Toward a Conceptualization of Perceived Work-Family Fit and Balance: A Demands and Resources Approach Author(s): Patricia Voydanoff Source:

Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Nov., 2005), pp. 822-836 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600241 . Accessed: 05/09/2011 04:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

PATRICIAVOYDANOFF

University of Dayton

of Towarda Conceptualization Perceived Fit Work-Family and Balance:A Demands and ResourcesApproach

fit Using person-environment theory,this article formulates a conceptualmodel that links work, family, and boundary-spanningdemands and resources to work and family role performance andquality. mechanisms include2 dimenLinking sions ofperceivedwork-familyfit (workdemandsfamily resourcesfit and family demands-work resourcesfit) and a global assessment of perceived work-familybalance. Work,family, and demandsand resources are boundary-spanning associatedwiththe2 dimensions offit, whichcombine with boundary-spanning strategiesto influence work-family balance, which in turn affects roleperformance quality.Themodelprovides and a framework clarifyingand integrating for previous conceptualizations, measures,and empirical research regarding perceived work-familyfit and balanceas linkagesbetweenthe work-family interfaceand outcomes.The article closes with suggestions furtherwork. for As it became clear that work and family are interrelated domains, scholars and practitioners began to develop approaches to increase our understandingof the linkages between them. Ecological systems and boundary theory provide useful frameworks.From the perspective
in RaymondL. Fitz, S. M. Centerfor Leadership Community, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 45469-1445 (patricia. voydanoff@notes.udayton.edu). Key Words: demands, resources, work-family balance, fit. work-family

of ecological systems theory, work and family aremicrosystemsconsistingof patterns activiof ties, roles, and interpersonal relationships experienced in networksof face-to-facerelationships. The linkages and processes occurringbetween two or more microsystems comprise a meso1989). Cross-domain system (Bronfenbrenner, include resource drain, resourcegenprocesses eration, and positive and negative spillover 2000; Voydanoff,2004). (Edwards& Rothbard, Boundarytheory suggests that when the boundariesbetweenthe work and family microsystems are sufficientlypermeableand flexible,processes occur through which aspects of the work and family domains influence each other (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000). Voydanoff (2002) proposed several linking mechanisms between the work and family characteristics making up the work-familyinterfaceand individual,family, and work outcomes.This articlefocuses on two of these mechanisms:perceived work-familyfit and work-familybalance. It presents conceptualizations of both mechanisms and proposes a model that links them to work, family, and demands and resources, to boundary-spanning each other, and to work and family role performanceandquality. Perceived work-family fit and balance are cognitive appraisalsof the effects of the work and family domains on each other. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), cognitive appraisalis the process of deciding whetheran experience is positive, stressful, or irrelevant with regardto well-being. A stressful appraisal

822

Journalof Marriageand Family 67 (November2005): 822-836

Fit Work-Family and Balance occurs when individuals perceive that the demands of the environmentexceed their resources, therebyendangeringtheirwell-being. Thus, perceptions of work-family fit and balance derive from assessing the relative demandsand resources associated with work and family roles. Demands are structuralor psychological claims associated with role requirements,expectations,and normsto which individualsmust respondor adaptby exertingphysical or mental or effort. Resourcesare structural psychological assets that may be used to facilitate performance, reduce demands, or generate additional resources(Voydanoff,2004). These perceptions reflect an individual's assessment of the objective demandsand resourcespresentin the environment. This view focuses on perceptions that ratherthan on objective characteristics may outside the individual's awareness operate because such perceptionsgenerally mediate the on effects of more objective characteristics outcomes (Edwards& Rothbard, 2005). This articlepresentsand elaboratesa conceptual model that serves as a frameworkfor the examination of perceived work-family fit and balance as linking mechanisms between work, family, and boundary-spanningdemands and resources and work and family role performance and quality. The next section presents the conceptual frameworkand the model. This is followed by a discussion of the proposed effects of work, family, and boundary-spanning fit. demandsand resourceson work-family Then, the effects of work-family fit and boundaryspanning strategieson work-familybalance are reviewed, followed by a discussion of the consequences of work-familybalance for work and family role performanceand quality. The last section provides conclusions and suggestions for futureresearch.

823

demandsand resourcesare relatedto both types of fit. This conceptualization derivedfrom the is fit approachto occupational person-environment stress. The basic tenet of person-environment fit theory is that stress arises from the lack of fit or congruence between the person and the environmentratherthan from either one separately.(See Edwards,Caplan,& Harrison,1998, and Edwards & Rothbard, 2005, for reviews of occupational stress research based on this approach.) Fit is of two types: demands-abilitiesand needs-supplies. Demands include quantitative and qualitativejob requirements,role expectations, and group and organizational norms, whereas abilities include aptitudes,skills, training, time, and energy that may be used to meet demands.Fit occurs when the individualhas the abilities needed to meet the demands of the environment.Strain is expected to increase as demands exceed abilities. Needs encompass valbiological and psychological requirements, ues, and motives, whereas supplies consist of intrinsic and extrinsic resources and rewards thatmay fulfill the person's needs, such as food, shelter, money, social involvement, and the to opportunity achieve. Fit exists when the environmentprovides the resourcesrequiredto satisfy the person's needs, whereas stress occurs when needs exceed supplies. Misfit, occurring when demands and needs exceed abilities and supplies, results in strains and illness as well as coping behaviorand cognitive defense to improve fit, whereas fit can create positive mental and physical health outcomes. Evidence regardingthe effects of abilities and supplies exceeding demandsand needs on strain is inconclusive. As abilities and supplies exceed demands and needs, strain may decrease, increase, or level off (Edwards & Rothbard,2005). Although this formulationof fit person-environment generally is applied to the work domain, Edwards and Rothbard AND MODEL BACKGROUND THEORETICAL (1999) have extended it to the analysis of fit in the family domain. They have documentedthat Fit Work-Family work supplies-needs fit for autonomy,relationuses a demands and resources This article ships, and security is relatively strongly associated with work satisfaction,whereas family fit fit and balto understand work-family approach on the same dimensionsis more stronglyrelated ance. The first stage in the model presentedin to family satisfaction. Figure1 proposesthatwork demandsand family Others have extended the principles of the resources are related to work demands-family fit resources fit, whereas family demands and person-environment approachfrom the fit of demands and resources within either the work work resources are associated with family demands-workresourcesfit. Boundary-spanning or family domain to the consideration of fit

