct CFA by employing LISREL software.

The CFA results reveal that factor loadings of all six constructs were above the acceptable levels of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2014). The goodness-of-fit statistics reveal that the data is a good fit for the model (CFA). The reliability coefficients: Cronbach’s alpha (ranged between 0.74 and 0.85) and the average variance extracted (AVE) estimates (ranged between 0.51 and 0.64) were the above the minimum acceptable levels of 0.50. These statistics provided evidence for the reliability of the constructs (Montgomery et al., 2021).

4.3. Descriptive Statistics, Multicollinearity, Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity

The descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations) are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics [Means, Standard Deviations (SD) and Reliability Coefficients].

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	Cronbach’s Alpha	CR	AVE
1. WFC	4.54	0.73	0.80						0.82	0.90	0.64
2. FWE	5.00	0.55	−0.15**	0.71					0.85	0.89	0.51
3. JCH	4.69	0.91	−0.35**	0.68**	0.75				0.81	0.88	0.56
4. JINV	4.94	0.71	−0.32**	0.52**	0.46**	0.77			0.74	0.88	0.60
5. PSS	5.29	0.68	0.16**	0.70**	0.34**	0.57**	0.73		0.78	0.93	0.54
6. JSAT	4.25	0.84	−0.15**	0.55**	0.67**	0.61**	0.46**	0.79	0.84	0.89	0.62

Notes: **p < .01. AVE: Average variance extracted; FWE: Family–work enrichment; JCH: Job characteristics; JINV: Job involvement; JSAT: Job satisfaction; PSS: Perceived social support; WFC: Family–work conflict. Numbers in diagonals and bold are square root of AVE of the constructs.

As can be seen in Table 2, the correlations ranged between 0.15 and 0.70, indicating that multicollinearity was not a problem with the data (Montgomery et al., 2021). As an additional check, we verified the VIF values for all the variables and found that these were than 5, vouching for the absence of multicollinearity in the data. (Montgomery et al., 2021).

To check for convergent validity and internal consistency of the indicators was established since AVEs for all the constructs were over 0.50. To check for discriminant validity, we compared the square root of AVE with the correlations between the variables and found that correlations were less than the square root of AVEs for all the constructs, thus indicating discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2014).

4.4. Testing the Structural Model

We used Hayes (2018) PROCESS macros to test hypothesized relationships. We used model 4 for checking H₁–H₇, model 1 for checking H_2a and model 3 for checking H_5a and H_5b. We presented the results in Table 3 (direct hypotheses), Table 4 (mediation hypotheses) and Table 5 (moderation hypotheses).

Table 3.

Hypotheses Testing [H₁, H₂, H₃, H₅ and H₆].

Hypotheses	Relationships	β	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI	Result
H ₁	WFC ↓ job satisfaction	−0.51	0.035	−14.42	.0000	−0.5788	−0.4401	Supported
H ₂	WFC ↓ FWE	−0.62	0.023	−26.55	.0000	−0.6698	−0.5776	Supported
H ₃	FWE ↓ job satisfaction	0.49	0.056	8.55	.0000	0.3744	0.5976	Supported
H ₅	WFC ↓ job involvement	−0.70	0.025	−27.65	.0000	−0.7500	−0.6506	Supported
H ₆	Job involvement ↓ job satisfaction	0.59	0.050	11.59	.0000	0.4866	0.6851	Supported

Note: FWE: Family–work enrichment; LLCI: Lower limit confidence interval; ULCI: Upper limit confidence interval; WFC: Family–work conflict.

Table 4.

Results of Mediation Analysis [H₄ and H₇].

	Coeff	SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI	Result
WFC ↓ FWE ↓ job satisfaction
Total effect	−0.5094	0.0353	−0.5788	−0.4401
Direct effect	−0.2063	0.0487	−0.3020	−0.1106
Indirect effect (H₄)	−0.3031	0.0381	−0.3770	−0.2282	Supported
WFC ↓ job involvement ↓ job satisfaction
Total effect	−0.5094	0.0353	−0.5788	−0.4401
Direct effect	−0.0991	0.0478	−0.1929	−0.0054
Indirect effect (H₇)	−0.4103	0.0340	−0.4773	−0.3432	Supported

Notes: N = 630; Boot LLCI refers to the lower bound bootstrapping confidence intervals. Boot ULCI refers to the upper bound bootstrapping confidence intervals. Number of bootstrapping samples for this bias corrected bootstrapping confidence intervals are 20,000. The level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output was 0.95. We have four decimal digits for bootstrap results because some values may be very close to zero. FWE: family–work enrichment; WFC: family–work conflict.

Table 5.

Results of Moderation Analysis.

