2. 208 French, Shockley
all three concepts are discussed, most extant literature
focuses on work–family conflict.
What kind of support helps employees
manage work and family?
Informal support. Informal supports are psychological
or material resources provided through social relationships.
Table 1 displays the different forms, types, and sources of
support as well as support specific to work–family needs.
Supportive behaviors directly reduce the difficulty of man-
aging work and family (work–family conflict) and improve
work–family balance and work–family enrichment. Alterna-
tively, supportive behaviors can indirectly improve work–
family management by creating the feeling of being supported
(e.g., French, Dumani, Allen, & Shockley, 2018).
Meta-analyses that combine results across multiple
studies suggest that supportive relationships are con-
sistently associated with lower work–family conflict
(French et al., 2018; Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer,
2011) and higher work–family enrichment (Lapierre
et al., 2018). Figure 1 shows the most up-to-date meta-
analytic correlations between support and work–family
conflict and between support and work–family enrich-
ment. No current meta-analyses have focused on the
relationship between social support and work–family
balance, although individual studies show positive
associations (e.g., Greenhaus, Ziegert, & Allen, 2012).
Although evidence suggests that support is generally
beneficial for work–family outcomes, the strength of
the relationship between support and work–family
experiences depends on who is providing support.
Social support tends to be most strongly related to
work–family conflict when it comes from the domain
in which conflict or enrichment originates. For example,
organizational perceptions and supervisor support are
most strongly associated with reduced work-to-family
conflict and increased work-to-family enrichment. Like-
wise, support from family tends to be most strongly
associated with family-to-work enrichment. The pattern
deviates with family-to-work conflict, for which effect
sizes are of similar magnitude for work and family sup-
port (French et al., 2018; Lapierre et al., 2018). In terms
of sources of support within each domain, supervisors
are regarded as the most important source of work
support, likely because of the power and discretion
they hold over employees’ demands and rewards (Ham-
mer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009). On the
family side, spouses are by far the most commonly
studied source of support, although effect sizes for
spouses are comparable with those found for general
family support. Lastly, supports that are specifically
designed to help juggle work and family tend to be
more strongly associated with work–family conflict and
work–family enrichment compared with generic sup-
port (e.g., sharing ideas or advice; Kossek et al., 2011;
Lapierre et al., 2018).
Formal support. Formal supports are policies that sup-
port employees in the form of time, services, or finance
(Butts, Casper, & Yang, 2013; see Table 1 for forms, types,
and sources of formal support). The mere offering of for-
mal policies may signal organizational concern for employ-
ees as a form of support, and the use of policies offers
support in terms of granting employees additional time or
increased control over work and family demands (Allen &
Shockley, 2009).
Meta-analyses have investigated workplace flexibility
policy and dependent-care policy availability and use
in relation to work-to-family conflict (Allen, Johnson,
Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013; Butts et al., 2013). The results
are somewhat inconsistent given that only flexplace
use, flextime availability, availability of dependent-care
policy, and use of dependent-care policy are associated
with less work-to-family conflict. There are no signifi-
cant meta-analytic associations between work-to-family
conflict and flexplace availability or flextime use. Fam-
ily-to-work conflict is not significantly associated with
flexibility use or availability. With regard to enrichment,
Lapierre et al. (2018) examined a bundle variable (a com-
bination of the availability and use of policies for work-
place flexibility and dependent-care support) and found
that it related positively to both work-to-family and
family-to-work enrichment (Lapierre et al., 2018). Overall,
even in cases in which effect sizes were significant, they
were negligible to small (rs = .01–.13; see Fig. 1).
Some researchers have conjectured why relation-
ships between formal supports and work–family out-
comes are not stronger. Allen et al. (2013) posited that
flexibility may increase family demands. For example,
the spouse with the more flexible job may be the one
who takes responsibility for picking up children or
doing more housework. They also argued that flexibility
increases choices and can therefore create challenges
with self-regulation, making it difficult to focus on pres-
ent work or family tasks. Employees may also experi-
ence negative career repercussions, particularly when
use is attributed to personal as opposed to productivity
motives (Leslie, Manchester, Park, & Mehng, 2012).