824
FIGURE1. THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Journal of Marriage and Family

across these domains. Pittman (1994) and Barnett,Gareis, and Brennan(1999) focused on family demands-work resources fit. Pittman's conceptualizationof fit suggested that family membersweigh the demands on them with the benefitsthat the job and work organizationprovide. His measure included questions about the extent to which the military provides a good environmentfor childrearing,satisfaction with living conditions, and organizationalsensitivity to the needs of family members. He reported that work-family fit mediated relationships between husbands'and wives' satisfactionwith the husbands' work environment and marital tension. Barnett et al. (1999) considered fit in termsof the ability of employees to develop and optimize strategiesto meet family needs in the workplace.They measuredfit by asking a series of questions about how well the number and distributionof physicians' and their partners' work hours and work-schedule flexibility met

their own, their partners', and their children's needs. They found that fit mediatedthe relationship between work hours and burnout. Expandingon this approach,DeBord, Canu, and Kerpelman (2000) and Teng (1999) proposed a two-dimensionalmodel of work-family fit. The first dimension conceives of fit as the match of work demandswith family abilities or expectationsregardingmeeting work demands, whereas the second dimension is the match of work supplies or rewardswith family needs or goals. Work demands and family needs consist of time-basedand strain-based work and family demands. Family abilities or expectations and work supplies or rewards focus on organizational and social rewards at work and family coping abilities. Teng developed measures of both the work demands-family abilities and the work rewards-family needs dimensions of fit. The measure of work demands-family abilities fit included questions regardingconcern about

Fit Work-Family and Balance several work demands, whether family members feel these demands are more difficult than expected, and how well family members are dealing with the demands.This dimension consists of an additivecombinationof demandsand abilities. The work rewards-familyneeds items asked how well the rewardsand benefits of the job meet individual and family needs. This is a measureof an individual's direct appraisalof work rewards-family needs fit. This previous work provides some conceptual and empirical supportfor a demands and resources approach to work-familyfit. Building on this previous work, this article defines work-family fit as a form of interrole congruence in which the resources associated with one role are sufficientto meet the demands of anotherrole such thatparticipation the secin ond role can be effective. Work-familyfit has two dimensions: work demands-family resources fit in which family-related resourcesare adequate to meet the demandsof the work role and family demands-work resources fit in which work-relatedresources are sufficient to satisfy family demands. The two dimensions range from fit in which demands and resources are equivalent to misfit in which there is a discrepancy between demands and resources. For example, a fit scale could range from -4 (demands are less than resources) through 0 (demands and resources are equal) to +4 (demandsare greater than resources).

825 demands and that work resources meet family demandswith the effects of boundary-spanning strategies to yield an overall appraisal of the extent of harmony,equilibrium,and integration of work and family life. It rangesfrom high levels of balance to high levels of imbalance.The final stage of the model proposes that workfamily balance is related to work and family role performance quality. and The ConceptualModel The conceptualmodel focuses on demands,resources, and strategiesthat are presumedto be associated with work-family fit and balance. Because research is so limited, this article focuses on those that either have been studied relatively often or are thought to be important sources of fit and balance on theoreticalrather thanempiricalgrounds.Table 1 presentsa selective listing of demands,resources,and strategies associated with the work and family domains, which are categorizedaccordingto the domain in which they originate and the processes throughwhich they are expected to influencefit and balance. Although the formulation of fit and balance reflected in the model and in Table 1 focus on the individuallevel of analysis, the ways in which work and family demands, resources, and boundary-spanning strategies combine to influence work-family fit and balance operate within the context of a couple or family. For example, the effects of overnight travel on fit may be greater for families in whichbothpartners travelthanfor those in which only one partnertravels. In addition,boundaryspanning strategiesgenerally are negotiated by couples and families (Moen, Waismel-Manor, & Sweet, 2003). The inconsistent use of the concepts of fit and balance in previous research creates confusion in the literature.The model in Figure1 places these previouslydisparateconceptualizations of work-familyfit and balancein a broader context thatreveals how they are relatedto each and how they might be integrated.Some previous definitionsof fit are similarto the one used here, for example, the extent to which family abilities meet work demandsand work supplies meet family needs (DeBord et al., 2000) or the relationship between demands and efforts to meet the demands(Clarke,Koch, & Hill, 2004). Other definitions, however, are comparableto definitionsof balanceas used here, for example,

Balance Work-Family In the second stage of the model, the two dimensions of fit result in an overall assessment of work-familybalance, either directly or through the use of boundary-spanning strategies. This premise of a direct relationshipbetween fit and balanceis consistentwith the model of Edwards and Rothbard(2005), who propose that work fit and family person-environment has additive effects on strain.In addition,Teng (1999) combined measures of work demands-familyabilities fit with family needs-work supplies fit to createan overallmeasureof fit. In the presentmodel, work-familybalance is consideredas a global assessmentthatwork and family resourcesare sufficientto meet work and is family demandssuch that participation effective in both domains. It combines the appraisals that family resourcesare adequateto meet work

826

Journal of Marriageand Family

TABLE 1. WORK AND FAMILYDEMANDS, RESOURCES,AND STRATEGIES

Work Within-domain demands Time-baseddemands

Family

demands Strain-based

Paid workhours Extraworkhoursor overtime work schedules Nonstandard Job demands Job insecurity

Time caringfor young children Time caringfor ill and elderlyrelatives Time in householdwork Spouse demands Child demands Kin demands Householddemands Spouse and kin support rewards Parenting Householdrewards

Within-domain resources Enablingresources Psychologicalrewards

Autonomy Supervisorand coworkersupport Meaningfulwork Pride Respect

demands Boundary-spanning Transitions Role blurring resources Boundary-spanning Worksupports

Overnighttravel Workat home Bring work home Flexible schedule Dependentcare Householdservices Parental leave Time off for family Part-time work Supportivework-familyculture Supervisorwork-familysupport Cut workhours Refuse overtime Changework schedule Refuse travel Take less demanding job Refuse promotions Refuse work assignments Increaseworkhours Take more enrichingjob Become self-employed

