Top Executives? Work Relationship and Work-Family Balance: Taxonomy Development and Performance ImplicationsTaxonomy Development and Performance ... Development and Performance Implic

Eva-Maria Bauer Top Executives’ Work Relationship and Work-Family Balance

GABLER RESEARCH Neue Perspektiven der marktorientierten Unternehmensführung Herausgegeben von Professor Dr. Ruth Stock-Homburg, Technische Universität Darmstadt Professor Dr. Jan Wieseke, Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Eva-Maria Bauer

Top Executives’ Work Relationship and Work-Family Balance Taxonomy Development and Performance Implications With a foreword by Prof. Dr. Ruth Stock-Homburg

RESEARCH

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Dissertation Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2009 D 17

1st Edition 2009 All rights reserved © Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2009 Editorial Office: Claudia Jeske | Britta Göhrisch-Radmacher Gabler is part of the specialist publishing group Springer Science+Business Media. www.gabler.de No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Registered and/or industrial names, trade names, trade descriptions etc. cited in this publication are part of the law for trade-mark protection and may not be used free in any form or by any means even if this is not specifically marked. Umschlaggestaltung: KünkelLopka Medienentwicklung, Heidelberg Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-8349-2030-0

V



Series Foreword Current developments like rapidly changing customers’ requirements, shortened product life cycles, increasing globalization, and demographic change associated with skilled worker and manager shortage present organizations with completely new challenges. The successful handling of these challenges requires the development of new business management concepts. These concepts should consider the following points: •

the increase of the companies’ market and innovation orientation (e.g., by the adaptation of the organizational structure respectively the promotion of the employees’ innovation and customer orientation),

•

the implementation of new working principles (e.g., customer-oriented and virtual global teams),

•

the long-range maintenance of managers’ and employees’ employability (e.g., by the setup and expansion of intercultural competences as well as targeted steps towards the promotion of the work-life balance), right up to

•

the preservation and expansion of human resources (e.g., by personal marketing activities such as targeted steps towards the advancement of elder and female employees as organizational potential).

The variety of possible starting points shows: a scientific consideration from the viewpoint of a single economic discipline meets these various challenges only to some extent. The series “Neue Perspektiven der marktorientierten Unternehmensführung” is dedicated to successful concepts of managing current and future developments in organizations’ practical experiences and presents an interdisciplinary perspective. This interdisciplinary approach is accounted for by a parallel illumination of different economic disciplines (i.e., marketing, innovation management, and human resource management). Additionally, the interface of different facets of business economics and psychology (i.e., work and organizational psychology) is of particular importance. The dissertations being published in the series “Neue Perspektiven der marktorientierten Unternehmensführung” orient themselves content wise and conceptually towards international

VI

Series Foreword



scientific standards. Starting from a stringent theoretical foundation the respective research topic is qualitatively and quantitatively investigated. The present titles deal with central questions in market-oriented business management. Thereby the single volumes provide scientists with new insights and suggestions for their research in that they approach the topics in different ways. For organizations’ practical experiences the different dissertations offer implications for dealing with current and future challenges of the market-oriented business management.

Darmstadt and Bochum, January 2009

Ruth-Stock Homburg and Jan Wieseke

VII



Foreword The importance of top executives for the success of their organizations is virtually undisputed for approximately three decades. For this reason, in the last years scientific papers in the area of management and market-oriented business management increasingly dealt with answering the question on what top executives’ success depends. Within the scope of market-oriented business management mainly underlying circumstances (e.g, intensity of competition and market dynamics) as well as executives’ demographic characteristics (e.g., age and tenure) were investigated. Thereby influencing variables on the level of attitudes and behaviors remained almost unregarded. Mrs. Eva-Maria Bauer closes this gap and pursues with her work the goal to provide a deeper understanding of top executives’ psychology in order to explain organizations’ success. In her work the author captures a rather broad management perspective. Although market-related magnitudes are considered in this work, it nevertheless is also relevant for research in the area of market-oriented business management. Together with psychological variables the author considers two phenomena which are deepened in her work: •

top executives’ relationship to their occupation in a specific organization (called top executives’ work relationship) as well as

•

the balance top executives perceive between their work and family life (called top executives’ work-family balance).

This work has as its goal to both theoretically and empirically investigate these two phenomena. Thus, it decisively contributes to the extension of the scientific state of knowledge in these areas. Former empirical works primarily carried out dependence analysis regarding top executives’ relevance for organizations’ success. In contrast, the author chooses a classification approach. For both investigated areas – top executives’ work relationship and top executives’ work-family balance – the author selects theoretically stringent and well-founded central variables in order to describe the respective phenomenon. The existent empirical literature multiplicatively proved differences between the occupations of diverse hierarchical levels. The present work explicitly highlights the differences within a population which is frequently implicitly categorized as relatively homogenous: the top executives in organizations. At the beginning of her work, the author develops a systematic procedure for the development of a theoretically-based taxonomy. By means of this approach, she extends previous taxo-

VIII

Foreword



nomic research, which often starts with an empirical part without in advance specifying extensive theoretical bases. Additionally, the author recommends an explorative qualitative study prior to a quantitative empirical taxonomy development in order to better permeate little-known and equally complex phenomena. In my opinion, the process of taxonomy development elaborated in this work should be trend-setting for future works which underlie classifications. Corresponding to this process, the author initially conducts a qualitative study and interviews over 40 top executives about facets of their work relationship as well as characteristics of their work-family balance. The interviews are analyzed by means of a very sophisticated procedure of content analysis which is established in the leading international management research. In the second step, the author successfully surveys around 220 top executives regarding their work relationship and work-family balance. This relatively large sample is remarkable because top executives are an extremely difficultly accessible target group in the context of empirical studies. The author nevertheless manages to generate this sample by means of a very sophisticated procedure, in which she offers the top executives an individualized profound report of the results in respect to their personal work-life balance. Beyond that, in addition to the investigation of top executives, the self assessments of their life partners are also gathered. With her multi-methodological design as well as the dyadic quantitative study the author succeeds in generating a data basis, which to my knowledge, in this form, exists neither in national nor in international top management research. On the basis of a comprehensive data set, the author develops two taxonomies concerning top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. Beyond that, she shows that top executives highly differ concerning their work relationship and their work-family balance. The results regarding the investigated variables related to these phenomena are interesting. On the basis of variance analysis the author shows that the top executives clearly differentiate in respect to their well-being and performance. Against the background of the frequently conducted debate on top executives’ relevance for the success of their organizations, the results of this work are not only novel but also highly relevant for the economic management research. The present work essentially extends the scientific state of knowledge involving two highly interesting phenomena – top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. In addition, for organizations’ practical experiences interesting insights are generated. A broad diffusion in science and business practice is desirous for this thesis.

Darmstadt, July 2009

Ruth Stock-Homburg

IX



Acknowledgements First of all, I must thank Prof. Ruth Stock-Homburg, Ph.D., for her many ideas and enormous engagement in supervising me in my years as doctoral student, during which I have learned valuable skills for life. Additionally, I thank Prof. Ralph Bruder, Ph.D., who accepted the cocorrection of this thesis. I am very grateful to the Darmstadt Technical University for the scholarship, which enabled me to dedicate so much time to my research. Furthermore, I thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for sponsoring this research project (grant number STO 477/9-1). Particular thanks go to the executives and their life partners, who participated in my study. With your openness and time you enabled the gathering of the data on which this thesis is based. Additionally, I am indebted to Tilo Guter, who transcribed the interviews and typed and re-typed the hundreds of pages that ultimately were distilled into this work. I would like to deeply thank my dear colleagues Gisela Bieling, Julia Pescher, and Nadine Ringwald. Without your willingness to help, suggestions, and support, this PhD thesis would not have been written. Furthermore, thanks a lot for the hours you spent copy reading and checking. Many thanks to Heather Lüft for proofreading my English! I cordially thank my brother for sharing his experience with me and for all the articles he has sent to me. Additionally, I sincerely thank our Dad for spending so much time in the last corrections of this thesis. Thanks a million to Grandma Waltraud and Grandma Barbara, who tenderly cared for Jakob, while I have spent hour after hour writing this thesis. Most of all I thank my family, Mathias and Jakob. For everything. I love you so much!

Ludwigsburg, August 2009

Eva-Maria Bauer

XI



Table of Contents 1

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.1.1

Managerial Relevance ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1.2

Scientific Relevance ........................................................................................................ 3

1.2

2

Major Goals and Structure of the Thesis................................................................................. 6

Conceptual Background................................................................................................... 9 2.1

Procedure of Taxonomy Development.................................................................................... 9

2.2

Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 12

2.2.1

Research on Top Executives ......................................................................................... 13

2.2.2

Research on Work Relationship .................................................................................... 23

2.2.3

Research on Work-Family Balance............................................................................... 32

2.2.4

Specification of Investigated Phenomena...................................................................... 46

2.3 2.3.1

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Taxonomy ....................... 50 The Job Demands-Resources Model ............................................................................. 50

2.3.2

Upper Echelons Theory................................................................................................. 55

2.3.3

Theoretical Conclusion for the Understanding of Top Executives’ Work Relationship59

2.4 2.4.1

3

Relevance of the Thesis........................................................................................................... 1

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Taxonomy.................. 61 Role Theory................................................................................................................... 61

2.4.2

Mechanisms of Work-Family Linkage.......................................................................... 65

2.4.3

Theoretical Conclusion for the Understanding of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance........................................................................................................................ 67

Basics of the Empirical Studies...................................................................................... 71 3.1

Qualitative Study................................................................................................................... 71

3.1.1

Data Collection and Sample .......................................................................................... 71

3.1.2

Process of Qualitative Content Analysis ....................................................................... 73

3.2

Quantitative Study................................................................................................................. 74

3.2.1

Data Collection and Sample .......................................................................................... 74

3.2.2

Process of Scale Validation........................................................................................... 78

XII

Table of Contents



4

3.2.3

Process of Cluster Analysis ........................................................................................... 81

3.2.4

Process of Analysis of Variance.................................................................................... 84

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship .................................................. 87 4.1

Preliminary Conceptual Framework of Top Executives’ Work Relationship....................... 87

4.2

Qualitative Results Regarding Top Executives’ Work Relationship .................................... 89

4.3

Final Empirically Grounded Framework of Top Executives’ Work Relationship................ 97

4.3.1

Job-Related Demands.................................................................................................... 98

4.3.2

Job-Related Resources .................................................................................................. 98

4.3.3

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work Relationship............................................ 99

4.3.3.1

Well-Being and Satisfaction.................................................................................. 99

4.3.3.2

Top Executive Performance ................................................................................ 100

4.3.3.3

Organizational Performance................................................................................ 100

4.4

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work Relationship ........................................................ 101

4.4.1

Measures of Active Cluster Variables Constituting Top Executives’ Work Relationship............................................................................................................... 102

4.4.1.1

Top Executives’ Job-Related Demands............................................................... 102

4.4.1.2 4.4.2

Top Executives’ Job-Related Resources ............................................................. 103 Measures of Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work Relationship ..................... 106

4.4.2.1 4.4.2.1.1

Well-Being and Satisfaction............................................................................. 106

4.4.2.1.2

Top Executive Performance ............................................................................. 108

4.4.2.2

5

Executive-Related Variables ............................................................................... 106

Organizational Performance................................................................................ 109

4.5

Interpretation of Cluster Solutions ...................................................................................... 112

4.6

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Types....................................... 119

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance........................................... 129 5.1

Preliminary Conceptual Framework of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance ............... 129

5.2

Qualitative Results Regarding Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance ............................. 130

5.3

Final Empirically Grounded Framework of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance ........ 136

5.3.1

Top Executives’ Satisfaction....................................................................................... 137

5.3.2

Top Executives’ Functioning ...................................................................................... 137

5.3.3

Top Executives’ Work-Family Conflict ...................................................................... 139

5.3.4

Related variables of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance ..................................... 139

5.3.4.1

Individual Variables ............................................................................................ 139

Table of Contents

XIII

 5.3.4.2

Work-Related Variables ...................................................................................... 140

5.3.4.3

Family-Related Variables.................................................................................... 140

5.4

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance ................................................... 140

5.4.1

Measures of Active Cluster Variables Constituting Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance...................................................................................................................... 140

5.4.1.1

Top Executives’ Satisfaction............................................................................... 141

5.4.1.2

Top Executives’ Functioning .............................................................................. 141

5.4.1.3 5.4.2

6

Top Executives’ Work-Family Conflict .............................................................. 142 Measures of Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance................ 143

5.4.2.1

Individual Variables ............................................................................................ 143

5.4.2.2

Work-Related Variables ...................................................................................... 144

5.4.2.3

Family-Related Variables.................................................................................... 145

5.5

Interpretation of Cluster Solution........................................................................................ 146

5.6

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Types.................................. 154

Discussion....................................................................................................................... 161 6.1

Contribution of the Thesis................................................................................................... 161

6.1.1

Content-Related Contribution ..................................................................................... 161

6.1.2

Conceptual Contribution ............................................................................................. 164

6.1.3

Methodological Contribution ...................................................................................... 166

6.1.4 6.2

Implications for Business Practice .............................................................................. 167 Limitations and Future Research......................................................................................... 169

References .............................................................................................................................. 173 Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 197

XV



List of Figures Figure 1-1: Course of the thesis ................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2-1: Procedure of taxonomy development (Stock-Homburg/Bauer 2009)................... 10 Figure 2-2: Focuses of top executive research ......................................................................... 14 Figure 2-3: Major areas of research on work relationship ....................................................... 24 Figure 2-4: Major areas of research on work-family issues..................................................... 34 Figure 2-5: Facets of top executives’ work relationship .......................................................... 59 Figure 3-1: Cluster methods used in this thesis........................................................................ 84 Figure 4-1: Preliminary conceptual framework of top executives’ work relationship ............ 88 Figure 4-2: Final empirically grounded framework of top executives’ work relationship ...... 97 Figure 4-3: Top executives’ work relationship types (expanded according to Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) ................................................................................................. 115 Figure 4-4: Plot of mean scores for underlying job-related demands and resources of the four clusters .......................................................................................................... 116 Figure 5-1: Preliminary conceptual framework of top executives’ work-family balance ..... 129 Figure 5-2: Final empirically grounded framework of top executives’ work-family balance137 Figure 5-3: Plot of mean scores for underlying variables of the five clusters ....................... 149

XVII

List of Tables Table 2-1: Selected studies on top executives.......................................................................... 15 Table 2-2: Studies on job-related demands and resources ....................................................... 26 Table 2-3: Studies on work-family issues ................................................................................ 35 Table 2-4: Overview of the job demands-resources model by Demerouti et al. (2001) .......... 54 Table 2-5: Overview of upper echelons theory by Hambrick and Mason (1984).................... 58 Table 2-6: Overview of job-demands resources model and upper echelons theory ................ 60 Table 2-7: Overview of role theory by Katz and Kahn (1978) ................................................ 64 Table 2-8: Overview of mechanisms of work-family linkage among others by Near (1984) . 67 Table 2-9: Overview of role theory and mechanisms of work-family linkage ........................ 69 Table 3-1: Criteria of scale validation...................................................................................... 81 Table 4-1: Examples for top executives’ statements and corresponding field notes ............... 89 Table 4-2: Frequency of assigned codings............................................................................... 92 Table 4-3: Scale names, coefficient alpha, and composite reliability of active cluster variables ............................................................................................................... 105 Table 4-4: Descriptive statistics, and intercorrelations among active cluster variables......... 105 Table 4-5: Scale names, coefficient alpha, and composite reliability of related variables .... 110 Table 4-6: Descriptive statistics, and intercorrelations among related variables................... 111 Table 4-7: Results of testing between subjects effects of active cluster variables................. 113 Table 4-8: Statistical cluster description ................................................................................ 114 Table 4-9: Results of testing between subjects effects of related variables ........................... 121 Table 4-10: Related variables of cluster membership............................................................ 122 Table 5-1: Examples for top executives’ statements and corresponding field notes ............. 131 Table 5-2: Frequency of assigned codings............................................................................. 133 Table 5-3: Scale names, coefficient alpha, and composite reliability of active cluster variables ............................................................................................................... 142 Table 5-4: Descriptive statistics, and intercorrelations among active cluster variables......... 143 Table 5-5: Scale names, coefficient alpha, and composite reliability of related related variables ............................................................................................................... 146 Table 5-6: Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among related variables.................... 146 Table 5-7: Results of testing between subjects effects of active cluster variables................. 147

XVIII

List of Tables

Table 5-8: Statistical cluster description ................................................................................ 148 Table 5-9: Results of testing between subjects effects of active cluster variables................. 155 Table 5-10: Related variables of cluster membership............................................................ 156 Table 6-1: Scales scored only by top executives (alphabetical order): Scale items with corresponding item-to-total correlations and factor loadings .............................. 197 Table 6-2: Scales scored only by life partners (alphabetical order): Scale items with corresponding item-to-total correlations and factor loadings .............................. 200 Table 6-3: Scales scored by top executives as well as life partners (alphabetical order): Scale items with corresponding item-to-total correlations and factor loadings ... 201

XIX

List of Abbreviations



Coefficient alpha

ANCOVA

Analysis of variance

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

AVE

Average variance extracted

CEO

Chief executive officer

CFO

Chief financial officer

CR

Composite reliability

df

Degrees of freedom

EBIT

Earnings before interest and taxes

Ed.

Editor

F

Test statistic of Duncan’s multiple-range test

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

MANCOVA Multivariate analysis of covariance MANOVA

Multivariate analysis of variance

s. d.

Standard deviation

t

Test statistic of t-test

p

Significance level

r

Correlation coefficient

R2

Coefficient of determination

2

Test statistic of chi-square test

1



1 1.1

Introduction Relevance of the Thesis

1.1.1 Managerial Relevance Top executives today are confronted with extremely high demands at their workplace. Their major challenges are increasing competitive pressures in a globalized world and the downsizing and restructuring of organizations in order to better survive in the severely competitive market (e.g., Beynon et al. 2002; Uchitelle/Kleinfield 1996). In these turbulent environments which undergo rapid change, “speed, flexibility, rapid environmental adaptation, and high risk set the tone” (Delbecq/Friedlander 1995, p. 262). This “rapidly changing marketplace means intense pressures on managers to come up with new products, innovative services and novel marketing and financing schemes” (Lassiter 2004, p. 1). Additionally, due to technological progress, work is now very portable. This enables top executives to always answer emails or telephone calls and to accomplish the rest of what did not get done during office hours either in the evening or on weekends (Lassiter 2004). Accordingly, information overload and the pressure to always be available is the second most common source of managerial stress after time pressure (F.A.Z.-Institut 2009). Especially top executives suffer from the demands of modern communication (F.A.Z.-Institut 2009). As their extreme job involvement interferes with fulfilling both work and family roles (e.g., Batt/Valcour 2003; Olson/Manocchio 1991), this situation highly strains top executives’ family relationships (e.g., Shaffer/Harrison 1998). Furthermore, top executives “are often struggling with several complicated personal and organizational issues” at one time (Kets de Vries/Korotov 2007, p. 376). For example, “managing people is the most difficult administrative task and is an unending source of stress for executives” (Lassiter 2004, p. 1). These high challenges lead to an increased trend toward work intensification (e.g., Allan/O'Donnell/Peetz 1999), especially on the top executive level. Consequently, top executives have to invest an enormous amount of time and energy in the fulfillment of their jobs (e.g., Batt/Valcour 2003; Olson/Manocchio 1991). While some top executives are very adept in handling the pressures that leadership causes, others just can not manage them (Kets de Vries 1989). As a result of the high challenges they face and their extremely high job involvement, some top executives risk derailing soon after

2

Introduction



having reached the top (Kets de Vries 1989). Thus, they are afraid to fail and live in fear of being replaced at any moment (Kets de Vries 2006). In fact, companies are known to focus on firing underperforming CEOs (Lucier/Schuyt/Handa 2004). The CEOs’ uncertain job situation is aggravated by the tendency of such top executives to indulge “in conspicuously selfdestructive behavior, such as public affairs with numerous women”, substance abuse on the job or the inability to delegate (Kets de Vries 2006, p. 110). Such self-destructive behaviors are known to be negatively related to top executives’ performance (Kets de Vries 1989; Kets de Vries 1994). Another reaction of top executives to overwhelming demands is the engagement in irrational behavior (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a; Kets de Vries 1994). In doing so, they rely “on preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs” (Finkelstein 2003, p. 153). An example of this irrational behavior is the adherence of Motorola to analogue phones in the 1990s while customers demanded and competitors supplied them with digital cell phones (Finkelstein 2003). The former Motorola CEO Gary Tooker states that “some of the leadership in the business at that time was focused too much on the short-term profits and they weren’t spending enough for the future” (Finkelstein 2003, p. 156). This irrational executive behavior is often accompanied by “hundreds of millions or billions in losses” for the companies these top executives are leading (Finkelstein 2003, p. 153). Besides this threat to companies’ success, many top executives themselves suffer severely from their demanding work life and react to it with feelings of stress and exhaustion. Ten percent of German managers always feel stressed, and 26 percent of them often feel stressed (F.A.Z.-Institut 2009). On the top executive level stress is even more wide-spread. For example, over 98 percent of health care CEOs feel stressed (Ganster 2005). Overall, one out of three employed persons in Germany suffer from exhaustion and burnout (F.A.Z.-Institut 2009). As a result, in the last year German companies were affected by the absenteeism of 40,000 professionals who were on sick leave on nearly ten million days because of burnout symptoms (F.A.Z.-Institut 2009). This burnout-related sickness increased about 17 percent in the last five years (Techniker Krankenkasse 2009). Especially highly stressed top executives are vulnerable to the development of severe health problems and burnout (Lassiter 2004). “Burnout occurs when managers are deluged with sets of competing demands. Not only is work intense, but there are also demands to participate in family life, keep up with friends, and complete normal chores of everyday living. […] They feel overwhelmed and retreat” (Lassiter 2004, p. 1). This withdrawal is often accompanied by a decline in performance. Accordingly, 69 percent of health care CEOs report that their work-related stress negatively affects their productivity (Ganster 2005). Some top executives can not cope with their enormous work-related challenges and the result of their excessive demands is fatal (Kets de Vries 1999). For example, Adolf Merckle, owner

Relevance of the Thesis

3



of several global companies like Ratiopharm and HeidelbergCement, committed suicide at the beginning of this year (Kaiser/Tuma 2009). He apparently could no longer bear the enormous challenges and awkward situation of his business empire, which began to totter in the financial crisis. These high work-related pressures are aggravated by the fact that the top executive’s position is often accompanied by social isolation and a loss of emotional support (Kets de Vries 1992). This “kind of isolation seems all too common among people who head organizations” (Kets de Vries 1989; Kets de Vries 1994). As a result of the important position of top executives in their organizations, a decline in their performance or their sudden absence is especially harmful to the success of their organizations (e.g., Finkelstein/Hambrick 1996; Hambrick 1989; Hambrick/Mason 1984). As a result from numerous research studies provide considerable evidence that top executives affect organizational performance (e.g., Carpenter/Fredrickson 2001; Finkelstein/Hambrick 1996; Henderson/Miller/Hambrick 2006). For example, decisions of top executives (e.g., Amason 1996; Boeker 1997; Flood et al. 2000) and top executives’ leadership behavior (e.g., Smith/Carson/Alexander 1984) are proven to have an important impact on organizational outcomes. In a recent article, Hambrick (2007, p. 334) states: “If we want to understand why organizations do the things they do, or why they perform the way they do, we must consider the biases and dispositions of their most powerful actors – their top executives”. To better support top executives and enhance their performance, companies should know more about their top executives. For example, it is of high interest to know what enables some top executives to successfully cope with stress at work and at home and to avoid burnout (Delbecq/Friedlander 1995). Overall, the factors that are positively or negatively related to top executives’ performance are of high interest in this context. At the moment, much is known about employees and the development of their different performance levels (e.g., Chen/Francesco 2003; De Ruyter/Wetzels/Feinberg 2001; Griffin/Welsh/Moorhead 1981; Orpen 1979; Salanova/Agut/Peiró 2005; Wright/Bonett 1997). On the top executive level, it is also well known that different performance levels exist (e.g., Allgood/Farrell 2003; Bushman/Indejejikian/Smith 1996). But so far, less is known about the work-related, home-related and personal factors that are positively or negatively related to top executives’ performance. Accordingly, to our knowledge, different top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance types and their performance implications have not yet been identified. 1.1.2 Scientific Relevance In the last two decades, top executives have received a great deal of attention in management literature (e.g., Finkelstein 1992; Finkelstein/Hambrick 1990; Finkelstein/Hambrick 1996; Flood et al. 2000; Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, 2005b). But despite the high relevance of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance for them and their companies, these phenomena have been largely neglected in existent research. We define top

4

Introduction



executives as the most influential persons at the apex of the organization (e.g., Flood/MacCurtain/West 2001; Mintzberg 1979). They “set the organization’s strategy: what markets to enter, with whom to merge, how much to invest, what technology to employ” (Osterman 2009, p. 6). In this role, they carry high responsibility for the fate of their organizations by generating information and announcing decisions (Schein 1994). Thereby, one of their major responsibilities “is to help their firms contend with the contingencies emanating from their organizations’ task environments” (Bigley/Wiersema 2002, p. 722). Top executives are more likely than subordinate employees to be “motivated by the intrinsic satisfaction their work provides, rather than by extrinsic rewards” (Westphal 1999, p. 20). This may be due to motivating characteristics of their job like high job autonomy, task variety, and decision latitude (Karasek 1979). In contrast to a top executive, “an employee is one who a person has the right to direct and control in the performance of some compensated duties” (Dau-Schmidt/Ray 2004, p. 117). Work may bring about intrinsic rewards also for employees (Deci/Ryan 1985), but in the first place it provides extrinsic rewards (Locke/Latham 1990). While differences between top executives and subordinate employees regarding their work relationship and their work-family balance are undoubted (e.g., Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a; Knudsen/Ducharme/Roman 2009), research regarding differences among top executives is scarce (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a). Consequently, we know for example “that executive personalities and experiences can affect organizational outcomes (Bantel/Jackson 1989; Miller/Droge 1986), but we have no insights about how the degree of challenge a given executive experiences in his or her job will affect task conduct, strategic actions, or performance” (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, p. 472). But this knowledge about differences among top executives can be of high relevance for supporting the individual top executive in the amelioration of his or her work relationship and work-family balance. Thus, top executive-specific empirical findings in the areas of work relationship and workfamily balance are very limited (Knudsen/Ducharme/Roman 2009). But distinct attention to these phenomena at the top executive level is warranted because top executive work is qualitatively different from work at other organizational levels (Hambrick/Finkelstein/ Mooney 2005a). This difference does not mean that existing literature on these phenomena is irrelevant. Nevertheless, that literature is incomplete or strained when applied to the top executive level. The first phenomenon considered in this work, a top executive’s work relationship, is defined as “an executive’s capability to use his or her job-related resources to handle job-related demands” (Stock-Homburg/Bauer 2009, p. 2). The second phenomenon of interest is top executives’ work-family balance and is defined as a top executive’s “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home, with a minimum of role conflict” (Clark 2000, p. 751).

Relevance of the Thesis

5



Thus, the phenomenon work-family balance reflects a top executive’s orientation toward his or her participation in work and family roles (Marks/MacDermid 1996). To our knowledge, the phenomena of work relationship and work-family balance have not been investigated in their entirety with all facets. On the contrary, the treatment of work relationship and work-family balance in the empirical literature has been highly fragmented (see section 2.2). This fragmented empirical evidence is unsatisfactory since a top executive’s work relationship and work-family balance represent both multifaceted, highly complex phenomena. The investigation of such complex phenomena through holistic patterns of multiple variables rather than isolated variables and their bivariate relations seems to be promising in a field, where the conceptual knowledge is still at an early stage (e.g., Ketchen et al. 1997; Meyer/Tsui/Hinings 1993). In order to capture this complexity, an approach is needed which describes typical forms of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. A suitable approach is seen in the taxonomy approach, as taxonomies help bring order to the complex set of interrelated phenomena (e.g., Hambrick/Mason 1984; McKelvey 1975). Thus, this thesis uses empirically-based taxonomies to analyze top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. Specifically, clustering algorithms are used to identify natural clusters in the data (Miller 1996). Most existing taxonomies have been criticized for being disconnected from theory. Specifically, they are often based on an arbitrary and narrow selection of variables, and generally lack theoretical significance (e.g., Miller 1996). To address these problems, we strongly connect our configurational approach to theory. This is advisable as “chances of deriving types that inform conceptual debate will be enhanced if configurationists are guided by promising theoretical paradigms” (Miller 1996, p. 508). In doing so, we conceptually derive the variables on which our taxonomies are based. We then empirically verify the selected variables with the help of rich qualitative data as recommended in the literature (e.g., Miller 1996). This process helps us to identify clusters which suggest distinct, i.e., cluster-specific theoretical and practical implications. Thus, the investigation of different configurations of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance is highly relevant to enlarge the scientific knowledge of these so far neglected phenomena.

6

Introduction



1.2

Major Goals and Structure of the Thesis

The preceding section showed the high relevance of a theory-based and extensive investigation of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance as well as related variables. Accordingly, the present work pursues three central goals (see Figure 1-1 for an overview): 1. Development of a theory-based taxonomy on top executives’ work relationship: To our knowledge, different patterns of top executives’ work relationship have received no attention in existent research. Thus, the first goal of this thesis is to develop a theorybased taxonomy on top executives’ work relationship. Thereby, cluster analysis searches for an adequate partition of objects or individuals that can establish homogeneity within groups and heterogeneity between groups (e.g., Forgy 1965; MacQueen 1967). Like outlined before, we connect the development of our taxonomy on top executives’ work relationship to theory. Specifically, we draw upon upper echelons theory (e.g., Hambrick 2007; Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, 2005b; Hambrick/Mason 1984) and the job demands-resources model (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Demerouti et al. 2001; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b) to conceptualize top executives’ work relationship. 2. Development of a theory-based taxonomy on top executives’ work-family balance: As top executives’ work-family balance has not been investigated by existent research in its entirety including all relevant facets, the second goal of this thesis is to develop a taxonomy on top executives’ work-family balance using cluster analysis techniques. The taxonomy of top executives’ work-family balance is also based on theory. Specifically, we draw on role theory (e.g., Katz/Kahn 1978) and mechanisms of workfamily linkage (e.g., Lambert 1990; Staines 1980; Zedeck 1992) to conceptualize top executives’ work-family balance. 3. Investigation of related variables: Specific attention to the investigation of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance is warranted because any positive or negative effect of these phenomena could have far-reaching implications for organizations’ vitality and performance (e.g., Finkelstein/Hambrick 1996; Hambrick 1989; Hambrick/Mason 1984). Thus, the investigation of related variables of the phenomena work relationship and work-family balance, such as top executives’ well-being and performance is also of special importance. Therefore, besides categorizing top executives regarding their work relationship and work-family balance, the third goal of this thesis is the investigation of variables that are related to their work relationship and work-family balance. Specifically, we focus on psychological (i.e., well-being and satisfaction) as well as individual and organizational performance outcomes of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance.

Major Goals and Structure of the Thesis

7

 Figure 1-1: Course of the thesis

Course of the thesis

Major goals

Appraisal of the relevance of the phenomena under study

Description of taxonomy development based on cluster analysis techniques Description of investigation of related variables

Discussion of the contributions and limitations of the thesis

Goal 2: Development of a theory-based taxonomy on top executives’ work-family balance

Implementation of basics of empirical inquiry: Data collection, sample, and analysis techniques

Chapter 1: Introduction

Goal 1: Development of a theory-based taxonomy on top executives’ work relationship

Embedding of the phenomena in existent research and theoretical foundation of the taxonomies

Chapter

Goal 3: Investigation of related variables

Chapter 2: Conceptual background

Chapter 3: Basics of empirical studies

Chapter 4: Investigation of executives’ work relationship

Chapter 5: Investigation of executives’ work-family balance

Chapter 6: Discussion

Besides the three major goals of this thesis, two further characteristics deserve specific attention. First, there is a need for extensive studies to understand top executives’ approaches in handling their work and family life. Against this background, this thesis will be based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative empirical techniques. Specifically, we use a qualitative study drawing on data from 42 top executives. The key contribution of this qualitative research is to confirm and to enrich the theoretically derived categories of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. In a second step, we survey a sample of more than 200 top executives and their life partners. This sample delivers quantitative data that serve as the basis for developing our taxonomies. Prior literature indicates the value of such multimethod approaches (e.g., Jick 1979; Ruderman et al. 2002; Scandura/Williams 2000). Second, the quantitative data will not be restricted to top executives’ self assessments. Rather, we use self-reports from top executives as well as assessments from their life partners. This additional perspective is considered as highly important because top executives are known to underestimate their job-related demands (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005b) and tend to deny negative outcomes of stress and overwork (Kofodimos 1990). This thesis is structured within six chapters as follows. This introductory chapter outlines the managerial and scientific relevance of the phenomena under study (see section 1.1).