These added stressors may further assuage the efficacy
of programs in supporting work–family needs. Lastly,
the correlations may appear artificially low because the
people with the highest work–family conflict (or lowest
work–family balance) are most likely to use formal
policies. To date, the literature lacks a substantial num-
ber of studies with designs that could help disentangle
3. Support for Work–Family Management 209
Table 1. Support Concepts and Definitions Used in the Work–Family Literature
Support concept and type Definition
Informal support: “psychological or material resources provided through social relationships
that can mitigate stressors and strains” (French, Dumani, Allen, & Shockley, 2018, p. 288)
Support form
Support perceptions “Beliefs about the degree to which an individual feels supported” (French et al., 2018,
p. 289); applies to individuals and entities (e.g., work organizations, community
organizations)
Support behaviors “Specific supportive actions” (also referred to as received or enacted support); applies only to
individuals and cannot be used to describe entities (e.g., work organizations, community
organizations; French et al., 2018, p. 289)
Support use Use of supportive psychological or material resources to help mitigate stressors and
strains; applies only to individuals and cannot be used to describe entities (e.g., work
organizations, community organizations)
Support type
Emotional support Emotional resources (e.g., kindness, listening, care) that can be used to “help receiver’s
feelings and self-evaluations” (French et al., 2018, p. 290)
Instrumental support Tangible resources that can be used to directly mitigate stressors and strains (French et al.,
2018, p. 290)
Appraisal support Provision of alternative ways of thinking about the stressor or strain to change “the support
receiver’s strain appraisal” (French et al., 2018, p. 290)
Informational support Provision of information or advice to help mitigate stressors and strains (French et al., 2018,
p. 290)
Support source
Organizational support Informal support that is attributed to the organization as an entity
Supervisor support Informal support that is provided by supervisors
Coworker support Informal support that is provided by coworkers
Client or customer support Informal support that is provided by clients or customers
Family support Informal support that is provided by family members
Spouse support Informal support that is provided by a partner or spouse
Child support Informal support that is provided by children
Parental support Informal support that is provided by parents
Paid household support Informal support that is provided by paid household providers (e.g., nannies, day-care
providers, maids)
Community support Informal support that is provided by friends, neighbors, and community organizations
Work–family specific support
Work–family culture “Shared assumptions, beliefs, and values regarding the extent to which an organization
supports and values the integration of employees’ work and family lives” (Thompson,
Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999, p. 394); consists of managerial support, career consequences,
and organizational time demands
Family-supportive
organizational perceptions
“Global perceptions . . . regarding the extent an organization is family-supportive” (Allen,
2001, p. 416)
Family-supportive
supervision
Informal supervisor support that aims to help employees with family responsibilities (Thomas
& Ganster, 1995, p. 7)
Family-supportive supervisor
behaviors
“Behaviors exhibited by supervisors that are supportive of families” (Hammer, Kossek,
Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009, p. 839); consists of emotional support, instrumental
support, role-modeling behaviors, and creative work–family management
Formal support: “policies that provide support to employees in the form of time,
services, or finance” (Butts, Casper, & Yang, 2013, p. 2)
Support form
Support availability Policies that are offered by an organization or country; typically applies to entities (e.g., work
organizations, community organizations), although superordinate individuals may act as
gatekeepers for policy availability (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013, p. 352)
Support use Use of supportive policies offered by an organization or country; applies only to
individuals and cannot be used to describe entities (e.g., work organizations, community
organizations; Allen et al., 2013, p. 352)
(continued)
4. 210 French, Shockley
this (i.e., experimental, quasiexperimental, or longitu-
dinal designs). The three known studies with a quasiex-
perimental design showed mixed results. Two found no
significant differences in the experimental and control
group—flextime intervention in relation to work inter-
ference with personal life (Dunham, Pierce, & Castañeda,
1987); remote-work intervention in relation to work–life
balance (Hill, Miller, Weiner, & Colihan, 1998)—and one
found lower negative work–home spillover in the exper-
imental group (Results Only Work Environment inter-
vention; Moen, Kelly, Tranby, & Huang, 2011).
