Conflict and facilitation between family and occupational roles versus work-related stress in the teachers’ group

Introduction

The issue of stress experienced by employees in the workplace has long been a subject of interest and according to Ogińska-Bulik, in recent years, it has been a growing interest in this area [1]. Occupational stress may be examined from various perspectives. One such perspective focuses on the consequences of stress, including professional burnout, health problems, decreased job satisfaction, and even resigning from a job. A second perspective focuses on the conditions that generate occupational stress. Traditionally, the causes of the occupational stress have been linked mainly to a person’s professional role. However, it has been observed recently that the magnitude of stress can also be influenced by other roles that a worker performs outside the workplace, especially family roles. The intensity of occupational stress may also be linked to the workers’ own assessments of the mutual impact of the various roles they perform [2]. As regards to the possible impact an employee’s various roles, the attention has been focused on the conflict between these roles, and in recent years, on growing role of facilitation [3]. Despite rising interest in the effect of conflict and facilitation in employee quality of life [4], many issues are yet to be determined and require further investigation. In this study, the authors attempt to expand the knowledge of conditions that generate occupational stress, to determine the significance of conflict and facilitation between the family and occupational roles, and to explore how these factors help to explain the occupational stress experienced by teachers.

Theoretical basis

Developmental psychologists consider adult’s life as being shaped by the complex and many-faceted relationships among performed social roles [5], where work and family are assumed to be the most significant areas of one’s functioning [6]. Realizing each of these roles might be a source of both well-being and stress. Ogińska-Bulik [1] points at the considerable interest of researchers and practitioners in the phenomenon of occupational stress. She claims that this interest is associated with a growing number of employees complaining about the adverse effects of stress resulting from the high expectations they face. “Occupational stress” refers to the stress experienced at work. Dudek, Waszkowska, Merecz, and Hanke [7] define stress as “a process involving miscellaneous reactions and shifts occurring in the employee’s inner self, as a result of finding oneself in a difficult situation and becoming conscious about various expectations, which have to be faced and conquered”.
According to Ogińska-Bulik [1], immense demands are placed on all public-sector workers, including teachers. Numerous studies indicate that the teaching profession experiences one of the highest levels of occupational stress [1]. Sęk [8] draws attention to the low socio-economic status of teachers in Poland, as a possible explanation for this circumstance.
In light of Brofenbrenner’s systems theory [9], work and family are microsystems that are established by the patterns of actions, roles, and interpersonal relationships experienced by a developing human being in a particular setting. For many years, researchers considered work and family to be two wholly independent spheres of an adult’s activity [10], which resulted in their being presented as two separately functioning entities. It was not until late 1970s, that it was observed that the affairs occurring in one of these areas have an impact on what is happening in the other. Currently, researchers are trying to identify the mechanisms that would allow the best understanding of how these dissimilar spheres of human activity are correlated. Their attention focuses on the mechanism of conflict and facilitation between the roles, because this is regarded to be the primary factor in assessing whether a balance between work and family has been reached [11]. Similarly, as it has been observed by many employers, a successful integration of these two spheres has a substantial impact, not only on the worker’s quality of life, but also on the economic success of the organization [12].
Conflict between family and occupational roles occurs when these roles contain incompatible requirements, and fulfilling the tasks associated with one role makes it difficult to meet the requirements of the other [2, 11, 13]. On the other hand, work-family facilitation is defined as the extent, to which individuals’ participation in one life domain (e.g., work) is made easier by the skills, experiences, and opportunities gained through their performance in another domain (e.g., family) [3, 11, 13]. Work-family facilitation represents the synergies that occur when individuals integrate their professional and family roles. Conflict and facilitation are independent theoretical constructs rather than opposing extremes of the same continuum [13], which means that a person may, for instance, experience both immense conflict and substantial facilitation between the roles. Conflict and facilitation work in two directions; that is, employment affects a person’s family functioning, and family affects an employee’s performance at work [13–15]. Therefore, the following conflicts may be distinguished: work-family conflict (WFC), which occurs when the requirements of one’s professional role inhibit the fulfilment of one’s family role; family-work conflict (FWC) occurs when the requirements of one’s family role inhibit the fulfilment of one’s occupational role; work-family facilitation (WFF) occurs when resources acquired in the sphere of work enhance or make easier the fulfilment of family roles; and family-work facilitation (FWF) occurs when resources acquired in the sphere of family improve or make easier the fulfilment of occupational roles [11, 13, 16]. It has been empirically confirmed in numerous studies that a four-factor model enables the best explanation of the analyzed phenomenon [2, 16, 17]. The model contains the relationships between work and family, and it involves two qualities of influence-conflict and facilitation as well as two directions of influence: work-to-family and family-to-work. Researchers emphasize that it is important to consider the relationship of each of the four factors to overall work and family outcomes [18].
