Cultural Intelligence and Work–Family Conflict: A Moderated Mediation Model Based on Conservation of Resources Theory
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
2.1. Conservation of Resources Theory
2.2. Cultural Intelligence and Work–Family Conflict
2.3. Mediating Role of Work Engagement
2.4. Moderating Effects of LMX
3. Method
3.1. Participants and Procedures
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Cultural Intelligence
3.2.2. Work–Family Conflict
3.2.3. Work Engagement
3.2.4. LMX
3.2.5. Control Variables
4. Results
4.1. Common Method Variance Tests
4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
4.3. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Altbach, P.; Reisberg, L.; Rumbley, L.E. Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Halbesleben, J.R.B.; Harvey, J.; Bolino, M.C. Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1452–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, R.T.; Morganson, V.J.; Matthews, R.A.; Atkinson, T.P. LMX, breach perceptions, work–family conflict, and well-being: A mediational model. J. Psychol. 2016, 150, 132–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, J.; Bently, J.R.; Treadway, D.C.; Brouer, R.L.; Wallace, A. The role of affective commitment and political skill in the work interfering with family (WIF) conflict-voluntary turnover relationship. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 29, 595–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, S.; O’Driscoll, M.P.; Roche, M. Mechanisms linking acculturation, work–family conflict, and subjective well-being among Chinese immigrants in New Zealand. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 57, 1097–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonyea, J.G. The nonprofit sector’s responsiveness to work–family issues. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 1999, 562, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitt-Catsouphes, M.; Swanberg, J.E.; Bond, J.T.; Galinsky, E. Work-life policies and programs: Comparing the responsiveness of nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2004, 14, 291–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claus, L.; Maletz, S.; Casoinic, D.; Pierson, K. Social capital and cultural adjustment of international assignees in NGOs: Do support networks really matter? Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 26, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corley, E.A.; Sabharwal, M. Foreign-born academic scientists and engineers: Producing more and getting less than their US-born peers? Res. High. Educ. 2007, 48, 909–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- French, K.A.; Johnson, R.C. A retrospective timeline of the evolution of work–family research. In The Oxford Handbook of Work and Family; Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 9–22. [Google Scholar]
- Shockley, K.M.; Douek, J.; Smith, C.R.; Yu, P.P.; Dumani, S.; French, K.A. Cross-cultural work and family research: A review of the literature. J. Vocat. Behav. 2017, 101, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PricewaterhouseCoopers. International Assignments: Global Policy and Practice Key Trends 2005; PricewaterhouseCoopers: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Greenhaus, J.H.; Beutell, N.J. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.J. Dominant stressors on expatriate couples during international assignments. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008, 19, 1018–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kempen, R.; Pangert, B.; Hattrup, K.; Mueller, K.; Joens, I. Beyond conflict: The role of life-domain enrichment for expatriates. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 26, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michel, J.S.; Kotrba, L.M.; Mitchelson, J.K.; Clark, M.A.; Baltes, B.B. Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 689–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byron, K. A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005, 67, 169–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, T.D.; Johnson, R.C.; Saboe, K.N.; Cho, E.; Dumani, S.; Evans, S. Dispositional variables and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 2012, 80, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nohe, C.; Meier, L.L.; Sonntag, K.; Michel, A. The chicken or the egg? A meta-analysis of panel studies of the relationship between work–family conflict and strain. J. Appl. Psychol. 2015, 100, 522–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, G.N.; Francesco, A.M.; Ling, Y. Toward culture sensitive theories of the work–family interface. J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30, 597–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Earley, P.C.; Ang, S. Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Ang, S.; Van Dyne, L.; Koh, C.; Ng, K.; Templer, K.; Tay, C.; Chandrasekar, N.A. Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2007, 3, 335–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, F.; Schei, V.; Selart, M. Hype or hope? A new look at the research on cultural intelligence. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2018, 66, 148–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ott, D.L.; Michailova, S. Cultural intelligence: A review and new research avenues. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 99–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halbesleben, J.R.B.; Neveu, J.P.; Paustian-Underdahl, S.C.; Westman, M. Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. J. Manag. 2014, 40, 1334–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Laken, P.; van Engen, M.; van Veldhoven, M.; Paauwe, J. Expatriate support and success: A systematic review of organization-based sources of social support. J. Glob. Mobil. 