Commutingtime Family activitiesat work and Family interruptions distractions Spouse andkin dependentcare Spouse and kin householdwork Spouse employment

Family supports

Normativesupport Boundary-spanning strategies Reducedemands

Spouse and kin work-familysupport

Miss family occasions Do less dependentcare Limitchildbearing Do less householdwork Job versus careertrade-offwith spouse

Increaseresources

Hiredependentcare Hirehousehold services Increasework-familysupport

fit as the overalllevel of integration work and of family life (Hill, Hawkins,Martinson,& Ferris, 2003) or the assessmentof balancebetweenfamilies andworkorganizations (Pittman,1994). Similar variations occur in definitions of work-familybalance. Some scholarsuse a definition much like the one used here, that is, an overall assessment of equilibriumor harmony (Clarke et al., 2004; Joplin, Shaffer, Lau, & Francesco,2003). Othersuse definitionscompa-

rable to the definition of work-family fit used here, for example, considering success in balancing work and family life in terms of role demands, available resources,and the fit between them over the life course (Moen et al., 2003) or defining work-life balance as the stabilityresulting from the balance between changing demands and environmentaland personal resources (Crooker, Smith, & Tabak, 2002). Other definitions focus on managing demands

Fit Work-Family and Balance without explicitly incorporatingresources, for example, work-familybalance as the ability to balancework and family demandsand responsibilities (Hill, Martinson,Ferris,& Baker, 2004; Tausig & Fenwick, 2001). In addition, some have definedrole balance as full engagementin the performanceof each role in an individual's total role system (Marks& MacDermid, 1996) or the extent to which individuals experience equal time, involvement,effectiveness, and satisfaction in work and family roles (Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003). This last conceptualization does not view work-family balance as The conceptualization a cognitive appraisal. and model presented here provide guidance for future conceptual and empirical work by providing useful distinctions between fit and balance and by locating existing work in a broader framework. In addition to work-family fit and balance, Voydanoff (2002) proposed work-family conflict and work-family facilitation as linking mechanisms between work and family demands and resourcesand role performanceand quality. Work-familyconflict is a form of interrole conflict in which the demandsof work and family roles are incompatiblein some respect so that participationin one role is more difficult because of participationin the other role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Work-family facilitationis a form of synergy across role domains in which the resources associated with one role enhance or make easier participation in the other role (Voydanoff, 2004). Work and family demands generally are related to workto-family and family-to-work conflict, respectively, whereas work and family resources are associated with work-to-family and familyto-work facilitation, respectively. In contrast, work-family fit and balance are derived from the extent to which resources associated with one role are sufficient to meet the demands of anotherrole. Thus, work-familyconflict, facilitation, fit, and balance are cognitive appraisals that reflect work and family demands and resourcesin differentways. Conflict and facilithe tation are useful for understanding differential or independent effects of demands and resources, whereas fit and balance address the intersectionor joint effects of demands and resources. Thus, the two types of linking mechanisms are useful for addressing different questions. For example, if one were concerned about the effects of time caring for young chil-

827 dren on job performance,family-to-workconflict would be a useful appraisalto examine. If one were interested in whether job autonomy would be helpful in meeting the demandsassociated with caring for young children,it would be more importantto assess family demandswork resources fit. The present model focuses on fit and balance ratherthan on conflict and facilitation. Some scholarsalso have definedwork-family fit and balance in terms of work-familyconflict and facilitation, ratherthan as separateconcepts. For example,Grzywaczand Bass (2003) viewed work-familyfit as multipledimensionsof workfamily conflict and facilitation.They stated that work-familyconflict maps onto the concept of demands, whereas capabilitiesare relevant for facilitation.Ratherthan assessing demands and capabilities directly, however, they developed a frameworkin which fit "represents extent the to which work-familyfacilitationcan eliminate conflict,or the extent experiencesof work-family to which work-family facilitation createsan environmentthat can tolerateexperiences of workof familyconflict"(p. 250). They used indicators work-familyconflict and facilitationto measure fit. work-family In addition, several scholars have defined work-family balance as the absence of workfamily conflict (Buffardi, Smith, O'Brien, & Erdwins, 1999; Clark,2001; Saltzstein,Ting, & Saltzstein,2001), whereasothershave definedit as low levels of work-familyconflict and high levels of work-familyfacilitation(Frone,2003). Eitherreducingwork-familyconflict or increasing work-family facilitation increases balance. On the basis of this conceptualization,FisherMcAuley, Stanton, Jolton, and Gavin (2003) have developed a measure of work-familybalance using items that assess work interference with personal life, personal life interference with work, and work/personal enhancement, life whereas a measure presented by Huffman, Payne, and Casper (2004) uses items that tap facilitationand lack of conflict. No independent measures of work-family fit and balance are used, thus confounding fit and balance with conflict and facilitation.This article argues that the sourcesand consequencesof work-familyfit and balanceare betterunderstoodwhen specific demands and resources are examined rather than relying on appraisalsof conflict and facilitation as representationsof fit and balance. When measures of conflict and facilitation are

828 used as indicatorsof fit, the analysis is one step removedfromthe demandsandresourcesassociated with work and family roles (e.g., it is not clear which demandsare creatingthe conflict or which resourcesareassociatedwith facilitation). The elaborationof the model documentsthe role of work-family fit and balance as linking mechanismsbetween work, family, and boundary-spanningdemands and resources and work and family role performance and quality. It clarifies the meaning of the concepts of workfamily fit and balance by integratingdisparate approachesand by suggesting how fit and balance may operate together in relation to work and family role performance quality.It proand vides guidancefor the developmentof measures of work-familyfit and balance and suggests directions for empirical research. In addition, it serves as a first step in developing a more dynamic approachto understandingwork-family linkages that may lead to a more nuanced approachto understandinghow the efforts of workplaces and families can contribute to improved work and family role performance and quality. A DEMANDS ANDRESOURCES APPROACH WORK-FAMILY TO FIT This article extends the analysis of work and fit family person-environment as formulatedby Edwardsand Rothbard(1999, 2005) to a crossdomain approachin which work demands are comparedwith family resourcesand family demands are comparedwith work resources.This approachyields two types of work-family fit: work demands-family resources fit and family demands-work resources fit. Fit occurs when work (family) resourcesmeet, offset, or satisfy family (work) demands. The model suggests two types of demands and resources that are associated with work-familyfit: within-domain work and family demands and resources and boundary-spanning demands and resources. These two types are expected to differ in their to relationships work-familyfit. Within-Domain Workand Family Demandsand Resources Within-domainwork and family demands and resourcesare derivedfrom a rangeof characteristics associatedwith work and family life. For