Hypotheses	Relationship	Coeff	SE	t	p	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI	R² and F values	Result
H _2a	WFC × PSS ↓ FWE	0.15	0.0496	2.9922	.0029	0.0510	0.2458	0.762; F (3.626) = 670.93	Supported
H _5a	WFC × PSS ↓ job involvement	0.20	0.0474	4.2618	.0000	0.1088	0.2948	0.896; F (3.626) = 705.30	Supported
H _5b	WFC × PSS × job characteristics ↓ job involvement	0.13	0.0310	4.4154	.0000	0.0761	0.1980	0.786; F (7.622) = 765.45	Supported

Note: FWE: Family–work enrichment; LLCI: Lower limit confidence interval; PSS: Perceived social support; ULCI: Upper limit confidence interval; WFC: Family–work conflict.

The results (see Table 3) show that all the hypotheses were supported. WFC was significantly and negatively associated with job satisfaction (H₁: β = −0.51, p < .001), and FWE (H₂: β = −0.62, p < .001). The results also show that FWE is significantly and positively predicted job satisfaction (H₃: β = 0.49, p < .001). Further, the regression results showed a significant and negative association of WFC with job involvement (H₅: β = −0.70, p < .001) and a significant association with job satisfaction (H₆: β = 0.59, p < .001). These results render support to H₁, H₂, H₃, H₅ and H₆.

H₄ and H₇ are related to the mediation of FWE and job involvement in the relationship between WFC and job satisfaction. Table 4 shows that the indirect effect of WFC on job satisfaction mediated through FWE was significant (β = −0.3031; Boot LLCI = −0.3770; Boot ULCI = −0.2282). Since zero was not contained in the confidence intervals, the mediation hypothesis H₄ was supported. Further, the indirect effect of WFC on job satisfaction mediated through job involvement was significant (β = −0.4103; Boot LLCI = −0.4773; Boot ULCI = −0.3432). The results based on 20,000 bias corrected bootstrapping confidence intervals did not contain ‘zero’, thus supporting the mediation hypothesis (H₇).

4.5. Testing the Moderation Hypotheses [H_2a, H_5a and H_5b]

The regression results presented in Table 5 show that the regression coefficient of interaction term of WFC and perceived social support on FWE was significant (H_2a: β_{WFC × perceived social support} = 0.15, p < .01). The model explained 76.2 of variance in FWE [F (3.626) = 670.93]. The visual presentation of moderating effect of the perceived social support in the relationship between WFC and FWE is shown in Figure 2.

As can be seen in Figure 2, at higher levels of perceived social support, WFC results in increased family–work, enrichment whereas at low levels of perceived social support, WFC results in decreased FWE. Further, when WFC increases from low to high levels, higher levels of perceived social support result in an increase in FWE, whereas lower levels of perceived social support result in lower FWE. These curves render support to H_2a.

The regression coefficient of the interaction term of WFC and perceived social support on job involvement was significant (H_5a: β_{WFC × perceived social support} = 0.20, p < .001), thus supporting H_5a. The model explained 89.6 of the variance in the job involvement [F (3.626) = 705.30]. A visual presentation of the moderating effect of perceived social support in the relationship between WFC and job involvement was presented in Figure 3.

As can be seen in Figure 3, higher levels of perceived social support are associated with increased job involvement when compared to lower levels of perceived social support. Though perceived social support interacts with WFC to increase job involvement, the rate of increase is more rapid when perceived social support is high when compared to lower levels of perceived social support, thus supporting H_5a.

The moderation effect of job characteristics (second moderator) in the relationship between WFC, perceived social support (first moderator) and job involvement is known as three-way interaction. The regression coefficient of the three-way interaction term (WFC × perceived social support × job characteristics) was significant (H_5b: β_{WFC × perceived social support × job characteristics} = 0.13; p < .001), and the model explained 78.6 of the variance in the job involvement [F (7.622) = 765.45]. The visual presentation of the three-way interaction is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 consists of two panels (Panels A and B). Panel A shows the interaction of perceived social support and WFC on job involvement when job characteristics are low. The interaction curves show that at lower levels of perceived social support WFC results in lower levels of job involvement when compared to lower levels of social support. However, when we move to Panel B, which shows the interaction effect of perceived social support and WFC on job involvement at higher levels of job characteristics, the relationship becomes more stronger at higher levels of perceived social support when compared to lower levels of perceived social support. A comparison of the slopes of the curves in these two panels render support to the three-way interaction H_5b.

The empirical model is presented in Figure 5.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Summary of Findings