Frone, Yardley, and Markel [15] have developed a conceptual model, hypothesizing that for each direction of conflict (WFC and FWC) there are antecedents in the domain where the conflict originates (i.e., in WFC, antecedents exist in the work domain; in FWC, antecedents exist in the family domain). The outcomes exist in the receiving domain (in WFC, in the family domain; in FWC, in the work domain). These statements have their grounds in the way the conflict between the roles is defined. According to this definition, WFC reflects how work restricts the fulfilment of one’s obligations to the family, whereas FWC demonstrates how family restricts the fulfilment of one’s work duties. This approach allows for the assumption that if one role interferes with fulfilling obligations in another, then stress is more likely to be experienced in that other role. The advocates of such an approach look for the effects of the conflict of roles in the receiving domain, where the performance of the role is hampered by the conflict. Other scholars [19] claim otherwise: the effects should rather be sought in the sending domain (i.e., the one that “exports” the conflict). To justify the latter approach, scholars refer to attribution theory, social exchange theory [20] and the norms of reciprocity [21]. These scholars claim that, if a conflict of roles occurs, individuals may experience impaired functioning in the receiving domain. As a result of a phenomenon known as “source attribution”, however, they tend to blame the source domain, where one role impedes the performance of another role in another domain [22]. There is also a common consensus among scholars that the conflict of roles generates effects both in the sending and receiving domains [23].
The results of previous studies are varied, and there seems to be an evidence in favor of each of these approaches. They also indicate that role conflict is linked with negative effects, whilst role facilitation is linked with positive effects in various aspects of employees’ quality of life [2]. The outcomes of many studies consistently point to the negative effect of WFC on a person’s well-being. The results of these studies show that the relationship between conflict and stress (both in and out of the workplace) is clearly the strongest and the most unambiguous relationship among these types of conflict and miscellaneous indicators of a person’s functioning [16]. It has been found that WFC has an intensely negative impact on general well-being and exacerbates familial, parental, and marital distress. Moreover, in the majority of studies, the significant negative correlation between WFC and both job satisfaction and enjoyment of life has been well-documented. Studies examining the links between WFC and marital satisfaction have yielded more varied results, but also suggest a negative correlation. Other previous studies further indicate that FWC is also negatively correlated with employees’ overall well-being and satisfaction with life and work [16]. The studies conducted in the United States by Frone [14, 15] on a representative cohort show that both types of conflict are linked with addiction, anxiety, and mood disorders, but the relationships are significantly stronger in the case of FWC than of WFC. The outcomes of numerous studies suggest that conflict between roles is associated with a decline in a person’s well-being. In this study, the authors relied upon Michel et al.’s [23] approach to reconcile the mixed empirical evidence. Therefore, the following is expected:
– H1: Higher levels of WFC are associated with higher levels of occupational stress;
– H2: Higher levels of FWC are associated with higher levels of occupational stress.
The role facilitation is usually assumed to be linked with results in the receiving domain by analogy to the results of role conflict [18]. However, other scholars suggest the opposite relationship [19, 24], claiming that the role facilitation has an impact upon quality of life in the sending domain. Also, it is often postulated that facilitation of roles brings consequences both in the sending and the receiving domains [25]. The results of previous studies are varied and seem to support all these conflicting positions. Far fewer studies discuss the role facilitation, and their conclusions are more varied than the results of the role conflict studies. However, they do show positive correlations between WFF and FWF with job and family satisfaction as well as with indicators of mental and physical health. Still, the identified relationships are usually weak or moderate [16]. As with role conflict, the empirical findings in this area also fail to conclusively support a single position, thus McNall et al.’s rationale [25] has been used to make predictions in this study. Therefore, the following is expected:
– H3: Higher levels of work-family facilitation are asso¬ciated with lower levels of occupational stress;
– H4: Higher levels of family-work facilitation are associated with lower levels of occupational stress.

Material and methods

Study participants

The study included 120 teachers (60 women and 60 men). The sample selection was purposeful, and the group selection criterion was respondents’ marital status. The vast majority of the study participants (85.5%) were raising children, usually two (40%) or one (30%). Selecting respondents on the basis of being married allowed for the assumption that the participants would have relatively serious obligations to both work and family. Of the participating teachers, 43.3% lived in large cities with populations exceeding 100,000, 28.4% in smaller towns, and 28.3% in rural areas. The study group is not representative. The respondents were anonymous and received no money for participation.

