Influence of Family Social Support on Employee Engagement: Influence of Moderator and Mediator

Abstract

This article aims to unearth the association between family social support (FSS) and employee engagement (EE) with the moderating effect of work social support (WSS) and the mediating effect of family interfering work (FIW). This study used a quantitative approach to perform the research and collected 277 replies from a variety of organizations in Saudi Arabia’s Western region using a multi-item questionnaire and analyzed data using IBM SPSS 25 and IBM AMOS 24. The findings show that FIW plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between FSS and EE. However, WSS is found to have no significant moderating effect. The study provides important learning for practicing professionals and policymakers to adopt family-friendly policies and facilities for enhancing the work–life balance of the employees so as to strengthen the engagement of the employees in the organization. Former studies have emphasized the role of social support in buffering work–family conflict, but there is a dearth of studies linking FSS and EE in a moderated mediation. Thus, the present study endeavors to address the above-mentioned gap. Moreover, the notes for future research are also highlighted in the limitations section.

Keywords

Employee engagement family interfering work family social support work social support

Introduction

Employee engagement (EE) is the “cognitive, emotional and behavioral energy an employee directs toward positive organizational outcomes” (Azim & Al-Halwani, 2020, p. 167). Study shows that employees with higher EE are more satisfied and less prone to leave their firms (Orgambídez-Ramos & de Almeida, 2017). Contrarily, employees with less EE are less likely to uphold an organization and its potential (Ayers, 2006). Moreover, the study also showed that the EE of employees can be triggered by improving their psychological health and ensuring social support from work and home (Shuck & Reio, 2014).

Family social support (FSS) and family interfering work (FIW) have received considerable academic interest over the years (Orellana et al., 2021; Öztemel & Yıldız-Akyol, 2019; Pluut et al., 2018). FSS is a key aspect of daily life for a working individual and it is more relevant, in particular, for dual-career families. In general, FSS refers to the psychological or material support a person receives from her/his family members in some form of social relationship. Stable and reliable FSS engenders a greater sense of trust in the minds of working people to depend on the family members in need while erratic FSS leaves the individuals believing that assistance from the legitimate community source is not consistent with their needs (Cao et al., 2018). Such supports may have substantial effects on the development of desirable job attitudes including EE (Holland et al., 2017; Jolly et al., 2020).

FSS yields a variety of well-being outcomes of psychological, physical, and economic nature (Cross et al., 2018). It fulfills the working people physically and mentally with a higher standard of living, which in turn reduces the mortality rate (Akanji et al., 2020; Cross et al., 2018). Conversely, the absence of FSS increases mental stress, depression, and other psychological problems, and reduces personal autonomy that exacerbates interpersonal conflict among the family members as well as colleagues, which ultimately affects the individual behavior in the workplace (Garrett-Peters & Burton, 2016). Hence, working people can enhance their contributions to jobs if they receive proper support from family members and co-workers.

FIW implies a state of conflict when an employee faces difficulties in balancing family issue with the task responsibilities. FIW is related to employees’ work performance, and it has a significant influence on job quality and advancement (Johnson et al., 2019). Almost all working people are involved in family responsibilities, such as raising children, taking care of elderly members, and doing other family chores. But when these family involvements interfere with their job requirements then it turns out to be detrimental to both the quality of work and career progression (Johnson et al., 2019). Meanwhile, keeping consistent with globalization, dual-career and single-parent workers are now increasing, which becomes a prominent issue in the contemporary research in the work–family domain (Belwal et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2016). To this end, support from family members as well as co-workers is very crucial. More precisely, if an employee receives support from legitimate family members as well as from the supervisor and co-workers, the extent of EE will be increased (Johnson et al., 2019).

Thus it is important to unearth the influence of FIW on the link between the FSS and EE, as support from legitimate family members, as well as supervisors and co-workers, improves employees’ work performance and EE (Johnson et al., 2019). Furthermore, EE is a work-related mindset that triggers higher work performance (Britt, 2003), which can be influenced by FSS and FIW. Thus, organizations may obtain insightful outcomes by studying the simultaneous effects of FSS and FIW on the EE.

In addition, those employees who get work social support (WSS) are more inclined to work engagement. WSS entails supports streaming from the supervisor and co-workers that can serve as a predictive factor for the performance of employees due to but not limited to, reduced level of stress (Matthews et al., 2010) and depression (Kail & Carr, 2020). WSS may also assist employees to increase work engagement and help them to achieve a flourishing career (Gersick et al., 2000). It particularly creates mental satisfaction for employees keeping a good balance between the family demands and work needs (Barnett et al., 2019). Additionally, support from co-workers greatly influences the modes of employees and reduces anxiety, depression, and stress, and becomes instrumental for EE (Reknes et al., 2020; Sengupta et al., 2021). Thus, keeping the interplay of FSS, FIW, WSS, and EE, the study attempts to address the following research questions:

RQ₁: Does FSS affect EE?

RQ₂: Does FIW mediate the association between the FSS and EE?

RQ₃: Does WSS moderate the association between FSS and FIW?