Riding on the COR theory, a conceptual model is developed and tested to explore the relationship between WFC and job satisfaction. Data were collected from 630 respondents from various organizations in a developing country (India), and analyzed by using PROCESS macros. The results supported all hypothesized relationships and validated the model. First, the results indicate a strong negative effect of WFC on job satisfaction (H₁), supporting prior studies in the literature (Gutiérrez Vargas et al., 2023; Priyanka et al., 2022; Ribeiro et al., 2021; Soomro et al., 2018; Tuffour & Bortey, 2022). The recent global pandemic added fuel to the fire because work from home has further escalated the WFC, adversely affecting job satisfaction. For example, some of the recent studies conducted during the post-pandemic period revealed that WFC and stress have deleterious effects on job satisfaction (Bernuzzi et al., 2023; Morrow et al., 2023; Tran et al., 2024). Second, we found in this study that WFC is negatively related to FWE (H₂), which adds to the mounting evidence from the previous studies (Elahi et al., 2022; Mauno et al., 2012; Pak et al., 2022). It is expected that when individuals experience inter-role conflict between work and home, it is more likely that FWE suffers. Several studies during the pandemic documented that an individual’s experience in one role does not enrich another because of inter-role conflict. Therefore, our results were unsurprising, as even during the post-pandemic period, WFC hurts family enrichment and work. Third, as predicted, the positive effect of FWE on job satisfaction was supported in this study (H₃), which aligns with several studies from the literature (Allis & O’Driscoll, 2008; Daniel & Sonnentag, 2016; Gutiérrez Vargas et al., 2023; Koekemoer et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2014). When a positive experience of performing one role (e.g., work) spills over into another role (e.g., family), it is expected to increase the FWE enrichment. Fourth, the results supported FWE as a mediator in the relationship between WFC and job satisfaction (H₄). Though none of the previous studies examined this mediation, direct relationships between these variables help understand the mediation (Fung et al., 2014; van Steenbergen et al., 2014). Fifth, this study found a negative effect of WFC on job involvement (H₅), which concurs with the findings from previous studies (Frank et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2020). Employees will not be fully dedicated to their jobs when family responsibilities conflict with the work in organizations.

Sixth, the findings supported the positive relationship between job involvement and job satisfaction (H₆), aligning with mounting evidence from past studies (Garcia et al., 2018; Pfeffer, 1994; Wood & de Menezes, 2011). When employees commit wholeheartedly to their jobs, performance and job satisfaction are inevitable. Seventh, results also found job involvement as a mediator between WFC and job satisfaction (H₇). Though research is sparse for vouching for this relationship, some evidence can support our finding (Liu et al., 2020).

An eighth key finding is the perceived support as a moderator in the relationship between WFC and FWE (H_2a). Since no prior research is available to vouch for this moderation hypothesis, substantial research supported the direct relationships (Kelley et al., 2021; Selvarajan et al., 2013; Uddin et al., 2020). Ninth, this study supported the moderation of perceived social support between WFC and FWE (H_5a). Some scholars in the past found a positive effect of social support employees receive on performance and satisfaction (Liu et al., 2016; Salari et al., 2023; Thompson et al., 2016; Vuong et al., 2023), which may explain the support for this moderation hypothesis. The tenth finding is the three-way interaction between WFC, perceived social support and job characteristics influencing the job involvement of employees (H_5b). Since past studies documented the positive effect of job characteristics on employee commitment and involvement, the results from this double-moderation are understandable (Bohlander & Snell, 2013; Cascio, 2010; Fernandez-Salinero et al., 2020). While perceived social support minimizes the negative effect of WFC on job involvement, job characteristics further reduce the negative effect on job involvement. Following the COR, we found support for the hypothesized relationships in this study.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

The conceptual model tested in this study advances the empirical understanding of the work–family interface. First, this study highlights the importance of FWE in explaining the relationship between WFC and job satisfaction. While mounting evidence in support of the negative effect of WFC on job satisfaction is available, the spillover through FWE adds to the existing literature. Second, this study underscores the importance of job involvement through which the adverse effects of WFC on job satisfaction are possible. As this study documented, though job involvement is a precursor to job satisfaction, the indirect effect of WFC on job satisfaction through job involvement should be addressed. Our findings add to the nascent research (Gutiérrez Vargas et al., 2023; Kelley et al., 2021; Selvarajan et al., 2013; Uddin et al., 2020) showing that perceived social support and work–family enrichment deserves greater attention in the analysis of WFC (Galardo & Trottier, 2022; Kelley et al., 2021). Fourth, the findings from this study point to the importance of job characteristics in disentangling the relationship between WFC and job involvement.

The fifth notable contribution of this study is the three-way interaction effect of WFC, FWE and job characteristics influencing employees’ job involvement. The effect of job characteristics (second moderator) in influencing the relationship between WFC and perceived social support (first moderator) and job involvement is a novel idea contributing to the expanding empirical literature on the work–family interface literature. A recent study documented that social support is vital in enhancing work–life balance and life satisfaction, an antecedent to job satisfaction (Mishra & Bharti, 2024). To the best of our knowledge, the complex model we tested in this research is the first of its kind, especially in the context of a developing country, India, which uniquely contributes to advancing knowledge in WFC and organizational behaviour.