Measurement tools

The assessment of occupational stress was carried out by means of the Subjective Work Characteristics Questionnaire (SWCQ), by Dudek et al. [7]. This tool consists of 55 statements concerning the features of work described by the respondents using a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning that the item has no impact on the respondent, and 5 meaning that the item has a persistent negative impact. The indicator of stress level is the sum of points obtained from the answers to questions. SWCQ also allows for the assessment of ten causes of stress experienced in the workplace: work overload, a lack of recognition, uncertainty in the workplace, workplace social relationships, feeling threatened, physical exertion, unpleasant working conditions, a lack of agency, a lack of support, and the pressures of responsibility. The questionnaire provided satisfactory psychometric properties, with the discrimination power of individual items ranging from 0.24 to 0.63, and a Cronbach α coefficient for the whole scale of 0.87 [7]. In the authors’ own research, a decision has been made to remove the question “I think that my professional work affects my family life in a negative way”, as its content is very close to that of the statements in the scale measuring work-family conflict, which could potentially increase the correlation between results from both questionnaires. All the remaining analyses include the respondents’ replies to this statement. Therefore, the results obtained were comparable with the outcomes in the original version of the questionnaire. The range of totals available in the present study ranges between 54 and 270.
The data concerning gender and occupational position was obtained based on socio-demographic specifications attached to the questionnaire.
Work-family conflict and facilitation have been assessed using the Work-Family Fit Questionnaire [18, 26]. The Polish version of this questionnaire was developed by Lachowska [17]. For each of four subscales, participants responded to four survey questions on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always), and the responses were summed up [26]. The WFC subscale measured the respondent’s perception of the extent to which work interfered with functioning at home. The WFF subscale measured the extent to which the respondent felt that their work promoted better functioning at home, and measured the extent to which the abilities, behaviors, and positive mood that result from performing an occupational role facilitate the performance of family roles. The FWF subscale measured the extent to which the sense of self-fulfillment, good mood, support, and resources connected with performing a family role support the participants in their occupational roles. It also measured the extent to which respondents felt their family lives helped them perform better on the job. The FWC subscale measured the extent to which the respondents felt their family lives were interfering with their success at work. Therefore, the possible results in each of the four areas ranged from 4 to 20. A higher score indicates a greater intensity of the specific impact type. The value of the reliability factor of this questionnaire was between 0.72 and 0.81. The questionnaire has been found to be highly reliable [17].

Statistical analysis

Analysis of the data was performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 23 statistical package. In order to define the predictors of the occupational stress experienced by the participating teachers, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted, allowing for controlling the influence of a group of independent variables upon the dependent variable and “helping to decide whether adding a particular set of variables significantly enhances the statistical quality of a projection in proportion to the typical ones in the field of predictors” [27]. A series of two-stage hierarchical multiple regressions were performed, first with occupational stress in general, and then with specific aspects thereof. The first stage of the regression included the following elements: gender, age, time spent at work, and number of children. These elements were introduced during this stage to control their influence on the participants’ occupational stress, both globally and constrained to particular aspects. The work-family variables (work-family conflict, family-work conflict, work-family facilitation, family-work facilitation) were entered at stage two. The regression statistics are in Tables 1-11.

