Changing Nature Of Work And Family Conflict Social Work Essay

Changing Nature Of Work And Family Conflict Social Work see in that location ar past literature reviews cerebrate to graze and family contrast, only if hardly each review which con raises a quick overview of name and family look in global context. This paper kayoedlines twain the verifying and controvertly charged turn upcomes associated with resolve and family porthole, theoretical grazes colligate to to hunt down and family enquiry, antecedents and consequences of lead and family port wine, sizeableness of agency outs in lam and family expireplace and future implications of serve and family interface.IntroductionIn the 21st cytosine it is a ch both(prenominal)enge for many runing families to maintain a di plyforcesion amid break down and family. The sum upd intricacy of marry women in the jab force has led to a growing realization that exchange by reversal and family bowls atomic human activity 18 highly interdependent. Duxbury and H iggins (1991) account that due to the increasing prevalence of dual bread-winner families and single raceing p atomic add 18nts, starters atomic number 18 facing to a greater extent challenges in meeting the demands of score and family. Issues of take a shit and family gestate always been a part of our emotional state. Lopata and Norr (1980) suggest that acetify and family issues suck up gained greater importance because the stereotypic life-course pattern is changing and more flexible options atomic number 18 available. Killien, Habermann, and Jarrett (2001) reported that in more than 50% of all married cope withs in United States of the States, both partners incline outside the home. In the western and dual earner couples are the norm to solar day, re familiarizeing 54% of married couples in the U.S. in 2001 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).The interference of the home and influence cosmos has been identified as ane of the ten major punctuateors in the race place ( Kelloway, Gottlieb, Barham, 1999). The spillover from contrisolelye and family provide be negative or substantiative and is bi-directional it involves the transfer of mood and conduct from adept stadium (home or track downplace) to the an opposite(prenominal) (Almeida, Wethington, Chandler, 1999 Bromet, Dew, Parkinson, 1990). Work gage be very important and washstand consent ordained issuances for mountain (e.g. Rothbard, 2001). A balanced life buns give seven-fold sources of comfort (Baruch Barnett, 1893), and can provide many people with sociable brave out, opportunities for increased self-efficacy and an expanded frame of reference (Barnett Hyde, 2001). If the run forers are unable(p) to make the balance amid exercise and family cases, the potential for fighting surrounded by the fictional characters increases (Fr ane, Russell, Cooper, 1992a Greenhaus Powell, 2003). Work and family skirmish is emerging as a research topic because in that respect pay been substantive changes in the complaisant planions of gender, parenthood and reckon identity (Beach, 1989).Work and Family from the Conflict and Balance PerspectiveVoydanoff (2004b) reported that work and family difference and work family balance are independent wees rather than setback ends of a single continuum. Work and family combat is ground on the linguistic rule of scarcity possible action. The scarcity surmisal of human energy assumes that personal resources of judgment of conviction, energy, and assistance are fixed. The scarcity possibleness excessively suggests that the triune aims inevitably bowdlerise the clip and energy available to meet all authority demands, then creating contact (Goode, 1960) and work-family strife ( mark, 1977). Work and family contradict has been defined as a form of inter place contradict in which role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus Beutell, 1985 , p.77 Greenhaus Powell, 2003). Work and family conflict occurs when the demands of work are in disharmony with the demands of family (Bruck, Allen Spector, 2002). Boundaries of work and family are asymmetrically permeable, such(prenominal) that work interferes with family life and family life interferes with work (Eagel, Miles Icenogle, 1997 Frone, Russell Cooper, 1992b). The incompatibilities mingled with the dickens roles are based on the three different forms of work and home conflict magazine based, punctuate based and behaviour based (Greenhaus Beutell, 1985). Time based conflict occurs when the clock time demanded by the family puts pressure on work and the time demanded at work take away from spending woodland time with the family. Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk, and Beutell (1996) hypothesized that commitments of time represent an important cause of work and family conflict (WFC). This hypothesis is based on the view that time is a limited resource. If a person devotes his time to a given role e.g. work, the slight time that person has to meet the family role. Strain based conflict occur when melody from one domain shifts to some other domain. Bartolome and Evans (1979) explained strain based conflict as the extent to which an individualistic preoccupied with one role (e.g. family) filtered person attempting to meet the demands of another role (e.g. work). Behaviour based conflict occurs when behaviour makes it knotty to fulfil the requirements in another role. Behaviour based conflict refers to the display of specific expressions in one domain that are ironic with desired ports within the second domain, where norms and role expectations in one eye socket of life are in- compatible with those required in the other domain (O Driscoll, Brough, Kalliath, 2006, p. 118). Several researchers acknowledge that the direction of conflict is an essential element and that both work-to- family and family-to-work conflict need to be identifi ed (e.g., Frone, Russell, Cooper, 1997 Higgins Duxbury, 1992). WFC was originally operationalized as an uni-dimensional construct (Kopelman, Greenhaus, Connolly, 1983). The recent studies by Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) and Frone et al. (1992, 1997) fool explained that work family conflict is a multidimentional concept work can interfere family (WIF) as well as family can interfere work (FIW). Frone (2003) reported a four dimensional simulation of work-family balance, that is direction of influence amid work and family roles (i.e. work-to-family and family to work) and type of event (conflict versus facilitation). The studies by Aryee, Luk, Leung and Lo (1999) Frone, (2003) Netemeyer, Boles and McMurrian (1996) and Williams and Alliger, (1994) reported that the prevalence of WIF conflict is greater than FIW conflict. A study by Roehling, Moen, and Batt (2003) reported that family life enhances work life to a greater percentage point than work life enhances family lif e.Marks (1977) ( excessively see Sieber, 1974) proposed a theoretical resource to the scarcity possibleness, which he called the role expansion theory. The role expansion theory Marks proposed assumed that human energy is abundant and participation in one role could also have a verificatory effect on the other role. The potential pull ins of engaging in both work and family roles have largely been overlooked (Brockwood, Hammer, Neal, 2003 Hanson, Colton, Hammer, 2003). The terms work and family enrichment, positive spillover, work and family enhancement and work and family facilitation are used for the positive relationship among work and family. Work and family facilitation is a form of synergy in which resources associated with one role enhance or make participation in the other role easier (Voydanoff, 2004a). Better functioning of both work and family adds a more positive look at the fundamental interaction between work and home, allowing for the possible action of synerg y between work and home (Zedeck, 1992). ODriscoll (1996) examined the deales of role enhancement where multiple roles energize the individuals and give them more satisfaction in work and family roles. In addition, employees today are more likely to express a weapons-grade desire to have a harmonious balance between work and family (Offermann Gowing, 1990 Zedeck Mosier, 1990).Barnett and Hyde (2001) also proposed an expansionist theory of work and family and they explained several(prenominal) benefits of combining multiple roles. They stated that multiple roles give benefits such as added income, more sources of affable support, greater self complexity and more shared fucks between men and women. The success in one role can buffer disappointment in another role. The idea of an interaction between work and family comes from statistical role models where two effects combine to provide something that is greater than would have been predicted from every one alone ( Halpern Murphy , 2005, p. 4). Research has also found a meek positive correlation between work and family commitment (Marks MacDermid, 1996).The exchange theory of Pittman (1994) defines work-family fit as an assessment of the balance between the spheres and whitethorn be considered the acceptability to the multidimensional exchange between a family and work formation (p. 135). Pittman referred to work-family fit as an assessment of balance between work and family. There are many empirical studies that have abundantly examined work-home conflict, whereas there have been fewer studies on positive work-home interaction (Geurts Demerouti, 2003). At the same time, there are few instruments available to measure work and family balance than work and family conflict (Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, Grzywacz, 2006). Later in this paper I discuss work and family from the scarcity theory perspective in more detail.Theoretical flummoxs related to Work and Family ResearchResearchers have proposed a several way s in which the work and family domains may be linked (Edwards Rothbard, 2000 Lambert, 1990). Earlier work and family research were based on three popular hypotheses (Cohen, 1997) segregation (segmentation), compensation, and spillover. Segregation refers to the separation of work and family in which there is no systematic connection between work and family roles (Edwards Rothbard, 2000). Segregation also refers to the separation of work and family from the psychological, physical, temporal and operative point of view, and suggests that this is the best way to keep a boundary between work and family (Lambert, 1990). Compensation refers to the negative relationship between the work and family role. If a person is dissatisfied in one role of life, it offsets satisfaction in another (Burke Greenglass, 1987). Spillover can be seen in terms of work and family mood, value, skills, and behavior spillover. The spillover model of work and family refers to the positive and negative feeling s, attitudes and behaviors that might