5.3. Practical Implications

This research offers several recommendations for practising managers interested in improving employee performance. First, this research points to the importance of FWE as an essential precursor to job satisfaction. Further, managers create an environment whereby the employees can see that their in-role functioning of work enriches family functioning and vice versa. Employees’ spouses are advised to be supportive, such that their family involvement is a positive force that helps them become better workers. Several researchers in the past have recommended family–friendly practices such as flexible working hours and family welfare programmes that might mitigate the adverse effects of WFC (Bainbridge & Townsend, 2020; Fritz & van Knippenberg, 2018; Li et al., 2021). Second, this study concurs with the recommendations of prior researchers that managers need to motivate employees to enhance their involvement in their jobs, which may have a profound positive effect on performance and satisfaction. Third, supervisors offer stimulating and challenging work and provide opportunities for the employees to learn new things from their work. Fourth, supervisors must create opportunities for the employees to do creative and imaginative work for the organization’s benefit. Fifth, organizations need to provide a climate that encourages social support to the employees. As documented by several scholars and in this study, employers create an environment of social support that helps minimize the negative influence of WFC on job involvement and FWE. It is also essential for employers to engage in family–friendly practices and render social support to each other.

5.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Besides acknowledging the limitations in this study, we highlight several avenues for future research. First, as with any survey-based research, CMB, which stems from same-source measurement, is inevitable; nevertheless, we attempted to control it. Second, the social desirability bias seen in good citizen behaviour while filling out the responses to the survey instrument may exist in this study, as with any survey-based research. However, to address this problem, we anonymized the responses and assured the respondents about the sacredness of their privacy. The third caveat is that this study focuses on a limited number of variables. Fourth, this study focused on employees working in various organizations in a developing country, India.

Despite the novelty of the model presented, future studies may expand by including the influence of other variables (e.g., spirituality, religious beliefs, gender) in influencing relationships. Further, future researchers may unravel the underpinning mechanisms of how job characteristics and perceived social support mitigate the adverse effects of WFC on enrichment and job involvement. Future studies may also focus on the effect of job crafting to mitigate the ill effects of WFC on job satisfaction and productivity. Additionally, cross-cultural studies in developed (e.g., Western) and developing (e.g., Southeast Asian countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) might help illuminate the relationships in a broader context. Future studies may involve much larger samples and longitudinal studies to examine reverse causality and reciprocal relationships between the variables in the model.

Our study advances the empirical understanding of the work–family interface by including the three most important variables, job involvement, job characteristics and FWE, in investigating the relationship between WFC and job satisfaction. Based on COR theory, this study sheds light on work–family dynamics (WFC and FWE) during the post-pandemic in the context of a developing country, India. Most importantly, our model suggests that both perceived social support and job characteristics have the potential to weaken the relationship between WFC and job involvement, which subsequently increases job satisfaction. This study also provides valuable insights for employers and suggests avenues for future research to academicians.

Footnotes

Authors’ Contribution

All the authors have contributed equally to this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be available upon request.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Declaration and Informed Consent

Ethical approval is not necessary in this study as there are no human subjects involved.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Satyanarayana Parayitam

Majdi Quttainah

References

Adu

I. N.

, Twumasi

, Boakye

K. O.

, & Kyei-Frimpong

(2023). Does organizational support moderate the influence of family–work conflict on career progression? FIIB Business Review , 12(2), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145221125294

Agrawal

, & Mahajan

(2023). The influence of distributive and procedural justice on work–family conflict, enrichment, and mental health of Indian police. Police Practice and Research , 24(2), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2022.2067156

Agrawal

, & Mahajan

(2021). Work–family enrichment: An integrative review. International Journal of Workplace Health Management , 14(2), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-04-2020-0056

Allis

, & O’Driscoll

(2008). Positive effects of nonwork-to-work facilitation on well-being in work, family and personal domains. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 23(3), 273–291.

Anderson

J. C.

, & Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin , 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Antony

D. A. J.

, Arulandu

, & Parayitam

(2023). Disentangling the relationships between talent management, organizational commitment and turnover intention: Evidence from higher educational institutions in India. Global Business and Organizational Excellence , 43(2), 176–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22231

Bernuzzi

, Sommovigo

, O’Shea

, & Setti

(2023). A mixed-method study on job satisfaction among air traffic controllers during the pandemic: The roles of work–family interface and resilience. The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology , 33(4), 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2023.2242391

Beutell

N. J.

, & Wittig-Berman

(2008). Work–family conflict and work–family synergy for generation X, baby boomers, and matures: Generational differences, predictors, and satisfaction outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 23(5), 507–523.

Bohlander

, & Snell

(2013). Principles of human resources management . South-Western Cengage Learning.

10.

Cascio

W. F.

(2010). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits . McGraw-Hill Irwin.

11.

Bainbridge

H. T.

, & Townsend

(2020). The effects of offering flexible work practices to employees with unpaid caregiving responsibilities for elderly or disabled family members. Human Resource Management , 59(5), 483–495.

12.

Byron

(2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 67, 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009

13.

Carlson

D. S.

, Kacmar

K. M.

, Wayne

J. H.

, & Grzywacz

J. G.

(2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 68(1), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002

14.

Carvalho

V. S.

, Chambel

M. J.

, Neto

, & Lopes

(2018). Does work–family conflict mediate the associations of job characteristics with employees’ mental health among men and women? Frontiers in Psychology , 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00966

15.

Culibrk

, Delic

, Mitrovic

, & Culibrk

(2018). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement: The mediating role of job involvement. Frontiers in Psychology , 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00132

16.