Results

The raw data obtained using the Subjective Work Characteristics Questionnaire (SWCQ) may be converted into Sten norms, which enables the interpretation of the outcomes in the category of low-high sense of occupational stress [7]. Regarding the globally-defined occupational stress, 30.8% of the participants experienced low levels of occupational stress, 30.8% experienced moderate levels, and 40.3% experienced high levels of occupational stress in the workplace. However, when it comes to aspects of the stress experienced in the workplace (Fig. 1), the majority of study participants (75%) experienced intense stress due to workplace social relationships. Approximately half of the participants (55.0%) encountered intense stress due to a lack of recognition at work, work overload (55.3%), a lack of support at work (55.8%), a lack of agency at work (52.5%), the physical exertion of the work (43.3%), and the pressures of responsibility (41.7%). Far fewer of the participants experienced high levels of stress at work due to unpleasant working conditions (17.5%), feeling threatened at work (24.2%), and uncertainty in the workplace (37.5%).
The participating teachers experienced significantly stronger negative impacts of work on family (M = 12.56; SD = 3.34) than of family on work (M = 9.56; SD = 2.43) [ t(119) = 10.05; p < 0.001] and also significantly stronger negative (M = 12.56; SD = 3.34) than positive (M = 11.22; SD = 2.46) impacts of work on family [t(119) = 3.14; p = 0.002]. On the other hand, the positive influences of family on work (M = 13.95; SD = 3.27) outweighed the effects of family on performance at work (M = 9.56; SD = 2.43) [t(119) = –2.11; p < 0.001]. When it comes to facilitation between the roles, the impact of family on work is much greater than the impact of work on family.
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression has been conducted with overall occupational stress as the dependent variable. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that, at stage one, the time spent at work contributed significantly to the regression model [F (4,115) = 6.55; p < 0.001] (Table 1). Together, the four independent variables accounted for 19% of the variation in overall occupational stress. Introducing the work-family variables explained an additional 26% of variation in overall occupational stress, and this change in R² was significant [F (4,111) = 13.25; p < 0.001]. When all eight independent variables were included in stage two of the regression model, the time spent at work was not a significant predictor of occupational stress; the significant predictors of the occupational stress were WFC, FWF, and age. Together, the eight independent variables accounted for 45% of the variation in overall occupational stress.
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression has been conducted with work overload as the dependent variable. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that, at stage one, time spent at work contributed significantly to the regression model [F (4,115) = 7.26; p < 0.001] (Table 2). Together, the four independent variables accounted for 20% of the variation in work overload related to the complexity of work. Introducing the work-family variables, explained an additional 31% of variation in feelings of being overloaded related to the complexity of work, and this change in R² was significant [F (4,111) = 17.86; p < 0.001]. When all eight independent variables were included in stage two of the regression model, the significant predictors of the occupational stress were WFC, FWF, time spent at work, and age. Together, the eight independent variables accounted for 51% of the variation in work overload related to the complexity of work.
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression has been conducted with the stress resulting from a lack of recognition at work as the dependent variable. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that, at stage one, time spent at work and gender contributed significantly to the regression model [F (4,115) = 6.29; p < 0.001] (Table 3). Together, the four independent variables accounted for 19% of the variation in stress resulting from a lack of recognition at work, including feelings of being overlooked at work, being unfairly treated, having low work prestige, or not utilizing one’s talents. Introducing the work-family variables explained an additional 26% of the variation in stress resulting from a lack of recognition at work, and this change in R² was significant [F (4,111) = 18.39; p < 0.001]. When all eight independent variables were included in stage two of the regression model, the time spent at work was not a significant predictor of occupational stress. Significant predictors of occupational stress were WFC, FWF, WFF, and age. Together, the eight independent variables accounted for 45% of the variation in stress resulting from a lack of recognition at work.
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression has been conducted with the stress resulting from the uncertainty caused by a poorly organized workplace as the dependent variable. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that, at stage one, time spent at work contributed significantly to the regression model [F (4,115) = 5.08; p < 0.001] (Table 4). Together, the four independent variables accounted for 15% of the variation in stress resulting from uncertainty in the workplace. Introducing the work-family variables explained an additional 17% of variation in stress resulting from uncertainty in the workplace, and this change in R² was significant [F (4,111) = 7.06; p < 0.001]. When all eight independent variables were included in stage two of the regression model, the time spent at work was not a significant predictor of occupational stress. The only significant predictor of stress resulting from uncertainty caused by a poorly organized workplace was WFC. Together, the eight independent variables accounted for 32% of the variation in stress resulting from uncertainty caused by a poorly organized workplace.