Journal of Marriageand Family example, the structureof work and family life encompasses the organization and timing of work life and the size and compositionof family structures.The social organizationof work incorporatesthe demands and content of jobs, whereas family social organizationconsists of the division of labor among family members. Norms and expectations associated with work include job descriptions,employmentpolicies, and work culture. Families operate within the context of role expectations and gender ideology. In addition,the work and family domains include various types of supportfrom supervisors and coworkers at work and from family membersat home (Voydanoff,2001). Within this range of work and family characteristics,within-domainwork and family demands are characteristics one domainthat are of associatedwith processesthatlimit the abilityof individuals to meet obligations in another domain. They include time-based and strainbased demands.Time-baseddemandslimit participationthrougha process of resourcedrainin which one domainlimitsthe time or involvement available for participationin another domain (Tenbrunsel, Brett,Maoz, Stroh,& Reilly, 1995). Paid work hours, nonstandard work schedules, time caring for young childrenand ill relatives, and time in household work are examples of time-based workandfamilydemands. Strain-based work and family demandsoperate througha process of psychological spillover in which the strainassociatedwith participating in one domain is carried over to another domain such that it creates strain in the second domain, thereby hinderingrole performancein that domain. Psychological spillover operates through transmissionprocesses in which work (family) conditions are associatedwith psychological responses, which are then transferred into attitudes and behaviors at home (work). Negative transmissionprocesses include negative emotionalarousal,interpersonal withdrawal, energy depletion,and stress (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Wethington, 1989; Piotrkowski, 1979; Rothbard,2001). Strain-basedwork and family demands include role overload, time pressure, and role conflict. In addition, some time-based demands may produce strain-based demands,for example, the time spent caringfor young children and ill relatives may create strain-based demandssuch as role overload. Within-domainwork and family resources engender processes that improve performance

Fit Work-Family and Balance when they are applied across domains. They include enabling resources and psychological rewards. Enabling resources from one domain may generateresources in anotherdomain that provide the means for enhancing participation in the second domain. Enablingresources generally are associated with the structureor content of domainactivities,for example, skills and abilities developed throughdomain activity, behaviors associated with role activities, and the availability of social support from others involved in the domain. Enabling resources in one domain increase the competence and capacities of individuals to perform in other domains. They include autonomy and support from supervisors,coworkers,spouses, and other family members. According to Sieber (1974), rewards from one domain may facilitate participation in anotherdomain. These rewardsincluded privileges, statussecurityand enhancement,and personality enrichment. Rewards also include psychological resourcesthat are associatedwith feeling esteemed and valued and intrinsic rewards such as meaningful activities. These rewards may be accompanied by psychological benefits, such as motivation,a sense of accomplishment, self-esteem, and ego gratification. They may operatethroughprocesses similar to those discussed above for strain-based demands, that is, psychological spillover. Positive transmission processes include positive emotional arousal,interpersonal availability,energy creation, and gratification(Piotrkowski, 1979; Rothbard,2001). Examples include meaningful work, pride, and respect associated with performingwork and family activities. Within-domain demands and resources are expected to be differentiallysalient for the two dimensions of work-family fit. Within-domain work demands and within-domain family resources combine to influence work demandsfamily resources fit, whereas family demands and work resources are relevant for family demands-work resources fit. The extent to which enabling resourcesand psychological rewards in one domain meet or counteract the time-based and strain-based demands in the other domain determines the level of fit. For example, spouse and kin supportmay contribute to work demands-family resources fit by helping employees deal with work demandssuch as job pressureand insecurity.Job autonomy and meaningfulwork may increasefamily demands-

829 work resourcesfit by making it easier for individuals to address strain-based family demands from spouse,children,or kin. emanating It also is possible thatresourcesfromthe work (family) domain may combine with resources fromthe family (work)domainto influencework demands-family resources (family demandswork resources)fit. For example,job autonomy may be useful in increasing work demandsfamily resources fit. The differential salience approachdoes not preclude such crossover effects. Instead, it emphasizes that the dominant pattem of effects is for work (family) demands and family (work) resourcesto influence work demands-family resources (family demandsworkresources)fit (Voydanoff,2004). Demandsand Resources Boundary-Spanning In addition to within-domainwork and family demands and resources, the work-familyinterdeface also encompasses boundary-spanning mands and resources. Within-domaindemands in and resourcesare characteristics one domain that may influence performance in another associated domain, whereas the characteristics demandsand resources with boundary-spanning betweenthe work andfamfocus on the interface ily domains(Voydanoff,in press). For example, orientedto improving perjob support supervisor formanceis a within-domain resource,whereas supervisor support that enhances the coordination of work and family responsibilitiesis a resource. Although boundboundary-spanning demandsand resourcesoriginatein ary-spanning one domain,they serve as demandsand resources in both domains. For example, although dependent care benefits and services are provided as a resourcethroughthe workplace,these benefitsand servicesalso arefamilyresources. demands involve tradeBoundary-spanning of offs derivingfromthe continuum segmentation across domains.At the segmentato integration work and familyroles tion end of the continuum, are quite separate,boundariesare impermeable, is and role blurring low. Time spent commuting or travelingfor work increasesthe physical and psychological distance between the workplace distanceincreasessegandthe home.This greater mentation between work and family roles, thereby increasing the difficulty of transitions across domains. Difficult transitionsmay limit in role performance both domains.Domain transitions, however, also may provide periods of