The study has several contributions. First, while former studies extensively focussed on the essence of FSS and WSS in buffering FIW (Michel et al., 2010), little is uncovered on the association between the FSS and EE in a moderated mediation mechanism. Thus, the present study attempts to fulfill this particular research gap. Given the current empirical insights into the actual relationship between the FSS and EE concerning WSS and FIW, this article uses an inductive approach to enhance existing theory by explaining a variety of patterns of social support and EE relationships including FSS–FIW–EE and WSS affecting FSS–FIW. Second, this study will contribute to the human resource management (HRM) of the organization in terms of making policies regarding dual-earner couples to ensure maximum employee output in the workplace. Third, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the context of the study where the family discharges an important role in any individual initiatives (Allen et al., 2015). Thus, the present study of the influence of FSS on EE along with the potential moderating and mediating effect deserves attention from academics and practitioners.

The conceptual model of this article is depicted in Figure 1. It shows that FSS has an impact on the extent of the EE whereas FIW and WSS play a mediating and moderating role respectively in the association between FSS and EE. The proposed model is based on the tenet of the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Halbesleben et al., 2014).

Literature Review

FSS implies the all sorts of support that an individual expects from the family (Clemson, 2013). In the past few decades, a burgeoning body of research has acknowledged that work has a potential impact on the employees’ everyday lives (Pluut et al., 2018). The burgeoning growth of dual-earner households brings FSS to the attention of academic researchers (Masterson & Hoobler, 2015). FSS assists an individual to be more active and engaged in work, which is often reflected in family-supportive policies adopted by different organizations (Kossek et al., 2011; Rofcanin et al., 2017). Hence, FSS can be viewed as a potential antecedent of EE. Byrne et al. (2017) illustrated that an engaged employee involves their emotional and cognitive selves as they convert them into meaningful outcomes. So, higher engagement of an employee means a greater passion for work, loyalty to the organization, greater work significance, and whole-hearted involvement in work (Bizri et al., 2021; Ismail et al., 2019; Lyu & Fan, 2022).

FIW implies a variant of work–family conflict, where the family roles of an individual interfere with her/his performance at work (Ferri et al., 2018; Jain & Nair, 2013; Triatmoko et al., 2014). For example, an employee may have to cancel an important meeting due to a sudden accident at home. Such family–work conflict is experienced when family and work roles are mutually incompatible (Akanji et al., 2020; French et al., 2018). WSS can be defined as support including both internal and external support steaming from the supervisor and the co-workers (Matthews et al., 2010). Sarafino and Smith (2014) assumed that persons expect support from their neighbourhood. Getting such social support from the society including co-workers, supervisors, and family members, individuals feel valued and perceive a strong sense of belongingness, and they can exert more effort on their work performance (Varma et al., 2020; Yousaf et al., 2019).

Theoretical Supports and Hypotheses Development

Family Social Support and Employee Engagement

FSS and EE are interrelated to each other and tremendously affect the performance of the individuals within an organization (Orgambídez-Ramos & de Almeida, 2017). Clemson (2013) found that FSS is associated with the proactive coping skills of employees, and has a highly positive association with the behavior of individuals. Hence, FSS is a likely antecedent of EE. Through EE, organizations focus on harnessing organizational employees by involving them physically, cognitively, and emotionally in their work roles (Kahn, 1990). Studies have revealed that greater productivity, organizational goal achievement, customer satisfaction, and talent nurturing are the possible outcomes of organizations with a higher level of EE (Kim et al., 2013; Kuntz & Roberts, 2014). Mayuran and Kailasapathy (2020) found a positive relationship between FSS and EE. The COR theory, in an organizational context, posits that it is the international motivation that drives employees to retain their existing resources and search for new resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Employees with the potential loss of resources emanating from any objects, personal sources, and conditions, fall prey to the trap of stress (Alalsheikh et al., 2022). FSS assures the employees to protect the resources and releases the anxiety that further improves EE in the workplace (Öztemel & Yıldız-Akyol, 2019). In this context, we can claim that employees’ perception of FSS forms the extent of their EE in an organization. Similarly, family-supportive behavior shapes employees’ perception that they will get support from the family in need of making a work–life balance, and thus encourage them to be more engaged in work. Hence, our hypothesis can be as follows:

H₁: FSS positively influences EE.

Family Social Support and Family Interfering Work

FIW is viewed as a conflict between the family and work role experienced by an employee (Selvarajan et al., 2013). More specifically, when a person’s family roles disturb her/his working performance, or when an employee has to reduce her/his efforts in the workplace in order to contribute to her/his family functions, FIW is said to be there and hinders the performance of the employee (Aryee et al., 1999). Conversely, employees have to spend more time in an office than they do with their families which might affect employees’ mental and physical health, and marriage and children’s lives. Hence, considering the dual responsibilities (job and family) of an employee, FSS can provide emotional reassurance to the individuals (Rofcanin et al., 2017) by providing practical support, for example, doing family tasks in favor of employees and offering moral and material assistance if needed (Clemson, 2013). The premise of COR theory posits that social supports, either FSS or ESS, significantly contributes to the elimination of family–work conflict (Halbesleben et al., 2014). COR theory postulates that the required support from family ensures balancing of work and life together, consequently reducing inter-role conflict and preserving energy. In this connection, the study of Alalsheikh et al. (2022) found that FSS assists an employee to get relief from the conflict arising from the family domain. Thus, the following hypothesis can be formulated to test the relationship between the FSS and FIW empirically.

H₂: FSS is negatively related to the FIW.