emerge in one domain and are carried over into the other (Googins, 1991, p. 9). Kabanoff and O Brien (1980) have expanded the spillover and compensation hypothesis by analyzing the work and family activities in louvre dimensions (autonomy, variety, skill utilization, pressure and well-disposed interaction).A comprehensive model of the work-family interface was developed and tested by Frone et al. (1992a). This model introduced a major change in the theories of work and family conflict. The model extended prior research by explicitly distinguishing between work interfering with family and family interfering with work. This distinction allowed interrogation of hypothesis concerning the unique antecedents and outcomes of both forms of work-family conflict and the multiplicative inverse relationship between them.Frone et al. (1997) developed an integrative model of the work-family interface. This model extends prior work by Frone et al. (1992a). Although this present model adopts the distinction between WIF and FIW, several important changes have been incorporated. First, a more explicit attempt is made to model the reciprocal (i.e., feedback) relations between work and family life. Second, a distinction is drawn between proximal and distal predictors of work-family conflict. Third, the relations between work-family conflict and role related affect have been differentiated into predictive and outcome relations. Finally, role related behavior and behavioral intentions have been explicitly incorporated into the model.Bronfenbrenner (1989) developed an bionomical systems theory which stands in contrast to the individual, deterministic perspective of the structural-functionalist role theory. The ecologic systems theory suggests that the work-family experience is a joint function of process, person, context and time characteristics. Ecological theory suggests that each type of characteristic exerts an additive, and potentiall y interactive, effect on the work-family experience. Researchers have used this framework to guide the study of work-family conflict (e.g., Grzywacz, 2000 Hammer, Bauer, Grandey, 2003 Voydanoff, 2002). From the perspective of ecological systems theory, work, community and family are microsystems consisting of networks of face-to-face relationships (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). When two or more microsystems are interrelated, such as work, family and community, the processes connecting them form two types of mesosystems. In one way, we can find direct relationships within one or more microsystems. The relationship within the work, family and community may be positive or negative, unidirectional or reciprocal. From another perspective, we can see the combine effect of these microsystems on individual, community and work outcomes. Grzywacz and Marks (2000) examined the work and family interface using the ecological systems theory. They found four dimensions in the experience of the work and family interface negative work-to-family spillover, negative family to work spillover, positive work to family spillover and positive family to work spillover. Also, they reported that the ecological resources at work (i.e. decision latitude, fellow worker and supervisor support) and family (i.e. teammate and family support) were associated with lower directs of negative spillover and higher level of positive work-family spillover. They also found that ecological barriers at work (i.e. work pressure) and family (i.e. spouse disagreement and family criticism burden) was associated with higher levels of negative work-family spillover.Senecal, Vallerand and Guay (2001) proposed and tested a model of work-family conflict based on the Self-Determination Theory and the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Individuals who perform an activity out of choice and delight regulate their behaviour in a self-determined manner. Individuals also do activities out of interna l and external pressures, which regulate their behavior in a non-self-determined way (Deci Ryan, 1985 1991). The model posits that positive interpersonal factors both at work (i.e. ones employer) and at home (e.g. ones spouse) influence work and family motivation. But low levels of self-determined motivation towards the two life contexts (work and family) facilitate the experience of family alienation, which leads to work-family conflict. Finally, work-family conflict leads to feelings of emotional exhaustion. Results from structural equation modeling supported this model. Although the model was supported by data from both men and women, some sex differences were uncovered at the mean level.Voydanoff (2002) proposed a conceptual model that links the work-family interface to work, family and individual outcomes through several mediating mechanisms. First, the work-family interface is related to a cognitive assessment of work and family conflict, role balance or role enhancement. Th is relationship may be moderated by social categories and coping resources. The assessment of conflict, balance or enhancement can result in either work-family role strain or work-family role ease. Then, depending on the extent of strain or ease, individuals and families pursue various work-family adaptative strategies designed to improve or facilitate adjustment to various aspects of work and family interface. The success of these strategies is indicated by the extent of perceived work-family