8

Introduction



Furthermore, the major goals and the structure of this thesis are presented (see section 1.2 and Figure 1-1 for an overview). Subsequently, in chapter 2 the conceptual background of this thesis is presented. At the beginning of the chapter, the procedure of taxonomy development that served as a guideline for the development of the two taxonomies is presented (see section 2.1). Next, the two investigated phenomena, i.e., top executives’ work relationship and top executives’ workfamily balance, are embedded in existent research (see section 2.2). Afterwards, the theoretical background of the taxonomies is outlined. In section 2.3, the job demandsresources model and upper echelons theory are presented as core concepts of the development of the top executives’ work relationship taxonomy. In section 2.4, role theory and mechanisms of work-family linkage are introduced, which serve as theoretical background for the development of the top executives’ work-family balance taxonomy. In chapter 3, the basics of the empirical studies are presented. In section 3.1, the qualitative study with its data collection process and sample, as well as the process of qualitative content analysis are outlined. Section 3.2 depicts the process of scale validation, the data collection process and sample, as well as the process of cluster analysis and analysis of variance used in the quantitative study. This chapter contains all basic information on the empirical studies which are fundamental to the development of both, top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance taxonomies, and serves as starting point for the following two contentspecific chapters. The following two chapters are both structured alike, chapter 4 containing the investigation of top executives’ work relationship and chapter 5 containing the investigation of top executives’ work-family balance. Chapter 4 and 5 both outline the following six sections: First, the preliminary conceptual framework of the phenomenon under consideration is presented (see section 4.1 and 5.1 respectively). Second, the qualitative results of the empirical verification are outlined (see section 4.2 and 5.2 respectively). Third, the final empirically grounded framework is introduced (see section 4.3 and 5.3 respectively). Fourth, the measurements of the different facets of top executives’ work relationship (see section 4.4) and work-family balance (see section 5.4) are outlined. Fifth, the resulting cluster solutions are interpreted (see section 4.5 and 5.5 respectively). Finally, the investigation of related variables of the two phenomena is described (see section 4.6 and 5.6 respectively). The final chapter contains the summarizing discussion of the contributions and limitations of this thesis. Section 6.1 outlines the content-related, conceptual, and methodological contributions of this thesis as well as its implications for business practice. Section 6.2 completes the thesis with the discussion of the limitations of this thesis and ideas for future research.

9



2 2.1

Conceptual Background Procedure of Taxonomy Development

The development of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance types in this thesis follows suggestions on taxonomy building in the existent literature (e.g., Bunn 1993; Marks/Mathieu/Zaccaro 2001). A taxonomy is an empirically, that is numerically and quantitatively derived scheme that categorizes phenomena into mutually exclusive and exhaustive types. This categorization is based on a set of unique and differentiated attributes (i.e., the active cluster variables) and the application of cluster analysis methods (e.g., Cannon/Perreault 1999; Doty/Glick 1994; Hambrick/Mason 1984; Meyer/Tsui/Hinings 1993; Miller 1996). In contrast, a typology is a conceptually derived scheme. It may serve well for descriptive purposes but has limited explanatory or predictive power. Typologies identify multiple ideal types, each of which represents a unique combination of attributes that are believed to determine the relevant outcomes (e.g., Doty/Glick 1994; Hambrick/Mason 1984; Meyer/Tsui/Hinings 1993; Miller 1996). As we have chosen an empirical approach, we develop taxonomies of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. At the same time, we conceptually derive the facets and constructs that serve as input for the taxonomy development. The procedure for developing our theoretically based taxonomies consists of a conceptual part (adapted from Marks/Mathieu/Zaccaro 2001) and an empirical part (adapted from Bunn 1993). The procedure is composed of nine sequential steps (see Figure 2-1) and will be outlined in the following. The purpose of the conceptual part is the theoretical foundation of the taxonomy and the identification and selection of appropriate input variables for the development of the taxonomy. The conceptual part of our taxonomy development procedure consists of the steps one to three and step five of the taxonomy development procedure.

10

Conceptual Background

 Figure 2-1: Procedure of taxonomy development (Stock-Homburg/Bauer 2009) I. Conceptual Part

II. Empirical Part

Step 1: Review of extant literature

Step 2: Specification of investigated phenomenon

Step 3: Theory-based identification of major facets and constructs

Step 4: Qualitative empirical verification and enrichment of theoretically selected constructs

Step 5: Definition of core constructs Step 6: Quantitative measurement and empirical validation of core constructs

Step 7: Taxonomy development based on cluster analysis techniques

Step 8: Interpretation of cluster solution

Step 9: Investigation of related variables

In the first step, the existent literature concerning the investigated phenomenon and closely related taxonomies are reviewed. Learning effects from existing conceptualizations and taxonomies as well as areas to differentiate the own taxonomy from existent research are identified. The second step focuses on the specification of the investigated phenomenon. Here, an overall label for the investigated phenomenon is found, and the most important terms are defined. The theory-based identification of major facets is the focus of the third step. First, a suitable theoretical approach in order to more deeply understand the investigated phenomenon has to be selected. Second, relevant major facets and related constructs in order to describe the investigated phenomenon are identified. Thereby, a facet summarizes connected aspects concerning one content, e.g., top executives’ work-related skills. Thus, several associated constructs are allocated to each facet of the phenomenon. For example, the constructs self-management and ability to delegate are part of the facet work-related skills. The last step within the conceptual part is the definition of all constructs that is all variables constituting the taxonomy and all related variables. This is an important step because a precise definition is a prerequisite for an unambiguous operationalization of the variables. The major goal of the empirical part is to reduce the complexity of the investigated phenomenon by identifying different types, based on qualitative and quantitative empirical

Procedure of Taxonomy Development

11



data. The methodological part consists of step four and the steps six to nine of the taxonomy development procedure. The first step of the empirical part is situated between the last two steps of the conceptual part and consists of the qualitative empirical verification and enrichment of the theoretically identified facets and constructs. In this step, the relevance of the theoretically derived facets and constructs for the investigated phenomenon is empirically checked based on semi-structured interviews with suitable informants. Furthermore, the interviews are used to verify the related variables, which are supposed to be associated with the investigated phenomenon. If necessary, the theoretically identified facets and constructs are enriched according to the results of the qualitative interviews. In the sixth step of the taxonomy development procedure, all constructs are quantitatively measured with the help of a questionnaire. Then the measurement properties of the used scales have to be checked. Besides psychometric properties (i.e., coefficient alpha, composite reliability) the dimension-structure of constructs is identified based on factor analyses. It has to be decided whether to choose the whole construct or to separate dimensions of the construct as active cluster variables. Then, the discriminance between the different active cluster variables has to be checked. Discriminant validity provides evidence of construct validity by ensuring that measures of unrelated hypothetical constructs are not correlated highly with one another and thus discriminate between dissimilar constructs (Campbell/Fiske 1959). Accordingly, a construct should be eliminated from the set of active cluster variables when the average variance extracted of the construct is smaller than the shared variance of this construct with any other latent variable (Fornell/Larcker 1981). Additionally, multi-rater measures are checked for interrater reliability (with ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient, Shrout/Fleiss 1979). Then, constructs with high intercorrelations (Campbell/Fiske 1959) or weak ICC (<0.2, e.g., Bliese 2000; James 1982) are eliminated. In the seventh step of the taxonomy development procedure, the main quantitative analysis, that is cluster analysis, has to be carried out to build types. First, initial cluster analyses are performed to identify outliers. Then, the identified outliers are removed, the appropriate number of clusters is selected and the observations are assigned to the clusters. Finally, the stability of cluster assignments is assessed via cross-validation. Step eight focuses on the interpretation of the obtained cluster solution. Specifically, means for all active cluster variables are computed, differences among means of the cluster groups are tested, cluster membership is described, and the clusters are labeled according to their major characteristics. Furthermore, cluster groups can be interpreted with the use of additional descriptors, e.g., demographic characteristics. In the last step, cluster membership is discussed in view of related variables. Specifically, means of related variables are computed for every cluster group, and analysis of variance is performed to test for differences among the means of the different groups.

12

Conceptual Background



This procedure has been the major guideline for the development of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance taxonomies in this thesis. In the following, we continue with reviewing the existent research and existing related taxonomies of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance.

2.2

Literature Review

In the following, the two phenomena under study, namely top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance, will be embedded in existent research. We begin this literature review with an overview of research on top executives (see section 2.2.1). As the two phenomena under study in this thesis have rarely been addressed by top executive research, we continue with reviewing research on work relationship (see section 2.2.2) and work-family balance (see section 2.2.3) on the managerial and professional level. Thereby, the managerial level comprises middle and low-level managers. Thus, in a positional sense these are managers on the hierarchical levels “below the general manager’s executive team” (Heckscher 1995, p. 9). Functionally defined they are “managers of several levels […], holding the business together at a practical level while the top managers [think] long-range thoughts“ (Heckscher 1995, p. 10). In contrast to top executives, the “nature of their careers and the character of their working life are largely outside their control” (Osterman 2009, p. 5). But like top executive positions managerial jobs “are generally considered to have a career orientation” (Duxbury/Higgins 1991, p. 65). Professionals are defined as “high-skilled workers“ (Akhmedov et al. 2004, p. 13) and are hierarchically situated below the managerial level. In this literature review we systematically compare existing empirical publications along different characteristics. Specifically, we list conceptual, methodological, and content-related characteristics of the studies in tabular form. As conceptual characteristic we report the conceptual background which the empirical study is based on. Thereby, a study is based on theory when an existing theory is used to conceptualize the research model and/or to formulate the hypothesis (Colquitt/Zapata-Phelan 2007). As methodological characteristics we list the addressed sample (i.e., number of individuals, hierarchical level, industrial sector, and, when necessary, particularities like family status or gender), the data source (e.g., survey, interview, database), and the applied analysis (e.g., regression analysis, cluster analysis). As contentrelated characteristics we report the research area (e.g., management, psychology), the major constructs addressed in the studies (e.g., organizational commitment, work-family conflict), and their key results. This approach enables us to identify conceptual and methodological strengths and weakness as well as the contents treated by existent research.

Literature Review

13



2.2.1 Research on Top Executives Because of their great importance for organizational performance, in the last two decades, top executives have received a great deal of attention in the literature (e.g., Finkelstein 1992; Finkelstein/Hambrick 1990; Finkelstein/Hambrick 1996; Flood et al. 2000; Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, 2005b). In studying top executives, two different focuses have been taken, namely the focus on the top management team and the focus on the individual top executive (see Figure 2-2). In the first focus of top management research, the characteristics of top management teams have been investigated. The top management team comprises the CEO and those executives reporting directly to the CEO (Boeker 1997). This research focus considers top management team composition, ongoing team processes, and their influences on strategic behavior. This research has shown that organizational outcomes are influenced by facets of top management team composition like functional and demographic heterogeneity (e.g., Bantel/Jackson 1989; Boone et al. 2004; Carpenter/Fredrickson 2001; Carpenter/Geletkanycz/Sanders 2004; Carter 2006). For example, long-tenured top executive teams follow more persistent strategies that conform to central tendencies of the industry. They exhibit performance that closely adhere to industry averages (Finkelstein/Hambrick 1990). Furthermore, top management team heterogeneity in terms of demographics like international experience, educational background, and firm tenure is positively related to organizational outcomes (i.e., global strategic posture), whereas functional heterogeneity is negatively related to organizational outcomes (Carpenter/Fredrickson 2001). Additionally, team processes ongoing in the top management team like decision making (e.g., Finkelstein/Hambrick 1996; Hambrick/Mason 1984), collaboration (e.g., Westphal 1999), and task orientation (e.g., West/Anderson 1996) are crucial for organizational outcomes (e.g., Eisenhardt/Bourgeois 1988; Simons/Pelled/Smith 1999; West/Anderson 1996). For example, group processes predict the overall level of team innovation, whereas team size and the proportion of innovative team members predict the rated radicalness of innovations introduced (West/Anderson 1996). Furthermore, greater affective fit between a team member and his of her group is related to more positive attitudes about group relations and perception of greater influence within the group. Team diversity in trait positive affect is negatively related to CEOs’ use of participatory decision making and financial performance (Barsade et al. 2000).

14

Conceptual Background

 Figure 2-2: Focuses of top executive research

Major areas of top executive research

Top management teams

Individual top executive

Functional heterogeneity Composition

Gender Demographic variables

Demographic heterogeneity

Tenure Education

Personality Decision making Attitudes Team processes

Collaboration

Psychological variables Behaviors

Task orientation Perceived demands

Research on top management teams has introduced and first applied upper echelons theory (Hambrick/Mason 1984). The additional contribution is important for the present thesis, which also relies on upper echelons theory (e.g., Hambrick 2007). Beside the important contribution of this research stream, the focus on the top management team is not considered in this thesis. Therefore, we leave it at these examples and continue with reviewing research on the individual top executive, who is the subject considered in this thesis. To show the wide range of research in this area, we report some selected studies of top executives’ characteristics. The major results of these studies will be outlined in the following (see Table 2-1). In this second focus of top executive research, top executives have been studied as individuals. Thereby, most studies have focused on demographic variables such as gender (e.g. Judge et al. 1995), tenure (e.g. Henderson/Miller/Hambrick 2006; Judge et al. 1995), and education (e.g. Bigley/Wiersema 2002; Judge et al. 1995). Furthermore, top executive research has considered psychological variables such as personality (e.g., Agle et al. 2006; Boudreau/Boswell 2001; Chatterjee/Hambrick 2007), attitudes (e.g., Amason 1996; Carmeli 2005; Judge/Boudreau/Bretz 1994), behaviors (e.g., Flood et al. 2000; Westphal/Stern 2006), and perceived demands (e.g., Henderson/Fredrickson 1996; Ohlott/Ruderman/McCauley 1994; Sanders/Carpenter 1998).

Literature Review

15

Table 2-1: Selected studies on top executives Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

Demographic variables Judge et al. (1995)/ Psychology

1,388 executives in a variety of industries/ Survey, database/ Multivariate regression analysis

Conceptual model of executive career success

Women and minorities have lower levels of objective success than white males. Executives, who develop their human capital and display a desire to get ahead, are substantially more likely to achieve objective success. Educational quality positively affects compensation level. Organization size negatively predicts compensation. There is a positive effect of occupational tenure and international experience on the number of promotions, but a negative effect of job tenure on promotions.

Bigley/Wiersema (2002)/ Management

61 firms in a variety of industries/ Database/ Hierarchical moderated regression analysis

Conceptual model on corporate strategic refocusing, upper echelons theory

The relationship between three indicators of power (i.e., compensation, functional expertise, and elite education) and corporate strategic refocusing decreases as their apparent experience increases. There is a positive interaction between heir apparent experience and the number of outside boards on which a CEO sits.

Henderson/Miller/ Hambrick (2006)/ Management

98 CEOs in foods industry, 228 CEOs in computer industry/ Database (longitudinal data)/ Generalized estimating equations

Conceptual model of CEO paradigms

In the stable food industry, firm-level performance improves steadily for at least ten years of a CEO’s tenure. In the dynamic computer industry, CEOs are at their best during their first year, and firm performance declines steadily thereafter.

16

Conceptual Background

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

Psychological variables: Personality Church/Waclawski (1998)/ Psychology

253 senior executives from a highly diversified global corporation/ Survey (self ratings and direct reports ratings)/ K-means cluster analysis, ANOVA

Personality theory, transformational – transactional leadership paradigm

There are four distinct configurations of executive personality orientation which are related to subsequent leadership behaviors: innovators for change/inventors, analytical coordinators/managers, organized pragmatists/implementers, and enthusiastic idealists /motivators. Inventors and motivators are more transformational in their leadership style than managers and implementers.

Boudreau/Boswell (2001)/ Management

1,885 U.S. executives, 1.871 European executives in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Covariance structure analysis

Conceptual model of executive career success, five-factor model of personality

Extroversion relates positively and neuroticism negatively to intrinsic career success. Conscientiousness is mostly unrelated to extrinsic success and negatively related to intrinsic success. Agreeableness is negatively related to extrinsic success. Neuroticism is associated with lower levels of extrinsic success for the U.S. executives but not the Europeans. Extroversion is associated with higher levels of extrinsic success for the European executives but not the U.S. executives.

Peterson et al. (2003)/ Psychology

17 CEOs in a variety of industries/ Archival sources (biographies, interviews, books)/ Group dynamics qsort method

Process model linking leader traits and effectiveness, five-factor model of personality

CEO personality influences top management team dynamics (e.g., CEO emotional stability is positively related to team cohesion, intellectual flexibility, and leader dominance). Top management team dynamics in turn are related to organizational performance (e.g., team flexibility and cohesion are positively related to income growth).

Agle et al. (2006)/ Management

770 top executives in a variety of industries/ Survey, objective stock market and accounting data/ Regression analysis

Attribution theory, theories of charismatic leadership

Organizational performance is associated with subsequent perceptions of CEO charisma. Perceptions of CEO charisma are not associated with subsequent organizational performance.

Literature Review

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

17

Key constructs and results

Continuation of psychological variables: Personality Chatterjee/ Hambrick (2007)/ Management

111 CEOs in the computer hardware and software industries/ Annual reports, press releases/ Generalized estimating equations

Concept of narcissism

CEO narcissism is positively related to strategic dynamism and grandiosity, as well as the number and size of acquisitions. CEO narcissism engenders extreme and fluctuating organizational performance.

Psychological variables: Attitudes Gregersen/Black (1992)/ Management

321 upper- and middle-level executives on international assignment in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Regression analysis, discriminant analysis

Concept of commitment, expectancy theory

High firm tenure, low role conflict, much pre-departure training, and low general adjustment to a country of assignment are associated with high commitment to the parent company. High role discretion and high general adjustment are associated with high commitment to foreign operations.

Hambrick/ Geletkanycz/ Fredrickson (1993)/ Management

690 top executives in industrial products, consumer products, financial services, and other service industries/ Survey/ Multiple regression analysis

Upper echelons theory

An executive’s tenure in the industry and the organization’s current performance are positively related to the executive’s commitment to the status quo. The relationship between current organizational performance and the executive’s commitment to the status quo is stronger in highdiscretion than in low-discretion industries.

18

Conceptual Background

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

Continuation of psychological variables: Attitudes Judge/Boudreau/ Bretz (1994)/ Psychology

1,309 male executives in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Covariance structure models

Role theory, selfidentity theory, person-environment fit theory

Male executives who are satisfied with their jobs are significantly more likely to be satisfied with their lives in general, and vice versa. Male executives reporting high levels of job stress are significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs. Executives, who feel that work interferes with their family lives, or that their family responsibilities interfere with work, are significantly more likely to report high levels of job stress. Executives who report high levels of work-to-family conflict are significantly less likely to be satisfied with their lives.

Larwood et al. (1995)/ Management

331 top executives in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Factor analysis, MANOVA, cluster analysis (quick cluster routine)

Structural model of organizational vision

There are three distinct configurations of executives concerning the content and structure of their organizational visions. Cluster membership is related to the rapidity of firm change and the amount of control the executives exercised over firms.

Amason (1996)/ Management

99 CEOs and 350 top executives in food processing and furniture manufacturing/ Interview with CEOs, survey/ Multiple regression analysis

Concepts of decision quality, consensus, and affective acceptance, paradox of strategic decision making

Cognitive conflict is positively related to improvement, understanding, affective acceptance, and decision quality. Affective conflict is injurious to decision quality and affective acceptance. Decision quality improves as divergent opinions are sought and considered.

Carmeli (2005)/ Management

98 chief financial officers employed in the public sector/ Survey/ Path analysis

Conceptual models of job involvement

The relationship between perceived external prestige and job involvement is mediated by affective commitment. Normative commitment mediates the relationship between protestant work ethic and job involvement.

Literature Review

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

19

Psychological variables: Behaviors Kipnis/Schmidt (1988)/ Management

108 CEOs of hospitals/ Longitudinal survey (measure of outcome variables after eight months)/ k-means cluster analysis

Influence theory

There are four distinct configurations of upward-influence styles: Shotgun, Tactician, Ingratiator, and Bystander. Tactician CEOs have higher salaries and more prestige and power than CEOs using the other three influence styles. Furthermore, they feel the least amount of job tension and personal stress. Shotguns report the highest levels of job tension and personal stress.

Merz/Sauber (1995)/ Management

370 CEOs and top executives in small firms in construction, manufacturing, services, and wholesaling/ Telephone interview/ twostage clustering procedure, MANOVA

No conceptual background

Four distinct configurations describe the managerial profiles among small firms. Small firms can be classified based on perceived differences in strategy, structure, and the environments they face. They display managerial and structural consistency when faced with similar contextual situations.

Finkelstein/Boyd (1998)/ Management

600 firms in a variety of industries/ Databases, annual reports/ Structural equation modeling

Model of managerial discretion, contingency model of compensation

Managerial discretion (i.e., latitude of action) has a positive effect on CEOs’ pay. Firm performance is higher when discretion and pay are aligned.

Flood et al. (2000)/ Psychology

79 high technology firms/ CEO interviews, survey/ Confirmatory factor analysis, ANOVA, regression analysis

Leadership theory, leadership styles

CEOs’ transformational leadership is positively related, and the laissez-faire style is negatively related to team effectiveness. Authoritarian leadership predicts negatively and transformational leadership predicts positively consensus decision making in top management teams. Consensus decision making predicts team effectiveness.

20

Conceptual Background

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

Continuation of psychological variables: Behaviors Westphal/Stern (2006)/ Management

1,012 managers and 138 CEOs in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Factor analysis, maximumlikelihood probit regression analysis

Social psychological theories (e.g., theories of interpersonal behavior, social influence theory, self-categorization theory)

Top executives who engage in ingratiatory behavior (i.e., flattery, opinion conformity, and favor-rendering) toward their CEO are more likely to receive board appointments at other firms where their CEO serves as director and at boards to which the CEO is directly connected in the board interlock network. Interpersonal influence behavior substitutes to some degree for the advantages of an elite background or demographic majority status.

Psychological variables: Job-related demands Ohlott/Ruderman/ McCauley (1994)/ Management

507 senior executives in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Hierarchical regression analysis

Human capital theory

There are no gender differences concerning unfamiliar responsibilities, development of new directions, inherited problems, reduction decisions, and problems with employees. Men holding senior management positions experience greater taskrelated developmental challenges. Women in such positions experience greater developmental challenges stemming from obstacles they face in their jobs.

Henderson/ Fredrickson (1996)/ Management

189 firm-years of observations of CEOs in chemical, high-tech equipment, natural resources, and conglomerates industry/ Database/ Multiple regression

Agency theory

The compensation of CEOs is high in firms whose diversification strategy, approach to technology, and top management team structure place particularly high information-processing demands on them.

Sanders/Carpenter (1998)/ Management

258 firms in a variety of industries/ Registry/ ordinary least squares and logistic regression analysis

Informationprocessing theory, agency theory

Information-processing demands associated with greater levels of firm internationalization are positively related to long-term CEO pay and size of a top management team, and negatively related to the separation of chairperson and CEO positions.

Literature Review

21



We reviewed this selected research on the individual top executive along the previously outlined conceptual, methodological, and content-related characteristics. Concerning the conceptual characteristics of existent top executive research, namely the conceptual background of the studies, we report the following findings: •

Most top executive research uses or develops a conceptual model to derive the investigated variables and their relationships. Thereby, a considerable number of top executive studies rely solely on conceptual models without specifying the mechanisms linking the investigated phenomena (Carmeli 2005; Chatterjee/Hambrick 2007; Larwood et al. 1995).

•

Nevertheless, many studies on top executives are based on established economical theories like agency theory or upper echelons theory (e.g., Hambrick/Geletkanycz/ Fredrickson 1993; Henderson/Fredrickson 1996). Other studies use psychological theories like role theory or self-identity theory as conceptual background (e.g., Agle et al. 2006; Church/Waclawski 1998; Judge/Boudreau/Bretz 1994). Few studies rely on both, economical and psychological theories at a time (e.g., Sanders/Carpenter 1998).

Corresponding to much existent top executive research, the development of our conceptual model is strongly based on theory. As our research considers economical as well as psychological aspects, we use both economical and psychological theories as conceptual background. On the part of methodological characteristics of top executive research reviewed in this thesis, we made the following observations: •

Probably because of the unique position of top executives in their organizations and their difficult accessibility (Hambrick 2007), studies on top executives use small to middle-sized samples. The samples reviewed in this thesis vary form 17 (Peterson et al. 2003) to 1,885 (Boudreau/Boswell 2001) top executives.

•

Most research investigates top executives in a variety of organizations and industries. Few studies concentrate on a single organization (e.g., Church/Waclawski 1998) or few industrial sectors (e.g., Amason 1996; Chatterjee/Hambrick 2007; Henderson/ Miller/Hambrick 2006).

•

Top executive research is largely based on objective data which are gathered in archives or databases (e.g., Bigley/Wiersema 2002; Chatterjee/Hambrick 2007; Henderson/Miller/Hambrick 2006) or self-reported survey data (e.g., Larwood et al. 1995; Ohlott/Ruderman/McCauley 1994; Westphal/Stern 2006). Only few studies combine qualitative and quantitative data (e.g., Amason 1996; Flood et al. 2000) or gather corroborating peer ratings (e.g., Church/Waclawski 1998). This triangulation, that is

22

Conceptual Background



the “attempt to map out, or explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human behavior by studying it from more than one standpoint“ (Cohen/Manion 1986, p. 254), is able to give “a more detailed and balanced picture of the situation“ (Altrichter/ Posch/Somekh 1996, p. 117). •

With regard to the used statistical method, most studies conduct regression or path analysis. Some studies use cluster analysis in combination with analysis of variances to assess differences between the identified clusters (e.g., Church/Waclawski 1998; Kipnis/Schmidt 1988; Larwood et al. 1995). Only one study reviewed in this thesis uses a qualitative analysis technique (e.g., Peterson et al. 2003). None of the reviewed studies combine qualitative and quantitative analyses.

The use of multiple-informant research methods is highly recommended in top executive research in order to minimize confounding influences on empirical research and misleading conclusions (e.g., Anderson 1987; Anderson/Narus 1990; Bagozzi/Youjae/Phillips 1991; Campbell/Fiske 1959; Jick 1979; Knudsen/Ducharme/Roman 2009). Like Bagozzi and colleagues (1991, p. 424) state, “overreporting or underreporting of certain phenomena may occur as a function of the informant’s […] personal or role characteristics.” Especially if such an informant bias is expected, that is to say, the individual informant’s perception could be biased for example due to social desirability, multiple informants are needed in form of multiple people providing the data (Anderson/Narus 1990). Accordingly, Bakker et al. (2007, p. 282) recommend that “future research could [use] a combination of self-reports and otherratings” for the measurement of the outcomes of the phenomenon work relationship. Furthermore, when only one data source is used, the problem of common method variance can occur (e.g., Podsakoff et al. 2003; Podsakoff/Organ 1986). To reduce this problem, the use of multiple-informant research methods in form of multiple data collection methods is advisable. In order to minimize these two potential biases, this thesis uses two types of multiple-informant research, namely multiple people providing the data and multiple data collection methods. Concerning the content-related characteristics of existent top executive research we come to the following conclusions: •

Top executive research has considered a wide area of top executives’ demographic and psychological variables. Nevertheless, it has not considered the two phenomena under study in this thesis, namely top executives’ work relationship and top executives’ work-family balance. Thus, to our knowledge, taxonomies of top executives’ work relationship or work-family balance have not been provided by existent research.

•

We could identify some studies, which have investigated the job-related demands faced by top executives (e.g., Henderson/Fredrickson 1996; Ohlott/Ruderman/

Literature Review

23



McCauley 1994; Sanders/Carpenter 1998). A result of these studies is that although top executives are mostly seen as carrying very heavy loads and operating under great pressures, there are still great differences in how many demands the specific job places on the individual top executive (Hambrick 2007). •

Furthermore, top executives’ performance demands (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a) and job-related resources like their job involvement (e.g., Carmeli 2005) have been shown to reach widely varying levels.

•

Recent research applies taxonomies to comprehend top managers’ visions (Larwood et al. 1995), managerial activities (Merz/Sauber 1995), personality orientation (Church/Waclawski 1998), and upward-influence styles (Kipnis/Schmidt 1988).

•

Top executive research confirms that studying top executives’ characteristics is critical for understanding organizational performance (e.g., Chatterjee/Hambrick 2007; Henderson/Miller/Hambrick 2006).

•

The results of Judge and colleagues (1994) on top executives’ job and life attitudes indicate that the linkages between work and home life are also relevant for top executives.

Consistent with existing top executive research, we base the development of our top executives’ work relationship taxonomy on the assumption of differing job-related demands and resources faced by different top executives. Furthermore, the high relevance of top executives for organizational performance (e.g., Chatterjee/Hambrick 2007; Henderson/Miller/Hambrick 2006) underlines the importance of the investigation of top executives’ work relationship and related variables accomplished in this thesis. Additionally, the results of Judge and colleagues (1994) affirm the meaningfulness of the top executive work-family balance taxonomy developed in this thesis. Like outlined before, top executive research has hardly considered the phenomena top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. Thus, we continue with the consideration of research on these phenomena at the managerial and professional level. 2.2.2 Research on Work Relationship To our knowledge, the phenomenon work relationship has not been considered as a whole with all its facets in existent research. But the single facets of the phenomenon work relationship have been addressed by different research streams (see Figure 2-3).

24

Conceptual Background

 Figure 2-3: Major areas of research on work relationship

Research on work relationship

Top management research

Executive-specific job-related demands

Organizational psychology

Employees’/managers’ job-related demands

Employees‘/managers‘ job-related resources

Combination

Before considering these research streams, the two components constituting the phenomenon work relationship deserve further elaboration: job-related demands and resources. Top executives’ job-related demands are defined as the perceived “degree of overall difficulty, an executive experiences” in his or her job (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, p. 473). When these job-related demands are too high, they can impair a person’s well-being (e.g., Bakker et al. 2003a; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Schaufeli/Bakker 2004). Top executives’ jobrelated resources are personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued by the individual or that serve as a means for goal attainment (Hobfoll 1989). A high amount of jobrelated resources has been shown to be positively related to a person’s performance (e.g., Bakker et al. 2003a; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Schaufeli/Bakker 2004). In contrast, top executives’ work-related stress “diminishes their overall productivity” (Lappa 1989, p. 50). Concerning top executives, the previous treatment of job-related demands in the literature has been ambivalent: From a conceptual perspective, the phenomenon has been intensively addressed by upper echelons theory which will be outlined in more detail in section 2.3.2 (e.g., Hambrick 2007; Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, 2005b). Hambrick and colleagues (2005a) suggest a distinction between contextual demands (e.g., external pressure to perform) and internal job-related demands (e.g., top executives’ own drive to perform). From an empirical perspective, however, the phenomenon has not been addressed holistically. Like shown in section 2.2.1, empirical studies have focused on very specific demands, such as top executives’ information-processing demands (e.g., Henderson/Fredrickson 1996; Sanders/Carpenter 1998), job transitions, task-related variables, and obstacles (e.g., Ohlott/Ruderman/McCauley 1994). Beside top management research, job-related demands have been of great interest in

Literature Review

25



research on organizational psychology (e.g., Glomb/Rotundo/Kammeyer-Mueller 2004; Janssen 2001; Jia Lin/Johns 1995; Van Yperen/Snijders 2000). According to this research, increasing job demands are at first related to better performance and work satisfaction, but only up to a specific level, beyond which performance and satisfaction decline (e.g., Janssen 2001). The second component of work relationship, job-related resources, has also been emphasized by research in organizational psychology (e.g., Demerouti et al. 2001; Hobfoll/Freedy 1993; Karasek 1979; King et al. 2007; Lee/Ashforth 1996; Schaufeli/Bakker 2004; Van Yperen/ Hagedoorn 2003; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b). Investigations of job-related resources include variables, such as job involvement (Igbaria/Parasuraman/Badawy 1994) and ability to delegate (Schriesheim/Neider/Scandura 1998). In a different stream of research, rooted in organizational psychology, job-related demands have usually been investigated in combination with job-related resources (e.g., Butler et al. 2005; Demerouti et al. 2001; Schaufeli/Bakker 2004; Sonnentag/Zijlstra 2006; van Vegchel/ de Jonge/Landsbergis 2005). Accordingly, at the employee level, job-related demands (e.g., workload) and job-related resources (e.g., personal skills) constitute key facets of people’s work relationship (e.g., Deery/Iverson/Walsh 2002; Hobfoll/Shirom 2001; King et al. 2007). Job-related resources have been considered as important mechanisms to compensate high jobrelated demands (e.g., Karasek 1979; Van Yperen/Hagedoorn 2003; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b). However, with few exceptions (e.g., Janssen 2001; Lovelace/Manz/Alves 2007), research in organizational psychology has largely been focused on the employee level (e.g., Bakker et al. 2003b; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Van Yperen/Hagedoorn 2003). In the following, we first report studies considering the two facets of the phenomenon work relationship, namely job-related demands and job-related resources. Subsequently, we review studies on the combined investigation of job-related demands and resources. As top executive research in this area is very sparse, we review studies on the professional and managerial level (see Table 2-2).

26

Conceptual Background

Table 2-2: Studies on job-related demands and resources Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

Job-related demands Glomb/Rotundo/ KammeyerMueller (2004)/ Psychology

560 occupations of different levels/ Databases, survey/ Factor analysis, weighted least squares regression analysis

Concept of emotional labor, theory of compensating wage differentials, human capital theory, labor market theory, conservation of resources theory

Higher levels of emotional labor demands are associated with lower wage rates for jobs low in cognitive demands and with higher wage rates for jobs high in cognitive demands.

Bingham/Boswell/ Boudreau (2005)/ Management

3,248 high-level managers in a variety of industries/ Survey/ confirmatory factor analysis, hierarchical regression analysis

Organizational concept of jobrelated demands, conservation of resources theory

Challenge-related job demands are negatively related to managers’ job-search activity. Obstacle-related job demands are positively related to job-search activity. The relationship between job demands and job-search activity is mediated by job satisfaction.

Brigham/De Castro/Shepherd (2007)/ Management

159 ownermanagers in small high-technology firms/ Longitudinal survey (check of turnover after four years)/ hierarchical regression analysis

Model of cognitive fit/misfit, lifecycle stage models, theory on decisionmaking styles

In less structured work environments, intuitive managers experience higher satisfaction and weaker intentions to exit than those who are analytic. In more structured work environments, intuitive owner-managers experience lower satisfaction and stronger intentions to exit than analytic managers. Satisfaction is negatively and intention to quit positively related to subsequent turnover.

Literature Review

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

27

Job-related resources Igbaria/ Parasuraman/ Badawy (1994)/ Information Systems

464 professionals and managers in information systems/ Survey/ Partial least squares analysis, MANOVA, MANCOVA, regression analysis

Conceptual model of work experiences, job involvement, and quality of work life

The jobs of individuals high in job involvement are higher in intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and entail more extensive boundaryspanning activities and greater role stress. These individuals furthermore display greater commitment to their organizations. In some cases, high levels of job involvement tend to enhance the beneficial effects of work experiences on the quality of work life. In other cases job involvement tends to heighten the negative effects of role stressors.