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression has been conducted with the stress resulting from workplace social relationships as the dependent variable. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that, at stage one, time spent at work contributed significantly to the regression model [F (4,115) = 4.07; p = 0.004] (Table 5). Together, the four independent variables accounted for 12% of the variation in stress resulting from workplace social relationships. Introducing the work-family variables explained an additional 13% of the variation in stress resulting from workplace social relationships, and this change in R² was significant [F (4,111) = 4.68; p = 0.002]. When all eight independent variables were included in stage two of the regression model, the time spent at work was not a significant predictor of the occupational stress. The only significant predictor of stress resulting from workplace social relationships was WFC. Together, these eight independent variables accounted for 25% of the variation in stress resulting from workplace social relationships.
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression has been conducted with the stress generated by feeling threatened as the dependent variable. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that, at stage one, time spent at work contributed significantly to the regression model [F (4,115) = 2.58; p = 0.04] (Table 6). Together, the four independent variables accounted for 8% of the variation in stress caused by feeling threatened. Introducing the work-family variables explained an additional 11% of the variation in stress resulting from feeling threatened, and this change in R² was significant [F (4,111) = 3.70; p = 0.007]. When all eight independent variables were included in stage two of the regression model, the time spent at work was not a significant predictor of occupational stress. The only significant predictor of stress caused by feeling threatened was WFC. Together, the eight independent variables accounted for 19% of the variation in stress resulting from feeling threatened.
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression has been conducted with the stress connected with a lack of agency as the dependent variable (Table 9). The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that, at stage one, age, and time spent at work contributed significantly to the regression model [F (4,115) = 2.94; p = 0.02]. Together, the four independent variables accounted for 9% of the variation in stress connected with a lack of agency. Introducing the work-family variables explained an additional 9% of the variation in stress connected with a lack of agency, and this change in R² was significant [F (4,111) = 3.08; p = 0.02]. When all eight independent variables were included in stage two of the regression model, the time spent at work was not a significant predictor of the occupational stress. The significant predictors of stress connected with a lack of agency were WFC and age. Together, the eight independent variables accounted for 18% of the variation in stress connected with a lack of agency.
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression has been conducted with the stress due to lack of support as the dependent variable (Table 10). The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that, at stage one, time spent at work contributed significantly to the regression model [F (4,115) = 9.72; p < 0.001]. Together, the four independent variables accounted for 25% of the variation in the stress due to lack of support. Introducing the work-family variables explained an additional 8% of the variation in stress due to insufficient support, and this change in R² was significant [F (4,111) = 3.78; p = 0.01]. The significant predictors of stress due to a lack of support were time spent at work, WFC, WFF, and number of children. Together, the eight independent variables accounted for 33% of the variation in stress resulting from a lack of support.
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression has been conducted with the stress caused by the pressures of responsibility as the dependent variable (Table 11). The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that, at stage one, gender contributed significantly to the regression model [F (4,115) = 3.25; p = 0.02]. Together, the four independent variables accounted for 10% of the variation in stress caused by the pressures of responsibility. Introducing the work-family variables explained an additional 9% of the variation in stress caused by the pressures of responsibility, and this change in R² was significant [F (4,111) = 2.94; p = 0.02]. The significant predictors of the stress caused by the pressures of responsibility were gender and WFC. Together, the eight independent variables accounted for 19% of the variation in stress caused by the pressures of responsibility.
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression has been conducted with the stress resulting from physical exertion as the dependent variable (Table 7). The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that, at stage one, no variable contributed significantly to the regression model [F (4,115) = 0.76; p = 0.55]. Introducing the work-family variables explained an additional 3% of the variation in stress resulting from physical exertion, but this change in R² was not significant [F (4,111) = 0.94; p = 0.45].
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression has been conducted with the stress caused by unpleasant working conditions as the dependent variable (Table 8). The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that, at stage one, no variable contributed significantly to the regression model [F (4,115) = 0.51; p = 0.73]. Introducing the work-family variables explained an additional 4% of the variation in stress caused by unpleasant working conditions, but this change in R² was not significant [F (4,111) = 1.21; p = 0.31].
The conducted analyses lead to the conclusion that the work-family variables perform a mediating function in the relationships between demographic characteristics and occupational stress. Model 1 in Tables 1-11 provides information on the direct effects of demographic variables upon the perception of occupational stress. Model 2 in Tables 1-11 tests the mediating effects of work-family variables on the relationship between demographic variables and the perception of occupational stress. Mediation occurs when the regression coefficients are lower in Model 2 than in Model 1 [27].