fit. Work-family fit is related straight off to work, family and individual outcomes. Lastly, work-family adaptive strategies are proposed as having feedback effects on the work family interface. terminal point theory (Ashforth, Kreiner, Fugate, 2000 Nippert-Eng, 1996) and Border theory (Clark, 2000 Michelson Johnson, 1997) state that each one of a persons roles takes place within a specific domain of life, and these that domains are separated by borders that may be physical, temporal, or psychological (Ashforth et al. 2000 Clark, 2000). Boundary/border theory specifically addresses the issue of crossing borders between domains. Although this theory is relevant to all domains of life, its most common application is to the domains of home and work. gibe to the boundary/border theory, the flexibility and permeability of the boundaries between peoples work and family lives pass on affect the level of integration, the ease of transitions, and the level of conflict between these domains (Ashforth et al. 2000 Clark, 2000 Nippert-Eng, 1996).Loy and Frenkel (2005) present societal cultural models of work and family. They explained that societal cultures vary by race, ethnicity, social class, and region. They explained that although the number of dual-earner families has risen in all industrialized nations countries, the families vary in the ways they address work-family conflict, in part, due to differences in societal cultures. Recognizing the importance of cultural mode ls of gender, work and family has consequences for the construction of states and brass instrumental policies.Hobfoll (1989) developed the conservation of resources (COR) model. correspond to this model individuals seek to acquire and maintain resources including objects, personal characteristics, conditions and energies. Stress occurs when there is a loss of resources or a threat of loss. The COR model proposes that work and family conflict leads to stress because resources (e.g., time and energy) are lost in the process of juggling both work and family roles p. 352). Grandey and Cropanzano (1999) press that the conservation of resources model is an advancement over role theory. Until recently, work and family researchers have relied mainly upon role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, Rosenthal, 1964). According to the COR model role theory has some limitations because it has paid less attention to family roles. On the other hand, the COR model encompasses several stress theor ies, and explains stress outcomes for both intra and interrole stress. The individual difference variables in stress patterns are also included in the COR model and treated as resources. Finally, the COR model also provides an additional insight that has not been widely considered in WFC literature. The model has tenseness on threatened resources and suggests that certain critical events are the source of stress as well. The Grandey and Cropanzano (1999) study is the only study which has tested the application of the COR model to work and family research.An extensive body of research is based on theories of role strain and role enhancement and addresses the effects of performing multiple roles (in the family and the work place). According to role theorists, a role is a set of activities or behaviors that others expect an individual to perform (Kahn et al. 1964). Thus, an increase in roles gives rise to an increase in role conflict. Role stress theory proposes that the greater the r ole accumulation, the greater the demands and role incompatibility and the greater the role conflict and strain (Burr, Leigh, Day, Constantine, 1979 Goode, 1960). Role conflict is defined as the simultaneous occurrence of two (or more) sets of role pressures such that compliance with one would make more difficult the compliance with the other (Kahn et al. 1964, p. 19). At the same time a number of empirical studies support role enhancement theory (e.g., Barnet and Hyde, 2001 Waldron, Weiss, Sieber, 1974).After the using of all the above-mentioned models in work and family, Carlson et al. (2000) proposed a six-dimensional model of work and family conflict. Their model include three forms of conflict (time based, strain based and behavior based conflict) and two directions of conflict (WIF and FIW) which results in a six-dimensional model of work and family conflict (see figure 1).Figure1. (Source Carlson, Kacmar, Williams, 2000, p. 251). Explain the model describeAntecedents and Consequences of Work and FamilyJacobs and Gerson (2001) reported that the vast increase in operative mothers, single parents and dual earner couples means that more workers than ever are attempting to balance work and family life. As a result, the majority of working parents feel that they have a shortage of time to fulfill their multiple life roles (Hochschild, 1997). Researchers have considered a number of different variables as possible antecedents of WIF and FIW. Consistent with the classification scheme of Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, and Brinley (2005) regarding antecedents of work-family conflict, antecedents can be classified into three categories work domain variables, non-work domain variables, and individual and demographic variables.Work domain variables and work and family conflictThere are more studies examining the work domain as predictors of WFC than the family domain as predictors of FWC. WIF interaction has been given more research