2016, 4, 408–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klassen, R.M.; Aldhafri, S.; Mansfield, C.F.; Purwanto, E.; Siu, A.F.Y.; Wong, M.W. Teachers’ engagement at work: An international validation study. J. Exp. Educ. 2012, 80, 317–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Innstrand, S.T.; Langballe, E.M.; Falkum, E. A longitudinal study of the relationship between work engagement and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Stress Health 2012, 28, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barber, L.; Grawitch, M.J.; Munz, D.C. Are better sleepers more engaged workers? A self-regulatory approach to sleep hygiene and work engagement. Stress Health 2013, 29, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gorgievski, M.J.; Moriono, J.A.; Bakker, A.B. Relating work engagement and workaholism to entrepreneurial performance. J. Manag. Psychol. 2012, 29, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.B.; Albrecht, S.L.; Leiter, M.P. Key questions regarding work engagement. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2011, 20, 4–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, J. More engagement is not necessarily better: The benefits of fluctuating levels of engagement. In Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice; Albrecht, S.L., Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2010; pp. 253–263. [Google Scholar]
- Sonnentag, S. Research on work engagement is well and alive. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2011, 20, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shimazu, A.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Kubota, K.; Watanabe, K.; Kawakami, N. Is too much work engagement detrimental? Linear or curvilinear effects on mental health and job performance. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0208684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saks, A.M.; Gruman, J.A. What do we really know about employee engagement? Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2014, 25, 155–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorgievski, M.J.; Hobfoll, S.E. Work can burn us out or fire us up: Conservation of resources in burnout and engagement. In Handbook of Stress and Burnout in Health Care; Halbesleben, J.R.B., Ed.; Nova Science: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 7–22. [Google Scholar]
- Kühnel, J.; Sonnentag, S.; Bledow, R. Resources and time pressure as day level antecedents of work engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2012, 85, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torp, S.; Lysfjord, L.; Midje, H.H. Workaholism and work–family conflict among university academics. High. Educ. 2018, 76, 1071–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beigi, M.; Shirmohammadi, M.; Stewart, J. Flexible Work Arrangements and Work–Family Conflict: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies Among Academics. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2018, 17, 314–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, B. Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In Research in Organizational Behavior; Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1983; pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
- Runhaar, P.; Konermann, J.; Sanders, K. Teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour: Considering the roles of their work engagement, autonomy and leader–member exchange. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2013, 30, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorgievski, M.J.; Halbesleben, J.R.B.; Bakker, A.B. Expanding the boundaries of psychological resource theories. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2011, 84, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Öge, E.; Çetin, M.; Top, S. The effects of paternalistic leadership on workplace loneliness, work family conflict and work engagement among air traffic controllers in Turkey. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2018, 66, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kossek, E.E.; Pichler, S.; Bodner, T.; Hammer, L.B. Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family specific supervisor and organizational support. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 64, 289–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, S.J.; Witt, L.A.; Penney, L.M.; Atwater, L. The downside of goal-focused leadership: The role of personality in subordinate exhaustion. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 1145–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobfoll, S.E. The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 50, 337–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, H.; Jiang, Z.; Nielsen, I. Cognitive cultural intelligence and life satisfaction of migrant workers: The roles of career engagement and social injustice. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018, 139, 237–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grandey, A.A.; Cropanzano, R. The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. J. Vocat. Behav. 1999, 54, 350–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Earley, P.C. Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving forward with cultural intelligence. Res. Organ. Behav. 2002, 24, 271–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.A. CQ at work and the impact of intercultural training: An empirical test among foreign laborers. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2015, 47, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, D.C.; Elron, E.; Stahl, G.; Ekelund, B.Z.; Ravlin, E.C.; Cerdin, J.L.; Poelmans, S.; Brislin, R.; Pekerti, A.; Aycan, Z.; et al. Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment. Int. J. Cross-Cult. Manag. 2008, 8, 123–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, D.C.; Liao, Y.; Aycan, Z.; Cerdin, J.L.; Pekerti, A.A.; Ravlin, E.C.; Stahl, G.K.; Lazarova, M.B.; Fock, H.; Arli, D.; et al. Cultural intelligence: A theory-based, short form measure. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2015, 46, 1099–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diamantopoulos, A.; Riefler, P.; Roth, K.P. Advancing formative measurement models. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 1203–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Z.; Le, H.; Gollan, P.J. Cultural intelligence and voice behavior among migrant workers: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 29, 1082–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mesmer-Magnus, J.R.; Viswesvaran, C. Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005, 67, 215–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Netemeyer, R.G.; Boles, J.S.; McMurrian, R. Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. J. Appl. Psychol. 1996, 81, 400–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernas, K.H.; Major, D.A. Contributors to stress resistance: Testing a model of women’s work–family conflict. Psychol. Women Q. 2000, 24, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, C.A.; Prottas, D.J. Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2006, 11, 100–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2011, 84, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobfoll, S.E. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev. General Psychol. 2002, 6, 307–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrick, A.; Mak, A.S.; Cathcart, S.; Winwood, P.C.; Bakker, A.B.; Lushington, K. Non-work time activities predicting teachers’ work-related fatigue and engagement: An effort-recovery approach. Aust. Psychol. 2018, 53, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, I. Work-life balance for sustainable human development: Cultural intelligence as enabler. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2017, 27, 706–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brislin, R.; Worthley, R.; Macnab, B. Cultural intelligence: Understanding behaviors that serve people’s goals. Group Organ. Manag. 2006, 31, 40–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, W.; Kim, J.; Woo, H.; Park, J.; Jo, J.; Park, S.H.; Lim, S.Y. The relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment: Proposing research agendas through a review of empirical literature. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2017, 16, 350–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; Gonzalez-Roma, V.; Bakker, A.B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knight, C.; Patterson, M.; Dawson, J. Building work engagement: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 792–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boštjančič, E.; Antolović, S.; Erčulj, V. Corporate Volunteering: Relationship to Job Resources and Work Engagement. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hakanen, J.J.; Bakker, A.B.; Schaufeli, W.B. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. J. Sch. Psychol. 2006, 43, 495–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M. Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In Managing Social and Ethical Issues in Organizations; Gilliland, S.W., Steiner, D.D., Skarlicki, D.P., Eds.; Information Age: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2007; pp. 135–177. [Google Scholar]
- Macey, W.H.; Schneider, B. The meaning of employee engagement. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2008, 1, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winefield, H.R.; Boyd, C.; Winefield, A.H. Work–family conflict and well-being in university employees. J. Psychol. 2014, 148, 683–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Graen, G.B.; Uhl-Bien, M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multilevel multi-domain perspective. Leadersh. Q. 1995, 6, 219–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, S.Y.; Lin, K.J. Who suffers when supervisors are unhappy? The roles of leader–member exchange and abusive supervision. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 151, 799–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Major, D.A.; Morganson, V.J. Coping with work–family conflict: A leader-member exchange perspective. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2011, 16, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- French, K.A.; Dumani, S.; Allen, T.D.; Shockley, K.M. A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and social support. Psychol. Bull. 2018, 144, 284–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halbesleben, J.R. Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1134–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, S.; Nieberle, K.W.A.M. Authentic leadership extends beyond work: A multilevel model of work–family conflict and enrichment. Leadersh. Q. 2017, 28, 780–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tett, R.P.; Guterman, H.A. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. J. Res. Personal. 2000, 34, 397–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waismel-Manor, R.; Tziner, A.; Berger, E.; Dikstein, E. Two of a kind? Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: The moderating role of leader–member similarity. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 40, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, B.; Salvaggio, A.M.; Subirats, M. Climate Strength: A new direction for climate research. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hochwarter, W.A.; Witt, L.A.; Treadway, D.C.; Ferris, F.R. The interaction of social skills and organizational support on job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 91, 482–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Confucius Institute Headquarters (Hanban). Confucius Institute Annual Development Report 2018. Available online: http://www.hanban.org/report/2018.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2019).