Discussion

The purpose of this paper was to examine whether conflict and facilitation between work and family are predictive levels of occupational stress experienced by teachers. The study consisted of two qualities (conflict and facilitation) and two directions of influence between the roles (the impact of work on family and of family on work). The results of the conducted research emphasize that the relationships between role conflict or facilitation and occupational stress are consistent with the hypotheses, i.e., role conflict compounds the stress experienced at work, and role facilitation mitigates it. The results of the conducted analyses demonstrate that the predictors of overall occupational stress are: WFC, FWF, and age. This means that the increased occupational stress experienced by teachers is higher in proportion to the extent that the work is perceived as being an obstacle to the fulfilment of family obligations, and conversely, it is lower in proportion to the extent that family is viewed as facilitating the fulfilment of professional requirements.
Similar relationships were observed with each source of occupational stress, except for the stress that results from physical exertion or unpleasant working conditions. No statistically significant relationships were found between these stressors and the independent variables. With regards to the remaining sources of stress, the regression analysis models were statistically significant. And accordingly, feeling of being overwhelmed at work increases when workers believe that their excess of professional work not only extends their workdays, but also detracts from their family lives. Conversely, the influence of facilitating strengthen the family. Feelings of stress associated with a lack of recognition at work rise with increased WFC and fall with increased FWF, WFF, and employee age. Thus, feelings of not receiving recognition increases the perception of a negative impact of work upon one’s family life. On the other hand, considering professional work as having a positive impact upon family life, as well as being a positive facilitator of the employee’s functioning, mitigate feelings of not being sufficiently recognized. The strength of this correlation decreases with an employee age.
The feelings of stress associated with workplace social relationships, with uncertainty in the workplace, and with feeling threatened at work are explained entirely by WFC. Therefore, the perception that work is interfering with one’s ability to function in the sphere of family exacerbates the experience of stress in workplace social relations, a poorly organized workplace, and feeling threatened. Additionally, in this case, including WFC in the analyses reveals that the time spent at work explains the aforementioned aspects of occupational stress only when an employee considers it to be an impediment to the fulfilment of family obligations.
The variables also clarify the causes of the stress experienced by employees in relation to a lack of support at work, which is related with the time spent working, with the degree to which the work impedes or facilitates the fulfilment of family obligations and finally, with the number of children under custody of the person. Including role conflict and facilitation in the analyses, weakens the positive correlation between time spent at work and the amount of stress caused by a lack of support, but this correlation is still statistically significant, which means that the time spent at work is a crucial and strong predictor of this type of occupational stress. Time spent at work only compounds the stress connected with a lack of support in cases where workers judge that this time interferes with their family obligations.
The variables explain a relatively small range of variations in the stress caused by a lack of agency at work or by the pressures of responsibility. The level of stress connected with feeling of lack of activity when performing professional tasks, decreases with age but increases with the intensity of WFC. The time spent at work amplifies this stress only when people consider it a reason for a degradation of their functioning in the family. The stress caused by the pressures of responsibility is more intense in men and when work is perceived to be a factor negatively affecting family life. No significant relationship was found between the time spent at work and occupational stress induced by the pressure of responsibility.
Of the two directions of conflict studied, only WFC shows a statistically significant relationship to occupational stress, both overall and from all specific sources, except for physical exertion and unpleasant working conditions. Therefore, the study results confirm hypothesis H.1 that the perception of work negatively affecting family life amplifies the stress experienced in the workplace, both overall and from each specific stressor, except for the stress associated with physical exertion at work and unpleasant working conditions. No significant relationship between FWC and occupational stress has been proven, thus hypothesis H.2 has not been confirmed. And as predicted in hypothesis H.4, FWF is a statistically significant contributor to the reduction of overall occupational stress as well as the stress due to physical exertion of the work and the stress caused by a lack of recognition at work. No significant relationship has been found between WFF and occupational stress, both overall and from each specific stressor, except for the stress caused by a lack of recognition or by a lack of support. Therefore, if people view their work as having a positive impact upon their family lives, this mitigates the stress induced by a lack of recognition and support at work. Thus, the results partially confirm hypothesis H.3.