Beyond the organization, many countries have
national policies aimed at facilitating work–family man-
agement. Policies include labor laws, such as working-
hour limits and vacation-time requirements; paid family
leave; the right to request part-time employment; and
state child-care subsidies (Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault,
2017). Most research has focused on parental leave,
which varies considerably across countries in terms of
length of leave, percentage of salary paid during leave,
and flexibility in when leave is used, among other fac-
tors (for a review, see Raub et al., 2018). Findings
regarding national policies are mixed. For example,
Allen et al. (2014) found that longer paid parental leave
was associated with lower work-to-family conflict but
not family-to-work conflict, whereas Ruppanner (2013)
found that longer parental leave was associated with
lower family-to-work conflict but not work-to-family
conflict. Additional studies found no association
between parental leave and work–family conflict (e.g.,
Annink, Den Dulk, & Steijn, 2016). Overall, it is difficult
to draw firm conclusions about the association between
national policies and work–family conflict. The source
of study discrepancies is unknown because of the myr-
iad factors that vary across these studies (e.g., countries
included and way policies are operationalized).
When and for whom is support most
effective for managing work and family?
Both informal and formal supports tend to be most
strongly associated with work–family management
when the environment allows and promotes the use of
supportive resources. For example, Greenhaus et al.
(2012) found that supervisor support is more strongly
related to work–family balance when individuals per-
ceive that their organization overall is family support-
ive. French and Agars (2018) found that managerial
support was more weakly related to work–family con-
flict and work–family enrichment in a low-income
sample compared with a higher-income sample. Work-
ers in poverty may not have the context needed to
successfully use supportive resources, such as sufficient
income to afford a missed day of work. Workers are
Support concept and type Definition
Support type
Flexibility policies “Work options that permit flexibility in ‘where’ [work] is completed and/or ‘when’ work is
completed” (Allen et al., 2013, p. 345)
Flextime Flexibility in terms of working times (Allen et al., 2013, p. 351)
Flexplace Flexibility in terms of working location (Allen et al., 2013, p. 351)
Reduced hours work Working fewer hours than full-time at a commensurate compensation rate
Dependent-care support “Policies that provide tangible support in the way of time, services, or financial benefits that
ease the burden of dependent care” (Butts et al., 2013, p. 2)
On-site caregiving centers Caregiving centers that are on site or very close to a company location and can be used by
employees, often at a discounted rate
Caregiving subsidies Financial assistance to offset the cost of child care
Caregiving information/
referrals
Information or referrals provided about caregiving options to reduce time spent on
researching options
Leave and break policies
Parental leave Paid or unpaid leave from work provided for the birth of a child with guarantee of being
able to return to the same or a similar job
Medical or sick leave Paid or unpaid leave from work provided to help employees, and in some cases their family
members as well, recover from illness
Working-hour and rest
mandates
Restrictions on number of work hours allowed in a given time frame or mandates on amount
of vacation time required
Support source
National policy Policies that are offered by the country
Organizational policy Policies that are offered by the organization
Table 1. (continued)
5. Support for Work–Family Management 211
also more likely to use formal family-friendly policies
when their organizations and supervisors are support-
ive of family needs (e.g., Allen, 2001; Allen Shockley,
2009), as the number of policies increases (Butts et al.,
2013), and when employees feel they can use policies
without negative career consequences (Thompson,
Beauvais, Lyness, 1999). Further, national formal poli-
cies tend to be more strongly related to work–family
conflict as informal work support increases (e.g., Allen
et al., 2014).