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matthews, R.A.; Wayne, J.H.; Ford, M.T. A work–family conflict/subjective well-being process model: A test of competing theories of longitudinal effects. J. Appl. Psychol. 2014, 99, 1173–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spector, P.E.; Brannick, M.T. Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organ. Res. Methods 2011, 14, 287–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The Moderator Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistic Considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, J.R.; Lambert, L.S. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol. Methods 2007, 12, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieira, J.M.; Matias, M.; Lopez, F.G.; Matos, P.M. Work–family conflict and enrichment: An exploration of dyadic typologies of work–family balance. J. Vocat. Behav. 2018, 109, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keyko, K.; Cummings, G.G.; Yonge, O.; Wong, C.A. Work engagement in professional nursing practice: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2016, 61, 142–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reis, D.; Hoppe, A.; Schröder, A. Reciprocal relationships between resources, work and study engagement, and mental health: Evidence for gain cycles. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2015, 24, 59–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazarus, R.S. Conservation of resources theory (COR): Little more than words masquerading as a new theory. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 50, 381–391. [Google Scholar]
- Fiksenbaum, L.M. Supportive work–family environments: Implications for work–family conflict and well-being. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 653–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montgomery, A.J.; Peeters, M.C.W.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Den Ouden, M. Work–home interference among newspaper managers: Its relationship with burnout and engagement. Anxiety Stress Coping 2003, 16, 195–211. [Google Scholar]
- Amstad, F.T.; Meier, L.L.; Fasel, U.; Elfering, A.; Semmer, N.K. A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2011, 16, 151–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bulger, C.A.; Matthews, R.A.; Hoffman, M.E. Work and personal life boundary management: Boundary strength, work/personal life balance, and the segmentation-integration continuum. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthews, R.A.; Barnes-Farrell, J.L. Development and initial evaluation of an enhanced measure of boundary flexibility for the work and family domains. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2010, 15, 330–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wayne, S.J.; Lemmon, G.; Hoobler, J.M.; Cheung, G.W.; Wilson, M.S. The ripple effect: A spillover model of the detrimental impact of work–family conflict on job success. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 876–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabel-Shemueli, R.; Westman, M.; Chen, S.; Danae Bahamonde, D. Does cultural intelligence increase work engagement? The role of idiocentrism-allocentrism and organizational culture in MNCs. Cross Cult. Strateg. Manag. 2019, 26, 46–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacNab, B.; Brislin, R.; Worthley, R. Experiential cultural intelligence development: Context and individual attributes. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012, 23, 1320–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelloway, E.K.; Francis, L. Longitudinal research and longitudinal data analysis. In Research Methods in Occupational Health Psychology; Sinclair, R.R., Wang, M., Tetrick, L.E., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 374–394. [Google Scholar]