Schriesheim/ Neider/Scandura (1998)/ Management

106 dyads of subordinate and supervisor of a flowerimporting firm/ Survey/ Hierarchical multiple regression analysis

Leader-member exchange theory, vertical dyad linkage theory

Subordinates’ and supervisors’ perception of the quality of leader-member exchange is positively related to the level of delegation that subordinates experience at work. Delegation is positively associated with performance and intrinsic as well as extrinsic job satisfaction.

Noblet/Rodwell/ McWilliams (2001)/ Psychology

221 managers in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Multiple regression analysis

Job strain model

Job control and social support are positively related to psychological health and job satisfaction. A lack of resources to accomplish tasks predicts job dissatisfaction.

Love/Edwards (2005)/ Psychology

100 construction project managers/ Survey/ Hierarchical multiple regression analysis

Job strain model

The increase of job control (control over tasks, job execution and work environment) reduces ill-effects of the project environment and enhances job satisfaction. Social support is positively related to health and job satisfaction. Thereby, support from outside the work environment is stronger than work-related support.

Srivastava et al. (2007)/ Management

291 managers in a variety of Industries (US) and state-owned companies (China)/ Survey/ Structural equation modeling

Conceptual model of work locus of control, familywork conflict, and subjective wellbeing

Internal work locus of control has a direct positive relationship with subjective wellbeing as well as an indirect relationship mediated through social support. Internal work locus of control has a negative relationship with family-to-work conflict.

28

Conceptual Background

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

Combination of job-related demands and resources Janssen (2001)/ Management

99 low-level and midlevel management employees in the food industry/ Survey/ Hierarchical multiple regression analysis

Activation theory, equity theory

Managers who perceive effort-reward fairness perform better and feel more satisfied in response to intermediate levels of job demands than managers who perceive underreward unfairness.

Burke/Richardsen/ Mortinussen (2004)/ Management

171 senior managers in the construction industry/ Survey/ ANOVA

No conceptual background

Work enjoyment is positively related with work outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment) and psychological well-being. Feeling driven to work is negatively related with psychological well-being (i.e., psychosomatic symptoms, emotional exhaustion, and cynicism).

Taris et al. (2006)/ Psychology

199 managers of a retail organization/ Survey/ Confirmatory factor analysis, stepwise regression analysis

Effort-recovery model, demandcontrol model

High job demands and low job control are associated with high levels of work-home interference, low levels of enjoyment, and high levels of exhaustion. High effort expenditure (i.e., number of hours worked overtime and full-time appointment) does not have adverse work outcomes.

Rothmann/Joubert (2007)/ Management

202 managers at a platinum mine/ Survey/ Structural equation modeling

Comprehensive burnout and engagement model, conservation of resources theory

Job demands (i.e., work load, job insecurity) predict exhaustion. A lack of resources (i.e., insufficient organizational support and advancement opportunities) predicts exhaustion and cynicism. Organizational support predicts engagement.

Rydstedt/ Devereux/Sverke (2007)/ Psychology

658 managers and professionals, 343 manual workers in a variety of Industries/ Longitudinal survey (three waves in 1.5 years)/ MANOVA, hierarchical forced-entry regression analysis

Demand-controlsupport model, effort-reward imbalance model

Managers and professionals report higher jobrelated demands and work efforts, and slightly higher mental strain, but also higher decision latitude, social support, and rewards from work than manual workers.

Literature Review

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

29

Key constructs and results

Continuation of combination of job-related demands and resources Wong/DeSanctis/ Staudenmayer (2007)/ Management

113 managers in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Confirmatory factor analysis

Job demandscontrol model

Task interdependency is associated with increased role stress. Greater job control reduces role ambiguity when clarity of interdependency is low or both, clarity and amount of interdependency are low.

Knudsen/ Ducharme/Roman (2009)/ Psychology

410 leaders of addiction treatment organizations/ Survey, interview/ Structural equation modeling

Job demandsresources model

Job-related demands (i.e., performance demands and centralization) are positively related to emotional exhaustion which in turn is positively related to turnover intention. Long-term strategic planning is negatively associated with emotional exhaustion.

The assessment of research on managerial and professional job-related demands and resources along the conceptual, methodological, and content-related characteristics of the studies brings along several results that are relevant for this thesis. Concerning the conceptual characteristics we draw the following major conclusions: x

Research on job-related demands and resources is often based on established conceptual models like the job demands-control model (e.g., Knudsen/Ducharme/Roman 2009; Taris et al. 2006; Wong/DeSanctis/Staudenmayer 2007) or the conservation of resources theory (e.g., Bingham/Boswell/Boudreau 2005; Rothmann/Joubert 2007). The more extensive job demands-resources model, which is appropriate to cover a broad range of job-related demands and resources at a time, is used less often (e.g., Knudsen/Ducharme/Roman 2009).

x

Many studies on job-related demands and resources construct their conceptual framework on the basis of different models or theories (e.g., Bingham/Boswell/Boudreau 2005; Glomb/Rotundo/Kammeyer-Mueller 2004).

x

Very few studies on job-related demands and resources miss to base their research on a conceptual model (e.g., Burke/Richardsen/Mortinussen 2004).

As theoretical basis of our examination of top executives’ work relationship we select the job demands-resources model (e.g., Demerouti et al. 2001), which is able to specify the jobrelated demands and resources of the particular occupational group under study (Bakker/Demerouti 2007). To take into account the top executive level of our sample and the economical aspects of top executives’ work relationship, we complement this psychological the

30

Conceptual Background



ory with upper echelons theory (e.g., Hambrick 2007). As these theories come from different scientific disciplines, we ensure their compatibility. Concerning the methodological characteristics of existent research on work-related demands and resources, the following aspects are worth mentioning: •

Most studies on job-related demands and resources use small to middle-sized samples. The studies reviewed in this thesis range from 99 (Janssen 2001) to 3,248 (Bingham/Boswell/Boudreau 2005) individuals.

•

Research on job-related demands and resources has mainly concentrated on the employee to managerial levels, neglecting the top executive level. Some existing studies on top executives’ job-related demands have been reviewed in section 2.2.1.

•

Research on job-related demands and resources mainly uses individual surveys as data source. Very few studies combine qualitative and quantitative data sources (Knudsen/Ducharme/Roman 2009) or use additional objective data (Glomb/Rotundo/Kammeyer-Mueller 2004).

•

This review could not identify any study which complements individual self-ratings of job-related demands and resources with other ratings. This is due to the fact that jobrelated demands and resources are subjectively perceived issues which can be best rated by the affected individual him or herself. To assess job-related demands and resources objectively, a field observation is necessary, which is hardly realizable in our top executive sample.

•

Concerning the applied statistical methods, most studies use regression analysis to explore the causal relationships of different job-related demands and resources with several outcome variables. This review could not identify a study which used cluster analysis to systemize job-related demands and resources and thereby develop an empirical taxonomy on the phenomenon work relationship.

To overcome shortcomings of existing research on work-related demands and resources, we use a multi-method approach which combines qualitative and quantitative data and analyses techniques to assess executive-specific job-related demands and resources. The qualitative approach is highly recommendable, as so far less is known about top executive-specific jobrelated demands and resources (Knudsen/Ducharme/Roman 2009). Existing research indicates that a middle-sized sample is sufficient for studying job-related demands and resources. In line with the reviewed literature, we forego the collection of other ratings of top executives’ perceived job-related demands and resources.

Literature Review

31



Referring to the content-related characteristics of existent research on work-related demands and resources, we can report the following findings: •

Existent research has studied a variety of job-related demands and resources. Thereby, different job-related demands and resources have been considered separately or in parallel. Few studies have been undertaken to examine the common impact or interplay of different job-related demands and resources.

•

The phenomenon top executives’ work relationship has not been investigated in existent research with all its facets like conceptualized in this thesis. Thus, as Knudsen and colleagues state “given the generally small literature on job demands and resources for organizational leaders, it is challenging to identify the relevant job-related factors for this occupation” (2009, p. 86).

•

High job-related demands have been identified to be negatively associated with a manager’s well-being (e.g., Bingham/Boswell/Boudreau 2005; Knudsen/Ducharme/ Roman 2009; Rothmann/Joubert 2007).

•

High job-related resources such as high job involvement (e.g., Igbaria/Parasuraman/ Badawy 1994), the ability to delegate (e.g., Schriesheim/Neider/Scandura 1998) or high job control (e.g., Love/Edwards 2005) are positively related to a manager’s performance (e.g., Janssen 2001; Schriesheim/Neider/Scandura 1998).

•

The negative effects of high job-related demands are buffered by job-related resources (e.g., Wong/DeSanctis/Staudenmayer 2007).

Existent research shows that job-related demands and resources are related to a person’s wellbeing, satisfaction, and performance. But to our knowledge, different patterns of top executives’ work relationship and their association with executives’ well-being, satisfaction, and performance as well as organizational performance receive no attention in existent research. A notable research stream in organizational psychology has investigated specific work relationship types, namely workaholism types (e.g., Burke 2000; McMillan et al. 2002; Spence/ Robbins 1992). For example, Spence and Robbins (1992) identified six distinct work relationship profiles, namely work enthusiasts, workaholics, relaxed workers, unengaged workers, enthusiastic workaholics, and disenchanted workers. Thereby, workaholics are characterized by high scores on job involvement and drive and low scores on enjoyment of work. In contrast, work enthusiasts score high on job involvement and enjoyment but low on drive, whereas enthusiastic workaholics score high on all three components. A central result of their research is that workaholics score higher than work enthusiasts (among others) on perfectionism, nondelegation, job stress, and health complaints (Spence/Robbins 1992). Later validation of Spence and Robbins’ conceptualization of workaholism could not confirm the three wor-

32

Conceptual Background



kaholism factors and recommends the elimination of the job involvement factor (McMillan et al. 2002). Furthermore, this research stream has been mainly focused on the employee level. Beside the investigation of these specific workaholism types, work relationship taxonomies have not been provided by existent research. Thus, developing a theoretically based empirical taxonomy provides a suitable and necessary approach in this context. We continue with reviewing research on the second phenomenon under study, that is work-family balance. 2.2.3 Research on Work-Family Balance In the last decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of research devoted to understanding the linkages between work and family life (Greenhaus/Singh 2003). Before reviewing this research on our second phenomenon under study, we refine its definition by considering the elements of the phenomenon work-family balance in more detail. We define work as instrumental activity intended to supply goods and services to earn ones living (Piotrkowski/Rapoport/Rapoport 1987). Work typically entails membership in a market or employing organization that refunds the working individual for his or her contributions (Burke/Greenglass 1987; Kabanoff/O'Brien 1980). We define family as persons related by biological ties, marriage, social custom, or adoption (Burke/Greenglass 1987; Piotrkowski/Rapoport/Rapoport 1987). Like work, family entails membership in a social organization to which the person contributes (Zedeck 1992). However, these contributions are intended not to earn goods and services but, rather, to maintain the family and enhance its well-being. This definition of family includes all individuals who meet certain needs or functions formerly thought to be met by family members like a spouse or own children (Rothausen 1999). This implies that top executives living with a spouse or a significant other without children are also perceived to have a family live. The third part of the phenomenon work-family balance deserves specific attention. We define balance as a state in which multiple domains an individual is involved in are consistent in terms of core values (Thompson/Bunderson 2001). Thus, the core characteristic of balance like we comprehend it in this thesis is a subjectively encountered consistency between life domains. Accordingly, when for instance one’s work consists of meanings that one values personally, even a demanding schedule may not undermine one’s sense of balance (Broadhead 1980). An important characteristic of this definition is that is relies on a perceived balance experienced by the individual. Thus, even when a top executive him or herself feels balanced and without conflict between the work and family domains, his or her family, friends, and non-work associates may perceive the executive’s situation as unbalanced and feel neglected.

Literature Review

33



As outlined previously, we define a top executives’ work-family balance as a top executive’s “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home, with a minimum of role conflict” (Clark 2000, p. 751). This definition is used in the following to conceptualize the facets and constructs of our top executive work-family balance taxonomy. In this conceptualization, satisfaction is considered from two perspectives: work and family. Top executives’ work satisfaction is defined as the “degree to which the individual is satisfied with his or her job” (Carlson et al. 2006, p. 152). Family satisfaction comprises housework and satisfaction with private relationships (Brown/Booth 2002). Like satisfaction, top executives’ functioning is considered from the work and the family perspective. Clark conceptualizes functioning at work as employee citizenship, defined as “behavior over and above simple conformance to work rules” (Clark 2002, p. 39). Family functioning is defined as family interactions and activities of the top executive that contribute to the maintenance of the family unit and the well-being of its members (Linder-Pelz et al. 1984). This facet is originally conceptualized as the degree of emotional bonding between family members (Clark 2002). Role conflict is defined as “the occurrence of two or more sets of pressures such that compliance with one would make more difficult compliance with the other” (Katz/Kahn 1978, p. 19). In order to understand an individual’s work-family balance, role conflict is also considered from two perspectives: as work-related conflict, called work-to-family conflict and as family-related conflict, called family-to-work conflict (e.g., Carlson et al. 2006). Work-tofamily conflict is “a form of interrole conflict, in which the demands created by the job interfere with the performance of family-related responsibilities” (Netemeyer/Boles/ McMurrian 1996, p. 130). For example, long working hours may prevent a top executive form spending time with the children. Family-to-work conflict occurs when the participation in the work role is made more difficult because of the participation in the family role (Duxbury/Higgins 1991). For example, a child’s illness may prevent a parents’ attendance at work. Similar to top executives’ work relationship, previous examinations of top executives’ workfamily balance are very sparse. Thus, we rely on results of professional and managerial samples to build on our conceptualization of top executives’ work-family balance. From a conceptual perspective, Clark (2000) draws the described distinction between three facets of work-family balance: satisfaction, functioning, and role conflict. From an empirical perspective, however, the phenomenon has rarely been addressed holistically with all three facets (e.g., Clark 2002). Rather, empirical studies focus on specific phenomena like role conflict, role models, and organizational work-family policies (see Figure 2-4).

34

Conceptual Background

 Figure 2-4: Major areas of research on work-family issues

Research on work-family issues

Role conflict

Role models

Organizational work-family policies

Work-to-family conflict

Traditional role models

Work-family benefits

Family-to-work conflict

Post-tradtional role models

Work-family culture

In addition to this fragmented investigation, research in organizational psychology largely focuses on the employee and managerial level, thus far neglecting the top executive level. With the exception of few studies (Drew/Murtagh 2005; Judge/Boudreau/Bretz 1994), to our knowledge, the treatment of top executives’ work-family balance in existing empirical literature remains almost unregarded. Therefore, we report the results of studies on workfamily issues with managerial samples in the following (see Table 2-3). We allocate each study to one of the three facets of work-family research, namely role conflict, role models, and organizational work-family policies. As we have already defined role conflict, we proceed with the definition of the other major areas of work-family research. Role models contain traditional role models—the husband as breadwinner and the wife as homemaker (Duxbury/Higgins 1991, p. 60)—and post-traditional role models, which comprise for example double earner parents or double earner couples without children . Organizational work-family policies comprise “a broad range of human resources practices as components of systems that, taken together, shape employees’ capacity to meet work and family demands in an integrated fashion” (Batt/Valcour 2003, p. 190). Thereby, we focus on specific workfamily benefits which comprise for example on-site child care, family leave, and flexible scheduling and work arrangements (Batt/Valcour 2003). Furthermore, we report studies on the work-family culture of a company which specifies “how positive or negative […] organizational work norms and values [are] in facilitating or inhibiting employee work-life program participation” (Tay/Quazi/Kelly 2006, p. 3).

Literature Review

35

Table 2-3: Studies on work-family issues Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

Duxbury/Higgins (1991)/ Psychology

240 managers and professionals in a variety of industries, having children and a spouse also in a managerial or professional job/ Survey/ Partial least squares

Model of workfamily conflict

Job involvement, work expectations, family involvement, and family expectations produce work-to-family conflict. Work-to-family conflict is negatively related to the quality of work life and life satisfaction.

Gutek/Searle/ Klepa (1991)/ Psychology

534 psychologists and 209 senior managers in a variety of Industries, living with a family/ Survey/ ttest, regression analyses, ANCOVA

Rational view on work-family conflict, gender role perspective

Both samples reported higher levels of perceived work-to-family conflict in comparison to very low levels of family-to-work conflict. The more hours are spent at work, the higher is the work-to-family conflict.

Higgins/Duxbury/ Irving (1992)/ Organizational behavior

273 male managers and professionals in a variety of industries, living either with a homemaker wife (i.e., traditionalcareer men) or a spouse in a careeroriented job (i.e., dual-career men)/ Survey/ Partial least squares

Model of workfamily conflict

Work conflict is the primary determinant of work-to-family conflict for both dual-career and traditional-career men. The relationship between work conflict and family conflict as well as work-to-family conflict is significantly stronger for dual-career men. The relationship between family conflict and work to-family conflict is significantly stronger for traditional-career men. There is a significantly stronger negative relationship between work conflict and quality of work life for dualcareer men. The negative consequences of high work-to-family conflict are significantly more likely to spill over into the family domain than the work domain. The quality of work life is stronger related to life satisfaction for traditional-career men. Maternal career employment has no significant impact on the extent to which work-family conflict is related to quality of work life.

Role conflict

36

Conceptual Background

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

Continuation of role conflict Parasuraman/ Greenhaus/ Granrose (1992)/ Organizational behavior

119 managerial and professional two-career partners, employed in a variety of industries/ Survey (manager and partner ratings)/ MANOVA, hierarchical multiple regression and moderated regression analysis

Model of worknon work stress

Work and family role stressors as well as work-family conflict are associated with overall life stress. Work role stressors are negatively related to job satisfaction. Family role stressors are negatively related to family satisfaction. Work support is associated with increased job satisfaction, while spouse support is associated with greater family satisfaction.

Beatty (1996)/ Organizational behavior

193 professional and managerial women in a variety of industries/ Survey/ t-test, regression analysis

No conceptual background

Depression is positively related to overall work-family conflict only for women with child-care responsibilities. Successful professional and managerial women do not exhibit high levels of anxiety, depression and hostility, nor do these outcomes increase for women in higher level executive positions.

Aryee/Fields/Luk (1999)/ Management

320 married managerial employees in a variety of industries/ Survey/Structural equation modeling

Model of the work-family interface

Job stressors have a significant relationship with work-to-family conflict, while job involvement is not related to work-to-family conflict. Job distress and satisfaction as well as family distress and satisfaction both influence overall well-being (i.e., depression, life satisfaction).

Martins/Eddleston/ Veiga (2002)/ Management

975 managers and professionals in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Hierarchical regression analysis

Career models

Work-to-family conflict is negatively related to career satisfaction especially for women and older managers. This relationship is moderated by socio-emotional support.

Literature Review

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

37

Key constructs and results

Continuation of role conflict Batt/Valcour (2003)/Human Resource Management

557 professional and managerial employees in manufacturing, health care, higher education, and utilities, living in dual-career couples/ Telephone survey/ Hierarchical regression analysis

No conceptual background

Montgomery et al. (2003)/Psychology

69 newspaper managers/ Survey/ Mediation analysis

Kasper/Meyer/ Schmidt (2005)/ Management

30 managers in a variety of industries/ Problemfocused interviews/ Content analysis, cluster and pronominal analysis

Role strain perspective, enhancement perspective, job demandsresources model Social systems theory

Lingard/Francis (2005)/ Psychology

231 male professionals, managers and administrators in the construction industry/ Survey/ principal components factoranalysis, correlations, regression analysis

Effort-recovery model

Work design characteristics (e.g., coordination responsibilities, long work hours) are associated with significantly higher work-to-family conflict and decreased control over managing work and family. Supportive supervision is associated with lower work-to-family conflict and higher employee control. Flexible scheduling practices, human resource incentives (e.g., job security, high relative pay), and supportive supervisors are associated with lower turnover intentions.

Emotional job-demands increase negative work-home interference, which in turn increases managers’ exhaustion. Supervisors’ social support decreases managers’ cynicism, mediated via positive work-home interference.

There are three distinct prototypes of managers dealing with work-to-family conflict: 1) career as subject of social fascination and family as a factual task, 2) the tradition of two separate worlds, and 3) double burden and the pressure of tasks.

The relationship between job schedule demands (i.e., job schedule irregularity and hours worked per week) and the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout is mediated by work-to-family conflict.

38

Conceptual Background

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

Continuation of role conflict Taris/Schaufeli/ Verhoeven (2005)/ Psychology

199 managers in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Confirmatory factor analysis

Conceptual model for the effects of workaholism and background variables

Workaholism affects exhaustion and work-tofamily conflict directly and indirectly (via perceived job demands).

Taris et al. (2006)/ Psychology

199 managers of a retail organization/ Survey/ Confirmatory factor analysis, stepwise regression analysis

Effort-recovery model

High job-related demands and low job control is associated with high levels of work-tofamily conflict, low levels of enjoyment, and high levels of exhaustion.

Graves/Ohlott/ Ruderman (2007)/Psychology

346 managers in a variety of industries/ Survey, performance ratings of participants’ coworkers/ Structural equation modeling

Identity theory, scarcity perspective, theories of role accumulation, conversation of resources theory

Managers’ family role commitment (i.e., marital and parental) is associated with increased family-to-work enhancement and thereby reduces strain and strengthens outcomes (i.e., life satisfaction, career satisfaction, and performance). Family role commitment does not increase family-towork conflict.

Burchielli/ Bartram/ Thanacoody (2008)/ Organizational behavior

14 female senior staff and managers of a bank and a hospital/ Semistructured interviews/ Qualitative content analysis

Concept of workfamily balance, concept of greedy organizations

In spite of their greater autonomy and discretion, female managers encounter workto-family conflict. They perceive having no balance and making many personal sacrifices to meet the conflicting demands of their work and family roles. They rely on partners, friends, neighbors and family to assist with meeting family-role demands.

925 managers in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Regression analysis

Typology of family structure, human capital theory, societal stereotypes theory, spousal support theory

Post-traditional family men (i.e., with children and employed wives) earn less than traditional family men, whose wives are not employed. Single men and married men with employed wives and no children earn levels of income similar to married men with employed wives and children.

Role models Schneer/Reitman (1993)/ Management

Literature Review Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

39

Continuation of role models Jones/Fletcher (1996)/ Psychology

20 full-time working couples in managerial and professional jobs in a variety of industries/ Daily diary questionnaires for three weeks (qualitative and quantitative measures)/ Qualitative analysis, multiple regression analysis

Demandssupportsconstraints model of occupational stress

There are traditional role stereotypes, such that men’s evening mood is primarily determined by work stressors and women’s mood is determined by domestic stressors. Weekends have significantly better mood and sleep is significantly worse on Sunday evening. Work stressors spill over into home life.

Ruderman et al. (2002)/ Management

61 (qualitative study) and 276 (quantitative study) managerial women in a variety of industries/ Interviews, biographical information sheets, effectiveness ratings, survey/ Qualitative analysis, hierarchical regression analysis

Role scarcity perspective, enhancement perspective, transactional model of stress

Roles women play in their personal lives provide psychological benefits, emotional advice and support, practice at multitasking, relevant background, opportunities to enrich interpersonal skills, and leadership practice that enhance effectiveness in the management role. Multiple role commitment positively relates to life satisfaction, self-esteem, and self-acceptance. Commitment to multiple roles relates to interpersonal and task-related managerial skills.

40

Conceptual Background

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

Continuation of role models Schneer/Reitman (2002)/ Management

925 managers (first data set), 494 managers (second data set) in a variety of industries/ Longitudinal survey (three waves over a thirteen-year period delivered first data set)/ ANOVA, regression analysis

Family structure typology, human capital theory, spousal support theory, distributive justice theory

The post-traditional family with both parents employed is most prevalent. A small percentage of managers live in the traditional family where the father is employed and the mother is not employed. Male managers in traditional families are most rewarded in their careers in terms of income and salary progression.

Lyness/Judiesch (2008)/ Psychology

9.627 managers in a variety of industries in 33 countries/ Survey (self ratings, peer ratings, and supervisor ratings)/ Multilevel analysis

Gender role theory, enhancement perspective, role congruity theory

Managers who were rated higher in work-life balance were rated higher in career advancement potential than were managers who were rated lower in work-life balance.

Guillaume/Pochic (2009)/ Management

60 career managers, top managers and high potential talents of a utility company/ Human resources figures and statistics (quantitative), interviews (qualitative)/ Qualitative grid analysis, correlation

Career models

Putting in long hours at work is still a means for being selected for promotion to high positions. It forces managers, especially women, to make choices about work and family. Women develop strategies that enable them either to conform to or bypass organizational norms.

Literature Review

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

41

Work-family policies Judiesch/Lyness (1999)/ Management

11.815 managers of a multinational financial services organization/ Archival data/ Hierarchical logistic and multiple regression analysis

Gendered organizational culture theory, human capital theory, allocation of energy model

Leaves of absence, regardless of the reason for them (i.e., family responsibilities or illness) or the gender of the manager, were associated with significantly fewer subsequent promotions and smaller salary increases.

Thompson/ Beauvais/Lyness (1999)/ Organizational behavior

276 managers and professionals in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Hierarchical multiple regression analysis

Model of worknon work stress, spillover model

Perceptions of a supportive work-family culture are related to the use of work-family benefits. Work-family benefit availability and supportive work-family culture are positively related to affective commitment and negatively related to work-family conflict and intentions to leave the organization.

Perry-Smith/Blum (2000)/ Human Resources

527 U.S. firms/ Survey/ Principal component factor analysis, cluster analysis (Ward and weighted-average), MANCOVA

Bundle approach, competitive advantage perspective

Organizations with more extensive workfamily policies have higher perceived firmlevel performance. This relationship is stronger for older firms and firms employing larger proportions of women.

Allen (2001)/ Organizational behavior

522 employees of a technology firm, a utility company, and a women’s professional business association/ Survey/ Exploratory factor analysis, hierarchical multiple regression analysis

Role theory, conservation of resources model

Employees who perceived their organization as less family-supportive experience more work-family conflict, less job satisfaction, less organizational commitment, and greater turnover intentions than do employees who perceive their organization as more familysupportive. Family-supportive supervisors positively affect employees’ job attitudes.

42

Conceptual Background

Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

Key constructs and results

Continuation of work-family policies Burke (2001)/ Management

251 female managers and professionals in a variety of industries/ Survey/ Correlations

No conceptual background

Organizational values supporting work-life balance are related to greater job and career satisfaction, less work stress, less intention to quit, greater family satisfaction, fewer psychosomatic symptoms and more positive emotional well-being. Perceptions of organizational values supportive of work-life balance are unrelated to hours and extra hours worked and job involvement.

Casper et al. (2004)/ Organizational behavior

1.972 managers in a government agency/ Survey/ Hierarchical regression analysis

Theory of reasoned action, expectancy theory

Supervisors’ program awareness and instrumentality perceptions both contribute uniquely to predicting the frequency of supervisors’ referrals to work-family programs (i.e., preschool-age child care, schoolage child care, elder-care assistance, relocation assistance, the family advocacy program, and family member employment assistance).

Thompson et al. (2004)/ Organizational behavior

310 employees and 42 human resource managers in a variety of industries/ Longitudinal survey (second measurement after 18 months)/ Crosslagged panel analysis, hierarchical multiple regression analysis

Theories of social support and perceived organizational support, direct consensus composition model

Perceptions of intangible organizational family support (i.e., support from the employee’s supervisor and the organization's ability to communicate respect for employees' non-work lives) enhance employees’ affective commitment and diminish employees’ workto-family conflict. Perceptions of supervisory family support are related to affective commitment and job search behavior.

Literature Review Author(s) (year)/Research area

Addressed sample/Data source/Applied analysis

Conceptual background

43

Key constructs and results

Continuation of work-family policies Drew/Murtagh (2005)/ Management

62 senior managers of a major Irish organization/ Electronic questionnaire survey, interviews, focus group sessions/ Qualitative content analysis

Role models

The greatest obstacle to achieving work-life balance is the culture of working long hours. Thereby, availing oneself of flexible options (e.g. working from home/reduced hours/ flextime) is incompatible with holding a senior management position. Many of the senior men have followed the traditional family model by being able to delegate family and caring activities to their wives. Women want to avail themselves of more flexible arrangements for family and quality of life reasons. Both men and women in senior management recognize that their own careers would be seriously endangered by taking up work-life balance arrangements.

Again, we assess the reviewed studies along conceptual, methodological, and content-related characteristics. Concerning the conceptual characteristics of existent work-family research, namely the conceptual background of the studies, we can summarize the following findings: x

Most studies base their conceptual framework on a variety of conceptual models (e.g., Judiesch/Lyness 1999; Schneer/Reitman 2002). Little research is based on a single existing conceptual model which covers all observed variables and relationships (e.g., Duxbury/Higgins 1991; Taris et al. 2006). Only few studies rely on real theories which specify the mechanisms linking the investigated phenomena (e.g., Casper et al. 2004; Judiesch/Lyness 1999). Some studies report no conceptual background at all (e.g., Batt/Valcour 2003; Burke 2001).

x

Most studies do not consider if the multiple models used rely on the same basic assumptions concerning for example their level of analysis (i.e., individual, team, organization) or their behavioral hypothesis (i.e., scarcity or enhancement). Thus, they neglect to check if the used models can be combined in one common conceptual model (Gioia/Pitre 1990).

x

Most of the used conceptual models or theories are only shortly introduced. A detailed theory-based justification of the selection and relevance of the investigated variables

44

Conceptual Background



and their interrelationships is often missing. Thus, these studies display no conceptual framework that is based on a real theory (Campbell 1990). In this thesis, the conceptual limitations of prior work-family research will be approached by strongly connecting our configurational approach to theory. Like most work-family research we also use several conceptual models, namely the scarcity and enhancement perspectives of role theory (e.g., Katz/Kahn 1978) and different mechanisms of work-family linkage (e.g., Lambert 1990; Staines 1980; Zedeck 1992). We introduce these selected established conceptual models in detail and check their compatibility. Subsequently, we conceptually derive the variables on which our taxonomies are based and explicitly present our conceptual framework. After considering the conceptual characteristics of existing work-family research we proceed with the assessment of methodological characteristics. Concerning this matter we observed the following aspects: •

Work-family research uses samples of widely differing sizes. The samples reviewed in this thesis vary from 14 (Burchielli/Bartram/Thanacoody 2008) up to 11.815 (Judiesch/Lyness 1999) individuals. When the research design combines qualitative and quantitative data, the samples contain maximally about 60 individuals (e.g., Burchielli/ Bartram/Thanacoody 2008; Drew/Murtagh 2005; Guillaume/Pochic 2009; Jones/ Fletcher 1993; Kasper/Meyer/Schmidt 2005; Ruderman et al. 2002).

•

Work-family research highly concentrates on middle or lower-level managers and professionals (e.g., Duxbury/Higgins 1991; Higgins/Duxbury/Irving 1992). Few studies address top executives (e.g., Drew/Murtagh 2005; Gutek/Searle/Klepa 1991).

•

Most studies are conducted with individuals who are employed in a variety of organizations and industries (e.g., Duxbury/Higgins 1991; Gutek/Searle/Klepa 1991). Few studies focus on one organization or industrial sector (e.g., Drew/Murtagh 2005; Guillaume/Pochic 2009).

•

Work-family research mostly relies on single-source self-report survey data (e.g., Barnett 1998; Greenhaus/Parasuraman 1999; Zedeck 1992). Only few studies use additional peer ratings (e.g., Lyness/Judiesch 2008; Ohlott/Ruderman/McCauley 1994; Parasuraman/Greenhaus 1997).

•

More studies use another form of triangulation, that is corroborating qualitative data to complement their quantitative data (e.g., Drew/Murtagh 2005; Ruderman et al. 2002). Some studies are solely based on qualitative data (e.g., Burchielli/Bartram/Thanacoody 2008; Kasper/Meyer/Schmidt 2005).

Literature Review



•

45

Concerning the applied statistical methods, most studies use regressions to analyze the causal relationships between the investigated variables (e.g., Allen 2001; Casper et al. 2004). Cluster analysis in order to develop an empirical taxonomy has been rarely used (e.g., Kasper/Meyer/Schmidt 2005; Perry-Smith/Blum 2000).

In work-family research the use of multisource data (i.e., multiple people providing the data and multiple data collection methods) is highly recommendable (Casper et al. 2007). Thus, in this thesis we use qualitative as well as quantitative methods and partner ratings additionally to top executives’ self ratings. By addressing top executives we provide a so far neglected top executive-specific consideration of work-family issues. According to existing work-family research we limit the size of our qualitative sample to a manageable number of 42 top executives. Additionally, we follow most existent work-family research and investigate top executives in a variety of organizations and industries. Concerning content-related characteristics of existent work-family research the following aspects are worth mentioning: •

Research on work-family issues is dominated by the investigation of one facet of work-family balance, namely role conflict. This conflict perspective emphasizes role conflict among individuals who participate in work and family roles and its detrimental impact on well-being, satisfaction and health (e.g., Duxbury/Higgins 1991; Montgomery et al. 2003).

•

Work-family research has also considered characteristics of the boundary between home and work roles (e.g., Hall/Richter 1988) and how integration or segmentation strategies for navigating the work-family boundary may affect an individual’s experience of work and family roles (e.g., Nippert-Eng 1995; Rothbard/Phillips/ Dumas 2005). As a result, there is evidence from a broad body of research that work and non-work roles influence each other (see Edwards/Rothbard 2000 for a review).

•

A further interesting result of these studies is that respondents report high levels of perceived work-to-family conflict but very low levels of perceived family-to-work conflict (e.g., Gutek/Searle/Klepa 1991). This result can be explained with the dominance of the work domain on the family domain that can be observed especially in managerial and top executive samples. These respondents spend much more time with work than with family activities. Additionally, the respondents who are in demanding and time-consuming jobs may have greater control over family work than over paid work.