Daniel

J-M. R.

, Michel.

, & Eduardo

(2012). The relationship between work–family conflict and work–family enrichment of university professors. Journal of Behavioural Sciences , 22(2), 1–10.

17.

Daniel

, & Sonnentag

(2016). Crossing the borders: The relationship between boundary management, work–family enrichment and job satisfaction. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 27, 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1020826

18.

Diefendorff

J. M.

, Brown

D. J.

, Kamin

A. M.

, & Lord

R. G.

(2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.123

19.

Duarte

A. P.

, Contreras

J. P.

, & Seabra

F.M.

(2023). Work–family conflict’s mediating effect on the relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction in the hospitality industry: Evidence from the Algarve, Portugal. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism , 23(2), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2024.2285720

20.

Elahi

N. S.

, Abid

, Contreras

, & Fernandez

I. A.

(2022). Work–family and family–work conflict and stress in times of COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology , 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.951149

21.

Fernández-Salinero

, García Collantes

Á.

, Rodríguez Cifuentes

, & Topa

(2020). Is job involvement enough for achieving job satisfaction? The role of skills use and group identification. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17(12), 4193. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124193

22.

Firdaus

E. Z

, Noermijati

, Ratnawati

, & Zaroug

Y. A. M.

(2023). The role of job burnout and social support on the effect of job demand to employee performance. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen , 21(1), 42–56.

23.

Fotiadis

, Abdulrahman

, & Spyridou

(2019). The mediating roles of psychological autonomy, competence and relatedness on work–life balance and well-being. Frontiers in Psychology , 10, 1267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01267

24.

French

K. A.

, Dumani

, Allen

T. D.

, & Shockley

K. M.

(2018). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and social support. Psychological Bulletin , 144, 284–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/BUL0000120

25.

Frank

, Lambert

E. G.

, Qureshi

, & Myer

A. J.

(2022). Problems spilling over: Work–family conflict’s and other stressor variables’ relationships with job involvement and satisfaction among police officers. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism , 17(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2021.1946711

26.

Fritz

, & Van Knippenberg

(2018). Gender and leadership aspiration: The impact of work–life initiatives. Human Resource Management , 57(4), 855–868.

27.

Frone

M. R.

, & Rice

R. W.

(1987). Work–family conflict: The effect of job and family involvement. Journal of Organizational Behaviour , 8, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3000337

28.

Fung

N. S.

, Ahmad

, & Omar

(2014). Role of work–family enrichment in improving job satisfaction. American Journal of Applied Sciences , 11(1), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2014.96.104

29.

Galardo

, & Trottier

(2022). How supervisor, co-worker, and spousal social support influences the experience of workload and work–family conflict: Results from a survey of construction workers in Québec. Construction Management and Economics , 40(4), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2022.2037674

30.

Garcia

G. A.

, Gonzales-Miranda

D. R.

, Gallo

, & Roman-Calderon

J. P.

(2018). Employee involvement and job satisfaction: A tale of the millennial generation. Employee Relations , 43(3), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2018-0100

31.

Glaveli

, Karassavidou

, & Zafiropoulos

(2013). Relationships among three facets of family-supportive work environments, work–family conflict and job satisfaction: A research in Greece. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 24(20), 3757–3771. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.778317

32.

Greenhaus

J. H.

, & Powell

G. N.

(2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review , 31(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159186

33.

Greenhaus

J. H.

, & Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. The Academy of Management Review , 10(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4277352

34.

Gull

, Asghar

, Bashir

, Liu

, & Xiong

(2023). Does a family-supportive supervisor reduce the effect of work–family conflict on emotional exhaustion and turnover intentions? A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Conflict Management , 34(2), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-03-2022-0046

35.

Gutiérrez Vargas

L. M.

, Alegre

, & Pasamar

(2023). Explaining job satisfaction through the use of work–family benefits and their impact on the employee’s family context. International Journal of Manpower , 44(9), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-01-2022-0055

36.

Hackman

J. R.

, & Oldham

G. R.

(1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology , 60(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546

37.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. , Black

W. C.

, Babin

B. J.

, Anderson

R. E.

, & Tatham

R. L.

(2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson New International Edition.

38.

Halbesleben

J. R. B.

, Neveu

J.-P.

, Paustian-Underdahl

S. C.

, & Westman

(2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management , 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130

39.

Hammer

L. B.

, Neal

M. B.

, Newson

J. T.

, Brockwood

K. J.

, & Colton

C. L.

(2005). A longitudinal study of the effects of dual-earner couples’ utilization of family–friendly workplace supports on work and family outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90(4), 799–810.

40.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach . The Guilford Press.

41.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist , 44, 513–524.

42.

Hsieh

C.-C.

, Liang

J.-K.

, & Li

H.-C.

(2022). Bi-directional work–family conflict of home-based teachers in Taiwan during COVID-19: Application of job demands-resources model. Journal of Professional Capital and Community , 7(4), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-04-2022-0022

43.