Relationship Between the Family Interfering Work and Employee Engagement

Employees often experience conflict between the FIW and EE in the work–family nexus (Zhao et al., 2014). FIW may seriously hamper the employee’s work performance and exert a negative impact on the degree of EE within an organization (Lyu & Fan, 2022). Conversely, the familial responsibilities of an employee force him to share the working time that is negatively related to EE. Many studies have acknowledged that FIW intrigued the emotional exhaustion of an employee (Wayne et al., 2017). Such a contradiction between the family and work for a long time affects an employee’s mental and physical stability (Robinson et al., 2016). It enhances stress levels (Brough et al., 2005) and increases work absenteeism (Nilsen et al., 2017). According to the COR theory, people focus on those resources (e.g. social and personal resources) and always try to acquire, hold, and protect them (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2020). A potential loss of personal resources causes the losers to withhold the factors that futher worsen their resource disposition and study showed that the non-fulfilment of one’s desire leads to cease better performance (Srivastava & Agarwal, 2020). In line with the essence of COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), the study of Witt and Carlson (2006) evidenced that WIF adversely influences job attitudes. This particular relationship is framed as the following hypothesis for further empirical testing:

H₃: FIW is negatively associated with EE.

Mediating Roles of Family Interfering Work

Woodworth’s (1928) Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model recognized the relationship between the stimuli and response, which is considered the most generic formulation of the mediation hypothesis. This model explains that a variable is leveled as a mediator if it accounts for the effects of stimuli on behavior. Accordingly, a higher level of FSS for the employees has a higher positive impact on EE through the reduction of FIW (Stefanidis & Strogilos, 2020). Using the lens of the S-O-R model, the study can theoretically posit that FSS negatively affects FIW and FIW negatively affects EE, while FSS promotes the level of EE. Numerous studies found that FSS significantly influences FIW (Alalsheikh et al., 2022; Bajaba et al., 2022; Pluut et al., 2018) and another stream of studies showed the negative influence of FIW on EE (Hamilton Skurak et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2020). Recent studies indicate that FSS promotes the development of positive work culture, which has a long-term effect on the level of EE (Biggs et al., 2014; Stefanidis & Strogilos, 2020). However, the mediating mechanism of FIW on the relationship between FSS and EE is not explored yet. Based on the above-mentioned literature, and the theoretical considerations of FIW as a mediator, the study posits that FSS weakens FIW which in consequence neutralizes the magnitude of negative effects on EE. Thus, the following hypothesis can be suggested.

H₄: FIW mediates the influence of FSS on EE.

Moderating Role of Work Social Support

Prior research revealed that the degree of relationship between FSS and FIW is heterogeneous (Lyu & Fan, 2022), implying that the moderators can alter the relationship. WSS refers to the cognizance of one’s needs, and expectations and providing subsequent social support by the supervisor or co-workers (Yousaf et al., 2019). Given that FSS negatively influences FIW, the presence of WSS will further strengthen the influence of FSS on FIW. It implies that the employees with a higher level of WSS will withstand the negative influence of FSS on FIW which will weaken their level of depression and anxiety and other detrimental issues that lead to the enhancement of work attitude (Harsh & Prasad, 2020). The study of Nohe and Sonntag (2014) endorsed that WSS lightens the negative relationship between work and life conflict.

H₅: WSS moderates the influence of FSS on FIW.

Research Methods

Research Setting

The study applied a quantitative technique to conduct the study and collected data from public and private organizations in Saudi Arabia. Research assistants were employed to execute the data collection process. A multi-item questionnaire was used, which was initially developed in English. Following the procedure of Brislin (2000), the items were translated and retranslated into Arabic (native language) following the back-translation method for making the items underlying the construct understandable to the respondents. A cover letter was referred to the respondents to inform them of the purpose of the study and to assure them that the data would be kept private and confidential and their identity would be anonymized. The research assistant distributed 500 survey questionnaires and received 277 usable data with a response rate of 55.2%. We used IBM SPSS 25 and IBM AMOS 24 to analyze and interpret the result.

Demographic Information of the Respondents

Table 1 illustrates the demographic profiles of the respondents. Table 1 shows that male respondents (65%) outnumbered female respondents. Moreover, the majority of them are married (51%), and belong to the 20–30-year age group cluster that accounts for 141 members (51%). The rest 35% (96 participants) are female, unmarried (45%), divorced (3%), and widow (1%) respondents. The strata 30–40 is the second-largest age group that entails 66 members (24%), and the rest 14%, 10%, and 1% belong to the 40–50, above 50, and below 20 age groups, respectively. Furthermore, most of the participants (54%) are private-sector employees.

Table 1.

Demographic Information (N = 277).

Participants	Frequencies	Percentage
Gender
Male	181	65
Female	96	35
Marital status
Unmarried	125	45
Married	141	51
Divorced	9	3
Widow	2	1
Age
Below 20	3	1
20–30	141	51
30–40	66	24
40–50	39	14
Above 50	28	10
Organization type
Government	127	46
Private	150	54

Scales

The current research used scales from prior studies that measured the latent variables with a 5-point Likert where 1 represents strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree for collecting data. Psychometric properties of each scale were presented in measurement issues for ensuring their reliability and validity issues.