The conducted analyses support the position that conflict between roles damages workers’ well-being in the workplace, and role facilitation improves it. This result can be explained by referring to the main assumptions of Hobfoll’s Conservation of Resources (CoR) theory [28]. The bases of facilitation are resources [6, 13], obtaining, multiplying, and protecting them, which, according to CoR theory, are linked to positive effects on a person. This theory also assumes that people who possess many resources are less exposed to stress-generating situations that would negatively impact their health, and furthermore, that these resources help people cope with the requirements of their roles, which mitigates the associated stress. This mechanism allows for the explanation of the negative correlations between role facilitation and occupational stress found in the study. On the other hand, the bases of role conflict are demands [13] that deplete the resources, the loss of which, according to the Hobfoll’s theory [28], generates insecurity and leads to negative effects, such as depression, anxiety, dissatisfaction, and stress. This mechanism explains the observed positive correlation between WFC and occupational stress.
The conducted analyses show that the relationships between roles, shape the magnitude of the occupational stress experienced by the study participants. Occupational stress levels rise when employees believe that their work impedes the fulfilment of their family obligations and fall when they view their work as making it easier to achieve family goals. Occupational stress is also mitigated by positive influence of one’s family. Occupational stress is an important predictor of workers’ performance in an organization and thus, also of the organization’s economic success. Therefore, it can be inferred that a company might achieve measurable economic benefits by undertaking actions aimed at reducing conflict and strengthening facilitation between roles.
The results of the study are consistent with other research, which suggests that conflict between roles has a negative impact on various aspects of an employee’s life, whereas role facilitation produces positive outcomes [2]. Having conducted a meta-analysis of data from across 67 papers, Allen et al. [29] showed that the strongest and most unambiguous of the relationships involving conflict between roles is the relationship between WFC and stress both in and out of the workplace. The weighted averages of the correlations between this type of conflict and various types of stress range from 0.29 to 0.42. The strongest correlation exists between conflict and occupational burnout and stress in the workplace. The weighted average of the correlation between WFC and occupational stress is 0.41. The results of previous studies also confirm the impact of role facilitation on employee health. It has been found that workers experiencing greater role facilitation in the initial stage of the study showed lower cholesterol levels, lower body mass index scores, and less frequent health-related absences from work after one year [30].
In the authors’ own research, it has been found that the time spent at work rarely increases occupational stress except in the case of stress caused by psychical exertion or a lack of support at work. It has been found that WFC and FWF mediate the effects of working long hours on the perception of occupational stress (based on SWCQ scores) and work overload. It has been found that WFC mediates the effects of time spent at work on the stress caused by uncertainty in the workplace, by workplace social relationships, and by feeling threatened. It has been found that WFC and WFF mediate the effects of time spent at work on the stress resulting from a lack of support at work. The findings reveal that work-to-family conflict and facilitation mediates, at least in part, the relationship between the demands of work and the perception of occupational stress, which is consistent with previous studies [31–33]. Most of the statistically significant direct correlations between the time spent at work and stress are reduced, when WFC is factored into the regression equation. These findings suggest that the processes that link time spent at work to perceive stress, operate through WFC.
The above observations have significant practical implications. They demonstrate that rather than focusing on reducing the time spent at work, programs aimed at supporting employees in reconciling their professional and family roles should concentrate on making sure that the time devoted to work does not interfere with their family lives.
There are several limitations to this study. The first is its correlational nature, which prevents the formation of any causal conclusions regarding the links between the analyzed variables. Therefore, conducting longitudinal studies would be highly valuable, as it would allow to determine the causal relationships between the analyzed phenomena. Secondly, there are limitations connected with the study participants. Since the group was not representative, there is no basis on which to generalize the study’s conclusions to other groups. The correlations found in this group should be confirmed in other cohorts. Another limitation of the study concerns the character of the data, as the scope of the analyzed stress indicators in the workplace and the mutual correlations between the roles was limited to subjective factors found on the basis of self-description methods. It would be advisable to examine a broader range of factors, including objective measures, such as performance assessments completed by managers, colleagues, or family members, the frequency of absences from work, laboratory tests evaluating subjects’ health, etc. A broader range of factors would allow a better understanding of the analyzed correlations. Despite these limitations, however, two key advantages of this study were the relatively large number of participants and the inclusion of many types of stress, rather than just its overall impact on a company, which allowed for a more in-depth analysis of the studied phenomenon.