.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
Organizational Support
Supervisor Support
Leader–Member Exchange
Coworker Support
Flexplace Availability
Flexplace Use
Flextime Availability
Flextime Use
Dependent-Care Availability
Dependent-Care Use
Family-Friendly Policies
Family Support
Spouse Support
Absolute Correlation (r)
Work-to-Family Conflict
Family-to-Work Conflict
Work-to-Family Enrichment
Family-to-Work Enrichment
Fig. 1. Uncorrected absolute meta-analytic correlations between support type and work-to-family conflict,
family-to-work conflict, work-to-family enrichment, and family-to-work enrichment. Support type con-
sisted of informal support at work (organizational support, supervisor support, leader–member exchange,
coworker support; average number of studies per correlation = 38), formal support at work (flexplace
availability and use, flextime availability and use, dependent-care availability and use, family-friendly
policies aggregate; average number of studies per correlation = 13), and informal family support (family
support, spouse support; average number of studies per correlation = 32). Meta-analytic correlations were
extracted from studies by Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, and Shockley (2013); Butts, Casper, and Yang (2013);
French, Dumani, Allen, and Shockley (2018); Lapierre et al. (2018); and Litano, Major, Landers, Streets,
and Bass (2016). Error bars represent standard deviations. No standard deviation was reported by Butts
et al. (2013) for dependent-care availability and use.
6. 212 French, Shockley
Informal and formal supports also tend to be most
strongly related to the work–family interface when sup-
port is needed. For example, researchers have found
that supportive policies show a stronger association
with work–family conflict for people with greater family
responsibilities (e.g., Allen et al., 2013; Shockley
Allen, 2007). Similarly, one intervention study found
that a family-specific supervisor-support training inter-
vention decreased work–family conflict only for par-
ticipants who reported high levels of work–family
conflict before the intervention (Hammer, Kossek,
Anger, Bodner, Zimmerman, 2011). Gender differ-
ences are also framed using a needs perspective.
Acknowledging traditional gender roles and contem-
porary data on the division of labor, some researchers
suggest that work and family support is more greatly
needed or useful for women, who take on more child-
care and household labor, compared with men (e.g.,
Blanch Aluja, 2012). However, results across studies
are mixed for both informal and formal supports, sug-
gesting no clear gender differences (e.g., Allen et al.,
2013; Anderson, Coffey, Byerly, 2002). These individ-
ual-level patterns also generalize on a broader cultural
scale. Recent cross-national work suggests that work
support is most strongly associated with work-to-family
conflict in cultures that are likely to perceive support
as needed or useful, such as individualistic, assertive,
high-unemployment (French et al., 2018), and low-
power-distance countries (Litano, Major, Landers, Streets,
Bass, 2016).
In sum, prior work suggests that there is a positive
association between support and successful work–
family management. This positive association occurs
through two primary pathways, displayed in Figure 2.
First, use of available informal and formal supports can
provide instrumental help to directly navigate the chal-
lenges of navigating work and family responsibilities on
a day-to-day basis (path A). Additionally, formal sup-
portive policies and informal supportive behaviors sig-
nal work–family-friendly values that foster perceptions
of being supported, which in turn affect work–family
conflict, work–family enrichment, and work–family bal-
ance (paths B and C). We also have a clear understand-
ing of moderating factors suggesting that support is
most effective when the environment is perceived as
supportive (path D) and when support is needed (paths
E and F).
Moving Forward
The theory and literature reviewed here largely place
employees as passive recipients of support. Thus, the
implicit assumption is that support is always wanted,
used, or helpful (see work on the use of formal
organizational support as an exception; e.g., Allen et al.,
2013). However, there may be situations in which infor-
mal support is not wanted or used. For example, some
employees who prefer to separate work from family may
see a manager’s family-supportive behaviors as intrusive
or as providing unwanted preferential treatment that may
breed coworker resentment (Parker Allen, 2001). In
other cases, a person may report that their spouse’s pro-
vided support is not used because of personal prefer-
ences (e.g., a spouse who is willing to provide instrumental
support in cooking dinner but is a lousy cook).
We suggest reframing support as an agentic process
to more fully understand how and when supports may
be used to promote successful work–family manage-
ment (see Fig. 2). This step forward requires measures
that separate informal support availability, behaviors,
and use as well as measures and methods that can cap-
ture the process of needing (path E), soliciting (paths
G and H), developing perceptions (paths B and I), and
using support (paths L and A).