WSS and FSS

We adapted the 3-item scales of Caplan et al. (1975) for representing WSS and FSS. Since the items representing WSS and FSS are from the same source, we contextualized the items that truly represent them distinctively. The sample item includes, “When things get tough at work, I can always rely on my family and friends to help me solve the problem (FSS)” and “When things get tough at work, I can always rely on my colleagues to help me solve the problem (WSS)”. The psychometric properties’ estimates showed that composite reliability and average variance extracted scores were satisfactory (Table 2).

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix for Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Gender	1.000
2. Marital status	0.096	1.000
3. Age	−0.056	0.571^**	1.000
4. Type of firm	0.153^*	−0.146^*	−0.222^**	1.000
5. Working hours	−0.161^**	0.058	−0.010	0.124^*	1.000
6. Employee engagement	0.000	0.071	0.071	0.025	−0.006	0.850
7. Family social support	−0.017	0.044	0.071	0.045	−0.047	0.373^**	0.839
8. Work social support	0.055	0.019	0.073	−0.023	−0.038	0.474^**	0.419^**	0.838
9. Family interfering work stress	−0.136^*	−0.035	−0.043	−0.041	−0.027	−0.378^**	−0.324^**	−0.263^**	0.927
10. Family interfering work time	−0.015	0.095	−0.032	0.044	−0.031	−0.334^**	−0.405^**	−0.390^**	0.503^**	0.890
Composite reliability	–	–	–	–	–	0.913	0.905	0.904	0.921	0.880
Average variance extracted	–	–	–	–	–	0.723	0.703	0.702	0.859	0.791
Mean	1.350	1.599	2.812	1.556	2.542	3.933	4.001	3.968	1.763	1.744
SD	0.485	0.609	1.033	0.540	0.628	0.735	0.693	0.693	0.733	0.725

Note: *, ** correlation is significant at .05 and .00 level, respectively, SD, standard deviation.

WIF

The study measured the WIF from the perspective of time and strain from Carlson et al. (2000). Sample items for WIF include, “My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like (Time)” and “Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do the things I enjoy (Strain)”.

EE

EE was measured with the scale developed by Saks (2006). A sample item includes, “I really ‘throw’ myself into my job”.

Response Bias

The current study took several measures to contain method and response bias. First, the study made obligatory changes to an item during the back-translation procedure for reducing response bias and method bias issues (Brislin, 2000). Second, Herman’s single-factor test was experimented to find any factor explaining more than 50% variance (Mahmood et al., 2019; Uddin, Mahmood, et al., 2019). Result revealed no factor explains more than 50% variance. Finally, we also run correlation analysis to observe relationships among variables (Pavlou et al., 2007), and the estimates reveal that correlation between any two variables does not exceed 90%. Thus, response bias and method bias are not preventing the generalizability of the findings.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Analysis Among the Variables

Table 2 presents the mean, standard deviation, and correlation matrix of the studied variables. The estimates report that there is a significant correlation (p < .01) among the underlying latent variables. Among the control variables, only “gender” has a significant association (p < .05) with family interfering with work stress.

Measurement Issues

We examined the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) before applying the structural model because CFA is a tool to examine the cross-loading for ensuring the convergence of the items representing a latent variable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Table 2 conveys that the minimum composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) of latent variables, such as the smallest AVE is 0.702 (WSS) and composite reliability is 0.880 (FIW time), are confirmed, which are within the threshold limit (Hair et al., 2017). Accordingly, Table 3 presents the alternative models in this study and we observe that the 7-factor model [CMIN/DF=1.506, CFI = 0.985, SRMR = 0.062, RMSEA = 0.043, PClose = .0787] shows an excellent fit than other alternative models (Uddin, Priyankara, et al., 2019). Besides, Table 2 also asserts that the square root of any latent variable is higher than its correlation with other latent variables. Thus, there is no issue with the measurement model on convergent validity and discriminant validity.

Table 3.

Examining Alternative Models.

Alternative Models	CMIN/DF	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA	PClose
5-Factor model (FSS, WSS, FIWS, FIWT, EE)	1.506	0.985	0.062	0.043	0.787
4-Factor model (FSS+WSS, FIWS, FIWT, EE)	7.138	0.805	0.128	0.149	0
3-Factor model (FSS+WSS, FIWS+FIWT, EE)	9.219	0.731	0.125	0.173	0
2-Factor model (FSS+WSS, FIWS+FIWT+EE)	11.779	0.640	0.152	0.198	0
1-Factor model (FSS+WSS+FIWS+FIWT+EE)	14.557	0.542	0.150	0.222	0
Threshold	<3.00	>0.950	<0.08	<0.06	>0.05

Note: FSS—family social support; WSS—work social support; FIWS—family interfering work (strain); FIWT—family interfering work (time); EE—employee engagement.

Hypothesis Testing

Direct Effects

The structural model in Figure 2 highlights the estimates of direct effects. In Hypothesis 1, we proposed that there is a significant influence of FSS on EE and the result shows that there is a significant influence (β = 0.279, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. We hypothesized in Hypothesis 2 that FSS influenced FIW significantly and the estimates showed that the influence is also statistially significant (β = 0.223, p < .001). Therefore, the result supports Hypothesis 2. Finally, we predicted in Hypothesis 3 that FIW significantly affected EE and, likewise, the influence is also found significant (β = − 0.428, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is also supported.