- Casper, W.J.; Weltman, D.; Kwesiga, E. Beyond family-friendly: The construct and measurement of singles-friendly work culture. J. Vocat. Behav. 2007, 70, 478–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sin, H.P.; Nahrgang, J.D.; Morgeson, F.P. Understanding why they don’t see eye to eye: An examination of leader–member exchange (LMX) agreement. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1048–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eagly, A.H. Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. Am. Psychol. 1983, 38, 971–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Gender | 0.31 | 0.462 | 1 | ||||||||
2. Age | 2.95 | 1.818 | 0.064 | 1 | |||||||
3. Education level | 2.25 | 0.563 | −0.111 | 0.051 * | 1 | ||||||
4. Tenure | 3.16 | 1.302 | 0.072 | −0.012 | 0.002 * | 1 | |||||
5. Country | 0.797 | 0.46 | 0.032 | 0.041 | 0.013 | 0.067 | 1 | ||||
6. CQ | 3.546 | 0.982 | −0.12 | −0.006 | 0.208 * | 0.067 | 0.078 | (0.91) | |||
7. WFC | 3.213 | 0.97 | −0.07 ** | 0.03 ** | 0.114 ** | −0.025 ** | 0.019 | −0.450 ** | (0.83) | ||
8. WE | 3.122 | 0.767 | −0.12 | −0.014 | 0.200 * | 0.058 ** | 0.072 * | 0.337 ** | 0.295 ** | (0.85) | |
9. LMX | 3.658 | 0.598 | −0.107 | 0.011 | 0.208 | 0.11 | 0.092 | 0.225 ** | −0.298 * | 0.312 ** | (0.94) |
Measurement Models | x2 | df | x2/df | CFI | TLI | IFI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline model | 876.528 | 318 | 2.756 | 0.914 | 0.905 | 0.914 | 0.078 |
Unmeasured latent factor model | 728.358 | 298 | 2.444 | 0.921 | 0.909 | 0.922 | 0.072 |
Three-factor model | 1479.501 | 321 | 4.609 | 0.821 | 0.804 | 0.822 | 0.112 |
Two-factor model | 2030.720 | 323 | 6.287 | 0.736 | 0.714 | 0.738 | 0.136 |
One factor model | 2613.072 | 324 | 8.065 | 0.647 | 0.617 | 0.648 | 0.157 |
Variables | Work–Family Conflict | Work Engagement | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | |
Control | ||||||||
Gender | −0.058 * | 0.01 | 0.015 ** | 0.013 * | 0.014 | 0.027 | −0.103 * | −0.002 |
Age | 0.028 | 0.036 | 0.041 | 0.045 * | 0.059 ** | 0.066 ** | −0.018 | −0.007 |
Education level | 0.107 | −0.024 | −0.027 * | −0.02 | −0.006 * | −0.008 * | 0.19 | −0.003 |
Tenure | −0.021 * | −0.071 | −0.067 | −0.061 | −0.022 | −0.019 | 0.066 * | −0.008 |
Country | 0.024 | 0.021 | 0.023 | 0.018 | 0.019 | 0.022 | −0.068 | −0.034 |
Independent variable | ||||||||
CQ | −0.560 *** | −0.434 * | −0.040 | −0.052 | 0.488 *** | |||
Mediator and moderator | ||||||||
WE | 0.506 *** | 0.423 *** | 0.572 *** | 0.541 *** | ||||
LMX | −0.414 *** | −0.308 *** | ||||||
WE x LMX | −0.152 ** | |||||||
R² | 0.022 | 0.410 | 0.472 | 0.486 | 0.552 | 0.567 | 0.056 | 0.392 |
△R2 | 0.022 | 0.388 | 0.450 | 0.076 | 0.530 | 0.015 | 0.056 | 0.336 |
F | 0.883 * | 25.050 *** | 32.073 *** | 28.965 *** | 36.710 *** | 34.574 *** | 3.020 * | 54.737 *** |
△F | 0.883 * | 142.758 *** | 183.985 *** | 20.312 *** | 94.361 *** | 7.619 ** | 3.020 * | 307.318 *** |
Moderator | CQ (X)→WE (M)→WFC (Y) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stage | Effect | ||||
First | Second | Direct | Indirect | Total | |
PMX | PYM | PYX | PYM × PMX | PYX + PYM × PMX | |
Low-level LMX (−1SD) | 0.622 ** | 0.591 ** | 0.352 ** | 0.367 ** | 0.719 ** |
High-level LMX (+1SD) | 0.541 ** | 0.287 ** | 0.366 ** | 0.156 ** | 0.522 ** |
Difference | −0.081 | −0.304 * | 0.014 | −0.211 * | −0.197 ** |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
He, G.; An, R.; Zhang, F. Cultural Intelligence and Work–Family Conflict: A Moderated Mediation Model Based on Conservation of Resources Theory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2406. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132406
He G, An R, Zhang F. Cultural Intelligence and Work–Family Conflict: A Moderated Mediation Model Based on Conservation of Resources Theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(13):2406. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132406
Chicago/Turabian StyleHe, Guohua, Ran An, and Feng Zhang. 2019. "Cultural Intelligence and Work–Family Conflict: A Moderated Mediation Model Based on Conservation of Resources Theory" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 13: 2406. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132406