Hwang

, & Hoque

(2023). Gender-ethnicity intersectional variation in work–family dynamics: Family interference with work, guilt, and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management , 62(6), 833–850. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22165

44.

Jayaraman

, George

H. J.

, Siluvaimuthu

, & Parayitam

(2023). Quality of work life as a precursor to work–life balance: Collegiality and job security as moderators and job satisfaction as a mediator. Sustainability , 15, 9936. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139936

45.

Kanungo

R. N.

(1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology , 67, 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341

46.

Kaur

, & Mandal

(2023). Exploring role transitions and conflicts on work disengagement under varying settings: The moderating role of individual resilience. International Journal of Conflict Management , 35(3), 488–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-03-2023-0046

47.

Kelley

H. H.

, LeBaron-Black

, Hill

E. J.

, & Meter

(2021). Perceived family and partner support and the work–family interface: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 37(3), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2021a15

48.

Kengatharan

(2017). The effect of work–family conflict on employee performance: Does income matter of influence? Journal of Business Studies , 4(2), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.4038/jbs.v4i2.18

49.

Khalid

, Raja

, Malik

A. R.

, & Jahanzeb

(2023). The effects of working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic on work–life balance, work–family conflict and employee burnout. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance . https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-12-2022-0366

50.

Kinnunen

, Feldt

, Geurts

, & Pulkkinen

(2006). Types of work-family interface: Well-being correlates of negative and positive spillover between work and family. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 47, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2006.00502.x

51.

Kinnunen

, & Mauno

(1998). Antecedent and outcomes of work–family conflict among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations , 51, 157–177.

52.

Kock

(2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration , 11(4), 1–10.

53.

Koekemoer

, Olckers

, & Nel

(2020). Work–family enrichment, job satisfaction, and work engagement: The mediating role of subjective career success. Australian Journal of Psychology , 72(4), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12290

54.

Lambert

E. G.

, Liu

, Jiang

, Kelley

T. M.

, & Zhang

(2020). Examining the association between work–family conflict and the work attitudes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment among Chinese correctional staff. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law , 27(4), 558–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1734980

55.

Lawson

K. M.

, Lee

, Smith

, & Thiem

K. C.

(2024). Retaining U.S. stem women faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic: The important role of family-supportive supervisor behaviors to lower work-to-life conflict. Gender in Management , 39(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-10-2022-0326

56.

, Shaffer

J. A.

, Wang

, & Huang

J. L

(2021). Work-family conflict, perceived control, and health, family, and wealth: A 20-year study. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 127, 103562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103562

57.

Liu

, An

, Sun

, & Liu

(2022). Work–family conflict and job stress among seafarers: The moderating role of job satisfaction. Psychology, Health & Medicine , 27(9), 1989–1995. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2021.1996617

58.

Liu

C. C.

, Li

, Liu

, & Chen

Y. W.

(2016). Influence of work–family conflict on job involvement and organizational commitment: The moderating effect of perceived supervisor support and the mediating effect of job satisfaction. IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) , Bali, Indonesia, 1732–1736. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2016.7798174

59.

Liu

, Lambert

E. G.

, Kelley

, Zhang

, & Jiang

(2020). Exploring the association between work–family conflict and job involvement. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 64(8), 791–817. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19896463

60.

, Hu

X. M.

, Huang

X. L.

, Zhuang

X. D.

, Guo

, Feng

L. F.

, Hu

, Chen

, Zou

, & Hao

Y. T.

(2017). The relationship between job satisfaction, work stress, work–family conflict, and turnover intention among physicians in Guangdong, China: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open , 7(5). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014894

61.

Martinez-Sanchez

, Perez-Perez

, Vela-Jimenez

M.-J.

, & Abella-Garces

(2018). Job satisfaction and work–family policies through work–family enrichment. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 33(4/5), 386–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2017-0376

62.

Mauno

, Kinnunen

, Rantanen

, Feldt

, & Rantanen

(2012). Relationships of work–family coping strategies with work–family conflict and enrichment: The roles of gender and parenting status. Family Science , 3(2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2012.707618

63.

Merkuz

, & Mihelic

K. K.

(2023). Thriving while working remotely: The role of family–work affect, exploration, and ambidextrous leadership. SAGE Open , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231155152

64.

Mishra

, & Bharti

(2024). Exploring the nexus of social support, work–life balance and life satisfaction in hybrid work scenario in learning organizations. The Learning Organization , 31(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-08-2022-0099

65.

Montgomery

D. C.

, Peck

E. A.

, & Vining

G. G.

(2021). Introduction to linear regression analysis . John Wiley & Sons.

66.

Montgomery

A. J.

, Peeters

M. C. W.

, Schaufeli

W. B.

, & Ouden

M. D.

(2003). Work-home interference among newspaper managers: Its relationship with burnout and engagement. Anxiety Stress Coping , 16(1), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1061580021000030535

67.

Moreira

, Encarnacao

, Viseu

J. N.

, & Au-Yong Oliveira

(2023). Conflict (work–family and family–work) and task performance: The role of well-being in this relationship. Administrative Sciences , 13(4), 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13040094

68.