Mediating Effect

We examined mediating effect of FIW on the influence of FSS on EE via comparing two structural models (before and after using a mediating variable). Table 4 displays estimates of the mediating results. In Model 1, the estimate shows that the direct effect (FSS→EE=c) before running mediating variable is significant (β = −0.223, p < .001). Model 2, in Table 4, represents the direct effect (FSS→EE=c′) after using mediating variable and indirect effects (FSS→FIW=a and FIW→EE=b). The Model 2 reveals that both the direct effects (c′: β = 0.279, p < .001) and indirect effects (a: β = −0.223, p < .001 and b: β = −0.428, p < .001) are still significant. Hence, we examined variance accounted for and the result (0.255) shows that there is a partial mediation effect, since the score ranges from 0.20 to 0.80 (Hair et al., 2017). Thus, Hypothesis 4 is partially supported.

Table 4.

Mediating Effect of FIW.

Structural Model	Path Relations	Beta-Value	Standard Error	T-Value	Variance Accounted for	Decision
Model 1	FSS → EE (c)	0.403	0.064	6.276	NA	NA
Model 2 (Hypothesis 4)	FSS → FIW (a)	−0.223	0.051	−4.417	Indirect effect/total effect = 0.095/0.374* = 0.255	Partial mediation is supported
	FIW → EE (b)	−0.428	0.091	−4.719
	FSS → EE (c′)	0.279	0.063	4.420

Note: *0.095 = 0.223X−0.428 and **0.374 = 0.095+c′; FSS—family social support; WSS—work social support; FIW—family interfering work; EE—employee engagement.

Moderating Effect

Table 5 presents the estimates of moderating effect of WSS on the influence of FSS on FIW. In Model 1, Table 4 highlights the influence of control variables, such as gender, type of organization, age of the respondents, and their working hours, which demonstrate no significant influence. Model 2 and Model 3 exhibit the significant direct effects of exogenous variables and moderating variables. However, Model 4 reveals that both direct effects and moderating effects are not significant. Likewise, Figure 3 also attests that the negative influence of FSS on FIW does not significantly change with the exhibition of high or low WSS. Thus, Hypothesis 5 on the moderating effect of WSS is not supported.

Table 5.

Moderation Effect of Work Social Support.

Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Gender	−0.119	−0.142	−0.119	−0.119
Type of organization	0.004	0.042	0.030	0.030
Marital status	0.064	0.083	0.078	0.078
Age	−0.076	−0.053	−0.043	−0.043
Working hours	−0.059	−0.084	−0.083	−0.083
Family social support (FSS)	–	−0.397**	−0.315**	−0.313
Work social support (WSS)	–	–	−0.196**	−0.194
FSS × WSS	–	–	–	−0.001
R ²	0.034	0.211	0.247	0.247
∇R²	NA	0.177	0.036	0.000

Note: ** Estimate is significant at .00 level.

Discussion

Through the lens of COR theory, this article developed and tested a moderated mediation model of how FSS relates to EE based on FIW as a mediator and WSS as a moderator. Specifically, we expected FIW to mediate the association between the FSS and EE, and WSS to buffer the FSS–FIW relationship. The result shows that FSS is significantly associated with EE. A higher level of FSS leads to a greater level of EE. It also reveals that the FIW has a partial mediating effect on the FSS–EE association. Thus, the FSS along with other factors has contributed in reducing the work–family conflict, which in turn enhances EE. However, the study does not establish the fact that WSS moderates the relationship between FSS and FIW, that is, the level of WSS does not have any contribution to reducing the work–family conflict derived due to weak family support. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are presented below.

Theoretical Implications

Our research finds that FSS has a significant effect on EE (β = 0.279, CR = 4.420, p < .001), which validates the findings of COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989). The COR theory asserts that FSS releases tension and saves energy that stimulates an employee to engage in work (Alalsheikh et al., 2022). More specifically, FSS is considered a part of the social context that influences an employee to be more or less dedicated to work (Rofcanin et al., 2017).

Our results (β = − 0.223, CR = − 4.417, p < .001) imply that the association between the FSS and FIW is negative, which supports the second hypothesis. When an employee has to bear the family as well as work responsibilities simultaneously, she/he has to divert her/his attention to both the domains which is likely to reduce her/his work performance (Aryee et al., 1999; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). But getting support from the family in discharging her/his family duties, the work output of that employees can be increased (Rofcanin et al., 2017). Such a converse relationship between the FSS and FIW is also supported by the COR theory (Orellana et al., 2021).

Our findings (β = − 0.428, CR = − 4.719, p < .001) about the association between the FIW and EE indicate that there is a statistically significant opposite relationship between the variables. These findings validate the findings of Lyu and Fan (2022) and Zhao et al. (2014). The COR theory also supports the empirical findings of this research. Specifically, we can conclude that the employees emphasize the resources that they intend to acquire, and acquiring such resources motivates them. Individuals value familial as well as job-related relationships. However, sometimes there exists conflict between family role and job role that negatively affects EE.