Because support is almost exclusively framed as an
antecedent to work–family management, little attention
has been given to the possibility that work–family expe-
riences elicit support perceptions and use. For example,
the source-attribution perspective suggests that indi-
viduals project emotions onto the originating domain
of their work–family experience (Shockley Singla,
2011). For example, after experiencing work-to-family
enrichment, a person may then credit work with this expe-
rience and develop a sense of work support (path I).
Additionally, asking questions regarding a specific event
(e.g., a discrete episode of work–family conflict) can
help one better understand acute processes, emotions,
and cognition that occurred during the episode (Maertz
Boyar, 2011). By taking a deep dive into a specific
work–family conflict event using the experience sam-
pling methodology, researchers can address questions
such as how often individuals actually draw on sup-
portive resources and how individuals decide whom
and how to reach out, accept, and use support when a
work–family conflict event occurs (Fig. 2, path H).
Recent research has started to answer such questions;
French and Allen (2018) found that individuals did not
ask for support in approximately 75% of all episodes of
work–family conflict experienced over 3 days. When
individuals did reach out for support, spouses were
overwhelmingly the most common source.
In this same vein, research on antecedents to support
enactment could shed additional light on agentic aspects
(Fig. 2, path G). Drawing from the social-networks lit-
erature, it would be fruitful to examine the strength of
employees’ network ties and the size of their networks
to determine whom they approach for support. It may
be that those with larger networks rely on many
8. 214 French, Shockley
different people or that the size of the network does
not matter, and people tend to gravitate toward just a
few key support providers. Individual differences may
also affect support actions. For example, attachment
style predicts support; people with secure attachments
form stable and trusting relationships conducive to ask-
ing for and receiving support (e.g., Baldwin, 1992).
Personality variables may have relevance; proactive
workers may be likely to notice situations in which they
may need support, or those who are agreeable may be
more likely to accept offered support. Finally, situa-
tional constraints (factors that inhibit meeting demands)
and pressures (factors that increase perceived impor-
tance or obligation to meet demands) may play a role.
For example, employees who feels pressured to make
it on time to their child’s school play may be more likely
to ask for coworker help when it is clear they may not
finish their work in time. Similarly, an impending and
immovable work deadline may constrain a supervisor’s
ability to provide or allow flexible work–family-friendly
solutions for employees.
Despite commonalities, informal and formal supports
are typically studied in isolation (Kelly et al., 2008). The
siloed research on formal and informal supports limits
our ability to understand how and when workers actu-
ally use formal supports as support givers or support
receivers. Moreover, the weak associations between
formal supports and work–family management may be
due to formal supports being distal, impacting work–
family management through a chain of support pro-
cesses. Moving forward, it is important to recognize
that informal and formal supports are interconnected.
We posit that the presence of formal supports may
condone or promote supportive behaviors from support
givers (Fig. 2, paths J and K) and subsequent informal
support use (path L).
Moreover, the vast majority of research focuses on
support from work and neglects family support—a large
oversight given that many individuals weigh family heav-
ily when making decisions regarding work (e.g., Green-
haus Powell, 2012). Similarly, stakeholders with lower
legitimate power (e.g., subordinates, clients, children,
child-care providers) have received little attention despite
their potential to significantly shape work–family experi-
ences (e.g., Major, Cardenas, Allard, 2004).
Evidence for the paths in Figure 2 is mostly based
on cross-sectional research. As an exception, some
intervention research has investigated family-supportive
supervisor training in relation to work–family conflict
(e.g., Hammer et al., 2011). Family-supportive supervi-
sion interventions teach supervisors supportive behav-
ior and use behavior monitoring to track supportive
behavior provision. Results show that supportive super-
vision interventions have the potential to improve occu-
pational health and well-being for workers and their
family members (e.g., Hammer, Wan, Brockwood, Bod-
ner, Mohr, 2019), although evidence that supervisor
support improves work–family conflict, work–family
enrichment, or work–family balance is still tentative.