830 for decompressionand preparation enteringthe other domain. At the integration end, work and family activitiesoverlap,boundariesare permeable, and role blurringis high. For example, familyactivities workingat home andperforming at work may ease transitionsacross domains, Role while creatinginterruptions distractions. and blurringalso may have negative effects on role (Ashforthet al., 2000; Nippert-Eng, performance demands limit 1996). Thus, boundary-spanning the abilityof employeesto managethe boundary betweenworkand familythroughtransition difficultiesandrole blurring. Boundary-spanningresources address how the work and family domainsconnect with each otherin termsof boundaryflexibility,for example, policies andprogramsthatenhancethe flexibility of the temporalboundarybetween work and family and the level of organizationalsupport for employees to use these policies and programsto coordinatework and family obligations and activities. Boundary-spanning resources increase work-family fit and balance through interrelated processes that enhance workers' perceived control over managing the work-familyboundaryand legitimize the use of work-family policies. Boundary-spanningresources include a range of work-familypolicies and organizationaland family supportof work and family life. Some employers provide policies and programs that help employees coordinate their work and family responsibilities through increased boundary flexibility. These policies and programs include work-support policies and family-support policies (Voydanoff, in press). Work-supportpolicies help employees accommodatetheir family responsibilitieswithout reducingwork hours or the amountof work that is performed.They include dependentcare benefits and flexibility regardingwhen work is done, for example, flexible work schedules. Family-support policies increaseboundaryflexibility by allowing workers to take time from work to meet family responsibilitiesor to work part-time.Family-supportpolicies are oriented towardmakingit easierfor employees to accommodate family responsibilities by reducing work time, either on a daily or more long-term basis. In addition, a third type of work-based boundary-spanningresource, normative supports,includes a work-familycultureand supervisors who provide legitimacy to the use of work and family-support policies. A supportive

Journal of Marriageand Family work-familycultureassuresthatcareerpenalties are not associated with using available work and family supports, thereby giving implicit permission to use work-family policies. Supportive supervisorsmay provide more explicit support to employees. When supervisors respondpositively to discussingand accommodating employees'familyobligations, employeesare likely to feel comfortableusing availableworkfamilypolicies. Comparable boundary-spanning resources originate within the family domain. Familybased work support encompasses dependent care and household work provided by spouses and other family members. Such supports are expected to enhance role performance across domainsby facilitatingor reducingfamily work while the employee maintains a comparable level of participationin work duties. Familybased family supportoccurs when one spouse serves as the major family providerso that the other spouse may limit work participationto engage more extensively in family activities. This type of supportis expected to improverole performanceacross domains by adjusting the level of work involvement to accommodate family responsibilities and activities. In addition, family members are likely to coordinate their work and family responsibilities more effectively when they receive work-familynormative supportfrom spouse and kin. Such support provides cohesion to a family's efforts to combine work and family life and assists family members by supportingtheir decisions and efforts. In contrastto within-domain demandsand reand sources,work-based family-based boundaryspanningdemands and resources are expected to be associated with both dimensions of fit. demands (e.g., commuting Boundary-spanning time and overnight travel for work) limit the ability of individuals to make transitions between the work and family domains. This increases the level of demands both at work and at home, which decreases both types of fit. Boundary-spanningdemands that create role blurring across domains (e.g., bringing work home and family interruptions and distractions at work) also decrease both types of fit by increasing both work and family demands. Boundary-spanningresources may have positive effects on both dimensions of work-family fit. Workplacepolicies that facilitatethe coordination of work and family responsibilitiesand

Fit Work-Family and Balance normative support for such policies provide additional resources to meet the demands of work and family life. For example, flexible work schedules may improve work demandsfamily resources fit by adjustingthe timing of work, thereby improving the match between a work demand and a family's ability to meet the demand. Flexible schedules also may facilitate a family's ability to care for children or other relatives, thereby increasing family demands-workresourcesfit. FIT WORK-FAMILY AND BALANCE WORK-FAMILY The next step in the model posits that work demands-family resources fit and family demands-work resources fit influence workfamily balance in two ways. First, the two dimensions of fit combine additively to create work-familybalance, and second, they operate strategies throughthe use of boundary-spanning such that boundary-spanning strategiesmediate or moderate the effects of work-family fit on work-familybalance. Direct RelationshipsBetween Work-Family Balance Fit and Work-Family In the present model, work-family balance is consideredas a global assessmentthatwork and family resourcesare sufficientto meet work and is family demandssuch that participation effective in both domains. These demands and resources operate throughthe two dimensions of work-family fit to influence balance. Although the model proposes that the two dimensions of work-family fit have additive effectives on work-familybalance, the relative importanceof the two dimensions may vary among individuals. The extent to which the work or family role is relativelysalientmay influencethese relationships. (See Greenhaus& Powell, in press, for a similar argument regarding relationships between resources and work-family enrichment.) No known studies have assessed relationships between work-family fit as defined here and work-family balance. Some insight into the factorsassociatedwith work-familybalance can be obtained, however, by reviewing research that uses a demands and resources approachin the examinationof direct relationships between work and family demands and resourcesand work-familybalance.

831 Most empiricalstudies based on the demands and resourcesapproachhave used a single item asking respondentsabout their level of satisfaction or success with the balance between their work and family lives, demands,or responsibilities. Valcour and Batt (2003), however, developed a scale based on items asking the level of satisfactionwith the division of time and attention between work and personal life, ability to balance needs across domains, ability to perform job and home duties adequately, and fit between work life and personal or family life. In addition,the Hill et al. (2004) scale included items on the extent to which work resources such as flexibility and time away from work are sufficient to maintainbalance as well as questions regardingoverall balance.These measures provide an overall assessment or appraisalof the extent to which the balance of demandsand resourcespermitsadequaterole performancein work and family life. Studies of the additive effects of work and family demands and resources on work-family balance generally support the model. Withindemands such domain and boundary-spanning as long work hours,job demands,job monitoring intensity, elder-careresponsibility,and jobrelated travel generally were negatively related to work-familybalance,whereasthe relationship between balance and young children at home was statistically significant in some studies but not others (e.g., Buffardiet al., 1999; Hill et al., 2003; Keene & Quadagno,2004; Valcour & Batt, 2003). Within-domainand boundaryspanning resources such as job autonomy and complexity, part-time work, supervisor workfamily support, and a supportive work-family culture generally showed positive relationships to work-familybalance, whereas flexible work schedules and on-site child care were unrelated to balance (e.g., Ezra & Deckman, 1996; Keene & Quadagno;Saltzsteinet al., 2001; Valcour & Batt). Mediatingand ModeratingEffectsof Strategies Boundary-Spanning In addition to having direct relationships to work-familybalance,work-familyfit may operate through boundary-spanningstrategies in relation to work-family balance. Boundaryspanningstrategiesare actions taken on the part of individuals and families to reduce or eliminate misfit between work and family demands