•

The investigation of managerial role models shows that the post-traditional model with both partners employed is most prevalent among today’s managers (Schneer/ Reitman 1993). But individuals in high positions fear career impairments by the use of

46

Conceptual Background



work-life balance arrangements (Drew/Murtagh 2005). Accordingly, managers living in a traditional family model are most rewarded in their careers (e.g., Guillaume/ Pochic 2009; Schneer/Reitman 1993). •

There is also evidence that multiple role commitment is related to positive outcomes like enhanced life satisfaction, self-esteem, and managerial skills (Ruderman et al. 2002).

•

Research on work-family policies shows the high importance of both, work-family benefits and work-family culture. Accordingly, organizations with more extensive work-family benefits have higher perceived firm-level performance (e.g., Perry-Smith/ Blum 2000).

•

Furthermore, supervisor support and the work-family culture of the organization are crucial for the well-being and satisfaction of the employees (e.g., Burke 2001; Thompson et al. 2004).

•

Additionally, this research shows that work-family balance is essential but at the same time difficult to achieve especially for top executives (e.g., Drew/Murtagh 2005).

•

Similar to taxonomies concerning an individuals’ work relationship, taxonomies of work-family balance are rare. Kasper, Meyer, and Schmidt (2005) developed a taxonomy of managers dealing with the work-family tension (see Table 2-3). But this study was explorative in nature and lacks any theoretical grounding. Further research on the employee level has investigated a fourfold taxonomy of work-family balance in terms of the direction of influence (i.e., work-family vs. family-work) and type of effect (i.e., conflict vs. facilitation) (e.g., Aryee/Srinivas/Tan 2005; Demerouti/Geurts 2004).

To our knowledge though, different patterns of top executives’ work-family balance and their association with individual, work-related and family-related variables receive no attention in existent research. Thus, developing a theoretically based empirical taxonomy provides a suitable and necessary approach in this context. 2.2.4 Specification of Investigated Phenomena To conclude this literature review, we proceed with the second step of our taxonomy development procedure (see Figure 2-1), namely the specification of the two investigated phenomena. As this thesis shows, two highly important, but still neglected phenomena are top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. First, top executives’ work relationship is decisive for organizational performance (e.g., Hambrick 2007), and thus focuses on the company’s point of view. This perspective deals with the

Literature Review

47



manner of how top executives are related to their work: Are they able to successfully fulfill their highly demanding jobs? Do they dedicate all their passion to their job and leverage their high skills for the welfare of their company? Or are they only fulfilling the minimum requirements of their work to be perceived as professional? Or are they even in the risk of losing control over their job and thereby doing great harm to their companies? Numerous studies have shown that top executives’ performance is positively related to organizational performance (e.g., Bantel/Jackson 1989; Hambrick 2007; Hambrick/Mason 1984; Miller/Droge 1986). Accordingly, the phenomenon of top executives’ work relationship is supposed to be related to top executives’ well-being and performance as well as organizational performance. In consequence, a good top executives’ work relationship is decisive for the success of their companies. Thus, the first phenomenon under study, a top executive’s work relationship is a primary concern of the organizations top executives are leading. Second, from the top executives’ point of view, maintaining work-family balance is of high importance (e.g., Drew/Murtagh 2005). This second perspective of the present work deals with questions like: How do top executives arrive to manage their work and private life at a time? Are they able to be highly involved and achieve good results in both life domains? Or are they prisoners of their job, neglecting themselves and their families? Do they risk to wear themselves out, leaving behind their families alone and dissatisfied? Accordingly, in a top executive’s life, work can either detract or enhance family life (Judge/ Boudreau/Bretz 1994). On the one hand, a top executive’s extensive work hours and overinvolvement in work may result in distress within the family domain, withdrawal from family responsibilities, and adversely affect the top executive’s overall quality of life. On the other hand, there may be several resources derived from a top executive’s work role, such as income, job autonomy, and social reputation that can positively influence the top executive’s experiences and well-being in the family domain. In such a balanced situation, they are more likely to meet their roles’ needs, experience relatively little stress, and derive high self-esteem from their different role activities (Marks/MacDermid 1996). Furthermore, a good workfamily balance is even decisive for a top executive’s career advancement potential (Lyness/ Judiesch 2008). Because of the profound influence of work on family, the actual work-family balance situation has important implications for top executives and their families. Thus, this second phenomenon under study, top executives’ work-family balance, is a primary concern of top executives and their families. Accordingly, with the investigation of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance we capture both perspectives, the one of the organization and the one of the top executives themselves. In recent years, changes in work and private life contribute to the increasing importance of work relationship (e.g., Rothmann/Joubert 2007; Wong/DeSanctis/Staudenmayer 2007) and

48

Conceptual Background



work-family balance (e.g., Grzywacz/Marks 2000; Lewis/Cooper 1999). In the following we thus take a look at important changes concerning work and family roles. Work roles are changing in consequence of globalization, increasing competitive pressure, as well as downsizing and restructuring of organizations (e.g., Beynon et al. 2002; Uchitelle/ Kleinfield 1996). Management practices and innovations cause increased working hours and lead to an extreme work intensification (e.g., Allan/O'Donnell/Peetz 1999). This is especially the case for top executives (Lassiter 2004). For example, due to globally expanding operations of many organizations (e.g., van Bergeijk/Mensink 1997), especially top executives have to travel or work abroad. In consequence, top executives are likely to have greater demands on their time (e.g., Batt/Valcour 2003; Olson/Manocchio 1991). In the company this total dedication to the job is still a prerequisite for advancement in the upper echelons. In fact, managerial advancement has been shown to be associated with working long hours (e.g., Judge et al. 1995). This superiority of the work domain is related to a subordination of the family domain. Indeed, managers living in traditional families are most rewarded in their careers (e.g., Guillaume/Pochic 2009; Schneer/Reitman 1993). In such a traditional family role model, a spouse at home handles all family responsibilities, enabling top executives to devote all their energy to the career (e.g., Schneer/Reitman 2002). In consequence, an enormous job involvement in line with long working hours, frequent travel, and relocation are well accepted and supported. This is of high importance especially for top executives, as they invest particularly large proportions of their time budget in their profession (e.g., Rutherford 2001; Simpson 1998) and devote specifically high emotional involvement to their jobs (e.g., Carmeli 2005). In summary, work roles have changed in a way that individuals are expected to give more in terms of time, effort, skills, and flexibility (e.g., Maslach/Schaufeli/Leiter 2001). That is to say, they have to cope with increasing job-related demands (e.g., organizational pressure culture) by investing more job-related resources (e.g., self-management skills,(e.g., Minervini/ Meyer/Rourke 2003). Against this background, a top executive’s work relationship is more important than ever. Changes concerning family roles include the invasion of women into the workforce, increasing prevalence of dual-earner couples, stronger focus on personal development and quality of life of men and women, and modern family arrangements that deviate from traditional gender-based roles (e.g., Bond et al. 2003; Etzion/Smokoviti/Bailyn 1993; Feyerherm/Vick 2005; Fields 2004; Moen/Roehling 2005; Nieva 1995; Paris 1990; Williams 2000). Accordingly, the most prevalent role model among managers is the post-traditional model with both partners employed (e.g., Schneer/Reitman 1993). But the requirements of modern post-traditional families are in conflict with the superiority of the work domain in top

Literature Review

49



executives’ lives (e.g., Schneer/Reitman 2002). Thus, as more and more top executives today live in post-traditional families with a working spouse, conflicts between work and family have a significant impact on how they view their career outcomes (e.g., Martins/Eddleston/ Veiga 2002). Accordingly, their enormous job involvement interferes with fulfilling both, work and family roles (e.g., Batt/Valcour 2003; Olson/Manocchio 1991). Thus, their frequent work-related assignments often strain their family relationships (e.g., Shaffer/Harrison 1998). Many CEOs would like to dedicate more time to their work, but at the same time their families wish to spend more time with them. Thus, despite working long and hard, top executives often do not accomplish all they want to achieve (e.g., McLean/Stuckey/Barton 1991). At the same time, they may be dissatisfied with their work schedules and express a desire to work fewer hours (e.g., Bond/Galinsky/Swanberg 1998; Drew/Murtagh 2005; Jacobs/Gerson 1997). Additionally, most of all at the top executive level, the boundaries between work and home have changed in the fashion of “home has become porous as work-life seeps into it” (Kasper/Meyer/Schmidt 2005, p. 441). These developments bring work and family life into competition for a limited amount of time and emotional commitment. Thus, especially individuals with high job positions have difficulties in achieving work-family balance (Drew/Murtagh 2005). The role conflict they encounter because of their participation in work and family roles is not only detrimental to their well-being, satisfaction, and health (e.g., Duxbury/Higgins 1991; Montgomery et al. 2003), but also to their potential to advance in their career (e.g., Lyness/Judiesch 2008). At the same time, however, top executives have an advantage in balancing work and family life as they are likely to have great flexibility and personal control over the timing of their work (e.g., Batt/Valcour 2003; O’Neil/Greenberger 1994; Quick/Nelson/Hurrell 1997). Additionally, their jobs offer greater extrinsic rewards like large salaries (Madura 1993). They can be used to offset some of the costs that demanding jobs entail. For example, top executives with high incomes can afford professional domestic help and childcare (e.g., Clark 1997; Graves/Ohlott/Ruderman 2007). Nevertheless, top executives are confronted with the important challenge of achieving work-family balance. Hereby, they want to handle their work and family responsibilities in a way that meets the needs of their family as well as their organizations. In the following, we rely on the review of existent research and existing related taxonomies as well as our specification of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance and proceed to the subsequent steps of the taxonomy development process. In the next section, we outline the third step, namely, theory-based identification of major facets and constructs of top executives’ work relationship (see section 2.3) and work-family balance (see section 2.4).

50

Conceptual Background



2.3

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Taxonomy

In the introductory section, we already reviewed the previous treatment of top executives’ work relationship in the literature (see section 2.2). As outlined before, to our knowledge, there exist no closely related taxonomies of top executives’ work relationship. In addition, we have already labeled, defined, and specified our first investigated phenomenon, namely top executives’ work relationship, in the introduction of this thesis. Thus, as the first two steps of our taxonomy development procedure (see Figure 2-1) have already been presented, in the following section of this thesis, we outline the third step of taxonomy development, the theory-based identification of major facets and constructs. From a theoretical perspective, we use the job demands-resources model for identifying relevant facets and constructs to describe top executives’ work relationship. Furthermore, we draw upon upper echelons theory, which is highly relevant for the selection of specific top executives’ job-related demands. 2.3.1 The Job Demands-Resources Model In this thesis, we use the job demands-resources model (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Demerouti et al. 2001; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007a; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b) to identify major facets and categories for the description of top executives’ work relationship. Additionally, based on this model, we select relevant related variables of top executives’ work relationship. The job demands-resources model (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Demerouti et al. 2001; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b) is rooted in organizational psychology. It is based on the assumption that regardless of the type of job, the psychosocial work characteristics can be categorized into two groups: job-related demands and resources (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Demerouti et al. 2001). On this basis, the model explains the effects of high job-related demands (such as workload and time pressure) and lack of job-related resources (such as job control and support from colleagues) on related variables. As related variables for example burnout, absenteeism, turnover intentions, and work performance have been of particular interest in the literature (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Schaufeli 2003; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Schaufeli/Bakker 2004). According to this perspective, job strain is the result of a disturbed equilibrium between the job-related demands, individuals are exposed to, and the job-related resources, which they have at their hand (Karasek 1979). The job demands-resources model relies on four major assumptions. First, job-related demands put pressure on persons and by doing so require sustained physical or mental effort (Demerouti et al. 2001). They particularly turn into stressors when they come from an external source, such as the company (Meijman/Mulder 1998). In consequence, they are associated with certain physiological and psychological costs and thus, are likely to result in

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Taxonomy

51



different strain reactions like emotional exhaustion (e.g., Ganster 2005; Knudsen/Ducharme/ Roman 2009) and ill-health symptoms (e.g., Hakanen/Schaufeli/Ahola 2008; Schaufeli/ Bakker 2004). Second, job-related resources can facilitate the achievement of work-related goals and provide opportunities for personal growth (Demerouti et al. 2001). In contrast, a lack of jobrelated resources hinders goal accomplishment, resulting in frustration and experiences of failure (e.g., Demerouti et al. 2001). Thus, people strive to build and retain job-related resources to manage different work situations (Wilk/Moynihan 2005). Although many categories of job-related resources appear in the existent literature (for a review, see Xanthopoulou et al. 2007a), modern versions of this model emphasize personal job-related resources (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Judge/Locke/Durham 1997), which mainly consist of personal characteristics or attitudes, work-related skills, and personal control over the job (e.g., Hobfoll 1989; Hobfoll/Shirom 2001; Riolli 2003). Management literature underlines this categoryzation and affirms the importance of top executives’ attitudes toward work, such as job involvement (e.g., Igbaria/Parasuraman/Badawy 1994; Stevens/Beyer/Trice 1978) and enjoyment (e.g., Burke 2000; Gardner/Martinko 1988). In addition, top executives’ work-related skills, such as the ability to delegate, appear in several investigations (e.g., Hambrick/Finkelstein/ Mooney 2005a; Schriesheim/Neider/Scandura 1998). Regarding top executives’ loss of control over the job, research investigates dysfunctional coping strategies such as denial (e.g., Finkelstein 2003) and compensating behavior (e.g., Kets de Vries 1989). Another important job-related resource investigated in organizational psychology is job-related social support (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Euwema 2005; Haines/JHurblert/Zimmer 1991; Van Yperen/Hagedoorn 2003). As will be shown later in our qualitative empirical verification, this construct turned out to be of low relevance for the conceptualization of top executives’ work relationship. Third, negative well-being and performance are likely to develop in response to excessive job-related demands and diminished job-related resources (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Hakanen/Schaufeli/Ahola 2008; Lee/Ashforth 1996). In doing so, job-related demands and job-related resources relate differently to a person’s well-being (e.g., satisfaction and exhaustion) and performance (e.g., personal accomplishment and effectiveness). Whereas jobrelated demands associate negatively with a person’s well-being, job-related resources relate positively to a person’s performance (e.g., Bakker et al. 2003a; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Schaufeli/Bakker 2004). A fourth assumption of the job demands-resources model relates to a buffer effect of jobrelated resources. Specifically, it is proposed that, although job-related demands are high, high levels of job-related resources prevent negative consequences such as burnout (e.g., Demerouti et al. 2001; Van Yperen/Hagedoorn 2003; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b). Further-

52

Conceptual Background



more, this buffer effect was particularly emphasized in the interplay between job-related demands and personal resources as “people deal with stressors first using easily available internal resources” (De Jonge/Dormann 2006, p. 1361). Most studies on the job demands-resources model have been restricted to external resources (i.e., organizational and social resources), neglecting the role of personal job-related resources (Richter/Hacker 1998), which comprise an individual’s cognitive features and action patterns (e.g., Prieto et al. 2008; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007a). But such personal resources can be important determinants of individuals’ adaptation to their work environments (e.g., Hobfoll 1989; Hobfoll et al. 2003; Judge/Locke/Durham 1997). They “allow individuals to address and confront external/internal demands in stressful situations” (Prieto et al. 2008, p. 355). Thus, an important extension of the job demands-resources model is the inclusion of personal job-related resources (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Prieto et al. 2008; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007a). In this thesis, personal job-related resources are assumed to be highly relevant for the understanding of top executives’ work relationship. Specifically, personal job-related resources have positive effects on an individuals’ physical and emotional well-being (e.g., Chen/Gully/Eden 2001; Pierce et al. 1989). Beyond that, as will be shown in the following introduction of upper echelons theory, high personal resources are particularly important for top executives to manage their high job-related demands (e.g., Hambrick 2007; Hambrick/ Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, 2005b). In organizational psychology, three major categories of personal resources have been identified: personal characteristics/attitudes, work-related skills, and personal control over the job (e.g., Hobfoll 1989; Hobfoll/Shirom 2001; Riolli 2003). Thus, the job demands-resources model specifies the job-related demands and resources that characterize the particular occupational group under investigation. Because every occupation has its own specific risk factors associated with job stress, the model can be applied to various occupational settings, irrespective of the particular job-related demands and resources involved (Bakker/Demerouti 2007). Furthermore, the job demands-resources model is suited to simultaneously explain differences in individuals’ well-being and performance (e.g., Schaufeli/Bakker 2004). However, the job demands-resources model and its previous applications also show several limitations. First, most applications of the job demands-resources model focus solely on the psychosocial work environment and thereby neglect factors not related to work (Hakanen/ Schaufeli/Ahola 2008). But there is evidence that besides work factors, also personal resources and home demands and resources affect an individual’s well-being (e.g., Chandola et al. 2004; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007a). Second, applications of the model have largely been focused on the employee level (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Schaufeli 2003; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b). Thus, very little research extended the job demands-resources model to top executive-

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Taxonomy

53



specific job-related demands and resources (Knudsen/Ducharme/Roman 2009). This extension is a goal pursued by this thesis. Third, most applications of the job demands-resources model consider an individual’s perceived job situation. But this subjective perception may be biased for example due to impression management, which is a form of socially desirable responding, for instance, by consciously distorting responses in an attempt to present a more favorable image (e.g., Zerbe/Paulhus 1987). Thus, empirical research has mostly relied exclusively on self-report measures. Only some studies additionally employed other ratings (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/ Verbeke 2004; Demerouti et al. 2001; Salanova/Agut/Peiró 2005). But “it is crucial for the development of the field […] to include in research models objective measures” (Bakker/ Demerouti 2007, p. 322). Thus, besides self-reported variables, our research also draws on partner ratings and several objective business indicators. The job demands-resources model provides a number of important implications for this thesis: First, consistent with the job demands-resources model, we distinguish two major facets to capture top executives’ work relationship: job-related demands and job-related resources. Regarding job-related resources, we particularly follow a recent recommendation of Bakker and Demerouti (2007) to consider personal resources more intensively. Second, we further delimit job-related resources by identifying three categories: top executive’s attitudes toward work, work-related skills, and personal control over the job. This focus on personal jobrelated resources is consistent with recommendations of previous research (e.g., Hobfoll 1989; Judge/Locke/Durham 1997). Third, the job demands-resources model sheds a valuable light on possible related variables of top executives’ work relationship. Specifically, top executives’ well-being (i.e., exhaustion and work satisfaction) and top executive performance are identified as relevant related variables based on the job demands-resources model. According to the described buffer effect of job-related resources, high job-related resources can buffer the detrimental effect of high job-related demands on top executives’ well-being and performance. In contrast, a combination of low job-related resources and high job-related demands is likely to decrease such related variables. We summarize the major assumptions, strengths, limitations, and the contribution of the job demands-resources model to this thesis in Table 2-4.

54

Conceptual Background

Table 2-4: Overview of the job demands-resources model by Demerouti et al. (2001) Major assumptions

x Job-related demands put pressure on persons and require sustained physical or mental effort. x Job-related resources facilitate the achievement of work-related goals, while a lack of job-related resources hinders goal accomplishment. x Negative well-being and performance are likely to develop in response to excessive job-related demands and diminished job-related resources. x High levels of job-related resources prevent the occurrence of negative phenomena such as burnout.

Strengths

x Applicability to various occupational settings, irrespective of the particular demands and resources involved x Consideration of the interaction between job-related demands and resources (i.e., buffer effect of job-related resources) x Simultaneous explanation of differences in individuals’ well-being and performance

Limitations

x Focus on the psychological work environment and external job-related resources x Focus on the employee level x Focus on perceived demands and resources

Contribution to this thesis

x Distinction of two major facets to capture top executives’ work relationship: job-related demands and job-related resources x Focus on personal job-related resources x Identification of different categories of job-related resources x Selection of related variables of top executives work relationship

Research on the job demands-resources model has largely been focused on the employee level (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Schaufeli 2003; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b). As “each occupational setting is characterized by different types and levels of work characteristics” (Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b, p. 767), our theoretical considerations need further elaboration of the selected variables in the context of top executives’ work situations. A theory which explicitly focuses on top executives is upper echelons theory which we introduce in the following.

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Taxonomy

55



2.3.2 Upper Echelons Theory An important theory guiding our selection of top executive-specific job-related demands is upper echelons theory. This theory owes its origins to Hambrick and Mason and has frequently been examined since its introduction in 1984 (e.g., Agle et al. 2006; Barsade et al. 2000; Carpenter/Fredrickson 2001; Hambrick/D'Aveni 1992; Iaquinto/Fredrickson 1997; Knight et al. 1999; Simons/Pelled/Smith 1999). Upper echelons theory proceeds on the assumption of bounded rationality (Cyert/March 1963; March/Simon 1958): it is assumed that a top executive’s field of vision is restricted, selective, and influenced by his or her interpretation of a situation (Hambrick/Mason 1984). In consequence, top executives’ characteristics affect their strategic choices, and through this influence also their organizational performance. Specifically, top executives’ characteristics and strategic choices are assumed to interact in determining organizational performance levels (Hambrick/Mason 1984). According to upper echelons theory, top executives’ personal interpretations of strategic situations are highly relevant for their actions. These interpretations are, in turn, affected by top executives’ experiences, values and personalities (Hambrick/Mason 1984). In upper echelons theory, organizational performance is predicted by these top executives’ characteristics (e.g., Bantel/Jackson 1989; Hambrick 2007; Hambrick/Mason 1984; Miller/Droge 1986). Most empirical applications of this theory, captured top executives’ characteristics by demographic variables, such as age (e.g., Gray/Cannella 1997; Jessell/Madura/Martin 1996), tenure (e.g., Jessell/Madura/Martin 1996; Veliyath/Cordeiro 2001), and education (e.g., Jessell/Madura/Martin 1996). In a refined version of upper echelons theory, Hambrick and colleagues (e.g., Hambrick/ Finkelstein 1987; Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a) introduced top executives’ jobrelated demands. Specifically, they assumed that managerial characteristics are particularly relevant for a company’s strategy and performance in the case of high job-related demands (e.g., Crossland/Hambrick 2007; Finkelstein/Hambrick 1990; Hambrick/Finkelstein 1987). Thus, while prior research on top executives has implicitly held job difficulty constant (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a), more recent versions of upper echelons theory use top executives’ job-related demands in order to more deeply understand performance implications of top executives’ characteristics. Regarding job-related demands, prior research has primarily focused on task design (e.g., Gardner 1986) or job scope (e.g., Jia Lin/Johns 1995), which have “only limited salience for the typically unbounded responsibilities of top executive work” (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, p. 474). In this context, Hambrick and colleagues draw a distinction between two categories of job-related demands: First, external job-related demands, which are derived from task-related and/or performance-related challenges. Second, internal job-related demands manifest themselves in a top executive’s aspirations (i.e., an executive’s self imposed drive to perform, see Hambrick/Finkelstein/ Mooney 2005a).

56

Conceptual Background



Furthermore, Hambrick, Finkelstein, and Mooney (2005a) assume that top executives facing high job-related demands are particularly bounded in their rationality, which impairs their decision-making ability. In consequence, they economize their job-related behavior by relying on their internal and external job-related resources (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a). Thus, when top executives’ job-related demands are high, a top executive with a good equipment of such resources can better handle these high demands, finally resulting in a better performance of his or her company (i.e., Hambrick 2007; Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, 2005b). This mechanism is comparable to the buffer effect of job-related resources, previously described in the job demands-resources model. In several parts of upper echelons theory, Hambrick and colleagues (e.g. Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a; Hambrick/Mason 1984) speak of top executives’ personal resources as one facet of top executives’ work relationship. For example, they assume that “decisions made by top executives who are under significant job demands will closely reflect their backgrounds (Mischel 1977) […] as well as their psychological dispositions (e.g., Miller/ Droge 1986)” (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, p. 478). Related to the assumption of bounded rationality, Hambrick and colleagues state that “executives filter and interpret the overwhelming stimuli confronting them […] by relying on their personal experiences and repertoires (e.g., Hambrick/Mason 1984)” (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, p. 472). The psychological dispositions as well as the personal experiences and repertoires mentioned here can be assigned to personal job-related resources, as conceptualized in this thesis. Upper echelons theory uses the term resources itself in association with the handling of job-related demands: “Although we can assume that all top executives face at least some pressure to perform, those with lower job demands can take advantage of greater available time, attention, and other resources to be comprehensive in their analyses and search for solutions” (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, p. 479). Thus, we conceptualize these top executives’ characteristics (i.e., psychological dispositions, personal experiences and repertoires) used in upper echelons theory similarly to personal job-related resources. This supports the distinction between job-related demands and resources drawn by the job demands-resources model in a top executive-related context. Upper echelons theory and its prior applications also show some limitations. First, this approach “leaves us at a loss as to the real psychological and social processes that are driving executive behavior” (Hambrick 2007, p. 335). In fact, most empirical applications of upper echelons theory captured exclusively top executives’ characteristics by demographic variables, such as age (e.g., Gray/Cannella 1997; Jessell/Madura/Martin 1996), tenure (e.g., Jessell/Madura/Martin 1996; Veliyath/Cordeiro 2001), and education (e.g., Jessell/Madura/ Martin 1996), because of their better accessibility (Hambrick 2007). But these demographic characteristics represent “incomplete and imprecise proxies of executives’ cognitive frames” (Hambrick 2007, p. 335). Thus, to “open up the black box” (Hambrick 2007, p. 337) is highly

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Taxonomy

57



recommendable to improve our understanding of top executives’ real psychological and social processes. Second, upper echelons research has largely been focused on the characteristics of the top management team (Hambrick 2007). Indeed, leadership of organizations is a shared activity of the top management team in which the collective cognitions, capabilities, and interactions influence strategic behavior. Accordingly, it has been shown that top management team composition influences organizational outcomes (e.g., Bantel/Jackson 1989; Carpenter/Fredrickson 2001). But this focus of upper echelons theory is problematic, since the model focuses inherently on the individual level (Cannella/Holcomb 2005). In fact, the model refers to the individual top executive’s bounded rationality, strategic decisions, and job-related demands. Nevertheless, it claims to provide an explanation of team-level decision making. Therefore it should additionally consider, for example, team processes and collective cognitions of top management teams. As the focus of our work is on the individual top executive, we rely on the assumption of upper echelons theory that also individual top executives have great influence on their specific company’s outcomes (Hambrick 2007). This perspective on the individual will bring interesting implications and enrichment to top management research. Third, upper echelons theory views the top executive as the main “force that shapes an organization” (Hood 2008, p. 3). Certainly, top executives play an important role in forming their organizations. But without the empowerment of individuals at lower hierarchical levels, the top executive can not ensure the organization’s success. Thus, a highly important personal resource is, for example, top executives’ ability to delegate tasks to subordinates and thereby “encourage personal and professional growth within their followers” (Hood 2008, p. 3). We therefore include this resource in our top executives’ work relationship taxonomy. Fourth, upper echelons theory does not make suggestions which help top executives to deal with their bounded rationality and better handle their high job-related demands. Contrarily, the focus on demographic characteristics implies that only top executives with favorable characteristics are able to make good decision and thus be good leaders (Hood 2008). But top executives are accountable for their behavior (Wood/Winston 2005) and can profit from managerial implications of management research. Thus, a goal of this thesis is to provide implications which help top executives to ameliorate their work relationship. Three predictions of upper echelons theory are especially important for this thesis: First, our investigation of top executives’ work relationship relies on the assumption that top executives’ job-related demands are highly important in explaining top executives’ work relationship (e.g., Hambrick 1984, 2007; Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, 2005b). Concerning the conceptualization of top executives’ job-related demands, we draw on the distinction between external and internal job-related demands made by upper echelons theory. As external demand, organizational pressure culture has been considered as highly relevant

58

Conceptual Background



for a top executive’s work relationship (e.g., Thompson/Beauvais/Lyness 1999). Concerning internal job-related demands, we also follow upper echelons theory and focus on a top executive’s self-imposed drive to perform (e.g., Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a). Second, we rely on the prediction of upper echelons theory that top executives’ job-related resources become particularly important when job-related demands are high (e.g., Hambrick 2007; Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a). Third, we base our research on the assumption of upper echelons theory that top executives’ job-related demands and resources are highly relevant for top executives’ and organizational performance. Thus, we assume an association between top executives’ work relationship and top executives’ as well as organizational performance. Again, we summarize the major assumptions, strengths, limitations, and the contribution of upper echelons theory to this thesis in Table 2-5. Table 2-5: Overview of upper echelons theory by Hambrick and Mason (1984) Major assumptions

• Top executives’ are bounded in their rationality. • Top executives’ characteristics affect their strategic choices and through them organizational performance. • Top executives facing high job-related demands rely on their job-related resources to better handle these demands.

Strengths

• Top executive-specific theory • Overall theoretical framework for the understanding of experiences, backgrounds, and values of top executives and their influence on decision making • Explanation of top executives’ impact on organizational performance

Limitations

• Neglect of psychological and social processes that are driving executive behavior • Inherent focus on the individual level for explaining team-level decisions • Neglect of empowerment function of top executives • No helpful managerial implications

Contribution to this thesis

• High importance of top executives’ job-related demands for the explanation of top executives’ work relationship • Distinction between external and internal job-related demands • High importance of top executives’ job-related resources to handle high jobrelated demands • Relationship of top executives’ job-related demands and resources with top executives’ and organizational performance

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Taxonomy

59



2.3.3 Theoretical Conclusion for the Understanding of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Based on the job demands-resources model and upper echelons theory, we conceptually derive the two major categories of top executives’ work relationship, namely top executives’ job-related demands and resources. Additionally, we divide these two categories in further facets. Figure 2-5 gives a general view on the facets of top executives’ work relationship. Figure 2-5: Facets of top executives’ work relationship

Executives’ work relationship

Job-related demands

External demands

Internal demands

Job-related resources

Attitudes toward work

Work-related skills

Personal control over the job

To conclude this section on the theoretical background of top executives’ work relationship taxonomy, we want to summarize the commonalities and differences of our two theoretical bases. A fundamental requirement for the use of multiple theories within a single study is that these theories are based on consistent assumptions (Gioia/Pitre 1990). We therefore consider the origin of the models (e.g., management, psychology), their levels of analysis (e.g., individual, organizational level), their underlying behavioral hypothesis (e.g. bounded rationality), and the relationships assessed by them. As will be shown in the following, despite their different origins (in organizational psychology and management, respectively), the two theories used for the development of top executives’ work relationship taxonomy rely on consistent assumptions (see Table 2-6 for an overview). First, both models consider the individual level of analysis. Upper echelons theory adopts a multi-level approach by additionally considering characteristics of the top management team.

60

Conceptual Background

Table 2-6: Overview of job-demands resources model and upper echelons theory Theory/ model

Origin

Level of analysis

Behavioral hypothesis

Assessed relationships

Job demandsresources model

Organizational psychology

Individual level

Limited resources, buffer effect of jobrelated resources

Relationship of jobrelated demands and resources with the individual’s wellbeing and performance

Upper echelons theory

Management

Multi-level: top management team and individual level

Bounded rationality, buffer effect of jobrelated resources

Relationship of executives’ characteristics (e.g., job-related demands) and job-related resources with organizational performance

Second, the job demands-resources model and upper echelons theory both rely on the behavioral hypothesis of limited capacities of individuals. According to the job demandsresources model, an individual’s limited resources are exhausted by sustained efforts (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Demerouti et al. 2001). In upper echelons theory, this phenomenon is referred to as bounded rationality, which assumes “that executives face too many stimuli and are under too much pressure to be able to comprehensively and accurately weigh their objective situations” (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, p. 472). Additionally, as described before, both models rely on the assumption of a buffer effect of job-related resources in situations of high job-related demands. In the job demands-resources model, job-related resources are assumed to have the following moderating role: The negative effect of high jobrelated demands on related variables will be weaker, when job-related resources are high (e.g., Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b). Accordingly, in upper echelons theory the job behavior of top executives under significant job demands will specifically rely on their available job-related resources (e.g., Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, 2005b). Third, the job demands-resources model and upper echelons theory both treat the influence of job-related demands as well as job-related resources on related variables. While the job demands-resources model explicitly conceptualizes both constructs, upper echelons theory only occasionally speaks of resources. Nevertheless, some of the considered top executives’ characteristics can be seen as job-related resources as conceptualized in the job demandsresources model.

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Taxonomy

61



The main difference between the models concerns the positioning of job-related demands and resources within the assumed causal models. In the job demands-resources model, job-related demands and resources act together as antecedents of outcomes such as exhaustion or performance. Thus, job-related demands and resources have additive effects on perceived outcomes (Halbesleben/Buckley 2004). In contrast, in upper echelons theory only top executives’ characteristics (e.g., job-related resources) directly influence outcomes, while jobrelated demands are assumed to moderate the link between top executives’ characteristics and organizational performance (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a). For the present thesis, the different position of job-related demands and resources within a causal model is not problematic, because we do not investigate direct or moderating causal effects of job-related demands and resources. Specifically, we draw on these theories to identify and conceptualize the constructs, which describe top executives’ work relationship (see Figure 2-5).

