Workplace Relationships
Supportive relationships in the workplace are criticalsocialresources indealingwithWLissues (Krouse & Afifi, 2007; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesveran, 2005). We discuss how relationships with supervisors and coworkers can both facilitate and buffer WLC.
Supervisory Relationships. Research indicates that supervisors are a major determinant in subordinates’ ability to balance work and life roles (e.g., Allen, 2001; Kirby, 2000). Workers with “life”-supportive supervisors (a) make greater use of flexible hours and family leave (Breaugh & Frye, 2008), (b) have increased job satisfaction and decreased WLC (Breaugh & Frye, 2008; O’Driscoll et al., 2003), and (c) have increased career and overall life satisfaction (Karatepe & Uludag, 2008). Supervisors who are aware of their workers’ “life” situations and are flexible in accommodating these issues are one of the most powerful predictors of employee well-being and diminished WLC (Lauzun, Morganson, Major, & Green, 2010).
Breaugh and Frye (2008) assert that informal actions of supervisors have greater influence on employee WLC than formal practices, and research has demonstrated that WL policies are ineffective if employees perceive that supervisors do not support them (Lauzun et al., 2010). Kirby (2000) notes that supervisors can (intentionally or not) send mixed messages about work and life and WL policy use (e.g., emphasizing deadlines but then encouraging time with family) that create employee uncertainty. Perhaps based on such uncertainty, Hoffman and Cowan (2010) illustrate how employees have multiple “rules” governing requests for WL accommodations, including (a) what types of requests to make (e.g., family requests are easiest to make) and (b) how to ask for accommodations (e.g., emphasize organizational interests).
In light of their impact on WLC, several scholars suggest training programs for supervisors (e.g., Buzzanell & Liu, 2007).
While Ryan and Kossek (2008) identify “supervisor support for policy use” and “the degree of negotiation with supervisors before one can use the policies” as attributes of an inclusive organizational culture, in a survey of 1,100 employers, Galinsky et al. (2008) note that (only) 50% train supervisors to respond to employees’ WL needs. In their white paper outlining ways by which supervisors can be more supportive of WL issues, Rivera and Tracy (2009) offer six concrete suggestions: (1) make changes (themselves) at home, (2) lead by example (role modeling), (3) do not let parental leave turn into an “off-ramp” from paid work, (4) put policy onto paper, (5) create a strong culture of WL harmony, and (6) have the courage to embrace new ideas.Coworker Relationships. When organizational norms surrounding WL issues are unclear, individuals often go to colleagues to negotiate boundaries (Nippert-Eng, 1996). Talking with coworkers about family and personal life leads to greater work satisfaction and higher work functioning as well as higher satisfaction with family activities (Clark, 2002). Social support at work is negatively correlated with anxiety and depression (Barnett & Hyde, 2001), and a positive correlation exists between team collaboration and the ability to balance work and life (Bhave, Kramer, & Glomb, 2010). Research shows that emotional support from coworkers affects overall emotional exhaustion. Venting with coworkers is seen as a catharsis, and employees seek affirmation, assurance, advice, and instrumental support from coworkers (Krouse & Afifi, 2007). The mentoring relationship (which could be supervisory but often is a colleague) is also central to buffering WLC (Nielson, Carlson, & Lankau, 2001). Furthermore, having a close friend at work can help an employee deal with work issues at work and not have to revisit the “work world” at home (McBride & Bergen,
2011).
Yet while coworkers can positively affect WLC and offer support, they can also discourage each other from taking advantage of WL policies.
Coworkers may fear having to take on more work as a result of individuals taking advantage of policies such as family leave and consequently might feel resentment and communicate negatively about WL policies and how they create an unfair burden (Kirby & Krone, 2002). There are emerging issues of equity where individuals without families feel burdened by policies because of the increased workloads they are facing (e.g., Burkett, 2000; Hayden, 2010). Kirby and Krone (2002) explain how employees frequently communicated a perception that WL policies granted preferential treatment based on whether the employee (a) had children or not, (b) was male or female, and (c) had a part-time or full-time status. The single employees then “talked about ‘banding together’ to share their perceptions of inequity, which translated to feelings of resentment” (p. 63), and this fostered an environment where coworkers created an (unwritten) rule of determining “use versus abuse” of WL benefits that contributed to a system of peer pressure where many individuals felt pressured not to utilize their available benefits.There are gendered implications to these processes. For men, taking advantage of WL policies to reduce WLC challenges traditional notions of masculinity and work commitment (Drago, 2007). And while women may desire to communicate with coworkers about WLC, they will often “edit out” family involvements in conversations so as not to invite questions of commitment and professionalism (Jorgenson, 2000). In sum, workplace relationships with supervisors and coworkers can buffer and contribute to WLC.