We echo previous calls to increase the use of designs
that can disentangle causal ordering and challenge our
current understanding of how support develops and
why support is helpful for managing work and family
(Kelly et al., 2008).
Conclusion
Supports help individuals to manage their work and
family responsibilities, and it is clear that support effi-
cacy depends on the types of supports offered, the
source of support, and factors that promote the use of
supportive resources and increase the need for support.
We hope the ideas here are instrumental in moving us
forward to a more sophisticated understanding of when
and how supportive policies, givers, and receivers can
work in tandem to foster successful work–family
management.
Recommended Reading
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., Shockley, K. M. (2015). How
effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our
scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 16, 40–68. A comprehensive review of the empir-
ical evidence on telecommuting effectiveness.
Carlson, D. S., Perrewé, P. L. (1999). The role of social
support in the stressor-strain relationship: An examina-
tion of work-family conflict. Journal of Management, 25,
513–540. An empirical study in which the theoretical role
of social support is reviewed and tested in relation to
work–family conflict.
French, K. A., Dumani, S., Allen, T. D., Shockley, K. M.
(2018). (See References). A comprehensive meta-analysis
of informal support in relation to work–family conflict
across the globe.
Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J.,
Chermack, K., . . . Kaskubar, D. (2008). (See References).
A review and set of recommended future directions for
formal work–family policies.
Kelly, E. L., Moen, P., Oakes, J. M., Fan, W., Okechukwu, C.,
Davis, K. D., . . . Casper, L. M. (2014). Changing work
and work-family conflict: Evidence from the work, family,
and health network. American Sociological Review, 79,
485–516. An intervention study examining the effect of
control and support on work–family conflict.
Transparency
Action Editor: Randall W. Engle
Editor: Randall W. Engle
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of
interest with respect to the authorship or the publication
of this article.
9. Support for Work–Family Management 215
ORCID iD
Kimberly A. French https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0276-283X
Acknowledgments
We thank Randy Engle and Keaton Fletcher for comments on
early drafts of this manuscript.
References
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments:
The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Voca
tional Behavior, 58, 414–435.
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., Shockley, K. M.
(2013). Work–family conflict and flexible work arrange-
ments: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology,
66, 345–376.
Allen, T. D., Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., Poelmans, S. A. Y.,
O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., . . . Woo, J. M. (2014).
The link between national paid leave policy and work–
family conflict among married working parents. Applied
Psychology, 63, 5–28.
Allen, T. D., Shockley, K. M. (2009). Flexible work arrange-
ments: Help or hype? In D. R. Crane E. J. Hill (Eds.),
Handbook of families and work: Interdisciplinary per-
spectives (pp. 265–286). Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal
organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices:
Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes.
Journal of Management, 28, 787–810.
Annink, A., Den Dulk, L., Steijn, B. (2016). Work–family
conflict among employees and the self-employed across
Europe. Social Indicators Research, 126, 571–593.
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the process-
ing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
461–484.
Blanch, A., Aluja, A. (2012). Social support (family and
supervisor), work–family conflict, and burnout: Sex dif-
ferences. Human Relations, 65, 811–833.
Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., Yang, T. S. (2013). How impor-
tant are work–family support policies? A meta-analytic
investigation of their effects on employee outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1–25.
Casper, W. J., Vaziri, H., Wayne, J. H., DeHauw, S.,
Greenhaus, J. (2018). The jingle-jangle of work–nonwork
balance: A comprehensive and meta-analytic review of its
meaning and measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology,
103, 182–214.
Dunham, R. B., Pierce, J. L., Castañeda, M. B. (1987).
Alternative work schedules: Two field quasi-experiments.
Personnel Psychology, 40, 215–242.
French, K. A., Agars, M. D. (2018). Work-family culture in
low income environments: Can we generalize? Journal of
Career Development, 45, 50–67.
French, K. A., Allen, T. D. (2018, June). Experiencing work-
family conflict: An episodic dive. In Education and Time
Use in Diverse Contexts. Symposium conducted at the
2018 Work and Family Researchers Network Conference,
Washington, DC.
