The development of the MACE work-family enrichment instrument

Page 1 of 16 Original Research The development of the MACE work-family enrichment instrument Authors: Marissa de Klerk1 Jan Alewyn Nel1 Carin Hill2 Eileen Koekemoer1 Affiliations: 1 School of Human Resource Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University of Johannesburg, South Africa 2 Correspondence to: Eileen Koekemoer Email: Postal address: Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa Dates: Received: 06 May 2013 Accepted: 01 Oct. 2013 Published: 20 Nov. 2013 How to cite this article: De Klerk, M., Nel, J.A., Hill, C., & Koekemoer, E. (2013). The development of the MACE work-family enrichment instrument. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 39(2), Art. #1147, 16 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ sajip.v39i2.1147 Note: This article was developed for degree purposes when Marissa de Klerk was an enrolled PhD-candidate at North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa. Copyright: © 2013. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS OpenJournals. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License. Read online: Scan this QR code with your smart phone or mobile device to read online. Orientation: An instrument based on a theoretical model is necessary to measure the positive side of the work-family interface. Research purpose: To develop items for measurement of work-family enrichment based on the elements contained within a theoretical model and to evaluate the latent trait functioning of these items. Motivation for the study: Major limitations exist regarding the conceptualisation and scale development of the positive side of the work-family interface. Research design, approach, and method: A quantitative research approach using scale development procedures was employed to develop the 95-item instrument. A cross-sectional survey design was used to collect data randomly from selected employees; data were processed using Rasch analysis. Main findings: The five-category scale works well for the most part, although a four-category scale could be considered. Thirty-five items either over-fitted or under-fitted the workfamily enrichment model. Person ability was measured in the low to middle ranges of workfamily enrichment. Participants’ experience of work-family enrichment could be represented accurately. Sub-scale items displayed misfit, bias or both. Practical/managerial implications: The developed instrument can be investigated further to identify work-family enrichment factors that can measure workers’ experience of enrichment in their work and family domains. Contribution/value-add: This study furthers theory building and empirical research in industrial psychology, by developing a new theory-based measuring instrument for the positive side of the work-family interface in the South African context. This study expanded on the model proposed by Greenhaus and Powell, by including all five categories of resources gains. Furthermore, the total of the resources was diversified, since some of the content of these resources encompasses multiple meanings. Introduction Background to the study Due to the increase of women in the workforce, dual-career couples, single-parent households and fathers who are actively involved in parenting, employees may find it difficult to combine their work and family obligations (Paoli, 1997; Polach, 2003; Schreuder & Theron, 2001). Employees can experience a certain degree of conflict between the two domains (i.e. work and family). In the past few decades, research on work-family interaction focused almost exclusively on the negative impact of work on the family situation (i.e. work-family conflict). There is a growing awareness that work and family roles may have beneficial and reciprocal effects on one another and that focusing heavily on the negative side has left a gap in our understanding of the work-family interface (Grzywacz, 2000; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002; Rothbard, 2001; Voydanoff, 2002). Therefore, it seems necessary to investigate the positive side of the work-family interface. The work-family enrichment model offers the broadest conceptualisation of the positive side of the work-family interface (McNall, Nicklin & Masuda, 2010). The model was developed by Greenhaus and Powell in 2006 (see Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) and is bidirectional in nature (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011). This means that it measures to what extent certain resources gained from an individual’s work life can improve that person’s family life, as well as to what extent resources gained from family life improve the work life in turn. The model consists of two main components that outline the theoretical framework of work-family enrichment: (1) the resources generated in work and family roles and (2) the paths that promote work-family enrichment in each role (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). http://www.sajip.co.za doi:10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1147 Page 2 of 16 A resource can be described as: ‘an asset that may be drawn on when needed to solve a problem or cope with a challenging situation’ (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006, p. 80). Greenhaus and Powell (2006) identified five types of resources to promote enrichment: (1) skills and perspectives, referring to cognition, interpersonal and multi-tasking skills and ways of defining problems or situations, (2) psychological and physical resources, referring to self-esteem, optimism, physical health, (3) social-capital resources, referring to influence and information derived from interpersonal relationships in work and family roles, (4) flexibility, referring to discretion in the timing, pace and location at which role requirements are met, and (5) material resources, referring to money and gifts derived from the work or family domains. These resources may have an instrumental or affective effect on a person’s work and family life. Resources generated in Role A can promote a high performance and positive affect (or positive emotions and attitude) in Role B (Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne & Grzywacz, 2006; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Firstly, a resource (skills and perspectives, psychological and physical, socio-capital, flexibility and material) can be transferred directly from Role A to Role B, thereby enhancing performance in Role B (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). This process is referred to as the instrumental path, because the application of a resource has a direct instrumental effect on performance in another role (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Furthermore, a resource generated in Role A can promote positive affect (or positive emotions and attitude) within Role A, which, in turn, produces high performance and positive affect in Role B. This process is referred to as the affective path (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Empirical evidence supports the existence of these two paths through which resources are transferred in both directions: both the direct instrumental path (Hunter, Perry, Carlson & Smith, 2010 (...truncated)