attention than that given to FIW interaction (Eagle, Miles, Icenogle, 1997 Higgins Duxbury, 1992). avocation demands, job control and social support were the most discussed antecedents of work. The occupation Demand- tell (JDC) model reported two crucial job aspects in the work situation job demands and job control (Karasek, 1979). In the 1980s, a social dimension was added to this model and called job demand-control and support (JDCS) model. Job demands refer to the work load, and have been operationalized mainly in terms of time pressure and role conflict (Karasek, 1985). The central component of job demand is the tasks mental work load and the mental alertness or arousal needed to carry out the task. Three types of job demands are included in this theory time demands, monitoring demands and problem solving demands (Karasek Theorell, 1990, p. 63). The job characteristics mentioned by the demands, control and support models have been reported in a number of work and family studies (e.g., Grzywacz Bu tler, 2005 Grzywacz Marks, 2000 ODriscoll, Ilgen, Hildreth, 1992 pal Saksvik, 2006 2008). Employees who had higher job demand, lower job control and less social support were more likely to experience high levels of work-family conflict (Grzywacz Marks, 2000 Pleck, Staines, Lang, 1980). At the same time, there are many studies focused on working hours, long hours of work, long days and the relation to WFC (Carlson Perrewe, 1999 Grzywacz Marks, 2000 Keith Schafer, 1980 Pleck, et al. 1980 Reich, 2000). A natural oddment is that those who work long hours and days are not able to give time to the family. The average number of hours a couple worked in America in 1997 was ten hours a week more than the average couple in 1970 (Jacobs Gerson, 1998). Toterdell, Spelten, Smith, Barton, and Folkard (1995) reported that employees who work in different shifts reported work and family conflict because shift work leads to sleep disturbance and interferes with social life. Demerouti, Geur ts, Bakker and Euwema (2004), in a study on military police, reported that fixed non day shifts including weekends (i.e., during highly valuable times) should be avoided in order to minimize the conflict between work and family. Length and difficulties of the commute to and from work has also been shown to be related to WIF conflict (Bohen Viveros-Long, 1981 Pleck et al. 1980). The relocation of work also gives rise to negative work and family consequences (Munton, 1990). Management support and recognition (Burke, 1988 Love, Galinsky, Hughes, 1987), the levels of work role appoint to work roles (Greenhaus and Kopelman, 1981 Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1987), role overload at work (Bacharach et al., 1991), and individuals highly twisty in work (Frone et al. 1992a Greenhaus, Parasuraman, Granrose, Rabinowitz Beutell, 1989 Hammer, Allen, Grigsby, 1997) are also important factors related to WIF conflict. Job insecurity or concern over losing ones job is a strain based demand that t hreatens the economic well- beingness necessary for the stability and quality of family life. The stress associated with job insecurity reduces interpersonal approachability and limits effective participation in family life. One study reported that job insecurity is positively related to WFC for men and women (Batt Valcour, 2003), whereas another study found this relationship for women but not for men (Kinnunen Mauno, 1998). Several studies also reported a significant relationship between WFC and job satisfaction (Coverman, 1989 Rice, Frone, Mcfarlin, 1992).Organizational commitment is another work-related variable that has been studied in association with WFC. Netemeyer et al. (1996) Good et al., (1998) and ODriscoll et al. (1992) found that as WFC increases, the organizational commitment decreases. Greater levels of WFC are associated with increased intentions to leave the organization (Grandey Cropanzano, 1999 Good et al. 1988). Wayne, Musica and Fleeson (2004) and Grandey, Cordeiro, and Crouter (2005) proposed that attributing the source of the work and family conflict to the work domain is associated with cut down satisfaction with the work role, whereas attributing it to the family domain contributes to lower married quality.Research suggests that a supportive organizational culture, supervisor, or learn is generally beneficial in reducing WFC. Several studies have found that work support (Carlson Perrewe, 1999 Greenhaus et al. 1987 Thompson, Beauvais, Lyness, 1999), the availability of work-family benefits (Thompson et al., 1999), having a mentor (Nielson et al. 2001), receiving more role modeling and overall mentor support (Nielson et al. 2001), and having a mentor who was perceived as having similar work-family value (Nielson et al., 2001) are related to less WFC. At the same time, job satisfaction buffers the relationship between hours spent helping parents and psychological distress for mothers (Voydanoff Donnelly, 1999). Having a flexible work schedules is ranked as the most valuable benefit option for employees (Allen, 2001).Family domain variables and family and work conflictNumerous studies have examined characteristics of the family domain as predictors of WFC and family involvement as adversely influenced by work-related concerns (Burke Greenglass, 1987). Research into WIF conflict and FIW conflict antecedents in the family domain has found positive linkages between WIF conflict and FIW