832

Journal of Marriageand Family

and resources. Some strategies change work family supports as preventive mechanisms in and family roles so that demands are reduced, relationto work-familyfit is more effective than for example, cuttingwork hours,reducingwork strategiesto increase using boundary-spanning balance.Additionalresearchwith a longitudinal and limiting dependent care responsibilities, and household work. When time and straindedesign is needed to explore such relationships. mands are reducedin one domain, enabling resources and psychological rewards in another ROLE WORK-FAMILY BALANCE, domainarebetterable to meet these lowereddeAND PERFORMANCE, ROLE QUALITY mands. Other strategiesincrease resources, for The final stage of the model proposes that example, taking a more enrichingjob, gaining work-family balance is positively associated job flexibility by becoming self-employed, and and with work and family role performance role hiring dependent care and household services. additional resources quality. Work and family role performanceenThese strategies provide for individual and family efforts to meet decompasses behaviors performed at work and home (e.g., work duties, household chores, and mands in anotherdomain. Such strategiesalso have been referredto as work-family adaptive dependentcare), whereas role quality refers to trade-offs,accommoda- positive affect, such as positive moods and strategies,adjustments, tion, and scaling back. This suggests that strate- emotions, that is derived from work and family roles (e.g., job satisfaction, marital happiness, gies mediate negative effects such that misfit and satisfactionwith parent-child leads to the use of strategies,which in turn imrelationships). proves balance. Strategies also may moderate A global assessment of balance between the work and family domains is posited to improve the effects of fit on balance by buffering the performanceand quality in both domains.Posinegative effects of misfit on balance. In this sittive behaviorsand psychological spilloverassouation, the negative relationshipbetween misfit ciated with high levels of work demands-family and balance exists only for those who do not resources fit and family demands-workresouruse boundary-spanning strategies. Depending on the timing, these strategies ces fit influence work-familybalance, which in turn is associated with high work and family may prevent work-family misfit in the first and role performance quality.No known studies for example, using flextime may reduce place, have examined the consequences of workthe need to cut work hours. Thus, a given here. family balanceas conceptualized strategy can have a positive relationship to work-family fit (a preventive effect) or can be positivelyrelatedto work-familybalance(a therAND CONCLUSIONS SUGGESTIONS apeutic effect). In addition, boundary-spanning FOR FUTURE RESEARCH strategies may have feedback effects on the fit Drawing on person-environment theory, this work-family interface. The successful use of article formulates a demands and resources these strategiesmay change work, family, and demandsand resourcessuch approachthat serves as a frameworkfor underboundary-spanning that they can promote work-family fit. For standing the role of perceived work-family fit work hours may create and balance as linking mechanisms between example, reducing enhanced spouse support, thereby increasing the work-familyinterfaceand work and family role performanceand quality. The conceptual work-familyfit. No known studies have examined such relamodel proposesthatwork,family,andboundarytionships. Two studies, however, have reported spanning demands and resources combine to that strategies oriented to reducing family decreatetwo dimensionsof work-familyfit. Work mands(e.g., missing a family occasion) arenegdemands-family resources fit derives from atively relatedto balance,whereasrelationships work demands,family resources,and boundaryfor reducing work demands (e.g., cutting back spanningdemandsand resources,whereasfamon work) are mixed (Keene & Quadagno,2004; ily demands-work resources fit results from Milkie & Peltola, 1999). This limited refamily demands,work resources,and boundarysearchdoes not supportthe idea that boundary- spanning demands and resources. The two spanning strategies are effective in increasing dimensions of work-family fit combine with work-family balance. It may be that using boundary-spanning strategiesto influenceworkresourcessuch as work and balancethen affects boundary-spanning familybalance.Work-family

Fit Work-Family and Balance and quality. work and family role performance model reveals the This relativelycomprehensive importanceof examiningnot only the demands thatmay reducework-familyfit and balancebut also the resources that may enhance it. Thus, work-family policies and programs should include the enhancementof work, family, and resourcesas well as the reboundary-spanning ductionof work, family, and boundary-spanning demands. Both can occur either by developing policies and programs that reduce demands and increasingresourcesindependently (e.g., by job reducingworkhoursor increasing autonomy) or by designing policies that address demands and resources jointly (e.g., by creatinga supportculturethatfocuses on flexibility ive work-family in meeting family demands such as caregiving for childrenor parents). The elaborationof the model and the review of previous measuresand empiricalresearchon work-family fit and balance reveal unresolved issues and suggest directionsfor futureresearch. Most generally,additionalwork on the development and testing of the model is needed. The limited and problematicresearchreviewed here does not allow an adequate evaluation of the efficacy of the model. Scholarsneed to test the variousrelationshipsproposedin the model and to consider alternativepaths. First, it is important to compare the ways in which demands and resourcesmay combine in relationto workfamily fit. Is it useful to comparedemandsand resources across domains on the basis of the fit person-environment approachin which distinctions are made between demands-abilities and needs-supplies?Or is it sufficientto examine the overall additiveeffects of work, family, demandsand resources and boundary-spanning on fit? Do demands and resources combine to influence fit in other ways, for example, do resources buffer the negative effects of demands on fit? stratThe model's use of boundary-spanning egies as mediatorsof relationshipsbetween the two dimensions of work-family fit and workfamily balance also requiresadditionalconceptual and empirical work. The model proposes that boundary-spanning strategies are used to reduce the negative effects of work-familymisfit on work-family balance (a therapeutic effect). This is an oversimplification,however. In some cases, strategies may prevent workfamily misfit in the first place (a preventive effect). Only longitudinal research can docu-