Furthermore, our results suggest that FIW partially mediates the relationship between the FSS and EE, which is recognized by several former studies (Biggs et al., 2014; Stefanidis & Strogilos, 2020). According to Lyu and Fan (2022), FIW affects the level of employees’ output in an opposite direction. It is likely to bifurcate the dedication of an employee and reduce the allocated time to work. On the contrary, getting support from family may reduce the role of conflict between work and family domain and may encourage an employee to be more engaged in work (Rofcanin et al., 2017). Thus, FIW has a definitive role in mediating the association between FSS and EE. Finally, the study finds no significant moderating effect of WSS on FSS–FIW relationships, which does not support the proposed hypothesis. It may be attributed to the fact that employees’ family roles are so domain-specific and escalating that they cannot be mitigated by the other social supports received from the supervisor or co-workers.

Practical Implications

This study entails a number of significant practical implications related to the HRM of the organization. First, the HRM should adopt family-friendly policies and facilities for the employees. Flexible working hours, on-site babysitting facilities, maternal/paternal leave provisions, and other measures are likely to lessen the work–family conflict and ultimately engage the employees in the work. Second, the HRM may work for developing a community sense among the family members of the employees. For example, measures like recognizing the wards of the employees for their educational achievements, wishing the partners of the employees on marriage anniversary, and so on, may involve the family members and generate a greater sense of belongingness to the organization, which may encourage them to extend their support toward the employee. Third, on a proactive level, HRM can arrange training on the work–life balance, stress reduction, effective work management, and so on, that will enhance the employees’ skills related to career adaptability (Koen et al., 2012).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Some limitations of this research should be noted when interpreting the findings. First, the problem of causality was not properly addressed by the method because of the nature of data collection (cross-sectional). Such type of data collection may yield a problem of reverse causality between dependent and independent variables. Therefore, longitudinal data may verify our findings in future research. Second, this is a quantitative study based on data collected through a close-ended survey instrument. But the subject matter of the study belongs to a social phenomenon that is susceptible to multiple dimensions. Therefore, a qualitative study based on narratives or in-depth interviews may provide complementary insight into the phenomenon. Third, the study is conducted on a small sample of 277 employees belonging to different sectors. Future research with a larger sample may offer a better representation of reality. Also, the sector-specific study may reveal the real-life scenario related to a particular sector, such as healthcare, education, telecommunication, and so on, that may facilitate specific measures for each sector.

Conclusion

We found that FSS has a significant impact on EE where FIW mediates the association between FSS and EE. An additional but not unexpected finding was the impact of WSS. In the light of the constrained environment, in Saudi Arabia, our research findings imply that WSS does not have a considerable impact on the relationship between FSS and EE. Though theories and literature recognized the influences of WSS on the extent of employees’ work engagement. Future research may investigate the impact of WSS on the interrelationship between FSS and EE with a larger sample and in different sectors to validate the findings of the current result.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Mohammad Tahlil Azim

References

Akanji

, Mordi

, & Ajonbadi

H. A.

(2020). The experiences of work–life balance, stress, and coping lifestyles of female professionals: Insights from a developing country. Employee Relations , 42(4), 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2019-0089

Alalsheikh

, Azim

M. T.

, & Uddin

M. A.

(2022). Impact of social support on organizational citizenship behaviour: Does work–family conflict mediate the relationship? Global Business Review , 09721509221078932. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509221078932

Allen

T. D.

, French

K. A.

, Dumani

, & Shockley

K. M.

(2015). Meta-analysis of work–family conflict mean differences: Does national context matter? Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 90, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.07.006

Aryee

, Luk

, Leung

, & Lo

(1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well-being: The moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 54(2), 259–278.

Ayers

K.E.

(2006). Engagement is not enough . Integro Leadership Institute LLC.

Azim

M. T.

, & Al-Halwani

(2020). Perceived non-work social support and employee engagement: Mediating role of self-efficacy. Middle East Journal of Management , 7(2), 166–184. https://doi.org/10.1504/MEJM.2020.105946

Bajaba

, Azim

M. T.

, & Uddin

M. A.

(2022). Social support and employee turnover intention: The mediating role of work–family conflict. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios , 24(1), 48–65.

Barnett

M. D.

, Martin

K. J.

, & Garza

C. J.

(2019). Satisfaction with work–family balance mediates the relationship between workplace social support and depression among hospice nurses. Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 51(2), 187–194.

Belwal

, Belwal

, & Al-Hashemi

S. E.

(2019). Family friendly policies and the Omani Labour Law: What it entails for women employees in Oman. Employee Relations , 42(2), 315–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-09-2018-0245

10.

Biggs

, Brough

, & Barbour

J. P.

(2014). Enhancing work-related attitudes and work engagement: A quasi-experimental study of the impact of an organizational intervention. Journal of Stress Management , 21(1), 43–68.

11.

Bizri

, Wahbi

, & Al Jardali

(2021). The impact of CSR best practices on job performance: The mediating roles of affective commitment and work engagement. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance , 8(1), 129–148.

12.

Brislin

R. W.

(2000). Cross-cultural training. In Kazdin

A. E.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 371–374). American Psychological Association.

13.

Britt

T. W.

(2003). Aspects of identity predict engagement in work under adverse conditions. Self and Identity , 2(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309022

14.

Brough

, O’Driscoll

, & Kalliath

(2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the cybernetic coping scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 78(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904X23754

15.

Byrne

Z. S.

, Manning

S. G.

, Weston

J. W.

, & Hochwarter

W. A.

(2017). All roads lead to well-being: Unexpected relationships between organizational politics perceptions, employee engagement, and worker well-being. Power, Politics, and Political Skill in Job Stress (Vol. 15, pp. 1–32): Emerald Publishing Limited.

