Core Self‐Evaluations, Work–Family Conflict, and Burnout
| Author | Alain Marchand,Pierre Durand,Steve Harvey,Victor Y. Haines |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12026 |
| Published date | 01 June 2013 |
| Date | 01 June 2013 |
VICTOR Y. HAINES III University of Montreal
STEVE HARVEY Concordia University∗
PIERRE DURAND AND ALAIN MARCHAND University of Montreal∗∗
Core Self-Evaluations, Work – Family Conflict,
and Burnout
This study investigated how core self-
evaluations relate to work – family (and
family – work) conflict and burnout. Drawing
from a sample of 289 police officers and
civilian staff who were either married or
living in a union as common-law partners,
this study advances an empirical integration
of work – family and core self-evaluations
research. The results suggested that even when
work, nonwork, and demographic variables are
controlled for, positive core self-evaluations
(i.e., composite scale, self-esteem, locus of
control, emotional stability) are related to less
work – family (and family – work) conflict. The
associations between core self-evaluations and
burnout are partially mediated by work –family
(and family – work) conflict. Finally, core
self-evaluations moderated the association
between work –family conflict and burnout, but
School of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal, P.O.
Box 6128, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7,
Canada (victor.haines@umontreal.ca).
∗John Molson School of Business, 1455 De Maisonneuve
Blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada.
∗∗School of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal,
P.O. Box 6128, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec
H3C 3J7, Canada.
This article was edited by Deborah S. Carr.
Key Words: mental health, occupational stress, self-concept,
spillover, work – family balance.
not the one between family – work conflict and
burnout.
Work –family conflict, or interference, is a spe-
cific form of role conflict in which the pressures
from work and family roles are mutually incom-
patible to some extent so that meeting demands
in one domain makes it difficult to meet demands
in the other (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). In
the occupational stress literature, work – family
conflict is considered a role stressor with
detrimental health consequences (e.g., Bellavia
& Frone, 2005; Haines, Marchand, Rousseau, &
Demers, 2008), and the correlates or antecedents
of this stressor are many because they relate to
work, nonwork, and individual factors. Although
much research has oriented our understanding
of such factors, few studies have considered the
role of personality or individual differences in
work –f amilymodels of conflict and strain (e.g.,
Boyar & Mosley, 2007; Bruck & Allen, 2003;
Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris, & M¨
akikangas,
2003; Michel, Clark, & Jaramillo, 2011). In a
meta-analytic review of work – family conflict
and its antecedents, Byron (2005) observed that
few studies include individual variables such as
personality (p. 193). More recently, Allen et al.
(2012) remarked that work – family models
have focused more on situational than on
dispositional variables. Friede and Ryan (2005)
and others (Michel & Clark, 2009) have pointed
to the need to pay more attention to personality
778 Journal of Marriage and Family 75 (June 2013): 778 –793
DOI:10.1111/jomf.12026
Core Self-Evaluations, Work – Family Conflict 779
in work – family research. Such a focus on
personality is especially important to the extent
that individuals exercise some control or agency
over boundary permeability and work – family
integration (Ilies, Wilson, & Wagner, 2009;
Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2005) and thereby
play an active role in balancing their work
and family commitments. This agentic view
suggests that work – family conflict might not
be determined by structural or situational factors
alone and that personality may have a greater
bearing than what is reflected in the literature.
Making core self-evaluations the focal point
of this study offered us the opportunity to
benefit from the integration of theoretical
frameworks that have so far independently
guided work –family and personality research.
Core self-evaluations reflect a broad latent
construct of growing significance in personality
research. They ‘‘are fundamental bottom-line
evaluations that people make of themselves’’
(Judge, 2009, p. 58). Self-esteem, locus of
control, and emotional stability are dispositional
traits that are reflections of this contemporary
construct (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, &
Scott, 2009). Although some of the specific
components or constituent traits of core self-
evaluations are associated with work – family
conflict (Allen et al., 2012; Michel et al., 2011;
Michel, Mitchelson, Pichler, & Cullen, 2010),
few studies have comprehensively investigated
how core self-evaluations relate in different
ways to work – family (and family– work)
conflict and burnout, a syndrome of exhaustion,
cynicism, and lack of professional efficacy
(Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). This
is viewed as a shortcoming to the extent
that advances in theorizing about core self-
evaluations (Kammeyer-Mueller et al.) may
prove useful to the study of work – family con-
flict. Friede and Ryan (2005) already advanced
a theoretical integration of these streams of
research, but never, to our knowledge, has an
empirical integration been achieved.
The overarching goal of this study was
therefore to achieve an empirical integra-
tion of work – family and core self-evaluations
research. By doing this, we extend current
work – family models, not only by adding a
personality construct but also by testing com-
peting explanatory mechanisms with a sam-
ple of police officers and civilian staff. From
the perspective of differential exposure, we
first assessed whether core self-evaluations
add incremental variance over and above
work, nonwork, and individual correlates of
work – family (and family – work) conflict. Core
self-evaluations are more than an appraisal of
self-worth because they also reflect beliefs in
one’s effectiveness, capabilities, and compe-
tence. Because this sense of self-worth and com-
petence is thought to create a differential expo-
sure to stressors, positive core self-evaluations
are expected to be associated with less
work – family (and family – work) conflict and
thereby offer a statistical improvement in predic-
tion (i.e., incremental validity), in general and for
men and women. The second explanatory mech-
anism that again derives from the differential-
exposure perspective predicts that core self-
evaluations will be more intricately involved
in a mediation model, one that is supported by
a transactional theory of work stress (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Finally, from the perspective
of differential reactivity, it is expected that core
self-evaluations moderate the stressor – strain
relationship (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2009),
that is, the association between work – family
(and family –work) conflict and burnout.
In each of the competing models, sex, age, and
occupation were included as control variables.
Given that women and men may experience
work – family tensions and burnout in different
ways, it is important to control for sex. We
also included age as a control variable, because
work – family concerns change from early adult-
hood to later years. Finally, because the sample
used in this study includes both sworn police
officers (n=203) and civilian staff (n=86), we
controlled for occupation on the basis of these
two broad categories. This was deemed impor-
tant because some occupations are more stressful
than others, and police officers are regularly
exposed to emergencies and disasters (Paton,
2006). A considerable body of research further
suggests that there are a variety of individual,
job, departmental, and community factors that
simultaneously influence the stressors and strain
experienced by police officers (e.g., Brough,
2004; Morash, Haarr, & Kwak, 2006).
Finally, although it would seem that
women and men experience similar levels
of work – family (and family – work) conflict
(Byron, 2005), work –family models, including
predictors and outcomes, may behave quite
differently for women and men (Hinze, 2000;
Mennino & Brayfield, 2002). Consequently,
for the hypotheses that relate to either the
To continue reading
Request your trial