French, K. A., Dumani, S., Allen, T. D., Shockley, K. M.
(2018). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and social
support. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 284–314.
Greenhaus, J. H., Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict
between work and family roles. Academy of Management
Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and
family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment.
Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.
Greenhaus, J. H., Powell, G. N. (2012). The family-
relatedness of work decisions: A framework and agenda
for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
80, 246–255.
Greenhaus, J. H., Ziegert, J. C., Allen, T. D. (2012). When
family-supportive supervision matters: Relations between
multiple sources of support and work–family balance.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 266–275.
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T.,
Zimmerman, K. L. (2011). Clarifying work–family inter-
vention processes: The roles of work–family conflict and
family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 134–150.
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E.,
Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a
multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor
behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35, 837–856.
Hammer, L. B., Wan, W. H., Brockwood, K. J., Bodner, T.,
Mohr, C. D. (2019). Supervisor support training effects
on veteran health and work outcomes in the civilian
workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 52–69.
Hill, E. J., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., Colihan, J. (1998).
Influences of the virtual office on aspects of work and work/
life balance. Personnel Psychology, 51, 667–683.
Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray,
J., Chermack, K., . . . Kaskubar, D. (2008). Getting there
from here: Research on the effects of work–family initia-
tives on work–family conflict and business outcomes. The
Academy of Management Annals, 2, 305–349.
Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., 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 sup-
port. Personnel Psychology, 64, 289–313.
Lapierre, L. M., Li, Y., Kwan, H. K., Greenhaus, J. H.,
DiRenzo, M. S., Shao, P. (2018). A meta-analysis of
the antecedents of work–family enrichment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 39, 385–401.
Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T. Y., Mehng, S. A. (2012).
Flexible work practices: A source of career premiums or
penalties? Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1407–1428.
Litano, M. L., Major, D. A., Landers, R. N., Streets, V. N., Bass,
B. I. (2016). A meta-analytic investigation of the relation-
ship between leader-member exchange and work-family
experiences. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 802–817.
Maertz, C. P., Jr., Boyar, S. L. (2011). Work-family conflict,
enrichment, and balance under “levels” and “episodes”
approaches. Journal of Management, 37, 68–98.
Major, D. A., Cardenas, R. A., Allard, C. B. (2004). Child
health: A legitimate business concern. Journal of Occupa
tional Health Psychology, 9, 306–321.
10. 216 French, Shockley
Moen, P., Kelly, E. L., Tranby, E., Huang, Q. (2011).
Changing work, changing health: Can real work-time flex-
ibility promote health behaviors and well-being? Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 404–429.
Ollier-Malaterre, A., Foucreault, A. (2017). Cross-national
work-life research: Cultural and structural impacts for indi-
viduals and organizations. Journal of Management, 43,
111–136.
Parker, L., Allen, T. D. (2001). Work/family benefits:
Variables related to employees’ fairness perceptions.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 453–468.
Raub, A., Nandi, A., Earle, A., Chorny, N., Wong, E.,
Chung, P., . . . Heymann, J. (2018). Paid parental
leave: A detailed look at approaches across OECD coun-
tries. Retrieved from https://www.worldpolicycenter
.org/sites/default/files/WORLD%20Report%20-%20
Parental%20Leave%20OECD%20Country%20Appro
aches_0.pdf
Ruppanner, L. (2013). Conflict between work and family: An
investigation of four policy measures. Social Indicators
Research, 110, 327–347.
Shockley, K. M., Allen, T. D. (2007). When flexibility helps:
Another look at the availability of flexible work arrange-
ments and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 71, 479–493.
Shockley, K. M., Singla, N. (2011). Reconsidering work—
family interactions and satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Management, 37, 861–886.
Thomas, L. T., Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive
work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., Lyness, K. S. (1999).
When work–family benefits are not enough: The influ-
ence of work–family culture on benefit utilization, orga-
nizational attachment, and work–family conflict. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415.