16.

Cao

, Burton

V. S.

, & Liu

(2018). Correlates of illicit drug use among indigenous peoples in Canada: A test of social support theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 62(14), 4510–4527.

17.

Caplan

R. D.

, Cobb

, French

J. R. P.

Jr. , Van Harrison

, & Pinneau

S. R.

Jr. (1975). Job demands and worker health . U.S. Government Printing Office.

18.

Carlson

D. S.

, Kacmar

K. M.

, & Williams

L. J.

(2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 56(2), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713

19.

Clemson

(2013). Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9

20.

Cross

C. J.

, Taylor

R. J.

, & Chatters

L. M.

(2018). Family social support networks of African American and Black Caribbean adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 27(9), 2757–2771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1116-2

21.

Ferri

L. M.

, Pedrini

, & Riva

(2018). The impact of different supports on work–family conflict. Employee Relations , 40(5), 903–920. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-09-2017-0211

22.

French

K. A.

, Allen

T. D.

, & Shockley

K. M.

(2018). Supplemental material for a meta-analysis of work–family conflict and social support. Psychological Bulletin , 144(3), 284–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000120.supp

23.

Garrett-Peters

, & Burton

L. M.

(2016). Tenuous ties: The nature and costs of kin support among low-income rural Black mothers. Women, Gender, and Families of Color , 4(1), 4–35.

24.

Gersick

C. J. G.

, Dutton

J. E.

, & Bartunek

J. M.

(2000). Learning from academia: The importance of relationships in professional life. Academy of Management Journal , 43, 1026–1044.

25.

Hair

J. F.

, Hult

G. T. M.

, Ringle

C. M.

, Sarstedt

, & Thiele

K. O.

(2017). Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 45(5), 616–632.

26.

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.

27.

Hamilton Skurak

, Malinen

, Näswall

, & Kuntz

J. C.

(2018). Employee wellbeing: The role of psychological detachment on the relationship between engagement and work–life conflict. Economic and Industrial Democracy , 42(1), 116–141.

28.

Harsh

, & Prasad

(2020). Employment relations and perceived organizational performance: The moderating role of technological intensity. Employee Relations , 43(1), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2019-0119

29.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist , 44(3), 513–524.

30.

Holland

, Cooper

, & Sheehan

(2017). Employee voice, supervisor support, and engagement: The mediating role of trust. Human Resource Management , 56(6), 915–929. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm

31.

L. T.

, & Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling , 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

32.

Ismail

H. N.

, Iqbal

, & Nasr

(2019). Employee engagement and job performance in Lebanon: the mediating role of creativity. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , 68(3), 506–523.

33.

Jain

, & K. Nair

(2013). Research on work–family balance: A review. Business Perspectives and Research , 2(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/2278533720130104

34.

Johnson

R. C.

, Eatough

E. M.

, Chang

C. H. (Daisy)

, Hammer

L. B.

, & Truxilllo

(2019). Home is where the mind is: Family interference with work and safety performance in two high risk industries. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 110 (January 2018), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.012

35.

Jolly

P. M.

, Kong

D. T.

, & Kim

K. Y.

(2020). Social support at work: An integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 42(2), 229–251.

36.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal , 33(4), 692–724.

37.

Kail

B. L.

, & Carr

D. C.

(2020). Structural social support and changes in depression during the retirement transition: “I get by with a little help from my friends”. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 75(9), 2040–2049. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbz126

38.

Kim

, Kolb

J. A.

, & Kim

(2013). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review , 12(3), 248–276.

39.

Koen

, Klehe

U. C.

, & Van Vianen

A. E. M.

(2012). Training career adaptability to facilitate a successful school-to-work transition. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 81(3), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.10.003

40.

Kossek

E. E.

, & Ozeki

(1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83(2), 139–149.

41.

Kossek

E. E.

, Pichler

, Bodner

, & Hammer

L. B.

(2011). Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology , 64(2), 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01211.x

42.

Kuntz

, & Roberts

(2014). Engagement and identification: An investigation of social and organisational predictors in an HR offshoring context. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal , 7(3), 253–274.

43.

Lyu

, & Fan

(2022). Research on the relationship of work family conflict, work engagement and job crafting: A gender perspective. Current Psychology , 41, 1767–1777.

44.

Mahmood

, Uddin

M. A.

, & Fan

(2019). The influence of transformational leadership on employees’ creative process engagement: A multi-level analysis. Management Decision , 57(3), 741–764. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2017-0707

45.

Masterson

, & Hoobler

J. M.

(2015). Care and career: A family identity-based typology of dual-earner couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 36, 75–93.

46.

Matthews

R. A.

, Bulger

C. A.

, & Barnes-Farrell

J. L.

(2010). Work social supports, role stressors, and work–family conflict: The moderating effect of age. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 76(1), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.011

47.

Mayuran

, & Kailasapathy

(2020). To engage or not? Antecedents of employee engagement in Sri Lanka. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources , 60(3), 584–607.

48.

Michel

J. S.

, Mitchelson

J. K.

, Pichler

, & Cullen

K. L.

(2010). Clarifying relationships among work and family social support, stressors, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 76(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.007

49.