833 ment these distinctions empirically. Although the developmentof the model began with linkages proposed by Voydanoff (2002), the conceptualizationsof work-family fit and balance developed here on the basis of person-environment theory differ from those of Voydanoff. She conceived of balance as an assessment occurringbefore the use of strategies,whereas fit is assessed following the use of strategies. Because of their more developed conceptual grounding,the reversedlocation of fit and balance in the present conceptual model supercedes thatof the earlierVoydanoffmodel. The final stage of the model also proposes direct relationships between work-family balance and work and family role performance and quality. Role performance and quality, however, also may be influenceddirectly by variables in earlierstages in the model. For example, demands work, family, and boundary-spanning and resourcesmay affect role performanceand quality without operatingthrough work-family fit or balance.It also is possible thatrole performance is a precursorof role quality. Greenhaus and Powell (in press) propose that performing well in a role is likely to be reflected in increasedpositive affect. In addition, the linkage model proposed by Voydanoff (2002) included social categories and coping resources.Social categories such as gender and personal coping resources, such as mastery, self-esteem, positive affectivity, and resilience, are expected to serve as important moderatorsof relationships between demands and resources and work-familyfit. The role of boundary-spanning strategiesalso may vary by gender and coping resources. They were not included in the model here, however, because the availabledata are inadequateto illustrateor specify theiroperationin the model. Last, the model needs to be examinedon both the individual and couple or family levels of analysis. Extending the model to couples and families would incorporate the complexities involved within families as they attempt to coordinatethe work and family responsibilities of several members. In addition, the resources broughtto bear to addresswork and family demands and the boundary-spanningstrategies used to decreasedemandsor increaseresources are developed and used within the context of the entirefamily constellation. The model presented here is based on our current state of knowledge. This knowledge

834 base is inadequatefor the constructionand presentation of a completely developed model. Additional research on the issues just raised undoubtedlywill result in revisions of the conceptual model. Furthermore,improved model developmentrequiresbetter measuresof workfamily fit and balance and more adequatestudies that examine the relationshipsproposed in of the model. Measurement work-familyfit and balance is quite undeveloped. The most comprehensivemeasureof work-familyfit has been developed by Teng (1999). Her measuresof the two types of fit, however, are not comparable to each other. The measure of work demandsfamily abilities fit consists of the additive combination of several work demands and family abilities, whereas the work rewards-family needs items are a direct appraisal of work rewards-family needs fit that asked how well several benefits of the job meet individual and family needs. Two other measures of workfamily fit assess specific aspects of family demands-work resourcesfit. Barett et al. (1999) focus on the extent to which work hours and scheduling meet individual and family needs, whereas Pittman (1994) addresses whether the military is responsive to family needs. Bakker (2005) uses a similar approachwith a measure that reflects within-domain work demandsabilities fit by using items such as "I am well able to meet the demands of my work" and "I have sufficientskills to carryout my work tasks properly."Similarquestions could be designed that address work demands-family resources and family demands-work resources fit, for example, "To what extent does support from your spouse help you handle demands from your employerto work overtime?" Most studies of work-family balance use a single-item measure that assesses individual appraisalsregardingthe level of satisfactionor success with the balance between work and family life or the balance of work and family demandsor responsibilities.Such measuresprovide useful global assessments of work-family balance. When the question references balancing work and family demandsor responsibilities ratherthan overall work and family life, however, the considerationof resources as part of the process is implied but not directly considered. It is encouragingto note that multi-item scales of work-familybalance are under development.Some are more relevantto the demands and resourcesapproachpresentedin this article

Journal of Marriageand Family than others, however. Perhaps the most compatible are those that assess individualabilities to performactivities in both the work and family domains effectively. For example, the Valcour and Batt (2003) scale assesses the level of satisfaction with the way respondents divide their time and attentionbetween work and personal or family life, how well their work and personal or family life fit together,their ability to balancethe needs of theirjob with their personal or family life, and theiropportunity perto form theirjob well and yet be able to perform home-relatedduties adequately.A scale being developed by Joplin et al. (2003) includes subscales measuringequilibrium(I feel fulfilled in all aspectsof my life), control(e.g., I manageall aspects of my life effectively), and synchrony (My personallife and my work life are complementary). Such approaches hold promise for morecomprehensive measuresof fit andbalance. Research on the linkages proposed in the conceptual model is sorely lacking. The few studies of relationshipsbetween demands and resources and work-family fit are limited to a few predictorswith small nonrepresentative samples. No known studies have examined direct relationships between work-family fit andwork-family balanceor considered boundaryspanning strategies as mediators of such relationships. Similarly, no studies were located that investigatework-familybalance as conceptualizedhere in relationto work and family role and performance quality. The bulk of the researchthat has been conducted focuses on work and family demands and resourcesin relationto work-familybalance without consideringthe interveninglinkages of work-family fit or boundary-spanningstrategies. The results of this research show that relationshipsbetween work, family, and boundary-spanningdemands and resources and the variousmeasuresof work-familybalancesometimes differ across studies. The most consistent findings are found for the negative relationships between work hours andjob demandsand work-familybalance. Having young childrenin the home is negatively related to work-family balancein some studiesbut not in others.For resources, job autonomy, supervisorwork-family support, and a supportivework-familyculture are positively related to work-family balance. Work-support policies generally are not related to balance. This research suffers from several of limitations,however. The generalizability the

Fit Work-Family and Balance findings is limited because many of the studies included a large number of predictorswithout ruling out the possibility of multicollinearity among them. The selection of predictorsneeds to be guided explicitly by theoretical considerations. In addition, most of the studies used measures of work-family balance whose psychometric properties have not been assessed. These limitationsreflectthe early stage of development of research on work-family fit and balance. This articlehas focused on work, family, and demandsand resourcesthat boundary-spanning are most prevalentin the literatureor are most relevant for the approachbeing presented. No known studies have examined some theoretically relevantvariables,however, such as strainbased family demands, work rewards, family resources,or the availabilityof work- and family-support policies in relation to work-family fit. In addition,other little-studieddemandsand resources should be incorporatedinto future analyses.These include demandssuch as household time demands, nonstandardwork schedules, job insecurity,and demandsfrom spouses, children, and kin as well as resources such as spouse and kin support and psychological rewardsfrom parenting. Despite these limitations,this articleprovides a frameworkfor betterunderstanding perceived work-familyfit and balanceas linkagesbetween work and family demands and resources and work and family role performanceand quality. Hopefully, it will generate additional work that addresses the conceptual and empirical issues raised here and will result in the further model of workdevelopmentof a comprehensive fit and balance. An improved underfamily standing of work-family fit and balance has importantimplicationsfor workplaces attempting to assist workerscoordinatetheir work and family lives and for workers and their families as they strive to adequatelyperformtheir work and family activities.