2.4

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Taxonomy

The previous treatment of top executives’ work-family balance in the literature and some taxonomic approaches to this topic were presented in a previous section of this chapter (see section 2.2.3). As a result of this review, we concluded that to our knowledge there exist no closely related taxonomies of top executives’ work-family balance. Furthermore, we have already labeled, defined, and specified our second investigated phenomenon top executives’ work-family balance. In the following section, we outline the third step of the taxonomy development procedure (see Figure 2-1), namely the theory-based consideration of top executives’ work-family balance. As we have already derived the facets constituting top executives’ work-family balance from Clark’s definition of this phenomenon (Clark 2000), the theories are used to identify different possible types of top executives’ work-family balance as well as related variables of top executives’ work-family balance. From a theoretical perspective, we draw on role theory (e.g., Katz/Kahn 1978) and mechanisms of work-family linkage (e.g., Lambert 1990; Staines 1980; Zedeck 1992) to build top executives’ work-family balance. These theories also indicate several individual and workrelated variables which are associated with top executives’ work-family balance. 2.4.1 Role Theory Role theory is rooted in organizational psychology and deals with the entire assortment of roles an individual occupies (e.g., Katz/Kahn 1978). An individual’s roles can represent relationships or functions and serve as means for goal attainment (Madsen/Hammond 2005). Accordingly, an individual’s role set consists of the different people with whom an individual has contact and who are interested in the individual, and hold expectations about his or her

62

Conceptual Background



performance (Katz/Kahn 1978). But these role expectations of others are not always met by the individual’s actual role behavior (Rodham 2000). This thesis focuses on top executives’ work and family roles and top executives’ role behavior in the work and family domain. Role theory examines individuals’ participation in work and family roles from two competing perspectives, scarcity and enhancement. The proponents of the role scarcity perspective (e.g., Barnett/ Marshall/Singer 1992; Goode 1960; Marks 1977; Sieber 1974) argue that involvement in multiple life roles results in interrole conflict as individuals experience difficulty performing each role successfully because of conflicting demands (e.g., Kahn et al. 1964; Kelly/Voydanoff 1985). Their argument is based on three major assumptions. First, according to this perspective, human energy is a fixed and limited quantity (Barnett/Gareis 2006). In consequence, individuals have a limited amount of time and energy to spend on their role obligations (Ruderman et al. 2002). Thus, the more roles an individual occupies and the more intensive the role engagement is, the greater is the pressure on the individual’s energy. Second, when an individual has to accomplish multiple roles, these roles compete for the individual’s scarce time and energy. Accordingly, time and energy expended in one life domain are unavailable for use in the other domain (Ruderman et al. 2002). Thus, top executives’ high demands in the work domain raise the time and energy, which they need to fulfill their work role. This increases the likelihood of conflicts between the work domain and other life domains, above all the family domain (Shelton/Danes/Eisenman 2008). Thus, the guiding assumption of the scarcity perspective is that work and family are in basic conflict (Barnett/Gareis 2006). Third, involvement in multiple roles can produce negative moods like dissatisfaction (e.g., Aryee et al. 1999; Duxbury/Higgins 1991; Kossek/Ozeki 1998) and impair the individual’s functioning (e.g., Frone/Yardley/Markel 1997; Netemeyer/Boles/McMurrian 1996). Thus, according to the role scarcity perspective, role conflict is associated with individual variables like exhaustion (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Boles/Johnston/Hair 1997; Geurts/Rutte/Peeters 1999) and health complaints (e.g., Frone/Russell/Cooper 1992). Furthermore, role conflict is associated with work-related variables, such as reduced organizational commitment (e.g., Lyness/Thompson 1997; Netemeyer/Boles/McMurrian 1996; Tompson/Werner 1997) and reduced performance (e.g., Perrewé et al. 2002; Shepherd/Fine 1994). To date, work-family research has mainly been dominated by the role scarcity perspective (Barnett/Gareis 2006). Opposed to this first perspective, the enhancement perspective (e.g., Barnett/Hyde 2001; Frone 2003; Ruderman et al. 2002) has is origins in the investigation of psychological wellbeing (Barnett/Gareis 2006). Accordingly, this perspective argues that engagement in multiple

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Taxonomy

63



roles can be beneficial for individuals. Specifically, experiences in one role can produce positive experiences and outcomes in the other role (Barnett/Hyde 2001; Frone 2003). Their argument is based on the following three major assumptions. First, human energy is supposed to be a potentially expandable resource (Barnett/Gareis 2006). Thus, by engaging in multiple roles, an individual can increase the available energy. Second, meeting the demands of one’s multiple roles enhances role performance which in turn brings extrinsic rewards from others (e.g., approval from work and family role members) and intrinsic rewards from the self (e.g., a sense of accomplishment). Third, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are associated with positive moods (e.g., satisfaction). Accordingly, involvement in multiple roles is associated with individual variables like a satisfactory self evaluation (e.g., Barnett/Hyde 2001), good health (e.g., Moen/Dempster-McClain/Williams 1992), and a feeling of personal accomplishment (e.g., Carlson et al. 2006; Edwards/Rothbard 2000; Ruderman et al. 2002). Previous applications of role theory also show some limitations. First, the two perspectives make contrasting predictions about whether the involvement in multiple roles is negative or positive for the individual. Thereby, the two perspectives of role scarcity and enhancement are not mutually exclusive (e.g., Greenhaus/Powell 2006; Rothbard 2001), but co-occurring processes inherent in the involvement in multiple roles. A better understanding of the workfamily interface requires an integration of both the scarcity and the enhancement perspective (e.g., Barnett/Hyde 2001; Edwards/Rothbard 2000; Frone 2003; Rothbard 2001). Thus, it is of high interest to figure out, under which circumstances multiple role involvement is associated with more positive or rather with negative states. Second, role theory perspectives on work and family have largely been dominated by the scarcity perspective (Barnett/Gareis 2006), neglecting the positive aspects of the involvement in multiple roles. Third, only the enhancement perspective of role theory specifies a mechanism underlying the observed relationships. Specifically, this perspective explains how the involvement in multiple roles brings along rewards which in turn produce positive moods. The scarcity perspective of role theory, by contrast, omits to specify such an explicit mechanism for explaining the relationship between the involvement in multiple roles and negative well-being and performance. It only states that these negative outcomes are a product of the competition between life roles for an individual’s scarce energy. But it is not further explained by which mechanisms this process is regulated. Role theory provides important implications for this thesis: First, consistent with the two perspectives of role theory, we distinguish between positive and negative forms of top executives’ engagement in multiple roles. Accordingly, top executives’ work-family balance can assume a more positive or more a negative shape. Second, role theory sheds a valuable light on variables, which are possibly related to top executives’ work-family balance. Specifically, exhaustion, health complaints, reduced organizational commitment, and reduced

64

Conceptual Background



performance are identified as relevant variables related to a negative shape of work-family balance. According to the described effects of the two perspectives of role theory, role conflict is supposed to be negatively related to these variables, while role enhancement is positively related to top executives’ well-being and performance. The major assumptions, strengths, limitations, and the contribution of role theory to this thesis are summarized in Table 2-7. Table 2-7: Overview of role theory by Katz and Kahn (1978) Major assumptions

Scarcity perspective: • Individuals possess a limited amount of energy. • An individual’s multiple roles compete for his or her scarce energy. • Involvement in multiple roles is associated with negative well-being and performance. Enhancement perspective: • Individuals possess a potentially expandable amount of energy. • Meeting the demands of multiple roles enhances role performance and brings along rewards from others. • Rewards are associated with positive well-being.

Strengths

• Explanation of positive and negative effects of the involvement in multiple roles • Specification of mechanism underlying the relationship between meeting the demands of multiple roles and positive well-being (enhancement perspective) • Specification of variables related to the involvement in multiple roles

Limitations

• Contrasting predictions of the two perspectives without specifying under which conditions the involvement in multiple roles is positive or negative • Focus on the scarcity perspective • No specification of mechanism to explain the relationship between the involvement in multiple roles and negative well-being and performance (scarcity perspective)

Contribution to this thesis

• Distinction between positive and negative forms of top executives’ engagement in multiple roles • Selection of related variables of top executives’ work-family balance

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Taxonomy

65



2.4.2 Mechanisms of Work-Family Linkage In addition to role theory, we draw on mechanisms of work-family linkage (e.g., Lambert/ Larcker/Weigelt 1993) in order to better understand the interplay between work and family domains. The most prominent linkages between work and family domains considered by this theoretical stream are segmentation (e.g., Eckenrode/Gore 1999), compensation (e.g., Edwards/Rothbard 2000), accommodation (e.g., Greenhaus/Singh 2003), and spillover (e.g., Grzywacz/Marks 2000). By the process of segmentation, individuals actively attempt to keep work and family separated in order to deal with work-related stress (e.g., Eckenrode/Gore 1999; Lambert 1990; Near 1984, 1984; Piotrkowski 1979). Two roles are more likely to be segmented when their boundaries are inflexible and impermeable to one another and when the roles are very different from one another in terms of role requirements (Ashforth/Kreiner/Fugate 2000). Accordingly, people may actively suppress work-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in the family domain, and vice versa in the work domain (Piotrkowski 1979). This coping strategy enables individuals to use home as personal rest and renewal, and is a mark of “highsurvivor executives” (Delbecq/Friedlander 1995, p. 264). Compensation describes a mechanism by which individuals try to compensate for a lack of satisfaction in one domain by trying to find more satisfaction in the other one (e.g., Burke/Greenglass 1987; Edwards/Rothbard 2000; Lambert 1990; Zedeck 1992). Initially, the mechanism of compensation has mainly been used to explain an increase of the family involvement in response to an unsatisfying job (e.g., Dubin 1967; Piotrkowski 1979). But it can also be used to explain why individuals become more involved in their work when experiencing dissatisfaction at home (e.g., Lambert 1990). Top executives may use this form of compensation to avoid the family domain and become more involved in their work when experiencing family problems. Accommodation is the limitation of an individual’s involvement in one domain to better accommodate the demands of the other domain (Lambert 1990). Thus, the integration of family and work requirements is often represented by a focus on one life domain (Bailyn 1977). Thereby, individuals prefer to reduce their involvement in that life role that is less important to them (Greenhaus/Singh 2003). “The highly career-committed male top executive, for instance, who follows the demands of his job wherever they take him, is an example of an almost exclusive focus on work” (Bailyn 1977, p. 2). In contrast, a female top executive with children has to keep family needs in mind even when at work, and thus has to limit her involvement in work to better accommodate her family obligations (Lambert 2000). Thus, the mechanism of accommodation can be used as a strategy in response to perceived work-family conflict in both directions, from work to family and from family to work.

66

Conceptual Background



Finally, spillover refers to effects of work and family on one another that generate similarities between the two domains (Burke/Greenglass 1987; Evans/Bartolomé 1984; Lambert 1990; Near/Rice/Hunt 1980; Staines 1980; Zedeck 1992). By this mechanism, emotions, attitudes, skills, and behaviors that top executives establish at work spill over to their family life and vice versa. Often, spillover is referred to as the positive impact of the work-role on the family role, or the family role on the work role (Thompson/Bunderson 2001). This positive spillover is associated with health, well-being, and positive work-related variables (Hammer et al. 2002). But there also can be negative spillover of stress between the two domains, which aggravates the experience of stress and decreases well-being and satisfaction (Grzywacz/Marks 2000; Stephens/Townsend 1997). Thus, this theoretical stream provides different mechanisms for the explanation and further understanding of the influences of work and family life on each other. As such mechanisms are not provided by the scarcity perspective of role theory (Katz/Kahn 1978), we use the mechanisms of work-family linkage to close this gap. The previous application of these mechanisms also shows some limitations. Formerly, the mechanisms of work-family linkage have been viewed as competing manners of how work and home come to affect each other (e.g., Staines 1980). But research evidence indicates that several mechanisms link work and family simultaneously, thereby occurring among the same individuals (e.g., Edwards/ Rothbard 2000; Lambert 1990). But this theoretical stream has omitted to specify how the different mechanisms are interrelated or how they interact. Furthermore, it is important to specify the conditions under which a particular process predominates the others and find explanations why this is the case. This specification also has not yet been provided by this theoretical model. Additionally, it is of high interest how these processes are related to the balance top executives achieve between their work and family life. But the mechanisms of work-family linkage do not predict how effective the mechanisms are in reducing interrole conflict and ameliorating an individual’s work-family balance. We summarize the major assumptions, strengths, limitations, and the contribution of the mechanisms of work-family linkage to this thesis in Table 2-8.



Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Taxonomy

67

Table 2-8: Overview of mechanisms of work-family linkage among others by Near (1984) Major assumptions

• Individuals use different mechanisms to cope with their involvement in multiple roles. • With the help of segmentation, individuals keep work and family separated. • With the help of compensation, individuals try to compensate a lack of satisfaction in one life domain by searching for satisfaction in the other domain. • With the help of accommodation, individuals try to better accommodate the demands in one life domain by reducing their involvement in the other domain. • Positive or negative spillover generates similarities between life domains.

Strengths

• Specification of different mechanisms which explain how work and family influence each other

Limitations

• No specification of interrelation or interaction mechanisms • No specification of the conditions under which a particular process predominates • No proposition about the effectiveness of the mechanism in ameliorating an individual’s work-family balance

Contribution to this thesis

• Four different manners of dealing with top executives’ involvement in work and family roles • Provision of mechanisms which explain the relationship of top executives’ work-family balance with related variables

2.4.3 Theoretical Conclusion for the Understanding of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance The contribution of our theoretical groundings to the investigation of top executives’ workfamily balance is threefold. First, the two perspectives of role theory predict that some top executives are dissatisfied with their work-family situation, impaired in their functioning and conceive their multiple life roles as conflicting. This work-family balance situation corresponds to the scarcity perspective. According to the enhancement perspective, others experience their work-family situation as satisfying, show a good functioning and little conflict between their life domains. Second, mechanisms of work-family linkage predict four different manners of dealing with the involvement in work and family roles. According to segmentation, top executives may separate work and family actively in order to cope with stress from either domain (e.g.,

68

Conceptual Background



Lambert 1990; Piotrkowski 1979; Rice/Near/Hunt 1980). Other top executives may respond to dissatisfaction in one domain by using the strategy of compensation: the top executive may decrease his or her involvement in a dissatisfying domain and increase the involvement in a potentially satisfying domain (e.g., Champoux 1978; Evans/Bartolomé 1984; Lambert 1990; Staines 1980; Zedeck 1992). Other top executives may limit their involvement in one domain in order to better accommodate their obligations in the other, highly demanding domain (e.g., Lambert 1990). With a fixed amount of resources to meet the expectations of multiple roles, these individuals make trade-offs to reduce role strain. Spillover is experienced by top executives, whose psychological states experienced in one role may affect psychological states experienced in another role, and vice versa (e.g., Staines 1980; Zedeck 1992; Zedeck/ Mosier 1990). Thus, in this top executive work-family balance type, configurations in one sphere are associated with comparable configurations in the other sphere (e.g., Caligiuri/ Cascio 1998; Staines 1980). Furthermore, positive spillover between work and family is associated with health, well-being, and positive work-related variables (e.g., Hammer et al. 2002). Thus, this theoretical stream provides different mechanisms to explain the relationship of top executives’ work-family balance with related variables. Third, role theory sheds valuable light on possible related variables of top executives’ workfamily balance. Specifically, our theoretical basis leads us to the investigation of individual (i.e., self evaluation, exhaustion, and health) and work-related variables (i.e., commitment and effectiveness). Because role theory does not provide an explicit mechanism to explain the relationship described by the scarcity perspective, we use the mechanisms of work-family linkage. Again, we want to ensure that the two theoretical models used for the conceptualization of top executives’ work family-balance are based on consistent assumptions and thus can be combined (see Table 2-9 for an overview). The two conceptual models both have their origin in organizational psychology and both consider the individual level of analysis. Both models are based on the behavioral hypothesis that individuals participate in multiple life roles. While role theory comprises all possible life roles of an individual (e.g., spouse, parent, friend, supervisor, colleague), the mechanisms of work-family linkage are restricted to an individual’s set of work and family roles. Role theory assesses the relationship between the involvement in multiple roles and the individual’s well-being and performance. The mechanisms of work-family linkage provide different mechanisms to better explain this relationship. Thus, these two conceptual models not only go well together but complement each other.

Theoretical Background of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Taxonomy

69

Table 2-9: Overview of role theory and mechanisms of work-family linkage Theory/ model

Origin

Level of analysis

Behavioral hypothesis

Assessed relationships

Role theory

Organizational psychology

Individual level

Participation in multiple roles, limited as well as expandable human energy

Relationship of involvement in multiple roles with the individual’s wellbeing and performance

Mechanisms of work-family linkage

Organizational psychology

Individual level

Participation in work and family roles, positive and negative linkages between work and family

Provides mechanisms to better understand the linkage between the involvement in multiple roles and individual’s well-being and performance

In this chapter, we have presented the conceptual background of our studies by discussing existent literature, the underlying procedure of taxonomy development, and the theoretical background of the two phenomena under study, namely top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. On this basis, we proceed in the following chapter with the description of the methodological basics underlying the development of our two taxonomies.

71



3

Basics of the Empirical Studies

As outlined before, the empirical part of the taxonomy development procedure consists of a qualitative and a quantitative study. The basics of these studies, concerning both taxonomies, namely the data collection procedures, the samples and the analysis techniques will be outlined in the following. First, in chapter 3.1 the basics of the qualitative study will be outlined, followed by the basics of the quantitative studying in chapter 3.2.

3.1

Qualitative Study

The purpose of the qualitative study within the empirical portion of our taxonomy development process focuses on enriching and elaborating the theory-based frameworks of our taxonomies. The content-related issues concerning top executives’ work relationship and workfamily balance will be outlined in later sections of this thesis (see chapter 3.2.4 and 5). In the following the basics of the qualitative study will be presented, that is to say the data collection and sample (see section 3.1.1) and the content analysis technique used to evaluate and interpret the qualitative data (see section 3.1.2). 3.1.1 Data Collection and Sample For participant acquisition, we contacted 44 top executives by an initial letter and then telephone solicitations and asked them to give us a personal interview on their work-life balance situation. These top executives were members of the top management, “including CEOs and their immediate subordinates” (Eisenhardt/Bourgeois 1988, p. 739). Thus, in addition to CEOs, our sample includes “the heads of major functions such as sales, engineering, and finance” (Eisenhardt/Bourgeois 1988, p. 739). As an incentive, we offered a detailed personalized report of their personal resources compared with those of other top executives, as well as recommendations for ways they could handle job-related demands and ameliorate their worklife balance situation. As a result, 42 top executives accepted to participate, whereas only two did not participate because of time constraints. The top executives in the sample were 88 percent men, 95 percent married or close-partnered and 90 percent had children. They had an average age of 50.8 years and an average of 17 years of work experience as top executive. The companies were located in a wide array of industrial sectors (e.g., automotive industry, building and construction industry, chemical and pharmaceutical industry, consulting, and

72

Basics of the Empirical Studies



publicshing industry). With this heterogeneous sample regarding age, tenure, and industries, we intended to generate a wide array of top executives’ perceived work relationship and work-family balance situation. In order to approve the theoretically derived facets and constructs of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance, we collected data through semistructured interviews with individual respondents. We developed questions that were sufficiently focused, but nevertheless allowed top executives enough scope to present their perspectives without being led to provide a specific answer (e.g., Kvale 1996; Morse/Richards 2002). This procedure enabled us to touch upon the conceptually derived topics and at the same time allowed categories to emerge naturally in the course of the conversation (recommended by Eisenhardt 1989b; Graebner/Eisenhardt 2004). The self-report procedure used here was essential toward identifying the perceived work relationship and work-family balance of the respondents as well as related variables. One researcher interviewed each top executive personally at his or her workplace. The interviews lasted in average 43 minutes with a range from 24 to 70 minutes. To ensure some standardization of the course of the interviews, we used an interview guide with standard, openended questions for all respondents (Graebner/Eisenhardt 2004). But we also allowed idiosyncratic questions if necessary for clarification and detail. In the course of the conversation, respondents could continue at length without interruption („free report option“, see Miller/Cardinal/Glick 1997). To motivate respondents to provide accurate data, we created a familiar atmosphere during the interviews and promised confidentiality (Miller/Cardinal/Glick 1997). During the site visits, the interviewer gathered all impressions and informal observations independently from their perceived relevance at the time of the interview and noted them within 24 hours after the interview, according to the 24-hour rule (Eisenhardt 1989b). With the consent of the respondents, the interviews were audio-recorded on a digital memory (Jehn 1997). The overriding topic of the interviews was the work-life balance situation of the respondents. The interviews started with a general question about the relevance of the topic work-life balance in actual top executives’ working lives (Spradley/McCurdy 1972). This initial question provided the basis for asking more sensitive questions (Jehn 1997; Whyte/Whyte 1984) about top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. Afterwards, more focused questions with high relevance for the identification of a top executive’s work relationship and work-family balance were asked. These questions were designed to elicit information about executives’ job-related demands and resources as well as work and family roles, forms of conflicts between theses roles, and the relationship of these issues with individual, workrelated and family-related phenomena.

Qualitative Study

73



The standard questions were derived from the results of our literature review and our conceptual preoccupation with top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. Based on our predictions from the theoretical backgrounds, by means of the interviews we intended to verify and, if necessary, enrich those constructs, which are assumed to compose top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. 3.1.2 Process of Qualitative Content Analysis All auto-recorded interviews were transcribed word-for-word by means of transcription rules (outlined by Edwards 2001). To analyze the data, we used content analysis, a systematic method for analyzing written narratives generated through open-ended questions (Miles/Huberman 1994). For this purpose the interview transcripts were coded with the text analysis software MAX-QDA for the analysis of qualitative data (Kuckartz 2001) by assigning unique labels to text passages that contain references to specific constructs. First, one researcher created a hierarchical coding scheme based on the facets and constructs, which were derived from our preparatory conceptual work. Second, the coding scheme was inductively refined while coding the first interviews until clear patterns emerged and further such efforts added little new information, insight, or refinement (Eisenhardt 1989a; Miles/Huberman 1994). The final coding scheme therefore consisted of 560 codes in 21 major categories. To confirm the reliability of the coding scheme, we selected 20 percent of the transcripts randomly. Two researchers coded these transcripts independently and then discussed the codings until agreement was achieved. The final data used for further analysis were the “consensus” data. Inter rater reliability, calculated by a percentage agreement, equals the quotient of the sum of all agreements divided by the sum of all codings assigned (Grayson/Rust 2001; Miles/Huberman 1994). Although this procedure does not consider the likelihood of chance agreement, it is the only viable option for our very large coding scheme with 560 different codes. In addition, with this large coding scheme, we achieve high degrees of freedom for each coding choice, so chance is unlikely to inflate the agreement percentages (Grayson/Rust 2001). After discussion, the coders agreed on 84 percent of the codings, which is very satisfying in view of the huge coding scheme (Miles/Huberman 1994). To analyze the empirical relevance of the constructs, we quantitatively assessed the mentioned constructs, such that every time a respondent mentioned one of these issues in an interview, we assigned the corresponding code. After coding of all interviews, we counted the frequency of each coding and thereby identified the number of respondents who mentioned a construct at least one time during the interview, as well as the frequency with which a construct had been mentioned throughout all interviews (see also Table 4-2). For example, the topic “Permanent thinking of work issues even in leisure time” was mentioned by 27 top executives at least once during the interview. In total, 59 text passages refer to it. This high difference shows that respondents not only

74

Basics of the Empirical Studies



touched on the topic at least once, but also talked about it in detail and several times during the interviews. This content analysis technique enabled us to determine, whether the prior theoretically derived constructs indeed emerged during the interviews. Furthermore, we had the possibility to add new constructs, which we had not taken into account during the theory-based identification of major facets and constructs. The other way around we could eliminate constructs, which turned out to be irrelevant for our top executive sample. Additionally, based on the quantitative analysis of the interview results, we could determine which constructs were most frequently touched upon by the top executives and thus turned out to be the most important ones for our top executive setting. The results of the qualitative study lead to a final empirically grounded framework of the two phenomena under study, which we used as basis for the selection of constructs for the subsequent quantitative study. After this qualitative empirical verification and enrichment of the constructs, which corresponds to step four of our process of taxonomy development (see Figure 2-1), we proceed with the quantitative study of the two phenomena.

3.2

Quantitative Study

For the empirically based development of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance types, we surveyed a sample of 224 top executives and their life partners. In the following, we will first describe the data collection and sample and then proceed with the performed taxonomy development based on cluster analysis techniques. 3.2.1 Data Collection and Sample As work relationship and work-family balance must be experienced or perceived by the affected individual (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a), a measurement via survey instrument is considered the most appropriate. Data were collected using self-report questionnaires as well as estimates of life partners. Data collection for the quantitative study was organized in three steps. In the first step, we selected top executives randomly from an address database of chief executives officers and managing directors. To cover a broad range of top executives, we selected a database which included companies of different sizes. Because top executives are the best source of information on their individual work relationship and work-family balance and additionally are assumed to be the most knowledgeable sources of firm-level information (Norburn/Birley 1988), we addressed them personally. Additionally, life partners were asked to give information on family-related aspects of top executives work-family balance and on related variables (i.e., well-being and satisfaction as well as family-related variables) of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance.

Quantitative Study

75



In the second step, we sent personalized letters to 2,000 top executives, inviting them and their life partner to participate in a study of top executives’ work-life balance. As in the qualitative study, the potential respondents held positions at the first hierarchical level of their company or were immediate subordinates of the CEO. Of this potential sample, 327 top executives and their life partners agreed to participate (response rate of 16.4 percent). In the third step, they received their own and a partner questionnaire by mail. To ensure confidentiality, the questionnaires did not contain any identifying information (like names or contact information) of the participants. For analysis purposes, the two questionnaires belonging together were linked by a numerical code. The respondents knew that their answers were being collected for research purposes and would be treated strictly confidential. As an incentive, we promised the top executives a personalized detailed feedback about their work-life balance situation that integrated both, their own and their partner’s assessments. These study features should increase participants’ motivation to fill in the questionnaire completely and truthfully and thus improve the reliability and validity of the measures (e.g., Church 1993; Miller/Cardinal/Glick 1997). Six weeks later, 263 top executives (response rate of 11.8 percent) returned the completed questionnaires, which represents a response rate of 82.2 percent of the “negotiated sample”, that is, those top executives who agreed to participate prior to the study (Cycyota/Harrison 2006). Seven questionnaires that were filled out incompletely are excluded from further analysis. We received completed questionnaires of 231 life partners (response rate of 11.6 percent respectively 70.6 percent of “negotiated sample”). Seven life partner questionnaires were filled out incompletely and were excluded from further analysis. Finally, completed and usable questionnaires of 256 top executives and 224 life partners were obtained. As top executives without life partner data had to be excluded from further analysis, we obtain a final sample of 224 top executive with the corresponding life partner questionnaires. To our knowledge, this study of top executives is the first to include life partner data for the assessment of familyrelated constructs as well as well-being and performance. Because persons who respond later likely are more similar to non-respondents, we check for non-response bias by comparing the first 10 percent of respondents (early respondents) with the last 10 percent (late respondents) as suggested by Armstrong and Overton (1977). This check reveals no differences between early and late respondents. In a first glance, the response rate is seemingly low. Concerning the response rate, there are some specific issues with a top executive sample, which have to be mentioned here. It is familiar that top executives are particularly difficult respondents, from which to gain data via mail survey (e.g., Baruch 1999). Accordingly, response rates of ten to twelve percent are typi-

76

Basics of the Empirical Studies



cal for mailed surveys to top executives (Hambrick/Geletkanycz/Fredrickson 1993). Some reasons for this are discussed in the following. First, about 30 percent of the companies, the contacted top executives work for, responded with a standardized letter that top executives are generally not permitted to fill out questionnaires regarding their personal and work-related situation. Apparently, formal company policies have been established to reject survey requests, limiting the demands on top executives as well as preserving confidential information. At this, the confidentiality of organizational information is often a primary concern for top executives and their companies (Falconer/Hodgett 1999). Second, some questions of the survey touched upon highly personal topics such as reduced personal accomplishment because of high workload or the top executive’s physical and mental health. In consequence, the completion of this survey could not be delegated to an assistant like top executives often do with such additional tasks (Tomaskovic-Devey/Leiter/Thompson 1994). Third, it is possible that some top executives could not be convinced by our assurance of confidentiality. As CEOs of great companies often are in the spotlight in their professional life, they exert not to get out their private affairs to public (May 2001). Thus, they probably intended to protect their sphere of personal privacy by refusing their participation. Finally, recently increasing numbers of questionnaires are received by top executives from academic scholars, as well as market researchers (Cycyota/Harrison 2006). This reduces the motivation as well as the time available to complete them. Additionally, top executives under the current pressures of running their organization simply have less time and energy to spend on extra, low-priority behaviors such as survey completion (Cooper/Payne 1988). An interesting feature of this thesis is that we additionally collected data from the top executives’ life partners. Up to date, most studies on the job demands-resources model have relied exclusively on self-report measures (Bakker/Demerouti 2007). The inclusion of life partners’ inquiry is important as top executives tend to deny negative outcomes of stress and overwork (Kofodimos 1990). A basic assumption of social identity theory is that individuals want to present and maintain a positive self-image (Larson 1989; Tajfel 1982). It is possible that the top executives avoided to talk about their work- or family-related problems and by doing so presented a positive self-image. Additionally, it can be an important skill of a top executive to always control the situation and never confess to a weakness, for example in order to create and maintain his or her identity as leader (Carter 2006; Gardner/Avolio 1998; Gardner/Martinko 1988). It cannot be excluded that this habit of top executives is reflected in a higher level of perceived well-being and performance. In contrast, life partners often experience the work-related stress of the top executive intensively (e.g., Jones/Fletcher 1996; Westman

Quantitative Study

77



2001) and are able to accurately estimate the executives’ level of stress. In contrast, the top executives themselves may use impression management (e.g., Zerbe/Paulhus 1987). To obviate this problem, we complemented the top executives’ self assessment of well-being, satisfaction and personal accomplishment with ratings of their life partners. The t-test for paired samples to check for differences between the estimations of top executives and life partners indicated a trend towards impression management only for the construct exhaustion (t = -7.027; p < .01). The top executives estimated their own level of exhaustion significantly lower than their life partners did. The comparison of top executive and partner ratings of satisfaction with work-family balance (t = -3.504; p < .01) and personal accomplishment (t = 2.775; p < .01) achieved even better partner than top executive ratings. The other related variables showed no significant differences between top executive and partner ratings. Thus, we did not find a clear trend of top executive ratings towards positive impression management. In contrast, for the constructs satisfaction with work-family balance and personal accomplishment we even found an opposite trend. To summarize, we found that top executives rate some related variables comparable to the ratings of their life partners, but diverge on other estimations in both, the positive and the negative direction. As there are some divergences between top executive and life partner ratings in the positive and negative direction, the life partner ratings are regarded as useful to check and supplement the information obtained by the top executives themselves. Top executives’ functioning in the family and family-related variables (partners’ life satisfaction and partners’ work-family balance satisfaction) were rated by the life partners as they are assumed to be the best informants on these family issues. Furthermore, the additional life partner ratings minimize the problem of common method variance (e.g., Podsakoff et al. 2003; Podsakoff/Organ 1986). Finally, we note the overall characteristics of our respondent samples. The top executives are predominantly (75 percent men), married (96 percent) and with children (60 percent). They had an average age of 45.5 years (ranging from 27-75 years), an average tenure of 6 years (ranging from 0-49 years), and an average of 14 years (ranging from 0-50 years) work experience as manager. Moreover, 84 percent of the top executives held a university degree and 25 percent had Ph.D.s. In terms of their job status, 75 percent held positions on the first hierarchical level of their company, 25 percent directly report to the CEO (e.g., as CFO) in their company. Concerning the size of the companies 33 percent of the companies have fewer than 300 employees, 18 percent have 300-999, 20 percent have 1.000-4.999 employees, 8 percent have 5.000-9.999 employees and 21 percent have over 10.000 employees. Concerning the ownership of the companies, 39 percent are publicly-owned, 34 percent are privately-owned, 21 percent are family-owned, and 6 percent are state-owned. Finally, 55 percent of the top executives represented the service sector (especially consulting, banks and insurances, telecommunication, and healthcare), and 45 percent of the top executives represented manufactur-

78

Basics of the Empirical Studies



ing sectors (especially mechanical engineering, automotive, information technology, and pharmaceutical). 3.2.2 Process of Scale Validation The questionnaire used in the quantitative study was designed after an extensive literature review and the previously described qualitative interviews. In order to increase reliability and decrease measurement error we used multi-item scales (Churchill 1979). We used approved and validated scales out of the literature to measure the constructs wherever possible. In addition, we pretested an initial draft of the questionnaire. Therefore, ten randomly selected executives and their life partners critically assessed all instructions and items concerning the comprehensibility, the completeness, and the neutrality of the verbalizations, as well as the structure and the length of the questionnaire (Kinnear/Taylor 1991). This pretest led to small changes in the wording of items and the instructions to answer the questionnaire. In the quantitative study we use two types of perceptual measures: reflective multi-item scales and formative multi-item indices (e.g., Bagozzi/Baumgartner 1994; Homburg/Giering 1992). When observed variables are interchangeable manifestations of an underlying construct, a reflective measurement model is appropriate (Bagozzi/Baumgartner 1994). In our quantitative study, a reflective model is applied to measure, for instance, such constructs as organizational pressure culture, top executive drive, job involvement as well as enjoyment. On the contrary, when a construct is a summary index of observed variables which define and determine the construct without necessarily being correlated, a formative measurement model is appropriate (Jarvis et al. 2003). We contend that a formative model is appropriate to measure compensating behavior. For example showing one sort of compensating behavior like overacting under pressure does not entail the use of other sorts of compensating behavior like drinking alcohol. Concerning the reflective multi-item scales, a scale validation procedure was accomplished using the following traditional criteria (Gerbing/Anderson 1988), also called criteria of the first generation (Homburg/Baumgartner 1995): •

Corrected item-to-total correlation,

•

Eigenvalue of exploratory factor analysis,

•

Factor loading of exploratory factor analysis, and

•

Coefficient alpha.

Furthermore, we used confirmatory factor analysis to check the following further criteria (Gerbing/Anderson 1988), which are also called criteria of the second generation (Fornell 1982): •

Composite reliability and

•

Discriminant validity.