Nilsen

, Skipstein

, Østby

K. A.

, & Mykletun

(2017). Examination of the double burden hypothesis—A systematic review of work–family conflict and sickness absence. European Journal of Public Health , 27(3), 465–471.

50.

Nohe

, & Sonntag

(2014). Work–family conflict, social support, and turnover intentions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 85(1), 1–12.

51.

Orellana

, Schnettler

, Miranda-Zapata

, Lobos

, Lapo

, Adasme-Berríos

, & Hueche

(2021). Resource transmission is not reciprocal: A dyadic analysis of family support, work–life balance, and life satisfaction in dual-earner parents with adolescent children. Sex Roles , 85(1), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01207-0

52.

Orgambídez-Ramos

, & de Almeida

(2017). Work engagement, social support, and job satisfaction in Portuguese nursing staff: A winning combination. Applied Nursing Research , 36, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.05.012

53.

Öztemel

, & Yıldız-Akyol

(2019). The predictive role of happiness, social support, and future time orientation in career adaptability. Journal of Career Development , 0894845319840437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319840437

54.

Pavlou

P. A.

, Liang

, & Xue

(2007). Qiarterjy. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems , 31(1), 105–136.

55.

Pluut

, Ilies

, Curşeu

P. L.

, & Liu

(2018). Social support at work and at home: Dual-buffering effects in the work–family conflict process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 146, 1–13.

56.

Reknes

, Glambek

, & Einarsen

S. V.

(2020). Injustice perceptions, workplace bullying and intention to leave. Employee Relations , 43(1), 1–13.

57.

Robinson

L. D.

, Magee

, & Caputi

(2016). Burnout and the work–family interface: A two-wave study of sole and partnered working mothers. Career Development International , 21(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-06-2015-0085

58.

Rofcanin

, Heras

M. Las

, & Bakker

A. B.

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

59.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169

60.

Sarafino

E. P.

, & Smith

T. W.

(2014). Health psychology: Biopsychosocial interactions . ohn Wiley & Sons.

61.

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

62.

Sengupta

, Sharma

, & Singh

(2021). Authentic leadership fostering creativity in start-ups: Mediating role of work engagement and employee task proactivity. Business Perspectives and Research , 9(2), 235–251.

63.

Shuck

, & Reio

T. G.

(2014). Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies , 21(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813494240

64.

Srivastava

, & Agarwal

(2020). Workplace bullying and intention to leave: A moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and supervisory support. Employee Relations , 42(6), 1547–1563. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-07-2019-0293

65.

Stefanidis

, & Strogilos

(2020). Perceived organizational support and work engagement of employees with children with disabilities. Personnel Review , 50(1), 186–206.

66.

Tan

K. L.

, Lew

T. Y.

, & Sim

A. K. S.

(2020). Effect of work engagement on meaningful work and psychological capital: perspectives from social workers in New Zealand. Employee Relations , 43(3), 807–826. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-11-2019-0433

67.

Triatmoko

, Nugrahaningsih

, & Dedy

(2014). Family interfering with work, job satisfaction, and turnover intention in Indonesian accountant. Handbook on Economics, Finance and Management Outlooks , 1991, 145–159.

68.

Uddin

M. A.

, Mahmood

, & Fan

(2019). Why individual employee engagement matters for team performance? Mediating effects of employee commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour. Team Performance Management , 25(1–2), 47–68.

69.

Uddin

M. A.

, Priyankara

H. P. R.

, & Mahmood

(2019). Does a creative identity encourage innovative behaviour? Evidence from knowledge-intensive IT service firms. European Journal of Innovation Management , 23(5), 877–894.

70.

Varma

, Zilic

, Katou

, Blajic

, & Jukic

(2020). Supervisor–subordinate relationships and employee performance appraisals: A multi-source investigation in Croatia. Employee Relations , 43(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2019-0248

71.

Wayne

S. J.

, Lemmon

, Hoobler

J. M.

, Cheung

G. W.

, & Wilson

M. S.

(2017). The ripple effect: A spillover model of the detrimental impact of work–family conflict on job success. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 38(6), 876–894.

72.

Wei

, Guo

, Ye

, Liao

, & Yang

(2016). Work–family conflict and safety participation of high-speed railway drivers: Job satisfaction as a mediator. Accident Analysis and Prevention , 95, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.06.022

73.

Witt

L. A.

, & Carlson

D. S.

(2006). The work–family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 11(4), 343–357.

74.

Wood

, Oh

, Park

, & Kim

(2020). The relationship between work engagement and work–life balance in organizations: A review of the empirical research. Human Resource Development Review , 19(3), 240–262.

75.

Woodworth

(1928). Dynamic psychology. In Murchison

(Ed.), Psychologies of 1925 . Clark University Press.

76.

Yousaf

, Mehmood

, Saba

, Rehman

, Munshi

A. M.

, Alharbey

, & Rashid

(2019). Mobile-health applications for the efficient delivery of health care facility to people with dementia (PwD) and support to their carers: A survey. BioMed Research International , 2019, 26. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7151475

77.

Zhao

X. R.

, Mattila

A. S.

, & Ngan

N. N.

(2014). The impact of frontline employees’ work–family conflict on customer satisfaction: The mediating role of exhaustion and emotional displays. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly , 55(4), 422–432.