Morrow

W. J.

, Adams

B. L.

, & Vickovic

S. G.

(2023). Exploring the gendered nature of work–family conflict on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among correctional officers. Criminal Justice Studies , 36(4), 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2023.2265538

69.

Nida

, Saleem

, Tufail

M. S.

, & Qamar

(2024). When work never ends: How after-hours electronic communication expectations affect job satisfaction through work interference with family and emotional exhaustion. German Journal of Human Resource Management . https://doi.org/10.1177/23970022241300820

70.

Nahum-Shani

, Bamberger

P. A.

, & Bacharach

S. B.

(2011). Social support and employee well-being: The conditioning effect of perceived patterns of supportive exchange. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 52(1), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510395024

71.

Netemeyer

R. G.

, Boles

J. S.

, & McMurrian

(1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400

72.

, Zeng

, & Zhou

(2023). The effect of thriving at work on work–family conflict: The mediating role of workaholism. Frontiers in Psychology , 14, 1136470. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1136470

73.

Ollo-López

, Bayo-Moriones

, & Larraza-Kintana.

(2016). Disentangling the relationship between high-involvement-work-systems and job satisfaction. Employee Relations: The International Journal , 38, 620–642. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2015-0071

74.

Osei Boakye

, Fiakpornu

, Yeboah

, & Addai

(2022). Effect of job demand and support on work–family conflict in selected banking institutions in Ghana, SEISENSE Journal of Management , 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.33215/sbr.v2i1.757

75.

Pak

, Kramer

, Lee

, & Kim

K.-J.

(2022). The impact of work hours on work-to-family enrichment and conflict through energy processes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 43(4), 709–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2595

76.

Pan

, Aisihaer

, Li

, Jiao

, & Ren

(2022). Work–family conflict, happiness and organizational citizenship behavior among professional women: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology , 13, 923288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923288

77.

Pfeffer

(1994). Competitive advantage through people (pp. 72–92). Harvard Business School Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159186

78.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, Mackenzie

S. B.

, & Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology , 63, 539–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

79.

Priyanka

J. T.

, Mily

A. M.

, Asadujjaman

, Arani

, & Billal

M. M.

(2022). Impacts of work–family role conflict on job and life satisfaction: A comparative study among doctors, engineers and university teachers. PSU Research Review . https://doi.org/10.1108/PRR-10-2021-0058

80.

Rabinowitz

, & Hall

D. T.

(1977). Organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin , 84(2), 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.2.265

81.

Reimann

(2023). Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned about the relationship between flexible work and work–family conflict. In

Abendroth

A.-K.

Lükemann

(Eds.), Flexible work and the family (contemporary perspectives in family research (Vol. 21, pp. 31–67), Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1530-353520230000021002

82.

Ribeiro

, Gomes

, Oliveira

A. R.

, & Dias Semedo

A. S.

(2023). The impact of the work–family conflict on employee engagement, performance, and turnover intention. International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 31(2), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2021-2646

83.

Roche

, & Haar

J. M.

(2011). Motivations, work–family enrichment and job satisfaction: An indirect effects model. Personnel Review , 49(3), 903–920. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2019-0289

84.

Salari

, Savadi

, & Saybani

(2023). Impact of social support on job performance by mediating role of enrichment and innovative work behaviors among physical education chancellors. Preventive Counseling , 4(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.22098/jpc.2023.12102.1147

85.

Schriesheim

, & Tsui

A. S.

(1980). Development and validation of a short satisfaction instrument for use in survey feedback interventions [Paper presentation]. Western Academy of Management Meeting.

86.

Selvarajan

T. T.

, Cloninger

P. A.

, & Singh

(2013). Social support and work–family conflict: A test of an indirect effects model. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 83(3), 486–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.07.004

87.

Shaik

S. A.

, Batta

, & Parayitam

(2023). Knowledge management and resistance to change as moderators in the relationship between change management and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 36(6), 1050–1076. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-04-2023-0103

88.

Soomro

A. A.

, Breitenecker

R. J.

, & Shah

S. A. M.

(2018). Relation of work–life balance, work–family conflict and family–work conflict with the employee performance-moderating role of job satisfaction. South Asian Journal of Business Studies , 7(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-02-2017-0018

89.

Talukder

A. K. M. M. H.

(2022). Supervisor family support and job performance: Effects of demand, conflict, balance, and attitude. In

Humphrey

R. H.

, Ashkanasy

N. M.

, & Troth

A. C.

(Eds.), Emotions and negativity (research on emotion in organizations) (Vol. 17, pp. 207–227). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1746-979120210000017016

90.

Tang

S. W.

, Siu

O. L.

, & Cheung

(2014). A study of work–family enrichment among Chinese employees: The mediating role between work support and job satisfaction. Applied Psychology , 63, 130–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00519.x

91.

Thompson

R. A.

, & Goodvin

(2016). Social support and developmental psychopathology. Developmental Psychopathology [Internet] (pp. 1–50.). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy403

92.