Quantitative Study

79



Finally, we checked multi-rater measures for interrater reliability. See Table 3-1 for an overview of all criteria used. First, we had to ensure the basic assumption of measurement theory "that a set of items forming an instrument all measure just one thing in common" (Hattie 1985, p. 49). This assumption is tested by checking the unidimensionality of the multiple measures that define a scale (Gerbing/Anderson 1988). For this purpose, we first use item-tototal correlation, which is calculated (Nunnally 1978) for each item of the scale. This is the correlation between an item and the sum of the other items of the scale (Nunnally 1978). The corrected item-to-total correlation is the correlation between an item and the rest of the scale, without that item considered part of the scale (Norušis 2008). Without this correction, the correlation would be spuriously inflated, since the item under consideration would count twice in the calculation of the correlation (Schnell/Hill/Esser 2005). Though, we report this corrected item-to-total correlation in this thesis. A low item-to-total correlation means the item is little correlated with the overall scale and the researcher should consider dropping it from a scale to enhance internal consistency reliability (Churchill 1979; Schwab 1980; Spector 1992). The purpose of this stage of the analysis was to identify and eliminate poorly performing items from the questionnaire. Second, we conduct an exploratory factor analysis to further support the unidimensionality of the scales used. This analysis reduces a set of connected indices to an underlying factor and by doing so uncovers the underlying dimensions of a set of indices. To determine the number of factors, we checked if the eigenvalue was bigger than 1 after the extraction of one factor (Kaiser 1974). If this is the case, another factor has to be extracted (Kaiser 1974). The obtained factor loading of each indice measures the strength of the relationship between the indice and its underlying factor. The factor loading of items belonging to one scale should at least reach a value of 0.4 and at the same time the items should not load as highly on other factors (Gerbing/Anderson 1988). Additionally, we consider the explained variance by the factor, which is the amount of variance a factor explains of the total variance of its underlying indicators. Accordingly, the factor should explain at least 50 percent of the variance of its underlying indicators (Homburg/Giering 2001). After this preliminary check of unidimensionality, we had to ensure reliability of the scales. For this purpose we thirdly use coefficient alpha (Cronbach 1951). This coefficient is one of the most important in test construction and use (Cortina 1993, p. 98). It measures the average internal reliability of the scale and is calculated as follows N § 2 ¨ ¦σ i § N · ¨ i =1 α =¨ ¸ ⋅ 1− σt2 © N −1¹ ¨ ¨ ©

· ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¹

(1)

80

Basics of the Empirical Studies



whereas N signifies the number of indicators of the factors and σ i the variance of the indica2

tor i. σ t is the variance of the sum of all indicators of the factor. The coefficient alpha values 2

should exceeded the threshold value of 0.7 (Nunnally 1978, p. 245), suggesting for each of the constructs a reasonable degree of internal consistency between the corresponding indicators. Thereby the coefficient alpha never exceeds the score of composite reliability because of its general underestimation property. Coefficient alpha equals composite reliability only for essentially tau-equivalent tests (Raykov 1997). We additionally checked for convergent validity of the used scales, that is to say, how well the factor is measured by the sum of its indices. Like recommended by Gerbing (1988), convergent validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) that combines each factor measured by reflective indicators. CFA assesses the measurement properties of the scales, using full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation procedures in LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog/Sörbom 1993) and provides a better estimate of reliability than coefficient alpha (Steenkamp/Van Trijp 1991). While coefficient alpha assumes that different indicators have equal factor loadings (Ȝ) and error variances (į), CFA takes into account the differences among the existing indicators (Styles 1998). Thus, we use two additional criteria of the second generation to assess the convergent validity of our measures. Composite reliability (CR) represents the shared variance among a set of observed variables that measure an underlying construct (Fornell/Larcker 1981). CR can adopt values from zero to one, whereas high values signify good measures. In general, composite reliability of at least 0.6 is considered desirable (Bagozzi/Yi 1988). When the number of indicators is labeled k, the composite reliability is calculated as follows 2

§ k · ¨ ¦ λij ¸ φjj © i =1 ¹ CR (ξj ) = 2 k § k · ¨ ¦ λ ij ¸ φjj + ¦θ ii i =1 © i =1 ¹

(2)

whereas k is the number of indicator variables, λij is the estimated factor loading of item i from factor j, φjj is the estimated variance of factor j, and θii is the estimated variance of the measurement error of item i. Thereby composite reliability does not possess the general underestimation property of coefficient alpha (Raykov 1997). Besides these measures of internal consistency, we also use the confirmatory factor analysis to check the discriminant validity between the active cluster variables, i.e., the extent to which items differentiate among constructs or measure distinct concepts. As recently discussed in the literature, we accepted some conceptual and empirical correlation (Milligan 1996), but intended to ensure discriminant validity, which provides evidence that measures that purportedly assess different constructs in fact do so (Campbell/Fiske 1959; Schwab 1980). Concern-

Quantitative Study

81



ing discriminant validity, a construct should be eliminated from the set of active cluster variables when average variance extracted is higher than the shared variance for a pair of two latent variables (Fornell/Larcker 1981). Thereby the average variance extracted is calculated as follows: k

AVE (ξ j ) =

¦λ φ 2 ij

jj

i =1

k

¦λ φ 2 ij

i =1

k

jj

+ ¦θ ii

(3)

i =1

Finally, multi-rater measures have to be checked for interrater reliability. We perform this check by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (Shrout/Fleiss 1979). According to this check, constructs with weak ICC (<0.2, e.g., Bliese 2000; James 1982) have to be eliminated. Table 3-1: Criteria of scale validation Criteria

Threshold

Criteria of the first generation Corrected item-to-total correlation

If α < 0.7, the item with the lowest item-to-total correlation has to be eliminated.

Eigenvalue of exploratory factor analysis

Unidimensionality of the scale is given, if eigenvalue < 1 after the extraction of one factor.

Factor loading of exploratory factor analysis

≥ 0.4

Explained variance of exploratory factor analysis

≥ 0.5

coefficient alpha ( α )

≥ 0.7

Criteria of the second generation Composite reliability

≥ 0.6

Discriminant validity

AVE

(ξ ) > squared correlation (ξi , ξ j ) for all i ≠ j

Check of interrater reliability Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)

≥ 0.2

3.2.3 Process of Cluster Analysis The heart of the empirical part within the taxonomy development procedure (step 7 in Figure 2-1) uses cluster analysis to build types that characterize top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance (Forgy 1965; MacQueen 1967). Cluster analysis is a common method in management research (e.g., Arthur 1994; Hambrick/Geletkanycz/Fredrickson 1993; Larwood et al. 1995). It is an important technique for information retrieval, data mining, pattern recognition, and image segmentation (Jain/Murty/Flynn 1999).

82

Basics of the Empirical Studies



Cluster analysis is not one standardized procedure as “there is no single approach to clustering that can be regarded as appropriate for most situations” (Milligan 1996, p. 343). In consequence, a wide variety of clustering methods exist. Depending on data and purpose of analysis it is crucial to investigate all alternatives. The purpose of cluster analysis used in this thesis is to find a partition of a set of n objects into c disjoint classes, in which the objects belonging to the same class are similar and objects belonging to different classes are dissimilar. Thus, this method searches for an adequate partition of objects or individuals that establishes homogeneity within groups and heterogeneity between groups. For this purpose a non-overlapping method has to be chosen, which produces clusters with the two properties external isolation and internal cohesion (Milligan 1980). External isolation demands objects in one cluster being separated from objects in another cluster. In contrast, internal cohesion demands objects within the same cluster being similar to one another. This property of external isolation is not valid for clusters obtained by the use of overlapping methods. To determine such overlapping clusters only few methods have been developed (Jardine/Sibson 1971; Peay 1975). As for this thesis only non-overlapping methods are of interest, we further elaborate them in the following. In the category of non-overlapping methods, hierarchical and partitioning methods have to be differentiated. On the one hand, hierarchical methods search for successive clusters using previously found clusters. The following four hierarchical methods are wide-spread: single linkage, complete linkage, average linkage, and Ward's minimum variance method (Punj/Stewart 1983). On the other hand, a variety of parti-

tioning methods is known, all working on similar principles (Punj/Stewart 1983). They begin by clustering n objects into k clusters, where k is specified by the user. Observations are till such time reassigned to clusters as some decision rule terminates the process. Most often either hierarchical or partitioning methods are used, whereby the portions of hierarchical and partitioning methods are nearly balanced (Dolnicar 2002). Among hierarchical algorithms most often Ward’s method (Ward 1963) is used while among the partitioning algorithms, the k-means algorithm wins in terms of popularity (Dolnicar 2002). Using Ward’s method to compute a starting solution for k-means has been shown to be a powerful combination (Helsen/Green 1991), which we adopt for our cluster analysis. Because of the sensitivity of Ward’s method to outliers, we first had to remove outliers from the dataset. The clustering methods used in this thesis are shown in Figure 3-1 and are discussed in further detail in the following. Thus, we used a four stage clustering approach recommended by Bunn (1993) and Cannon and Perreault (1999). We use SPSS 15 and SAS 9.1 for the specific calculations. 1.

Removing outliers from the dataset: We used the single linkage clustering method to remove outliers from the dataset. This method is a widely used hierarchical method in which an observation is joined to a cluster if it has a certain level of similarity with at

Quantitative Study

83



least one of the members of that cluster (Punj/Stewart 1983). Thus, individuals with highly dissimilar characteristics in comparison to the whole sample are joined last to the other clusters and hereby can be identified as outliers. At the beginning of the development of top executives’ work relationship taxonomy five top executives (2.2 percent of the subjects) were identified as outliers by the single linkage clustering algorithm. Concerning top executives’ work-family balance taxonomy, the single linkage clustering algorithm identified four outliers (1.8 percent of the subjects). In consequence, we removed these outliers from further analysis. 2. Determining the appropriate number of clusters and computing a starting solution for k-

means: For these steps we used the hierarchical clustering method developed by Ward (1963). After the elimination of outliers, this method outperforms other hierarchical methods (e.g., Edelbrock 1979; Kuiper/Fisher 1975) and generates clusters by minimizing the average distance within the cluster (Punj/Stewart 1983). To determine the appropriate number of clusters, we used the elbow criterion, provided by SPSS. This criterion shows an over proportional increase in the mean squared error as the algorithm moves from a higher cluster solution to a lower one, which fits the data better. Additionally, we consulted SAS for obtaining the cubic clustering criterion (CCC, Sarle 1983), Pseudo F (PSF, Calinski/Harabasz 1974), and pseudo t2 index (PST2, Duda/Hart 1973), recommended by Milligan and Cooper (1985). All criteria supported a four-cluster solution for top executives’ work relationship types and a five cluster solution for top executives’ work-family balance types. 3. Assigning observations to clusters: We then clustered the complete sample by a hybrid approach: We used the starting solution computed with Ward’s method as input for the partitioning k-means method. In k-means cluster analysis, the adequate partitioning of a set relies on an iterative relocation algorithm (Craen et al. 2006). In the first step of this algorithm, the whole set of objects gets divided into c classes. In the subsequent steps of the analysis this initial partition is modified until there is no more improvement in the criterion of partition adequacy. In each step of the k-means method, the objects in the partition join the cluster centroid to which they are closest, and new centroids are calculated. These modifications during the iteration of the algorithm optimize the sum of squares criterion (Gordon 1999). Research on the performance of clustering algorithms demonstrates that partitioning methods (such as k-means) yield excellent results if given a reasonable starting solution (Milligan/Cooper 1985). 4. Assessing the stability of cluster assignments via cross-validation: We randomly chose three times two-thirds of the sample and applied the clustering procedure to each sample. Then we checked the consistency of the cluster assignment of the objects with our initial

84

Basics of the Empirical Studies



cluster solution. Over 95 percent of the new assignments were consistent with the initial cluster solution, which supports a high stability. An important step in any clustering is to select a distance measure, which will determine how the similarity of two elements is calculated. The farther the distance between two objects, the more dissimilar they are. The selection of the distance measure can influence the shape of the clusters, as some elements may be close to one another according to one distance and farther away according to another (Punj/Stewart 1983). The most common distance measure is the Euclidean distance or the squared Euclidean distance (Chen/Hu 2006). The Ward algorithm implicitly adopts the squared Euclidean distance (Wishart 1969). To ensure consistency among all methods used, we use the squared Euclidean distance as distance measure for all performed cluster analyses. The squared Euclidean distance is calculated as follows p

D(a, b ) = ¦ xai − xbi

2

(4)

i =1

whereas D stands for the distance, p for the number of cluster variables, and xi for the value of the variables i. Figure 3-1: Cluster methods used in this thesis

Non-overlapping methods Hierarchical methods

Partitioning methods

Single linkage

K-means algorithm

Ward's minimum variance method

3.2.4 Process of Analysis of Variance To test for significant differences among the identified clusters, we subject our data to an analysis of variance. This is a technique for analyzing the way in which the mean of one or several categorical independent variables affects one or several metric dependent variables (Backhaus et al. 2006, p. 120). This analysis is accomplished by partitioning the total variance into the component that is due to true random error and the components that are due to differences between means. These latter variance components are then tested for statistical signifi-

Quantitative Study

85



cance. If this test is significant, the null hypothesis of no difference between means is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis that the means are different from each other is accepted (Homburg/Krohmer 2006, p. 399). In the present work, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) is used as we want to assess group differences across multiple metric dependent variables simultaneously (Hair et al. 2005; Steyn/Ellis 2009). First, we conduct a MANOVA with cluster membership as the independent variable in order to test whether the clusters differ from each other on the active cluster variables, and the related variables, respectively. By doing so, we obtain a multivariate F value based on a comparison of the error variance/covariance matrix and the effect variance/covariance matrix. The covariance here is included, because the measures of the dependent variables are probably correlated. This correlation had to be taken into account when performing the significance test (Hair et al. 2005). For significant effects involving variables with more than two factor levels, post-hoc comparisons between pairs of clusters have to be performed to determine which means differ significantly. To this end, we use Duncan’s multiple-range test (Bewick/Cheek/Ball 2004) which was developed by David B. Duncan for studying details of differences among sample means (Duncan 1955). It belongs to the general class of multiple comparison procedures (Chew 1976) that use the studentized range statistic qr to compare sets of means (Black 1999, p. 467f). This procedure is based on a comparison of the range of a subset of means with a calculated least significant range. This least significant range increases with the number of means in the subset. If the range of the subset exceeds the least significant range, then the means can be considered significantly different. It is a sequential test and so the subset with the largest range is compared first, followed by smaller subsets. Once a range is found not to be significant, no further subsets of this group are tested. We apply this procedure in order to test differences in the active cluster variables as well as the related variables between the clusters. This chapter outlined the basics of the qualitative and quantitative empirical studies. With these fundamentals in mind, in the following we proceed with describing the investigation of top executives’ work relationship (see chapter 3.2.4) and work-family balance (see chapter 5).

87



4 4.1

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Preliminary Conceptual Framework of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

On the basis of our theoretical considerations (i.e., step 3 of the taxonomy development procedure, see Figure 2-1), we develop an initial version of the framework for investigating top executives’ work relationship. As depicted in Figure 4-1, we identify several job-related demands and resources as well as related variables of top executives’ work relationship. First, relying on research in organizational psychology (e.g., Deery/Iverson/Walsh 2002; King et al. 2007) and the job-demands resources model (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007a), we consider job-related demands and resources as key facets of top executives’ work relationship. Concerning job-related demands, we refer to upper echelons theory and draw a distinction between contextual demands (i.e., perceived organizational pressure culture, like proposed by Thompson/Beauvais/Lyness 1999), and internal job-related demands (i.e., own drive to perform, like proposed by Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a). Concerning job-related resources, modern versions of the job-demands resources model show the importance of personal job-related resources (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Judge/Locke/ Durham 1997). Based on this result and the additional review of literature on top executives, we select attitudes toward work (e.g., Burke 2000; Gardner/Martinko 1988; Igbaria/Parasuraman/Badawy 1994; Stevens/Beyer/Trice 1978), work-related skills (e.g., Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a; Schriesheim/Neider/Scandura 1998), and personal control over the job (e.g., Finkelstein 2003; Kets de Vries 1989) to capture top executives’ job-related resources. Furthermore, social support has been identified as important job-related resource that is part of employees’ work relationship (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Euwema 2005; Van Yperen/Hagedoorn 2003). Additionally, we use the job-demands resources model to select top executives’ well-being and satisfaction (i.e., exhaustion and work satisfaction) and top executive performance as possible related variables of top executives’ work relationship (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/ Schaufeli 2003; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Schaufeli/Bakker 2004). Finally, upper echelons theory predicts that top executives’ job-related demands and resources are highly relevant for organizational performance (e.g., Bantel/Jackson 1989; Hambrick 2007; Hambrick/Mason 1984; Miller/Droge 1986). Accordingly, we also assume organizational perfor-

88

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



mance as related variable to top executives’ work relationship. Specifically, we consider perceived market performance and perceived overall performance as part of organizational performance. We chose the market performance beside the overall performance as indicator for organizational performance, as several studies have shown the influence of the market performance on the economical success of the company (e.g., Becker 1999; Stock 2004). Figure 4-1: Preliminary conceptual framework of top executives’ work relationship

EXECUTIVES’ WORK RELATIONSHIP EXECUTIVES’ JOB-RELATED DEMANDS − Perceived organizational pressure culture − Drive EXECUTIVES’ JOB-RELATED RESOURCES − Attitudes toward work − Work-related skills − Control over the job − Social support

RELATED VARIABLES EXECUTIVE-RELATED VARIABLES Well-being and satisfaction − Exhaustion − Work satisfaction Executive performance COMPANY-RELATED VARIABLES Organizational performance − Perceived market performance − Perceived overall performance

We rely on the results of our qualitative study, outlined in the next section, to verify and enrich these theoretically selected facets and constructs (i.e., step 4 of the taxonomy development procedure). Most notably, as “the existing literature offers less direction in conceptualizing the relevant demands and resources for those at the top of the organizational hierarchy” (Knudsen/Ducharme/Roman 2009, 86), we first have to match the conceptually derived facets and constructs with the particular requirements of our top executive sample. Thus, the purpose of the first step within the empirical part of our taxonomy development procedure (see Figure 2-1) is the empirical verification and enrichment of the conceptually identified facets and constructs of top executives’ work relationship. We perform this step by analyzing the previously described qualitative interviews with 42 top executives (see section 3.1). The qualitative results regarding top executives’ work relationship will be outlined in the following.

Qualitative Results Regarding Top Executives’ Work Relationship

89



4.2

Qualitative Results Regarding Top Executives’ Work Relationship

The semistructured interviews of the qualitative study reveal two major results. First, they shed light on top executives’ personal understanding of their work relationship. Examples for top executives’ statements and corresponding field notes are illustrated in Table 4-1. Second, the qualitative analysis provides insights about the relevance of different job-related demands and resources as well as related variables in a top executive’s work situation. For this purpose, the number of times a term is mentioned by an informant is identified by frequency counts. Table 4-2 depicts the perceived job-related demands and resources as well as related variables which are most frequently mentioned by the top executives during the interviews. The interview questions are structured according to the facets and constructs of our preliminary conceptual framework (see Figure 4-1). Thus, first top executives’ job-related demands are considered, followed by top executives’ job-related resources which are initially captured by four facets: top executives’ attitudes toward work, work-related skills, personal control over the job, and job-related social support. Table 4-1: Examples for top executives’ statements and corresponding field notes Transcribed interview texts Transcribed field notes Job-related demands: Which job-related demands make your job sometimes hard to handle and burdening? Perceived organizational pressure culture The organizational pressure “In our company, performance is put on a level with the time dedicated to culture is experienced as highly the job.” demanding by the top executives “Each of my subordinates could leave office at midday on Friday. If I in spite of their ascendancy in would do that, this would cause problems. If I do that from time to time, I the company. need a good explanation; otherwise I could not venture that.” Internal drive to perform In the interviews, the top execu“As CEO you always have the problem that you carry responsibility. Thus, tives’ high internal drive to peryou can’t cut yourself off. I once stayed with my wife on a cruise liner on form was apparent in the fact the Indian Ocean and we had no contact to the continent for four days. I that many of them did not switch thought that was the end of the world." off their mobile devices and “I never wanted to release tasks. Working keeps me healthful. If I hadn’t apologized that important enough work and get dispensable, I would fall ill.” calls/mails could arrive. Many of “It gets hard, when you demand extremely high standards of yourself and them wanted to be apprehended never meet your own requirements.” as very busy. Job-related resources Attitudes: Which attitudes towards your work help you manage high job-related challenges? Job involvement Most top executives seemed “I live for my job and I think that is the reason, why I can handle it that completely taken in by their well.” work. “Your personal attachment to the work and to the people is highly important.” Enjoyment “First of all, I enjoy the work I do. This is why I don’t conceive the high workload as a burden.” “In my opinion, you don’t get motivated by money or titles or anything else. And you won’t do a good job as executive, when you don’t enjoy what you are doing.”

Many top executives are convinced that when they are enjoying what they do, they have the power to meet even big challenges.

 90 

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

Transcribed interview texts Transcribed field notes Work-related skills: Which work-related skills help you manage high job-related challenges? Self-management Respondents are content to rePrioritizing: “I try to specify the importance of different tasks and then I port on their good work-related begin to work them off top-down. Some less important tasks I never ap- skills. Most seem to be used to proach. They often sort themselves out.” managing impressions. Some Structuring tasks: “I force myself to think things through and mark them talk about the importance of down. At the end you get two pages of approaches to your problem out of skills but admit at the same time the former chaos.” that their use is difficult in situaTime management: “Your personal time management must be good. De- tions of extremely high workspite all challenges, you have to schedule your tasks and work off this related stress. plan consequently.” Ability to delegate “I permanently assess which tasks can be delegated to subordinates, and I think about possibilities to clear myself.”

Many top executives affirmed the importance of delegating tasks. Nevertheless, many of them admit problems in implementing this ability. Loss of control over the job: Which factors indicate that you lose control over your job? Denial Most respondents avoided talk“Sometimes I’d love nothing better than to climb in my car and move on ing about losing control. Some from all that things.” of them admitted the use of denial strategies. Compensating Compensating behavior behavior was exclusively “I know managers, who drunk too much in order to overcome their concern touched upon with regard to with their high workload.” other top executives. “There are colleagues, who try to solve job-related problems with stimulants or alcohol. This is when it gets dangerous.” Job-related social support: Who supports you in your company in managing high job-related challenges? “In such a position, everyone is the architect of his own fortune. I think, Most of the respondents do not feel supported at their workplace the higher you ascend, the lonelier you get.” by colleagues or supervisors. “That’s a shark tank and you know that; and you have to behave like a Many of them rather feel as lone fighters. As helpful they experishark in there. Whales are not searched to do this job.” ence the instrumental support due to the ability to delegate tasks to subordinates (see ability to delegate) Relationship with work-related variables: Whichphenomena are associated with a negative work relationship? Well-being and satisfaction Top executives often touched Feelings of exhaustion: “I often was burned out on Friday evening. At sev- upon personal and performanceen o’clock I was at a dead end and had to return home and lay down on related variables like conflict the chesterfield.” between work and private life Conflict of work with private life: “When you don’t have a weekend any and decreased effectiveness. more, then you ask yourself: Where am I? What’s with my private life?” Concerning impairments of their Dissatisfaction with life: “After my promotion I first couldn’t identify with satisfaction, they more frethis new job and was dissatisfied with myself and my whole life.” quently experience dissatisfacDissatisfaction with work-family balance: “In the evening I often work and tion with life or work-family then I’m short of time to play with the children. Furthermore, I rarely balance than with their job. have time to meet friends and that’s what I really miss.” Dissatisfaction with the job: “I then got dissatisfied with my work and with myself and wished that I hadn’t become a top manager.”

 

Qualitative Results Regarding Top Executives’ Work Relationship

Transcribed interview texts Continuation of relationship with work-related variables Top executive performance Decreased personal accomplishment: “Under extremely high pressure your ability to perform decreases clearly. When there occur in addition unexpected problems, your energy may be even insufficient to solve them.” Decreased effectiveness: “When you always have a high workload and often don’t get enough sleep, of course your effectiveness decreases.” Organizational performance “In the past, I often noticed overworked managers, who became a problem for their company, because they no longer fulfilled their responsibilities and neglected important things. This did damage to the company.”

91

Transcribed field notes

When links to organizational performance were mentioned, top executives reported on the detrimental influence of other top executives on organizational performance.

During the interviews we raised the following question to capture top executives’ job-related demands: “Which aspects of your job make it sometimes hard to handle and burdening?” The purpose of this question was to check if there is a distinction between contextual and internal job-related demands, drawn in upper echelons theory (Hambrick 2007). In the following, the figures in parenthesis behind the constructs indicate the number of top executives, who touched upon this construct at least once during the interview (see also Table 4-2). In response to the first question, top executives mentioned the following aspects most frequently: Permanent thinking of work issues even in leisure time (27), companies’ expectations on availability and long working hours (19), and demand of high standards of oneself (6). While a company’s expectations represent the external organizational pressure culture, permanent thinking of work issues and demand of high standards of oneself reflect a top executive’s internal drive to perform. The examples on top executives’ job-related demands in Table 4-1 illustrate that top executives perceive a higher level of organizational pressure as opposed to their subordinates. Additionally, top executives’ drive to perform is perceived as particularly high and burdening. Thus, the results of the qualitative interviews confirm our theory-based conceptualization of top executive-specific external and internal job-related demands. The following three questions concerning executives’ job-related resources are based on the three categories of job-related resources, suggested by research in organizational psychology (e.g., Hobfoll/Shirom 2001; Riolli 2003): “Which attitudes towards your work help you manage high job-related challenges?”, “Which work-related skills help you manage high jobrelated challenges?”, and “Which factors make you loose control over your job?” As social support turned out to be an important job-related resource as part of employees’ work relationship (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Euwema 2005; Haines/JHurblert/Zimmer 1991; Van Yperen/Hagedoorn 2003), a fourth question asked for the job-related social support top executives experience at work: “Who supports you in your company in managing high job-

92

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



related challenges?” Thus, in line with research in organizational psychology (e.g., Hobfoll/ Shirom 2001; Riolli 2003) and new directions of the job demands-resources model (Bakker/ Demerouti 2007; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007a), top executives’ job-related resources were initially captured by four facets: top executives’ attitudes toward work, work-related skills, personal control over the job, and job-related social support. Table 4-2: Frequency of assigned codings Investigated issue

Construct

Assigned coding

Job-related demands

Perceived organizational pressure culture

Companies’ expectations on availability and long working hours

Internal drive to perform

Job-related resources

Attitudes toward work Job involvement Enjoyment Work-related strategies Self-management

Ability to delegate Loss of control over the job Denial

Compensating behavior

Job-related social support

Number of respondents mentioning the construct at least one time 19

Times construct was mentioned throughout all interviews 22

Permanent thinking of work issues

27

59

Demand of high standards of oneself

6

12

To be merged in the job

20

42

Enjoying the job

25

40

Prioritizing

22

39

Structuring tasks

17

25

Time management

14

34

Ability to delegate

23

47

Wish to escape

6

12

Neglect of active coping

3

5

Tenseness at the workplace

8

12

Alcohol abuse

7

12

Competition with colleagues

20

32

 

Qualitative Results Regarding Top Executives’ Work Relationship Investigated issue

Construct

Related variables

Personal well-being and satisfaction

Effectiveness

Organizational performance

Assigned coding

Number of respondents mentioning the construct at least one time 11

Times construct was mentioned throughout all interviews 14

Conflict of work with private life

38

171

Dissatisfaction with life

24

62

Dissatisfaction with work-family balance

16

30

Dissatisfaction with the job

10

12

Decreased effectiveness

20

34

Decreased personal accomplishment

8

10

Decrease in organizational performance

6

7

Feelings of exhaustion

93

Regarding top executives’ attitudes toward work, the following aspects were mentioned most frequently by the top executives: Enjoying the job (25) and to be merged in the job (20). These aspects have been mentioned by almost 50 percent of the respondents. Additionally, both issues have been mentioned several times during the interviews (see Table 4-2). Thus, the interviews indicated that for the most top executives, work seems to be the most important facet of their life. In the literature, this attachment to the work is captured by the construct job involvement (Kanungo 1982). Another important job-related resource reflects that top executives like their work more than most people do. The sample statements illustrate this observation (see Table 4-1). This issue has been captured in the literature by the construct enjoyment of work (McMillan et al. 2002). These results lead us to the selection of job involvement and enjoyment as particularly relevant to top executives’ attitudes toward work. As a second job-related resource, top executives’ work-related skills are discussed during the interviews. Regarding this issue, top executives mentioned prioritizing (22), structuring tasks (17), time management (14), and the ability to delegate (23) most frequently. These issues are typically conceptualized by the construct of self-management in the literature (Mills 1983). Interestingly, some of the top executives admitted that these work-related skills are particularly important, but similarly difficult to use in situations of extremely high workrelated stress. Another relevant work-related skill discussed by the top executives is the ability to delegate. This is considered as important mechanism to clarify their mind. The ability to delegate has also been discussed in management literature as important work-related skill of top executives (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a; Schriesheim/Neider/Scandura 1998).

94

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



These results lead us to the selection of two work-related strategies regarding top executives’ job-related resources: self-management and ability to delegate. During the interviews, we discussed a third facet of job-related resources referred to as control over the job, which is captured in the following in a reversed manner as loss of control over the job. Regarding top executives’ loss of control over the job the top executives provided the following statements most frequently: wish to escape (6), neglect of active coping (3), alcohol abuse (7), and tenseness at the workplace (8). While the first two statements reflect denial (Evers/Frese/Cooper 2000), alcohol abuse and tenseness at the workplace are conceptualized as compensating behavior in the literature (Evers/Frese/Cooper 2000). A notable observation regarding this issue is that most top executives avoided talking about their own loss of control. Some of them admitted to use several denial strategies, such as escaping from the job. Another group of statements reflect compensating behavior (Buergin 2000). Interestingly, the informants exclusively discussed this issue in the context of other top executives, rather reflecting compensating behavior for the own person. According to these results, we select two constructs to capture top executives’ loss of control over the job: denial and compensating behavior (see Figure 4-2). As additional job-related resource we asked for the job-related social support experienced by the top executives (“Who supports you in your company in managing high job-related challenges?”). Job-related social support comprises “overall levels of helpful social interaction available on the job from coworkers and supervisors” (Karasek/Theorell 1990 p. 69). The answers of the respondents revealed that the job-related social support from coworkers and supervisors is of low relevance for top executives. Most of them do not have a supervisor in the proper sense. The influence of the supervisory board is not experienced as helpful in managing the daily job-related challenges. The collaboration with colleagues on the top executive level is mostly even experienced as competition. Thus, in Table 4-2, we include the code “competition with colleagues” instead of “job-related social support”. Twenty top executives reported on this competition. Thus, top executives state that they do not get job-related social support from others in managing high job-related challenges. Rather, they have to deal with their job-related challenges by relying on their personal resources and experiences. Former results of the investigation of job-related social support showed that “in the case of high job demands, only instrumental support, defined as help from others for getting the job done when things get tough, will be effective in preventing or reducing detrimental effects” (Van Yperen/Hagedoorn 2003, p. 340). In this thesis, this instrumental support from others is captured by the top executives’ ability to delegate tasks to subordinates, which we have already conceptualized with the construct ability to delegate. Thus, we decided not to further consider job-related social support in our top executives’ work relationship taxonomy.

Qualitative Results Regarding Top Executives’ Work Relationship

95



Beside the topics the executives touched upon most often, also the topics which they hardly mentioned give important hints for our investigation of top executives’ work relationship. Specifically, the top executives hardly talked about job-related resources often studied on the employee level, such as the organization of work (e.g., role clarity, participation in decision making), and task characteristics (e.g., skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy). This approved the low relevance of these issues in our top executive sample. These jobrelated resources seemingly are the standard configurations of top executives’ jobs and thus, do not differentiate between top executives’ work relationship. Thus, in the following, we focus on personal job-related resources as part of our top executives’ work relationship taxonomy. The final question aims at the identification of related variables of top executives’ work relationship: “Which phenomena are associated with a negative work relationship?” In response to this question the top executives reported on decreased well-being and satisfaction as well as an impairment of their own effectiveness and organizational performance. This distinction between well-being, satisfaction and individual effectiveness as well as organizational performance is supported by literature on the job demands-resources model and upper echelons theory (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a). Regarding impaired well-being, the top executives mentioned most frequently perceived conflicts of work with private life (38) and feelings of exhaustion (11). Thus, additionally to the conceptually derived construct exhaustion, we identified the construct work-to-family conflict as related variable to top executives’ work relationship. Concerning the impairment of their satisfaction, the top executives most frequently mentioned dissatisfaction with life (24), dissatisfaction with work-family balance (16), and dissatisfaction with the job (10). Thus, regarding top executives’ satisfaction, additionally to the conceptually derived work satisfaction, we found two further forms of satisfaction which are related to top executives’ work relationship, namely life satisfaction and satisfaction with work-family balance. Interestingly, the top executives mostly touched upon personal related variables, such as conflict between work and private life, feelings of exhaustion, and different forms of dissatisfaction. Thus, they more frequently experience impaired satisfaction with life or workfamily balance than with their job. Additionally, like predicted on the basis of our conceptual preoccupation with the topic, the top executives reported influences of a negative work relationship on top executive performance. On the part of impaired performance, respondents reported a decrease of their personal accomplishment (8) and their effectiveness (20). Thus, the qualitative results reveal the construct personal accomplishment as part of top executive performance. Furthermore, top executives’ effectiveness could be identified as part of top executives’ performance. Additionally, the qualitative data indicated differential effects of top executives’ work

96

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



relationship on top executives’ well-being and performance. For situations of high job-related demands and a lack of job-related resources, the top executives reported a decrease of their well-being, satisfaction, and performance. An impairment of organizational performance related to top executives’ work relationship was hardly mentioned. When such related variables were accounted, the top executives instanced the detrimental effect of other top executives on their organization’s performance. No top executive admitted to have caused similar effects for his or her own company. We suppose that the top executives’ caution with this topic is a result of their impression management, which is highly important to maintain one’s good image in the public (e.g., Carter 2006; Gardner/Avolio 1998; Gardner/Martinko 1988). Nevertheless, we obtained indications for an influence of these related variables on behalf of the top executives on organizational performance (6). As this influence of top executives on organizational performance has additionally often been shown in the literature (e.g., Carpenter/Fredrickson 2001; Finkelstein/Hambrick 1996; Henderson/Miller/Hambrick 2006), we include the organizational performance as related variable in our framework of top executives’ work relationship. The interviews allowed us to empirically verify and enrich the conceptually derived facets of top executives’ work relationship. Additionally, the interviews reveal another central result for our further preoccupation with this topic. For instance, a highly experienced top executive noted that “the executive has this total concentration on the job which he doesn’t notice any more himself. You have to ask the life partners. They surely have another view on these issues. I dare to say, when my wife would sit here, she would tell you much more.” That is to say, the consideration of the life partners’ perspective is complementary to the top executives’ own perspective. As an additional result of the qualitative interviews, we decided to survey both, the top executives as well as their life partners. In summary, the results of the qualitative study support our theoretically derived facets and constructs of top executives’ work relationship as well as related variables. For example, we could verify the conceptually derived distinction between internal and external job-related demands. As we furthermore achieve a deeper understanding of the work relationship in the specific work situation of top executives, we could additionally use the qualitative data to enrich our preliminary framework in some aspects. Regarding this, the analysis of the qualitative interviews brought out four central results for our further investigation of top executives’ work relationship. First, concerning job-related resources, we identified top executive-specific constructs to capture the facets attitude toward work, work-related skills and loss of control over the job. Second, we added three related variables of top executives’ work relationship to our framework: work-to-family conflict, life satisfaction, and satisfaction with work-family balance. Third, we identified two facets of top executive performance,

Final Empirically Grounded Framework of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

97



namely effectiveness and personal accomplishment. Fourth, we decided to survey both, top executives as well as their life partners. In the following, we further elaborate our conceptualization of top executives’ job-related demands and resources as well as related variables and present the final empirically grounded framework of top executives’ work relationship (chapter 4.3). This serves as basis for the quantitative investigation of this phenomenon (chapter 4.4 - 4.6).