835
Bamett, R. C., Gareis, K. C., & Brennan, R. T. (1999). Fit as a mediator of the relationship between work hoursandburnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,4, 307-317. Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethington, E. (1989). The contagion of stress across multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family,51, 175-183. U. Bronfenbrenner, (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of ChildDevelopment,6, 187-249.

L. Buffardi, C., Smith,J. L., O'Brien,A. S., & C. Erdwins, J. (1999). The impactof dependent
care responsibilityand gender on work attitudes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 356-367. Clark, S. C. (2001). Work cultures and work/family balance.Journal of VocationalBehavior,58, 348365.

M. Clarke, C., Koch,L. C., & Hill,E. J. (2004).The

work-familyinterface.Family and ConsumerSciences ResearchJournal,31, 121-140. Crooker, K. J., Smith, F. L., & Tabak, R. (2002). Creating work-family balance. Human Resource DevelopmentReview, 1, 387-419. DeBord, K., Canu, R. G., & Kerpelman,J. (2000). Understandingwork-family fit for single parents moving from welfare to work. Social Work, 45, 313-324. Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison,R. V. fit (1998). Person-environment theory. In C. L. Theories of organizational stress Cooper (Ed.), (pp. 29-47). New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Edwards,J. R., & Rothbard,N. P. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 85-129. Edwards,J. R., & Rothbard,N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family. Academy of Review,25, 178-199. Management N. Edwards,J. R., & Rothbard, P. (2005). Work and stress and well-being. In E. E. Kossek & family S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration (pp. 211-242). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. Ezra, M., & Deckman, M. (1996). Balancing work and family responsibilities.Public Administration Review,56, 174-179. Fisher-McAuley,G., Stanton,J. M., Jolton, J. A., & Gavin, J. A. (2003, April). Modeling the relationship betweenwork/lifebalance and organizational outcomes. Paperpresentedat the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrialand Organizational Psychology, Orlando,FL. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In

REFERENCES Ashforth,B. E., Kreiner,G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work. Academy of Management Review,25, 472-491. Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and theirstudents.Journal of VocationalBehavior, 66, 26-44.

J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick(Eds.),Handbook

836 of occupational health psychology (pp. 143162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Greenhaus,J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy Review, 10, 76-88. of Management Greenhaus,J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relationbetween work-familybalance and qualityof life. Journalof VocationalBehavior, 63, 510-531. Greenhaus,J. H., & Powell, G. N. (in press). When work and family are allies. Academy of ManagementReview. Grzywacz,J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work,family, and mental health. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 248-262. Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Martinson,V., & Ferris, M. (2003). Studying "working fathers." Fathering, 1,239-261. Hill, E. J., Martinson,V. K., Ferris, M., & Baker, R. Z. (2004). Beyond the mommy track.Journal of Family and EconomicIssues, 25, 121-136. Huffman,A. H., Payne, S. C., & Casper,W. J. (2004, balApril). A comparativeanalysis of work-family ance on retention.Paper presentedat the Annual and Meetingof the Society for Industrial OrganizationalPsychology, Chicago. Joplin,J. R. W., Shaffer,M. A., Lau,T., & Francesco, A. M. (2003, August). Life balance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Seattle. Management, Keene, J. R., & Quadagno,J. (2004). Predictorsof perceived work-family balance. Sociological Perspectives,47, 1-23. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal,and coping. New York:Springer. Marks,S. R., & MacDermid,S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self. Journal of Marriage and the Family,58,417-432. Milkie, M. A., & Peltola, P. (1999). Playing all the roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 476-490. Moen, P., Waismel-Manor,R., & Sweet, S. (2003). Success. In P. Moen (Ed.), It's about time (pp. 133-152). Ithaca,NY: Comell UniversityPress.

Journal of Marriage and Family C. Nippert-Eng, E. (1996). Home and work.Chicago: of Chicago Press. University Piotrkowski,C. (1979). Workand thefamily system. New York:Free Press. Pittman,J. F. (1994). Work/familyfit as a mediator of work factors on maritaltension. Human Relations, 47, 183-209. Rothbard,N. P. (2001). Enrichingor depleting?The dynamicsof engagementin work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 655-684. 46, Saltzstein, A. L., Ting, Y., & Saltzstein, G. H. (2001). Work-familybalance and job satisfaction. Public Administration Review,61, 452-466. Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567-578. Tausig, M., & Fenwick, R. (2001). Unbindingtime. Journal of Family and EconomicIssues, 22, 101119. Tenbrunsel, A. E., Brett, J. M., Maoz, E., Stroh, L. K., & Reilly, A. H. (1995). Dynamic and static work-familyrelationships.OrganizationalBehavior and HumanDecision Processes, 63, 223-246. interface. Teng, W. (1999). Assessing the work-family AuburnUniverUnpublisheddoctoraldissertation, AL. sity, Auburn, Valcour, P. M., & Batt, R. (2003, February).Work and workexhaustion,organizationalcommitment life integration. Paper presented at the Business and ProfessionalWomen's Foundation Conference, Orlando,FL. Voydanoff,P. (2001). Conceptualizing communityin the context of work and family. Community, Work & Family,4, 133-156. Voydanoff, P. (2002). Linkages between the workfamily interfaceand work, family, and individual outcomes.Journal of FamilyIssues, 23, 138-164. Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effects of work demands and resourceson work-to-familyconflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66, 398-412. Voydanoff, P. (in press). Consequencesof boundaryspanning demands and resources for work-family conflict and perceived stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.