Conclusions

The conducted analysis supports the position that programs aimed at reducing the negative impact work has on employees’ family lives or at increasing the positive impact of employees’ families on their professional roles could successfully produce improvements in employee performance.
Organizations can undertake efforts to promote the positive effects that work can have on employees’ family lives in order to make it easier to for them to cope with the stress resulting from a lack of recognition or support at work, in turn improving employees’ performance in occupational roles.
Reductions in the time spent at work may lead to successful reconciliation of work and family roles only if employees perceive time spent at work as adversely impacting the fulfilment of their family obligations. This study found no basis on which to draw conclusions about whether the family lives of the study participants induce occupational stress and thus, make it harder to fulfil their occupational roles. The results of this research are consistent with the outcomes of previous studies regarding the phenomenon of performing various social roles, thus supporting the thesis that employees’ successfully reconciling work with family life is vitally bound to their performance in occupational roles, which has a significant impact on the economic success of the organizations they work for.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Ogińska-Bulik N. Occupational stress in the competition of social services. Sources, consequence – prevention. Difin, Warsaw 2006.
2. Lachowska B. Work and family – conflict or synergy? Conflict and facilitation between professional and family roles – conditioning and meaning for the quality of women and men’ s life. Catholic University of Lublin Publisher, Lublin 2012.
3. Lachowska B. Personalities’ predictors of conflict, facilitation, satisfaction of reconciling the family and occupational roles – analysis in the group of women and men. Review of Psychology 2013; 56: 301-322.
4. Greenhaus JH, Collins KM, Shaw JD. The Relation Between Work-Family Balance and Quality of Life. Journal of Vocational Behavior 2003; 63: 510-531.
5. Lachman ME. Development in midlife. Ann Rev Psychol 2004; 55: 305-331.
6. Greenhaus JH, Powell GN. When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review 2006; 31: 72-92.
7. Dudek B, Waszkowska M, Merecz D, Hanke W. Protecting workers’ health from the results of occupational stress. Publishing House of the Institute of Health Medicine in the honor of Prof. J. Nofer, Łódź 1999.
8. Sęk H. Occupational burnout in teachers’ life. Conditioning and ways to prevent it. In: Sęk H (ed.). Occupational burnout. Reasons and prevention. PWN Scientific Publishing House, Warszawa 2011; 149-167.
9. Bronfenbrenner U. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Development Psychol 1986; 22: 723-742.
10. Clark SC. Work/family border theory. Human Relations 2000; 53: 747-770.
11. Grzywacz JG, Carlson DS. Conceptualizing work-family balance: Implications for practice and research. Adv Develop Hum Res 2007; 9: 455-471.
12. Quick JD, Henley AB, Quick JC. The Balancing Act – At Work and At Home. Organizational Dynamics 2004; 33: 426-438.
13. Voydanoff P. Toward a Conceptualization of Perceived Work-Family Fit and Balance: Demands and Resources Approach. Journal of Marriage and Family 2005; 67: 822-836.
14. Frone MR, Russell M, Cooper ML. Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. J Appl Psychol 1992; 77: 65-78.
15. Frone MR, Yardley JK, Markel KS. Developing and testing an integrative model of the work – family interface. J Vocat Behav 1997; 50: 145-167.
16. Lachowska B. Conflict and facilitation between occupational and family roles and the quality of life of working parents. Social Psychol 2012; 74: 353-371.
17. Lachowska B. Mutual relations between work and family – the perspective of conflict and facilitation (report from pilot research). In: Golińska L, Dudek B (eds.). Work and family from the perspective of challenges and threats. The University of Łódź Publishing, Łódź 2008; 431-453.
18. Wayne JH, Musisca N, Fleeson W. Considering the Role of Personality in the Work-Family Experience: Relationships of the Big Five to Work-Family Conflict and Facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior 2004; 64: 108-130.
19. Boyar SL, Mosley Jr DC. The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family satisfaction: The mediating role of work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior 1964; 71: 265-281.
20. Blau PM. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York 1964.
21. Gouldner AW. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Am Soc Rev 1960; 25: 161-170.
22. Shockley KM, Singla N. Reconsidering work-family interactions and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management 2011; 37: 861-886.
23. Michel JS, Mitchelson JK, Kotrba LM, Le Breton JM, Baltes BB. A comparative test of work-family conflict models and critical examination of work-family linkages. Journal of Vocational Behavior 2009; 74: 199-218.
24. Hakanen JJ, Peeters MC, Perhoniemi R. Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and at home: A 3-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 2011; 84: 8-30.
25. McNall LA, Nicklin JM, Masuda AD. A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work-family enrichment. Journal of Business and Psychology 2010; 25: 381-396.
26. Grzywacz JG, Bass BL. Work, Family, and Mental Health: testing different Models from Work-Family Fit. Journal of Marriage and Family 2003; 65: 284-262.
27. Bedyńska S, Książek M. Statistical signpost 3. Practical guide to use the models of regressions and structural equations. Sedno Academical Publishing, Warszawa 2012.
28. Hobfoll SE. Stress, culture and society. Psychology and philosophy of stress. Gdańsk Psychological Publishing, Gdańsk 2006.
29. Allen TD, Herst DEL, Bruck CS, Sutton M. Consequences Associated with Work-to-Family Conflict: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. J Occup Health Psychol 2000; 5: 278-308.
30. Van Steenbergen EF, Ellemers N, Mooijaart A. How work and family can facilitate each other: distinct types of Work-Family Facilitation and outcomes for women and men. J Occup Health Psychol 2007; 12: 279-300.
31. Anderson SE, Coffey BS, Byerly RT. Formal Organizational Initiatives and Informal Workplace Practices. Journal of Management 2002; 28: 787-810.
32. Thomas LT, Ganster DC. Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Applied Psychology 1995; 80: 6-15.
33. Voydanoff P. Consequences of Boundary-Spanning Demands and Resources for Work-to-Family Conflict and Perceived Stress. J Occup Health Psychol 2005; 10: 491-503.

Address for correspondence:

Bogusława Halina Lachowska
The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
Al. Racławickie 14
20-950 Lublin, Poland
Phone: +48 501 44 57 10