4.3

Final Empirically Grounded Framework of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

Based on the job demands-resources model and upper echelons theory, we selected the major facets and constructs as well as related variables in order to conceptually describe top executives’ work relationship (chapter 2.3). Subsequently, these facets and constructs were verified and enriched by means of the analysis of our qualitative data (chapter 4.2), which corresponds to step four of our procedure of taxonomy development (see Figure 2-1). The results of the qualitative study lead us to the final empirically grounded framework of top executives’ work relationship, which we outline in this chapter. We also define the core constructs of this refined framework in this section and by doing so carry out step five of the procedure of taxonomy development (see Figure 2-1). Figure 4-2: Final empirically grounded framework of top executives’ work relationship

EXECUTIVES’ WORK RELATIONSHIP

EXECUTIVES’ JOB-RELATED DEMANDS − Perceived organizational pressure culture − Drive EXECUTIVES’ JOB-RELATED RESOURCES Attitudes toward work − Job involvement − Enjoyment Work-related skills − Self-management − Ability to delegate Loss of control over the job − Denial − Compensating behavior

RELATED VARIABLES

EXECUTIVE-RELATED VARIABLES Well-being and satisfaction − Exhaustion − Work-to-family-conflict − Life satisfaction − Satisfaction with work-family balance − Work satisfaction Executive performance − Personal accomplishment − Effectiveness COMPANY-RELATED VARIABLES Organizational performance − Perceived market performance − Perceived overall performance

98

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



4.3.1 Job-Related Demands Regarding top executives’ job-related demands, two categories have been identified based on upper echelons theory (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a) and our qualitative interviews: external and internal job-related demands. While external demands derive from task-related or performance-related challenges, internal demands reflect top executives’ aspirations as self imposed drive to perform. Based on this categorization, we focus on two categories of jobrelated demands: perceived organizational pressure culture (as external demand) and top executives’ drive (as internal demand). Perceived organizational pressure culture refers to the shared assumptions, beliefs, and values regarding the extent to which an organization demands and claims the total commitment and effort of its top executives for the benefit of the company (Thompson/Beauvais/Lyness 1999). Top executives’ drive is defined as “an inner pressure to work that is maintained by internal fulfillment rather than external pressure” (McMillan et al. 2002, p. 359). 4.3.2 Job-Related Resources The job demands-resources model advises the investigation of specific job-related resources that characterize the particular occupational group under investigation (Bakker/Demerouti 2007). Top executives are known to hold high resources at the organizational and task level (such as participation in decision making, autonomy, and task significance, e.g., Hackman/ Oldham 1975; Hambrick/Finkelstein 1987; Mintzberg 1983). Thus, the consideration of these constructs would not reveal remarkable results. In contrast, top executives highly differ in their amount of personal job-related resources. Thus, with respect to job-related resources, three categories have been identified following studies in organizational psychology (Hobfoll/Shirom 2001; Riolli 2003), new directions of the job demands-resources model (Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007a), and the results of our qualitative interviews: top executives’ attitudes toward work, work-related skills, and loss of control over the job. Based on the qualitative study, we assigned two constructs for every facet of top executives’ job-related resources. A top executive’s attitudes toward work consist of two constructs, namely job involvement and work enjoyment. Job involvement is defined as “a cognitive or belief state of psychological identification with one’s present job” (Kanungo 1982, p. 342). The second construct – work enjoyment – refers to “the level of pleasure derived from work” (McMillan et al. 2002, p. 358). These attitudes toward work have received considerable attention in occupational psychology (Frone/Russell 1995). In particular the psychological literature on workaholism has focused on these constructs as important to describe employee workaholism (e.g., Burke 2000; McMillan et al. 2002; Spence/Robbins 1992).

Final Empirically Grounded Framework of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

99



The second category of top executives’ job-related resources focuses on a top executive’s work-related skills. Results of the qualitative study reveal two constructs: top executives’ selfmanagement and ability to delegate. Hambrick, Finkelstein, and Mooney (2005a, p. 485) mention the improvement of one’s capabilities, such as the ability to delegate as “the most common approach” to reduce job-related demands. Thus, highly important capabilities of a top executive are his or her work-related skills, referring to job-related resources which support a person to fulfill work-related issues. Self-management is defined as efforts by an individual to control his or her own behavior (Mills 1983). Based on the results of the qualitative study, this construct includes such issues as prioritizing and structuring tasks as well as time management. We define ability to delegate as a top executive’s authorization of a subordinate to take responsibility for certain activities (Bass 1990). The third category of job-related resources covers control over the job. Control over the job is defined as a top executive’s cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage the internal and external demands of the job that tax or exceed his or her resources (Folkman et al. 1986). Consistent with the results of our qualitative study, we focus on two dysfunctional coping styles (Evers/Frese/Cooper 2000): denial and compensating behavior. Denial refers to an emotionfocused coping behavior of negating or disowning something (Brown/Starkey 2000). Compensating behavior is defined as a defense mechanism “by which an individual attempts to compensate for some real or imagined deficiency of personality or behavior by developing or stressing another aspect of his or her personality, or by substituting a different form of behavior” (Buergin 2000, p. 145). 4.3.3 Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work Relationship As outlined before, we also use the predictions of the job demands-resources model and upper echelons theory, as well as our qualitative results for the identification of related variables, which are supposed to differ for top executives’ work relationship types. The related variables that were considered in this thesis will be defined in the following. 4.3.3.1 Well-Being and Satisfaction A substantial body of research related to the job demands-resources model states implications of job-related demands and resources on a person’s well-being and satisfaction (e.g., Bakker/ Demerouti/Schaufeli 2003; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Schaufeli/Bakker 2004). As presented before, according to the job demands-resources model, high job-related demands are likely to result in strain reactions, while a lack of job-related resources hinders goal accomplishment, resulting in frustration and experiences of failure (e.g., Demerouti et al. 2001). In a similar vein, our quantitative study captures top executives’ well-being and satisfaction by six constructs, which are all frequently investigated as individual related variables in or-

100

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



ganizational psychology (e.g., Aryee/Srinivas/Tan 2005; Cordes/Dougherty 1993; Klein/Verbecke 1999; Valcour 2007). To examine top executives’ well-being, we use exhaustion, which “refers to feelings of being overextended and depleted of one’s emotional and physical resources” (Maslach/Schaufeli/ Leiter 2001, p. 399). As exhaustion is considered to be a key component or even the sole defining component of burnout (e.g., Garden 1989; Greenglass/Burke/Konarski 1998; Pines/ Aronson/Kafry 1981), it is the burnout component which is most often examined separately in the literature (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Deery/Iverson/Walsh 2002; Moore 2000; Wilk/Moynihan 2005). Furthermore, top executives’ work-to-family conflict, which we have already defined, completes the view on the top executive’s well-being. On the part of the top executive’s satisfaction with his or her actual life situation, we first use the construct life satisfaction, which refers to an individual’s judgment of his or her quality of life (Diener et al. 1985). Second, we consider the top executive’s satisfaction with workfamily balance, which is defined as an overall level of contentment with the management of the work-family interface and is seen as a global attitude toward the interface of one’s work and family roles (Valcour 2007). To further capture the top executive’s satisfaction, we thirdly use the construct work satisfaction, which is defined as “degree to which the individual is satisfied with his or her job” (Carlson et al. 2006, p. 152). 4.3.3.2 Top Executive Performance As related variable, the job demands-resources model furthermore considers work performance (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Schaufeli 2003; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Schaufeli/ Bakker 2004). By means of our qualitative analysis, we could verify a relationship between top executives’ work relationship and top executive performance. We identified top executives’ personal accomplishment and effectiveness as important facets of top executive performance. Personal accomplishment refers to the top executive’s own feelings of competence and achievement at work (Maslach/Schaufeli/Leiter 2001). A second construct to capture top executive performance is effectiveness. Effectiveness is defined as the productivity of the top executive in doing his or her job which leads to a high quality output (Campion/Medsker/ Higgs 1993). 4.3.3.3 Organizational Performance Upper echelons theory assumes that top executives’ job-related demands affect organizational performance by means of top executives’ performance (e.g., Hambrick 2007; Hambrick/ Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a, 2005b). This prediction inspired us to additionally investigate organizational performance as related variable. Organizational performance is represented by the perceived market performance and the perceived overall performance of the investigated

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

101



organizations. Perceived market performance is defined as the top executive’s perceptions of his or her organization’s performance relative to product market competitors (Delaney/ Huselid 1996). This construct focuses on economic variables such as profitability and market share. Perceived overall performance is defined as the top executive’s perception of his or her organization’s performance concerning important issues such as product quality, customer satisfaction, and new product development relative to that of similar organizations (Delaney/ Huselid 1996). Besides the subjectively measured constructs, we used two objective measures of organizational performance: the progression of the number of employees and the progression of EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) in comparison to the preceding year. The progression of the number of employees stands for the positive or negative trend of the number of employees of the company in comparison to the preceding year, expressed as a percentage (Schutjens/ Wever 2000). The progression of EBIT expresses the positive or negative trend of the earnings before interest and taxes of the company in comparison to the preceding year, expressed as a percentage (Goldstein/Ju/Leland 2001). These two key figures were chosen because they are assumed to be good indicators for the actual organizational performance (e.g., Goldstein/ Ju/Leland 2001; Lee/Zumwalt 1981; Schutjens/Wever 2000). After the presentation and definition of all constructs which are included in the final framework, we proceed with information on the measurement of top executives’ work relationship and related variables. Furthermore, we outline the psychometric properties of the scales used.

4.4

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

For the empirically based development of our typology of top executives’ work relationship, we survey 224 top executives and their life partners and thereby fulfill step 6 of the taxonomy development procedure (see Figure 2-1). The data collection, sample and taxonomy development techniques were already described in chapter 3 (basics of the empirical studies). Thus, we continue with the description of the measures used. All items with the corresponding corrected item-to-total correlation and factor loadings are listed in the appendix (see Table 6-1, Table 6-2, and Table 6-3). While all active cluster variables were rated only by the top executives themselves, a part of the related variables were rated by both, top executives and their life partners.

102

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



4.4.1 Measures of Active Cluster Variables Constituting Top Executives’ Work Relationship The research method employed for the identification of different top executives’ work relationship types, is the cluster analysis technique. For the purpose of cluster analysis, some constructs have to be selected to describe the investigated phenomenon (referred to as active cluster variables, Homburg/Jensen/Krohmer 2008). Accordingly, we used top executive ratings on eight scales to measure top executives’ work relationship. The scales were assigned to the theoretically derived facets of top executives’ work relationship. All survey measures were assessed with 7-point Likert-type rating scales with anchors ranging from “disagree strongly” (1) to “agree strongly” (7). 4.4.1.1 Top Executives’ Job-Related Demands Perceived organizational pressure culture was measured by the family-supportive organization perception questionnaire (Allen 2001). Sample items were: “In my company, work should be the primary priority in a person’s life,” “In my company, long hours inside the office are the way to achieving advancement,” and “In my company, the ideal employee is the one who is available 24 hours a day” (see Table 6-1, Table 6-2, and Table 6-3 in the Appendix for a complete list of all items). One item was dropped because of low item-tototal-correlation and factor loading. The remaining item-to-total correlations range between .34 and .78. With the help of an exploratory factor analysis one factor could be extracted which accounts for nearly 50 percent of the variance of all indicators. The obtained factor loadings show satisfying values between .40 and .83. The coefficient alpha reaches a value of .91, which clearly exceeds the recommended threshold of .70. Furthermore, the composite reliability is .91, which is very satisfying. The mean of the 13-item organizational pressure scale is 3.55 (s. d. = .93) To measure top executives’ drive we follow McMillan et al. (2002) by using the WorkBAT-R scale adapted from the original scale of Spence and Robbins (1992). Drive includes seven items, asking the top executives to rate their internal pressure to perform. Sample items used to measure this construct were: “I feel guilty when I take time off from work,” and “I feel obligated to work hard, even when it’s not enjoyable.” The item-to-total correlations of this scale range between .43 and .65. Exploratory factor analysis reveals one factor which accounts for 62.14 percent of the variance of the seven indicators, whereby the factor loadings range between .40 and .81. The seven items form a reliable scale (Į = .78; CR = .78) and reveal a mean of 4.07 (s. d. = 1.03). High scores on these two constructs are associated with high job-related demands.

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

103



4.4.1.2 Top Executives’ Job-Related Resources The first facet of top executives’ job-related resources is their attitude toward work, including the constructs job involvement and enjoyment. We assess job involvement by asking the top executives five items previously used by Frone, Russell, and Cooper (1995), such as “The most important things that happen to me involve my present job,” and “Most of my interests are centered around my job.” Item-to-total correlations reach values between .45 and .53. With the help of exploratory factor analysis one factor is extracted which accounts for 69.70 percent of the variance of the five indicators used to measure this construct. The factor loadings range between .63 and .72. The scale is internally consistent (Į = .71) and also the composite reliability reaches a value of .77, which clearly exceeds the recommended value of .60. The scale reveals a mean of 4.90 (s. d. = .78). For measuring enjoyment, we use the scale of the WorkBAT-R adapted by McMillan et al. (2002) from the original scale of Spence and Robbins (1992). Items are for example “I like my work more than most people do,” and “My job is more like fun than work.” Item-to-total correlations of this scale range between .45 and .69. Exploratory factor analysis yields in one factor, accounting for 67.86 percent of the variance of the six indicators used. Factor loadings all exceed the recommended level and range between .60 and .80. The scale is internally consistent (Į = .79) and the composite reliability also clearly exceeds the recommended value and reaches a score of .80. The mean of the six-item measure of enjoyment is 5.01 (s. d. = .77) As second facet of top executives’ job-related resources we asses their work-related skills, composed of the constructs self-management and ability to delegate. They are both measured by scales adapted from the Working Styles Index (Warr/Connor 1992). Self-management includes seven items, such as “I do not let important tasks become urgent,” and “I have a functioning time-schedule.” Item-to-total correlations reach values between .43 and .67. By an exploratory factor analysis we obtain one factor accounting for nearly 50 percent (49.30 percent) of the variance of the seven indicators used. Factor loadings range between .56 and .82. The coefficient alpha is satisfying and reaches a score of .82. Composite reliability also reaches a satisfying score of .83. The mean of the self-management scale is 5.14 (s. d. = .77). Our measure of ability to delegate comes from top executives’ answers to the following three items: “I try to do as much as possible of the work by myself,” “Before I work on a task by myself, I check the possibility to delegate,” and “It is easy for me to delegate responsibility to colleagues/co-workers.” Item-to-total correlations range between .53 and .65. Exploratory factor analysis reveals one factor, which explains 66.7 percent of the variance of the three indicators. Factor loadings range between .78 and .86. The coefficient alpha is .75 and composite reliability is .76. Thus, all tested psychometric properties of the scale are satisfying. The mean of the ability to delegate scale is 5.10 (s. d. = .97). High scores on job involvement, enjoyment, self-management, and ability to delegate are associated with high personal job-related resources.

104

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



The third facet of top executives’ job-related resources is their loss of control over the job, composed of the constructs denial and compensating behavior. They are both assessed using scales out of the Occupational Stress Indicator (Evers/Frese/Cooper 2000). Denial includes five items, such as “When problems arise, I avoid thinking about them,” and “Whenever possible, I try to stay away from problems.” For use here, we omitted one item of the original scale because of its redundancy. The remaining items show acceptable item-to-total correlations between .53 and .63. With the help of exploratory factor analysis we obtain one factor explaining 54.30 percent of the variance of the five indicators whereas factor loadings reach values between .71 and .79. The coefficient alpha reaches a value of .79. Composite reliability reaches a value of .79, which exceeds the recommended threshold of .60. The mean of the denial scale is 2.59 (s.d. = .80). To measure compensating behavior, we use four items. Sample items are: “I notice that I drink more alcohol when I have problems,” and “Under pressure I overreact.” Two items were cut out of the original compensating behavior scale because of their incompatibility with the top executive sample. The mean of the compensating behavior scale is 2.61 (s.d. = .82). According to Evers, Frese, and Cooper (2000), the items do not reflect compensating behavior, but represent facets of this construct. Thus, we applied a formative measurement approach for this construct, outlined by Jarvis and colleagues (2003). Accordingly, formative indicators do not have an underlying common construct, so that the scores on these items need not necessarily correlate (MacKenzie/Podsakoff/Jarvis 2005). In contrast to the other job-related resources, low scores on these dysfunctional coping strategies are associated with high job-related resources. According to these results of the check of psychometric properties of the active cluster variables, we obtain support for the unidimensionality of the scales used to measure the active cluster variables constituting top executives’ work relationship. First, all item-to-total correlations reach acceptable scores (see Table 6-1, Table 6-2, and Table 6-3 in the Appendix for a complete list). Then we conducted an exploratory factor analysis. All factor loadings meet or exceeded the recommended value of .40 (see Table 6-1, Table 6-2, and Table 6-3 in the Appendix for a complete list). Taken together, the results indicated that the items were measuring all a single global construct. Thus, all scales were found to be unidimensional. Following the suggestions of Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we additionally checked for internal reliability of the scales and further conducted confirmatory factor analyses to establish convergent validity of the active cluster variables. In Table 4-3 we list coefficient alpha and composite reliability for each of the active cluster variables. All coefficient alphas show values over the recommended threshold of .70. Additionally, all scales demonstrate reasonable composite reliability and clearly exceed the threshold value of .60 that is recommended in the literature (Bagozzi/Yi 1988, p. 82); the lowest composite reliability is .76.

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

105

 Table 4-3: Scale names, coefficient alpha, and composite reliability of active cluster variables Į .91 .78 .71 .79 .82 .75 .79 Formative

Scale name 1. Perceived organizational pressure culture 2. Drive 3. Job involvement 4. Enjoyment 5. Self-management 6. Ability to delegate 7. Denial 8. Compensating behavior

CR .91 .78 .77 .80 .83 .76 .79 Formative

Table 4-4 presents descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the active cluster variables. Prior to the cluster analysis, we checked for intercorrelations of the active cluster variables. The highest intercorrelations existed between the job-related resources self-management and ability to delegate (r = .47) as well as the job-related demands perceived organizational pressure culture and drive (r = .43). These constructs are not supposed to be independent like it is often the case with variables considered in behavioral science (Arabie/Hubert 1994). Thus, these correlations are acceptable. We nevertheless additionally assessed discriminant validity of the active cluster variables on the basis of criteria that Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested; the results did not show any violation: The highest extent of shared variance between two latent variables in the phi matrix is .18 between perceived organizational pressure culture and drive, which is much lower than the average variance extracted of any construct. Thus, the criterion of discriminant validity was fulfilled by all active cluster variables included in our model. Accordingly, all items loaded significantly on the respective latent constructs and each construct was unidimensional and empirically distinct from the others. Table 4-4: Descriptive statistics, and intercorrelations among active cluster variables Variable 1. Perceived organizational pressure culture

Mean

s. d.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3.55

.93

1.00

2. Drive

4.07

1.03

.43**

1.00

3. Job involvement

4.90

.78

.25**

.36**

1.00

4. Enjoyment

5.01

.77

-.24**

.01

.23**

5. Self-management

5.14

.77

-.14*

-.21**

-.21**

.11

1.00

6. Ability to delegate

5.10

.97

-.25**

-.23**

-.11

.06

.47**

1.00

7. Denial 8. Compensating behavior * p< .05; ** p< .01

2.59

.80

.32**

.25**

.22**

-.12

-.25**

-.33**

1.00

2.61

.82

.26**

.28**

.14*

-.17

-.17*

-.17**

.31**

8

1.00

1.00

106

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



4.4.2 Measures of Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work Relationship We used top executive ratings on nine scales and life partner ratings on six scales to measure related variables of top executives’ work relationship. The nine constructs can be assigned to three facets of related variables: Top executive well-being and satisfaction (top executive and life partner ratings), top executive performance (top executive and partially life partner ratings), and organizational performance (top executive ratings). Thereby, top executives rated their own well-being, satisfaction, and performance while life partners rated their perception of top executives’ well-being, satisfaction, and performance. As life partners are not supposed to be fully aware of top executives effectiveness at work and the organizational performance, they were not asked to rate these performance-related constructs. When not indicated differently, survey measures were assessed with 7-point Likert-type scales, with anchors ranging from “disagree strongly” (1) to “agree strongly” (7). 4.4.2.1 Executive-Related Variables 4.4.2.1.1 Well-Being and Satisfaction Exhaustion is measured with the highly reliable and valid scale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) (Maslach/Jackson/Leiter 1996). The 5-item exhaustion scale is scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with anchors ranging from 1 = “never” to 7 = “very often”. The scale consists of items such as: “I feel burned out from my work,” and “I feel used up at the end of the workday.” Top executive ratings yield in item-to-total correlations between .53 and .68. The item-to-total correlations of the partner ratings reach values between .58 and .78. With the help of exploratory factor analysis one factor is extracted which accounts for 58.94 percent (top executive ratings), and 63.47 percent (partner ratings) respectively of the variance of the five indicators used to measure this construct. The factor loadings range between .69 and .82 (top executive ratings), and .72 and .88 (partner ratings). The scale is internally consistent with coefficient alphas of .82 (top executive ratings) and .85 (partner ratings). Also the composite reliability reaches values of .83 (top executive ratings) and .86 (partner ratings), which clearly exceed the recommended threshold of .60. A t-test for paired samples confirms a significant difference between top executive (mean = 3.21; s.d. = .98) and life partner (mean = 3.74; s.d. = 1.10) ratings of top executives’ exhaustion (t = -7.03; p < .01). Thus, the life partners rate the level of exhaustion significantly higher than the top executives themselves. We measure work-to-family conflict with a scale developed by Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996). The scale includes five items, such as “The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life,” and “The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities.” Item-to-total correlations reach acceptable values between .51

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

107



and .73 (top executive ratings) and .59 and .76 (life partner ratings). An exploratory factor analysis yields in one factor, accounting for 66.37 percent (top executive ratings) and 64.81 percent (partner ratings) of the variance of the five indicators. The factor loadings reach values between .66 and .86 (top executive ratings) and .73 and .87 (life partner ratings). Coefficient alphas reach good values of .83 (top executive ratings) and .86 (partner ratings). Composite reliability is also satisfying with values of .90 (top executive ratings) and .86 (partner ratings). The t-test for paired samples shows no difference concerning top executive (mean = 4.81; s. d. = 1.06) and life partner (mean = 4.76; s.d. = 1.26) ratings (t = .77; p = .48) of work-to-family conflict. We measure life satisfaction by having rate the top executives and the life partners in each case five items developed by Diener et al. (1985). The scale covers statements like: “In most ways my life is close to my ideal,” and “The conditions of my life are excellent.” Item-to-total correlations reach acceptable values between .63 and .75 (top executive ratings) and .63 and .77 (life partner ratings). An exploratory factor analysis yields in one factor, accounting for 65.29 percent (top executive ratings) and 65.54 percent (partner ratings) of the variance of the indicators. The factor loadings reach values between .77 and .86 for both, top executive ratings and life partner ratings. Coefficient alphas clearly exceed the recommended threshold with values of .86 (top executive and partner ratings), as well as composite reliability with values of .87 (top executive and partner ratings). This construct shows no difference concerning top executive (mean = 5.47; s. d. = .84) and life partner (mean = 5.41; s.d. = .94) ratings (t = -.42; p = .67). To measure satisfaction with work-family balance we use a scale developed by Valcour (2007). The measure consists of questions like: “How satisfied are you with the way you divide your time between work and personal or family life?” and “How satisfied are you with the way you divide your attention between work and home?” This scale is scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with anchors ranging from 1 = “very dissatisfied” to 7 = “totally satisfied”. The item-to-total correlations reach values between .79 and .83 (top executive ratings) and .80 and .87 (partner ratings). With the help of exploratory factor analysis one factor is extracted which accounts for 77.56 percent (top executive ratings), and 80.91 percent (partner ratings) of the variance of the seven indicators used to measure this construct. The factor loadings range between .87 and .89 (top executive ratings), and .87 and .92 (partner ratings). The coefficient alphas reach very satisfying values of .93 (top executive ratings) and .94 (partner ratings), as well as composite reliability which reaches .93 (top executive ratings) and .95 (partner ratings). The comparison of top executive (mean = 4.23; s.d. = 1.12) and partner ratings (mean = 4.51; s.d. = 1.06) by a t-test for paired samples revealed a significant difference (t=-3.50; p < .01). Accordingly, top executives rated their satisfaction with work-family balance lower than their partners.

108

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



Our measure of work satisfaction comes from top executive ratings of the following three statements out of the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman/Oldham 1975): “Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job.”, “I seldom think of quitting this job,”, and “I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job.” For use here, the original scale is net of two items. Top executive ratings yield in item-to-total correlations between .54 and .72. The itemto-total correlations of the partner ratings reach values between .59 and .78. With the help of exploratory factor analysis one factor is extracted which accounts for 71.62 percent (top executive ratings), and 74.17 percent (partner ratings) of the variance of the three. The factor loadings range between .77 and .91 (top executive ratings), and .80 and .92 (partner ratings). The scale is internally consistent with coefficient alphas of .76 (top executive ratings) and .81 (partner ratings). Also the composite reliability reaches acceptable values of .83 (top executive ratings) and .84 (partner ratings). No difference was found between top executive ratings (mean = 5.87; s.d. = .88) and life partner ratings (mean = 5.90; s.d. = .95) concerning top executives’ work satisfaction (t = -.42; p = .67). 4.4.2.1.2 Top Executive Performance We measured personal accomplishment with the scale of the Maslach Burnout InventoryGeneral Survey (MBI-GS) (Maslach/Jackson/Leiter 1996). Sample items used to measure personal accomplishment were: “I have accomplished many worthwhile things in this job,” and “I can effectively solve the problems that arise in my work.” The 6-item scale was scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with anchors ranging from 1 = “never” to 7 = “very often”. Item-to-total correlations reach acceptable values between .42 and .61 (top executive ratings) and .48 and .72 (life partner ratings). An exploratory factor analysis yields in one factor, accounting for 46.70 percent (top executive ratings) and 54.15 percent (partner ratings) of the variance of the indicators used. Thus, the result of the factor analysis with the top executive ratings remains slightly under the recommended threshold of 50 percent of variance extracted by the factor. As the MBI-GS is a popular survey which has been extensively validated (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Schaufeli 2002), we decided to use the original scale without changes. The factor loadings reach values between .60 and .76 (top executive ratings) and .64 and .83 (life partner ratings). Coefficient alphas reach acceptable values of .76 (top executive ratings) and .78 (partner ratings). Composite reliability is also acceptable with values of .90 (top executive ratings) and .83 (partner ratings). A t-test for paired samples revealed a significant difference between top executive (mean = 5.92; s.d. = .57) and life partner (mean = 6.04; s.d. = .68) ratings (t = -2.78; p < .01). Accordingly, life partners rated the top executives’ personal accomplishment better then the top executives themselves. The items for measuring effectiveness were chosen and adapted from the effectiveness scale of Alper, Tjosvold, and Law (2000). For use here, ten items were dropped from the original scale because of their incompatibility with the top executive sample. Two further items were

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

109



deleted because of their low item-to-total correlation and factor loading. Remaining items were for example: “I actively engage in reviewing my work so that I can improve it,” and “I work effectively.” Effectiveness was rated only by the top executives themselves. Item-tototal correlations reach values between .42 and .73. By an exploratory factor analysis we obtain one factor accounting for 70.85 percent of the variance of the six indicators used. Factor loadings range between .55 and .85. The coefficient alpha is satisfying and reaches a score of .75. Composite reliability also reaches a satisfying score of .80. The mean for of the 6-item effectiveness scale was 5.54 (s.d. = .58). 4.4.2.2 Organizational Performance As objective measures of organizational performance were hard to obtain and top executives are assumed to be the most knowledgeable sources of firm-level information (Norburn/Birley 1988), we used two perceptual measures of organizational performance: perceived market performance and perceived overall performance. The performance measures used here were relative in the sense that they asked the top executive to assess organizational performance relative to the performance of industry competitors, with anchors ranging from 1 = “substantially worse” to 7 = “substantially better”. Organizational performance was rated only by the top executives. Perceived market performance was assessed using the four-item scale from Delaney and Huselid (1996). A sample item used to measure market performance was: “Compared to other companies that do the same kind of work, how would you compare the organization’s performance over the last 3 years in terms of market share.” All items show good item-to-total correlations between .70 and .81. With the help of exploratory factor analysis we obtain one factor explaining 69.81 percent of the variance of the five indicators whereas factor loadings reach values between .66 and .91. The coefficient alpha reaches a good value of .85. Composite reliability reaches a value of .86, which clearly exceeds the recommended value of .60. The mean of the four-item measure of perceived market performance was 5.17 (s. d. = 1.23). To measure the perceived overall performance, we also used items of a scale from Delaney and Huselid (1996). Two items were deleted from the original scale because they explicitly referred to the employee level. The used scale included five items, such as “Compared to other organizations that do the same kind of work, how would you compare the organization’s performance over the last 3 years in terms of quality of products, services, or programs.” and “Compared to other organizations that do the same kind of work, how would you compare the organization’s performance over the last 3 years in terms of ability to attract essential employees.” The remaining items show acceptable item-to-total correlations between .55 and .60. Exploratory factor analysis reveals one factor which explains 53.62 percent of the variance of the five indicators used. Factor loadings reach values between .69 and .78. The

110

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



coefficient alpha reaches a value of .78. Composite reliability reaches a value of .79, which exceeds the recommended value of .60. The mean of the perceived overall performance scale was 5.13 (s. d. = 1.02), with a coefficient alpha of .78. Table 4-5: Scale names, coefficient alpha, and composite reliability of related variables Scale name Related variable – executive data 1. Exhaustion 2. Work-to-family conflict 3. Life satisfaction 4. Satisfaction with work-family balance 5. Work satisfaction 7. Personal accomplishment 8. Effectiveness 9. Perceived market performance 10. Perceived overall performance Related variable – life partner data 11. Exhaustion 12. Work-to-family conflict 13. Life satisfaction 14. Satisfaction with work-family balance 15. Work satisfaction 16. Personal accomplishment

Į

CR

.82 .83 .86 .93 .76 .76 .75 .85 .78

.83 .90 .87 .93 .83 .78 .80 .86 .79

.85 .86 .86 .94 .81 .83

.86 .86 .87 .95 .84 .83

According to the check of psychometric properties of the related variables, we obtain support for the unidimensionality of the scales used. Thus, all items were found to measure a single global construct. The check of internal reliability revealed coefficient alphas over the recommended threshold of .70. The lowest coefficient alpha is .75 for the construct effectiveness. Additionally, all scales demonstrate reasonable composite reliability and exceed the threshold value of .60 that is recommended in the literature (Bagozzi/Yi 1988, p. 82); the lowest composite reliability is .78 for the construct personal accomplishment. In Table 4-5 we list coefficient alpha and composite reliability for each of the related variables. Table 4-6 presents descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the related variables.