Thompson

E. R.

, & Phua

F. T.

(2012). A brief index of affective job satisfaction. Group & Organization Management , 37(3), 275–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111434201

93.

Tiwari

, Srivastava

M. K.

, Suresh

A. S.

, Sharma

, & Mahajan

(2024). Balancing work and life in academia: Unraveling the employee engagement mystery. International Journal of Educational Management , 38(7), 1884–1902. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-03-2024-0183

94.

Tran

T. T. H.(J).

, Pham

T. B. L.

, Robinson

, & Paparoidamis

(2024). Exploring the effect of family–work conflict on employee productivity in teleworking during crisis: A cross-national comparative study. International Marketing Review . https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-06-2023-0109

95.

Tuffour

, & Bortey

(2022). Effect of work–family conflict on job satisfaction of small enterprise managers. Economic and Business Review , 24(4), 208–221. https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1310

96.

Uddin

, Ali

, & Khan

M. A.

(2020). Perceived social support (PSS) and work–life balance (WLB) in a developing country: The moderating impact of work–life policy. Iranian Journal of Management Studies , 13(4), 733–761. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijms.2020.282543.673663

97.

van Steenbergen

E. F.

, Kluwer

E. S.

, & Karney

B. R.

(2014). Work–family enrichment, work–family conflict, and marital satisfaction: A dyadic analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 19(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036011

98.

Viegas

, & Henriques

(2021). Job stress and work–family conflict as correlates of job satisfaction among police officials. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology , 36, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09388–w

99.

Vuong

B. N.

, Tushar

, & Hossain

S. F. A.

(2023). The effect of social support on job performance through organizational commitment and innovative work behavior: Does innovative climate matter? Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration , 15(5), 832–854. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-06-2021-0256

100.

Wan

, Zhang

, Shaffer

M. A.

, Li

, & Zhang

(2022). Conflict during the day keeps you unbalanced at night: A daily investigation of work task conflict, coworker support and work–family balance. International Journal of Conflict Management , 33(3), 519–537. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2021-0148

101.

Wang

, & Wang

(2023). A mediation moderation model between work–family conflict and turnover intention among public and private kindergarten school teachers in China. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 37(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-04-2023-0137

102.

Wayne

J. H.

, Grzywacz

J. G.

, Carlson

D. S.

, & Kacmar

K. M.

(2007). Work–family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management Review , 17(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.01.002

103.

Wood

, & de Menezes

L. M.

(2011). High involvement management, high performance work systems and well-being. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 22, 1586–1610.

104.

Yadav

, & Sharma

(2023). Family–friendly policies, supervisor support and job satisfaction: Mediating effect of work–family conflict. Vilakshan—XIMB Journal of Management , 20(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/XJM-02-2021-0050

105.

, Meng

, Cao

, & Jia

(2020). Exploring the relationship between entrepreneurial failure and conflict between work and family from the conservation of resources perspective. International Journal of Conflict Management , 31(3), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2019-0157

106.

Zhang

, Li

J.-M.

, Mao

, & Na

(2024). How does abusive supervision differentiation affect employee work–family conflict? A moderated chain mediation model. International Journal of Conflict Management , 35(5), 918–943. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-07-2023-0138

107.

Zimet

G. D.

, Dahlem

N. W.

, Zimet

S. G.

, & Farley

G. K.

(1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality and Assessment , 52(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2

A Double-mediation and Three-way Interaction Model of the Nexus Between Work–Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from India

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

1.1. Rationale and Context of the Study

2. Theoretical Background and Literature Review

2.1. WFC and Job Satisfaction

2.2. WFC and FWE

2.3. Perceived Social Support as a Moderator Between WFC and FWE

2.4. FWE and Job Satisfaction

2.5. FWE as a Mediator Between WFC and Job Satisfaction

2.6. WFC and Job Involvement

2.7. Perceived Social Support as a First Moderator Between WFC and Job Involvement

2.8. Job Characteristics as a Second Moderator Between WFC and Job Involvement

2.9. Job Involvement and Job Satisfaction

2.10. Job Involvement as a Mediator Between WFC and Job Satisfaction

3.1. Sample

3.2. Demographic Profile

Table 1.

Demographic Profile.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Check for Normality and Common Method Bias

4.2. Measurement Model and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

4.3. Descriptive Statistics, Multicollinearity, Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics [Means, Standard Deviations (SD) and Reliability Coefficients].

Table 3.

Hypotheses Testing [H1, H2, H3, H5 and H6].

Results of Mediation Analysis [H4 and H7].

Results of Moderation Analysis.

5.1. Summary of Findings

5.2. Theoretical Implications

5.3. Practical Implications

5.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Footnotes

Authors’ Contribution

Data Availability Statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Ethical Declaration and Informed Consent

Funding

ORCID iDs

References

Hypotheses Testing [H₁, H₂, H₃, H₅ and H₆].

Results of Mediation Analysis [H₄ and H₇].