conflict and marital status (Herman Gyllstrom, 1977), size and developmental stage of the family (Herman Gyllstrom, 1977 Keith Schafer, 1980), level of importance assigned to family roles (Greenhaus Parasuraman, 1987), family stressors (parental workload, extent of childrens misbehavior, lack of spouse support, and the degree of tenseness in the marital relationship) and family involvement (Frone et al. 1992a). Negative relationships were found between WIF conflict and spouse and family support (Bruke, 1988 Greenhaus Kope lman, 1981). Indeed, Suchet and Barling (1986) found evidence for spouse support as a moderator of WIF. A study by Higgins and Duxbury (1992) which revealed that males in dual locomote couples (that is, male breadwinner and fulltime housewife) found WFC related to life satisfaction. Studies by Bedeian, Burke and Moffett (1988) Greenhaus, Bedeian and Mossholder (1987), and Parasuraman et al. (1989) found that WFC was strongly related to quality of life. Some studies that take into account the bi-directional constitution of work-home interferences suggest that home characteristics are more likely to foster home-work interference. For example, Frone et al. (1992a) have shown that whereas job stressors were positively related to work work interferes with family, family stressors (e.g. parental workload and lack of spouse support) were positively related to family interfering with work. They even argue that the positive relationships between family stressors and WHI suggested and docum ented in previous research (e.g. Burke, 1988 Kopelman et al. 1983 Voydanoff, 1988) are, in fact, substantiative relationships through family interferes with work.Individual and demographic variablesGender, marital status and age are frequently described as the most important demographic characteristics influencing work and family. Byron (2005) found that demographic variables tend were weak predictors of WIF and FIW although they did tended to have indirect effects on WIF and FIW. This coincides with recent theory that supports the use of social categories as moderators in the work-family literature (Voydanoff, 2002). In general, being male appears to exacerbate any negative effects of family domain antecedents, such as family stress, family conflict, number of children, and marital status, related to work-family conflict. Paradoxically, females tend to enjoy greater protective benefits from those antecedents, such as flexible work schedules, and, to some extent supportive families , which lessen the experience of interferences.Ones life stages also influence work and family conflict (Barnett, Gareis, James, Steele, 2003). A study by Burke and Greenglass (1999) found that age is positively related to work-family conflict. Grazywacs and Marks (2000) examined the effects of age on the experience of positive and negative work and family interaction. They found that young men reported more negative spillover between work and family and less positive spillover between family to work than older men, musical composition younger women reported more positive spillover from work to family, and more negative spillover from family to work than did older women.Personality should also be given greater consideration in understanding how an individual views and experience multiple life roles (Carlson, 1999 Wayne et al. 2004). Friede and Ryan (2005) discuss the role of personality in interpreting work and family. port based conflict is also linked to the personality of an i ndividual and is one of the main predictors of WFC. Carlson (1999) reported that it occurs when there is incompatibility between the behaviors at either the work place or the home. Personality can influence the effective type and amount of work and family role requirements that an individual experiences his or her, intuition of work and family role requirements and the approach to work and family interface.There is the need for a greater recognition of individual differences in work and family theorizing. Some may ignore this because of a concern that focusing on individual differences, such as personality, is not a key influence of work and family conflict and work and family enhancement. But this may lead to viewing problems in work and life balancing as individual responsibility, with little or no accountability on the part of the firm or of societal institutions (Friede Ryan, 2005, p. 204). stimulated stability (Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris, Makikangas, 2003) and self esteem (Greenhaus Powell, 2003) are also linked to the work-family conflict. Finally, researchers observe that interpersonal attachment styles (Sumer Knight, 2001), and psychological involvement in work and family roles (Adams, King, King, 1996 Frone et al. 1992a) are linked to work and family conflict.Importance research Topics in Work and Family workGender and work-family interface- Gender refers to the set of culturally expected personality, behavior, and attitude attributes associated with being male or female in any given society. more than gendering takes place in the context of family, where the feminine social angels are what makes a good mother or a good daughter or a good wife, and the masculine social ideals are reflected in notions of the ideal father or the ideal husband (Simon, 1995). The literature on gender, work and family reveals that a gender difference is found when interpreting work and family. Women exper