Measurement of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

111

Table 4-6: Descriptive statistics, and intercorrelations among related variables Mean Related variable – executive data 1. Exhaustion 3.21 2. Work-to-family conflict 4.81 3. Life satisfaction 5.47 4. Satisfaction with work-family balance 4.23 5. Work satisfaction 5.87 6. Personal accomplishment 5.92 7. Effectiveness 5.54 8. Perceived market performance 5.17 9. Perceived overall performance 5.13 Related variable – life partner data 10. Exhaustion 3.74 11. Work-to-family conflict 4.76 12. Life satisfaction 5.41 13. Satisfaction with work-family balance 4.51 14. Work satisfaction 5.90 15. Personal accomplishment 6.04

s. d.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

.98 1.06 .84

1.00 .41** 1.00 -.35** -.20** 1.00

1.12 .88 .57 .58 1.23 1.02

-.46** -.69** -.40** -.28** -.44** -.22** -.21** -.04 -.13 -.10 -.20** -.19**

.47** 1.00 .46** .40** 1.00 .37** .36** .48** 1.00 .31** .16* .32** .43** 1.00 .21** .18** .20** .21** .11 .20** .25** .27** .25** .12

1.10 1.26 .94

.44** .10 -.26**

.28** .45 ** -.24**

-.21** -.14** .51**

-.27** -.46** .33**

-.23** -.06 .29**

-.16* -.12 .15*

-.09 -.09 .11

1.06 .95 .68

-.05 -.25** .28**

-.33** -.23** -.07

.23** .27** 21**

.41** .25** .14

.13 .49** .29**

.18* .17* .31**

.14* .03 .12

9

10

11

12

13

14

15



Table 4-6 (continued) 8 Related variable – executive data 8. Perceived market performance 9. Perceived overall performance Related variable – life partner data 10. Exhaustion 11. Work-to-family conflict 12. Life satisfaction 13. Satisfaction with work-family balance 14. Work satisfaction 15. Personal accomplishment * p< .05; ** p< .01

1.00 .51** 1.00 -.10 -.04 .06 .07 .15* .22**

-.19** 1.00 -.14* .35** 1.00 .11 -.38** -.23** 1.00 .08 -.24** -.65** .26** 1.00 .18** -.38** -.14* .47** .17** 1.00 .22** -.21** .01 .22** .13 .42** 1.00

Furthermore, we checked for interrater reliability of the related variables measured by both top executive and life partner ratings (by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), James 1982; Shrout/Fleiss 1979). In our dataset, ICC (1.1) values range from .32 to .54, which can be considered large (e.g., Bliese 2000; James 1982). Thus, these results indicate a good consistency of top executive and life partner ratings on the related variables. Therefore, both ratings can be used as indications of related variables of executives’ work relationship. We were encouraged to use our measures of perceived organizational performance by research, which has found them to correlate positively with objective measures of organizational performance (Dollinger/Golden 1992; Powell 1992). We checked this assumption for our data by correlating our perceptual measures of organizational performance with two objective measures of organizational performance, which we obtained via document

112

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



analysis of published business records of the investigated companies: the progression of the number of employees and the progression of EBIT in comparison to the preceding year. As only a part of the investigated companies publishes their performance data, we could resort to the progression of the number of employees of 48 percent of the investigated companies and the progression of EBIT of 15 percent of the investigated companies. However, we obtained significant correlations between the perceived market performance (r = .51; p < .05) and overall performance (r = .45; p < .05) and the progression of the number of employees. Additionally, the perceived market performance correlated significantly with the progression of EBIT (r = .33; p < .05). This result shows evidence for the assumption, that our perceptual measures of organizational performance provide good indicators for objective organizational performance.

4.5

Interpretation of Cluster Solutions

The cluster analysis regarding top executives’ work relationship results in a four-cluster solution. Our next step toward the taxonomy of top executives’ work relationship is to validate whether these four clusters have meaningful interpretations (Rich 1992). This interpretation of the obtained cluster solutions corresponds to step eight of the taxonomy development procedure (see Figure 2-1). For this purpose we compare the between subject effects of the cluster means with Duncan’s multiple-range test (see Table 4-7). Table 4-8 shows the cluster means for each of the eight cluster variables. Indications of statistical significance are given to aid interpretation of the distinguishing characteristics of each cluster. Cluster means carrying the same superscript do not differ on a five percent significance level. Additional descriptors that explore the clusters with regard to some demographic characteristics (sex, age, marital status, employment of life partner, children, number of employees in company, and industry) are shown in the lower part of Table 4-8.

 Interpretation of Cluster Solutions

113

Table 4-7: Results of testing between subjects effects of active cluster variables Type III sum of squares

Degrees of freedom

Mean of squares

61.611 132.494

3 220

Model Error

136.748 101.394

Dependent variable Perceived org. pressure culture Model Error Drive Job involvement

Enjoyment Selfmanagement Ability to delegate

Denial Compensating behavior

F

Significance R2

20.537 .602

34.100***

.000

.317

3 220

45.583 .461

98.903***

.000

.574

24.022***

.000

.247

6.426***

.000

.081

34.618***

.000

.321

82.700***

.000

.530

Model

33.774

3

11.258

Error

103.106

220

.469

Model

10.707

5

3.569

Error

122.175

220

.555

Model

42.668

3

14.223

Error

90.386

220

.411

Model

110.888

3

36.963

Error

98.329

220

.447

Model Error

45.820 98.482

3 220

15.273 .448

34.119***

.000

.318

3 220

11.476 .523

21.929***

.000

.230

Model 34.428 Error 115.132 *** p<.01; ** p<.05; * p<.10

Before we describe the different clusters regarding top executives’ work relationship, some results concerning the association between cluster membership and the additional demographic descriptors should be mentioned: We find no significant indication that some clusters reflect predominantly one sex (Ȥ2 = 3.14, df = 3, p = .37), a specific marital status (Ȥ2 = .44, df = 3, p = .93), differences in the employment of life partner (Ȥ2 = 1.17, df = 3, p = .76), or the number of children (Ȥ2 = 13.54, df = 18, p = .76). We also find no significant association between cluster membership and company size (Ȥ2 = 15.91, df = 12, p = .20), and cluster membership and industry (Ȥ2 = 18.12, df = 24, p = .80). However, we do find a significant association between cluster membership and age (Ȥ2 = 15.88, df = 6, p = .01), which we will expand on in the description of the individual clusters.

114

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

 Table 4-8: Statistical cluster description Cluster Active cluster variables

Total

1

2

3

4

100%

24.10%

25.00%

25.45%

25.45%

Percentage of observations (n = 224) (n = 54) (n = 56) (n = 57) (n = 57) Perceived organizational pressure culture 3.68 b 3.44 b 2.81 c 4.26 a b c b Drive 4.78 3.51 3.12 4.91 a a b c Job involvement 5.34 4.71 4.37 5.20 a Enjoyment 5.30 a 4.78 b 5.15 a 4.83 b Self-management 5.43 b 4.89 c 5.67 a 4.57 d Ability to delegate 5.65 a 4.74 b 5.89 a 4.15 c b b c Denial 2.52 2.58 2.01 3.27 a Compensating behavior 2.92 a 2.62 b 1.97 c 2.94 a Descriptive variables 23.67% 25.44% 27.81% 23.08% Sex Male 100% 100% 25.45% 23.64% 18.18% 32.73% Female 100% 27.08% 21.88% 20.83% 30.21% Age <45 100% 21.88% 21.88% 35.94% 20.30% 46-55 100% 10.00% 55.00% 20.00% 15.00% >55 100% 23.72% 25.12% 25.58% 25.58% Marital status: Married 100% 24.44% 23.33% 23.33% 28.90% Employment of life partner Full-time employed 100% 17.24% 29.31% 27.59% 25.86% Part-time employed 100% 32.14% 25.00% 25.00% 17.86% Not employed 100% 22.83% 22.83% 28.36% 25.98% Children: Living at home 100% 24.24% 24.24% 24.24% 27.28% Number of employees in <300 company 100% 23.26% 37.21% 25.58% 13.95% 300-999 100% 23.26% 25.58% 16.28% 34.88% 1000-4999 100% 27.78% 5.55% 50.00% 16.67% 5000-9999 100% 23.53% 23.53% 23.53% 29.41% >10000 Industry 24.24% 18.18% 27.27% 30.31% Banks and insurances 100% 100% 16.67% 16.67% 25.00% 41.66% Machinery 100% 23.08% 23.08% 26.92% 26.92% Automotive Chemical/ pharma100% 11.76% 23.53% 41.18% 23.53% ceutical Transport and logis100% 28.57% 28.57% 21.43% 21.43% tics Telecommunication 100% 18.19% 24.24% 33.33% 24.24% and information technology 100% 10.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% Healthcare 100% 25.81% 16.13% 25.81% 32.25% Consulting 100% 31.82% 36.36% 22.73% 9.09% Other services Reported values are mean values if not indicated otherwise. In each row, cluster means that have the same superscript are not significantly different (p<.05) on the basis of Duncan’s multiple-range test. Means in the highest bracket are assigned a, means in the next lower bracket b and so forth.

In interpreting the clusters, we assigned names to each top executives’ work relationship type. Although such names tend to oversimplify, they point out empirically distinct aspects of different top executives’ work relationship types and facilitate the discussion of further results. The results of the cluster analysis revealed that combining different levels of job-related demands and resources leads to the four different constellations shown in Figure 4-3.

Interpretation of Cluster Solutions

115



High

The balanced self-manager

The internally driven enjoyer

Low

Job-related resouces

Figure 4-3: Top executives’ work relationship types (expanded according to Bakker & Demerouti, 2007)

The indifferent

The externally driven workaholic

Low

High

Job-related demands

Two constellations are characterized by relatively equal levels of job-related demands and resources (i.e., both high or low). The internally driven enjoyer is equipped with high levels of both, job-related demands and resources. In contrast, the indifferent is characterized by low levels of job-related demands and resources. Two other constellations involve differing levels of job-related demands and resources. The balanced self-manager is characterized by low job-related demands and high job-related resources. The externally driven workaholic is also characterized by differing levels of job-related demands and resources, but in contrast to the former type, these top executives face high job-related demands and low job-related resources. Figure 4-4 illustrates how respondents in each of the four clusters scored in detail on job-related demands and resources by showing the deviation of the cluster means from the means of the whole sample. In the following we describe and interpret the four clusters. Cluster 1: The internally driven enjoyer. On the one side, an internal drive to perform is a dominant characteristic of this work relationship type. Accordingly, this type is mainly driven by internal demands. On the other side, these top executives benefit of comparatively high resources, in particular, job involvement and enjoyment. In addition, the self-management and ability to delegate show relatively high scores. The dysfunctional coping behavior denial is slightly below average, while the compensating behavior reaches a high score.

116

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

 Figure 4-4: Plot of mean scores for underlying job-related demands and resources of the four clusters

Executives‘ job-related demands

Perceived organizational pressure culture

Drive

Job involvement

Enjoyment

Executives‘ job-related resources

Selfmanagement

Ability to delegate

Denial

Compensating behavior

-1 The internally driven enjoyer The indifferent The balanced self-manager The externally driven workaholic

0

+1

(mean of whole sample)

Thus, these top executives are extremely taken in by their job and feel driven to work hard. At the same time, they are able to enjoy the things they do and have good skills in selfmanagement and ability to delegate at their hand. Nevertheless, the high score on compensating behavior indicates several work-related problems which the top executives try to compensate for example by showing a defensive form of behavior like alcohol abuse (Buergin 2000). This need for compensation is probably related to the comparatively high internal drive to perform experienced by these top executives. These high internal demands combined with their extremely high job involvement show that they live to work and are completely taken in by their work because of inner pressures. At the actual state, the high jobrelated resources of the internally driven enjoyer compensate the detrimental influence of the high job-related demands (e.g., Demerouti et al. 2001; Van Yperen/Hagedoorn 2003;

Interpretation of Cluster Solutions

117



Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b). But in the long run, they may risk depleting their available energy by trying to meet the high internal job-related demands. Concerning the demographic characteristics, we could not find significant differences between internally driven enjoyers and the other three clusters. Nevertheless, some trends are worth mentioning: This cluster is dominated by top executives, who are younger than 45 years, followed by top executives between 46 and 55 years. This may be an explanation for the high internal drive of these top executives: The top executives are mostly in an early stage of their career, struggling for appreciation and further promotion. Relative to the other three clusters, the life partners of these top executives are mostly unemployed. Thus, the partners can spend much time at home, caring for the children and the household, which enables the internally driven enjoyer to fully concentrate on his or her work and save energy in private life (e.g., Schneer/Reitman 2002). Cluster 2: The indifferent. This cluster contrasts directly with the internally driven enjoyer as the indifferent is characterized by equally low levels of job-related demands and resources. Thus, this second configuration of top executives’ work relationship exhibits both, lower levels of job-related demands as well as lower levels of job-related resources than the internally driven enjoyer. Only on the dysfunctional coping behaviors denial and compensating behavior the indifferent shows moderate scores, pointing out some need for coping with work-related problems. Thus, these top executives neither experience high job-related demands, nor are they equipped with high job-related resources to cope with potential requirements at work. Their indifferent work relationship is apparent in several characteristics. First, the especially low internal drive of this type hints at a rather indifferent work relationship. Second, the relatively low scores on job involvement and enjoyment reflect the absence of positive workrelated energy and an indifferent work relationship. Third, the relatively low scores on selfmanagement and ability to delegate as well as the moderate scores on the dysfunctional coping behaviors indicate that this work relationship type is not in full control of the job (e.g., Finkelstein 2003; Kets de Vries 1989). Thus, a top executive who faces low job-related demands and resources shows a sparse engagement at work and reveals a rather indifferent and emotionless work relationship. We therefore call this second type “indifferent.” With regard to the demographic characteristics, this cluster contains significantly more elder top executives (over 55 years) than the other clusters. Probably, these elder top executives do not need to strive for achievement anymore. Having reached the position and status they wanted, they have arranged themselves at work without wasting too much energy or effort. Furthermore, many top executives in this cluster work in rather small companies with 300999 employees in healthcare or other services. Probably, these smaller companies in the service sector provide less opportunity for promotion than greater companies in other industries.

118

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



This could be an additional explanation for the rather laid-back work relationship of the top executives in this second cluster. Cluster 3: The balanced self-manager. Top executives of this type enjoy the most manageable work situation of the four work relationship types identified in this thesis. Accordingly, they are equipped with high job-related resources and at the same time face relatively low jobrelated demands. Thus, top executives in this constellation feel quite confident in their jobs, and their situation is somewhat balanced. This balanced work relationship manifests itself in relatively high scores on the job-related resources self-management and ability to delegate. These high work-related skills are combined with the lowest scores of all clusters on both job-related demands (perceived organizational pressure culture and drive). Corresponding to that, the balanced self-managers score the lowest of all clusters on job involvement and the dysfunctional coping behaviors (i.e., denial and compensating behavior). Additionally, enjoyment is above-average. Thus, these top executives use their relatively good work-related skills to control their work relationship effectively. This enables them to conserve their energy and balance their life. Under these favorable conditions, this cluster has no need to use dysfunctional coping behaviors. Concerning the demographic characteristics, we can report on some tendencies concerning this cluster: It contains the highest share of male top executives, most frequently 46-55 years old. Furthermore, top executives in this cluster most frequently live with children. Thus, despite of the high enjoyment experienced at work, the balanced self-manager has a life outside work, to which s/he dedicates time and attention. This could also explain the comparatively low job involvement of this cluster. Regarding the number of employees in the company, top executives in this cluster most often work in rather big companies (with 5000-9999 employees). Furthermore, top executives of this cluster mostly represent the chemical/pharmaceutical industry or the telecommunication and information technology industry. Despite of the severe requirements of big companies in these industrial sectors, the balanced self-managers do not experience the work-related demands as internal or external pressures. Cluster 4: The externally driven workaholic. This most problematic configuration of top executives’ work relationship is characterized by relatively high job-related demands combined with low job-related resources to manage those demands. Accordingly, top executives in this constellation experience high performance pressure. Compared to the internally driven enjoyer, top executives of this work relationship type are almost alike in levels of drive to perform. But in contrast with internally driven enjoyers, their internal drive to perform gets paired with an extremely high organizational pressure culture. Thus, these top executives are driven by high external and internal pressures in their daily work life. These unfavorable demands go hand in hand with low scores on important job-related resources. Specifically, the externally driven workaholics show the lowest scores of all clusters on the work-related skills

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Types

119



self-management and ability to delegate and the highest scores on the dysfunctional coping behavior denial. Because of this lack of job-related resources, they receive little energy from the accomplishment of their job. Though, these top executives lack the energy to handle their high job-related internal and external demands. The combination of a high drive to perform and high job involvement with a lack of jobrelated resources (in particular enjoyment), in organizational psychology is referred to as “workaholic” (e.g., Burke 2000; Spence/Robbins 1992). This combination of a high drive and job involvement with a low level of enjoyment stands for the dilemma of this work relationship type: On the one hand, these top executives are highly involved in their work and identify themselves with their job. On the other hand, they feel compelled to work because of high pressures, and thereby cannot enjoy their work. They probably even experience their job as burdening. The absence of important work-related skills and the use of detrimental control strategies even aggravate this situation. Thus, in contrast to the internally driven enjoyers, the externally driven workaholics are not able to successfully cope with high work-related demands and stressful events. In contrast, to some extent, they seemingly have lost control over their work and the high job-related demands put on them. Concerning the demographic characteristics, we reveal some interesting tendencies of this cluster: It contains the most female top executives with life partners, who are most frequently full-time employed. This indicates high responsibilities of these top executives also in their private life (e.g. Aryee/Srinivas/Tan 2005; Batt/Valcour 2003). Thus, the externally driven workaholics probably also experience high demands and little support at home, which does not allow them to recreate from their demanding work life. Top executives in this cluster most often work in the machinery industry or the consulting sector. These sectors are known to put high demands on their top executives.

4.6

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Types

Our last step in developing the top executives’ work relationship taxonomy is the investigation of the extent to which the identified configurations differ in terms of related variables. For this purpose, we compare the work relationship types on several executive-related and company-related variables, using Duncan’s multiple-range test. This part refers to step 9 of our taxonomy development procedure (see Figure 2-1). In the field of organizational psychology, psychological variables related to the phenomenon work relationship have been well investigated at the employee level (e.g., Schaufeli/Bakker 2004; Sonnentag/Zijlstra 2006; van Vegchel/de Jonge/Landsbergis 2005; Van Yperen/Hagedoorn 2003). But performance-related variables have been investigated far less (e.g., Bakker/ Demerouti/Schaufeli 2003; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Schaufeli/Bakker 2004). At the top executive level the investigation of related variables of top executives’ work relationship

120

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



is very sparse. Thus, to our knowledge, this is the first study which investigates psychological as well as performance-related variables of work relationship types at a top executive level. In this context, we draw a distinction between executive-related variables and organizational performance variables. Specifically, we test whether cluster membership is associated with top executive well-being and satisfaction (i.e., exhaustion, life satisfaction, satisfaction with work-family balance, work-to-family conflict, and work satisfaction), top executive performance (i.e., personal accomplishment and effectiveness), as well as organizational performance (i.e., perceived market performance, and perceived overall performance). We find significant differences between the cluster means for all the related variables (see Table 4-9). The most favorable configuration of related variables is reached, when exhaustion and workto-family conflict show low scores while the rest of the variables (i.e., life satisfaction, satisfaction with work-family balance, work satisfaction, personal accomplishment, effectiveness, perceived market performance, and perceived overall performance) show high scores. Table 4-10 shows the means of the related variables associated with the four clusters. Means with the same superscript do not differ at a 5 percent significance level. In the following, we will first comment on the related variables achieved by each of the four clusters and will then compare the clusters.

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Types

121

 Table 4-9: Results of testing between subjects effects of related variables Related variables – executive data Type III sum of squares

Degrees of freedom

Mean of squares

F

Significance

R2

Model Error

39.454 164.494

3 212

13.151 .776

16.949***

.000

.193

Model Error

32.794 208.483

3 212

10.931 .983

11.116***

.000

.136

Model Error

22.071 128.231

3 212

7.357 .605

12.163***

.000

.147

Model Error

47.846 216.482

3 212

15.949 1.021

15.618***

.000

.181

Model Error

27.365 136.038

3 212

9.122 .642

14.215***

.000

.167

Model Error

13.665 51.901

3 212

4.555 .245

18.606***

.000

.208

Model Error

14.154 60.876

3 212

4.781 .287

16.430***

.000

.189

Model Error

11.238 312.481

3 212

3.746 1.474

2.541*

.057

.035

Model Error Related variables – life partner data

14.329 209.245

3 212

4.776 .987

4.839***

.003

.064

Exhaustion

Model Error

16.364 226.007

3 197

5.455 1.147

4.754***

.003

.068

Model Error

17.002 304.039

3 197

5.667 1.543

3.672**

.013

.053

Model Error

12.487 165.155

3 197

4.162 .838

4.965***

.002

.070

Model Error

9.573 215.201

3 197

3.192 1.092

2.921**

.035

.043

Model Error

13.668 169.096

3 197

4.556 .858

5.308***

.002

.075

4.239 87.692

3 197

1.413 .445

3.175**

.025

.046

Dependent variable Exhaustion

Work-to-family conflict

Life satisfaction Satisfaction with workfamily balance

Work satisfaction Personal accomplishment

Effectiveness Perceived market performance Perceived overall performance

Work-to-family conflict

Life satisfaction Satisfaction with workfamily balance

Work satisfaction Personal accomplishment

Model Error *** p<.01; ** p<.05; * p<.10

122

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship

 Table 4-10: Related variables of cluster membership Cluster Related variables – executive data Percentage of observations Exhaustion Work-to-family conflict Life satisfaction Satisfaction with work-family balance Work satisfaction Personal accomplishment Effectiveness Perceived market performance Perceived overall performance Related variables – life partner data

Total

1

100% 24.07% (n = 216) (n = 52) 3.27 b 5.15 a 5.61 b 4.05 c 5.81 b 6.14 a 5.84 a 5.10 a, b 5.12 a

2

3

4

25.46% (n = 55) 3.09 b 4.51 b 5.33 b, c 4.44 b 5.79 b 5.94 b 5.29 b 4.97 b 5.20 a

25.93% (n = 56) 2.63 c 4.35 b 5.91 a 4.85 a 6.42 a 6.14 a 5.75 a 5.55 a 5.43 a

24.54% (n = 53) 3.82 a 5.25 a 5.05 c 3.58 d 5.44 c 5.52 c 5.28 b 5.05 b 4.72 b

100% 22.39% 25.87% 25.87% 25.87% Percentage of observations (n = 201) (n = 45) (n = 52) (n = 52) (n = 52) a, b b b Exhaustion 3.75 3.65 3.38 4.17 a b b b Work-to-family conflict 4.67 4.57 4.54 5.25 a 5.43 a 5.70 a 5.02 b Life satisfaction 5.48 a 4.63 a 4.71 a 4.15 b Satisfaction with work-family balance 4.57 a 6.02 a, b 6.24 a 5.58 c Work satisfaction 5.73 b, c 6.01 a, b 6.23 a 5.84 b Personal accomplishment 6.10 a, b Reported values are mean values if not indicated otherwise. In each row, cluster means that have the same superscript are not significantly different (p<.05) on the basis of Duncan’s multiple-range test. Means in the highest bracket are assigned a, means in the next lower bracket b and so forth.

The results provide evidence that different configurations of top executives’ work relationship constituted of job-related demands and resources are relevant for top executives’ well-being, satisfaction, and performance. Typical for the internally driven enjoyer are moderate scores on top executive well-being and satisfaction combined with high scores on top executive performance and rather moderate scores on organizational performance. Specifically, in this cluster according to top executive ratings, exhaustion, life satisfaction, and work satisfaction reach moderate scores. Work-to-family conflict is high, while satisfaction with work-family balance is rather low. Personal accomplishment and effectiveness reach high scores, while perceived market performance and perceived overall performance reach rather moderate scores. Thus, the internally driven enjoyer benefits from the buffer effect outlined in the job demands-resources model (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Euwema 2005; Bakker et al. 2003b). That is, high job-related resources partly compensate the detrimental influence of high job-related demands on well-being, satisfaction, and performance (e.g., Demerouti et al. 2001; Van Yperen/Hagedoorn 2003; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b). Specifically, the internally driven enjoyer’s drive to perform is buffered by his or her internal resources, such as enjoyment with work and the ability to delegate (De Jonge/Dormann 2006). In consequence, in demanding work conditions, the internally driven enjoyer who benefits from high levels of internal resources is capable of dealing with high job-related demands. This buffer effect is mainly

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Types

123



beneficial for top executives’ performance, which therefore is high in this cluster. Concerning the internally driven enjoyers’ well-being and satisfaction, nevertheless there can be noticed some detrimental effects of the high job-related demands. Specifically, these top executives experience a high conflict of their work with their family life, and accordingly they are not satisfied with their work-family balance. The partner ratings in this cluster show some differences when compared with the top executives’ self ratings. The two family-related variables (work-to-family conflict and satisfaction with work-family balance) are rated more positively by the life partners. Specifically, life partners report a slightly lower conflict between the life domains and a higher top executives’ satisfaction with work-family balance than top executives do themselves. Thus, the life partners attribute to the top executives a less conflict-laden and more satisfying perceived relationship between work and family life. Probably, the internally driven enjoyers high involvement and enjoyment of their work life makes their partners believe that the top executives have freely decided to be extremely involved in their work life, which brings along less time and energy for investing in private life. But the lower ratings of these work-family variables by top executives themselves underline the involuntary component of their high drive to perform. Obviously, they experience conflict between the life domains and are not satisfied with their work-family balance, but are that much driven to work hard that they can not change this situation. In contrast, the rest of the related variables (i.e., top executives’ exhaustion, life satisfaction, work satisfaction, and personal accomplishment) are rated slightly more negatively by the life partners than by the top executives themselves. Perhaps the internally driven enjoyers, who are highly involved in and fascinated by their work, do not notice some signs of exhaustion, dissatisfaction, or reduced feelings of accomplishment which their life partners detect earlier. The indifferent is characterized by moderate top executive well-being and satisfaction, as well as moderate top executive and organizational performance according to top executive ratings: While exhaustion, life satisfaction, and work satisfaction in this cluster reach moderate scores, work-to-family conflict is rather low and satisfaction with work-family balance rather high. Personal accomplishment and perceived overall performance reach rather moderate scores, while effectiveness and perceived market performance reach rather low scores. Again, life partner ratings of the related variables slightly differ from top executives’ self ratings. Specifically, life partners perceive the well-being to be lower and the satisfaction and personal accomplishment to be higher than the top executives do. Obviously, the indifferents appeal to their life partners more exhausted and conflict-laden, but also more satisfied, and productive than the top executives feel themselves. This weakened self-evaluation of the indifferents in both, the positive and the negative direction, underlines their indifferent relationship with their work.

124

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



Thus, on the one hand, the indifferents seem to experience a relatively low level of stress because of the low job-related demands faced by them (Xanthopoulou et al. 2007a). This is evident in the indifferents’ low work-to-family conflict and high satisfaction with workfamily balance. On the other hand, due to their low job-related resources and their emotionless work relationship, they only show moderate satisfaction with their life and their work and moderate personal accomplishment. Furthermore, their effectiveness and the performance of their organization seem to suffer from their indifferent work relationship. The best values regarding the related variables are achieved by the balanced self-manager, who possesses the highest scores on top executive well-being and satisfaction as well as high scores on top executive and organizational performance: While exhaustion and work-tofamily conflict are lowest in this cluster, life satisfaction, satisfaction with work-family balance, and work satisfaction reach the highest scores of all clusters according to top executive and life partner ratings. Personal accomplishment, effectiveness, perceived market performance, and perceived overall performance also reach high scores. Thus, this configuration of low job-related demands and high job-related resources is the most satisfied and successful of all clusters, as predicted by the job demands-resources model (Bakker/Demerouti 2007). Accordingly, these top executives appear to gain energy from their high internal job-related resources (Bakker/Demerouti 2007) and have greater control over their job that prevents them from exhaustion and dissatisfaction (Mäkikangas/Kinnunen 2003). In this positive evaluation top executives and their life partners show total agreement. Characteristic for the externally driven workaholic are low scores on top executive well-being and satisfaction combined with low scores on top executive performance and low to moderate scores on organizational performance: While exhaustion and work-to-family conflict reach the highest scores of all clusters, life satisfaction, satisfaction with work-family balance, work satisfaction, and personal accomplishment reach the lowest scores according to top executive and life partner ratings. Effectiveness and perceived overall performance reach rather low scores, while perceived market performance reaches a low to moderate score. Thus, the worst configuration of well-being, satisfaction, and performance are achieved by top executives who face a combination of a highly demanding job (i.e., high organizational pressure culture) and a lack of job-related resources (e.g., De Lange et al. 2003; Janssen 2001; Lee/Ashforth 1996). Accordingly, most of all the external job-related demands stemming from the organization’s pressure culture are harmful to top executives’ well-being and satisfaction (Meijman/Mulder 1998). For example, these top executives’ high job-related demands are associated with extremely high levels of exhaustion (Taris et al. 2006). Thus, because of the lack of important job-related resources, externally driven workaholics cannot cope successfully with their high work-related demands. As predicted by the job demands-resources model (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Demerouti et al. 2001; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007a; Xan-

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Types

125



thopoulou et al. 2007b), this unfavorable configuration depletes top executives’ energy and impairs their performance. At the same time, externally driven workaholics are extremely dissatisfied with their work and their life as a whole. In this unfavorable evaluation top executives highly consent with their life partners. The comparison of the results for the four clusters shows that on the one hand, the exploration of related variables reveals one cluster whose well-being and satisfaction significantly differs from the others in the positive direction (i.e., the balanced self-manager). This cluster is the one with low job-related demands and high job-related resources, which seems to be the most favorable configuration of top executives’ work relationship. On the other hand, one cluster reaches the worst scores on nearly all related variables: The externally driven workaholic reaches low levels of well-being and satisfaction as well as personal accomplishment, and thus is the pattern that pervades the less successful configuration of related variables. For example, significant differences in the perceived organizational performance exist between the first three clusters and the externally driven workaholic, the letter achieving significant lower results than the other three clusters. The externally driven workaholic is the cluster with high job-related demands combined with comparatively low jobrelated resources. This configuration of top executives’ work relationship seems to have strong negative effects on the top executive’s well-being, satisfaction, and performance. Additionally, we observe two different clusters (i.e., the internally driven enjoyer and the balanced self-manager) achieving nearly similar good performance results. What these two clusters have in common concerning their work relationship, are the high job-related resources which seem to benefit top executives’ performance. In the case of the internally driven enjoyer these high job-related resources buffer the negative effect of the high job-related demands on top executive’s performance like predicted by the job demands-resources model (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Euwema 2005; Bakker et al. 2003b). Thus, the internally driven enjoyer and the balanced self-manager both show comparatively high scores on personal accomplishment and effectiveness and can thus be declared the two most successful configurations. These results furthermore underline the predictions of upper echelons theory that top executives’ job-related resources become especially important, when the top executive is faced with high job-related demands (e.g., Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a). Accordingly, the internally driven enjoyer shows better well-being and performance variables than the externally driven workaholic. This finding is explained by the combination of high job-related demands with high job-related resources, the latter helping the top executives to cope with the former. In contrast, the externally driven workaholic experiences relatively high job-related demands, but does not dispose of the advantage of high job-related resources. Thus, high personal jobrelated resources are beneficial to top executives’ performance, while top executives’ work

126

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work Relationship



relationship types with high scores on job-related demands show lower performance variables, when not buffered by high job-related resources. Accordingly, internally driven enjoyers experience higher levels of well-being, satisfaction, and performance than externally driven workaholics who cannot dispose on the buffer effect of high job-related resources (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti/Euwema 2005; Caplan et al. 1975). But interestingly, the internally driven enjoyers and the balanced self-managers are characterized by different levels of well-being and satisfaction. Specifically, the internally driven enjoyer shows lower levels of well-being and satisfaction than the balanced self-manager. This difference probably appears because of the different levels of job-related demands faced by these two clusters. Specifically, the internally driven enjoyer is opposed to high job-related demands while the job-related demands faced by the balanced self-manager are comparatively low. In consequence, while the balanced self-manager scores the best of all clusters on wellbeing and satisfaction, the internally driven enjoyer reaches only moderate scores on all of these constructs. Accordingly, the high job-related resources only partly buffer the effect of high job-related demands on the internally driven enjoyer’s well-being and satisfaction. This difference in the buffer effect concerning top executives’ well-being and satisfaction opposed to top executives’ performance can be explained by the differing relationship of job-related demands and job-related resources with person’s well-being and performance. Accordingly, the job demands-resources model predicts that whereas high job-related demands mainly associate negatively with a person’s well-being, high job-related resources mainly relate positively to a person’s performance (e.g., Bakker et al. 2003a; Bakker/Demerouti/Verbeke 2004; Schaufeli/Bakker 2004). According to this prediction, the negative effects of the internally driven enjoyers’ high job-related resources mainly concern their well-being and satisfaction. For example, compared to the balanced self-managers, the internally driven enjoyers show a far higher amount of work-to-family conflict and lower levels on all satisfaction variables. The internally driven enjoyers’ well-being and satisfaction rather show relatively similar levels to the indifferent cluster. Thus, moderate levels of well-being and satisfaction constitute both top executive types that are characterized by equal levels of job-related demands and resources (i.e., both high or low). Indifferents are characterized by relatively low job-related demands and resources. On the one hand, their low job-related demands require hardly any energy from them and thus minimally impair their well-being and satisfaction (Bakker/Demerouti 2007). On the other hand, because of their lack of job-related resources the indifferents receive little energy from the fulfillment of their job, which seems to diminish their performance (Bakker/Demerouti 2007). Thus, the indifferents show a medium level of wellbeing, satisfaction, and performance. Like outlined before, the high internal job-related resources of the internally driven enjoyers can only partly buffer the high job-related demands that impair these top executives’ well-being and satisfaction. Thus, this partial buffer effect of their high job-related resources makes this configuration likely to achieve approximately the

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work Relationship Types

127



same level of well-being and satisfaction as the indifferents, who are equipped with low levels of both, job-related resources and demands (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007). Nevertheless, the internally driven enjoyers show higher levels of work-to-family conflict and lower levels of satisfaction with work-family balance than the indifferents. This underlines their high involvement in their work, bringing it into competition to their private life. In contrast, the indifferents invest much less effort in their work and thus have enough energy left to invest in their private life. Therefore, the internally driven enjoyers show a better performance than the indifferents. This difference is due to the higher amount of job-related resources of the internally driven enjoyers which makes them able to invest all their energy in a good completion of their job and thus benefits their performance. In contrast, the rather detached and emotionless work relationship of the indifferents does not let them strive for achievement and high performance at work. In summary, our results suggest that, on the one hand, there are superior configurations of work relationship that lead to better related variables and that top executives and their companies should strive for. These configurations are characterized by high levels of job-related resources. On the other hand, some configurations of work relationship do harm to top executives’ well-being, satisfaction and performance and thus should be prevented by top executives and their companies. After this detailed analysis of top executives’ work relationship, in the following we proceed with the investigation of the interplay between top executives’ work and family life (see chapter 5).

129



5 5.1

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Preliminary Conceptual Framework of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

On the basis of our theoretical considerations (i.e., step 3 of the taxonomy development procedure, see Figure 2-1), we develop a preliminary conceptual framework for the investigation of top executives’ work-family balance. As we reveal in Figure 5-1, we identify three facets of top executives’ work-family balance as well as related variables of this phenomenon. We use the previously presented definition of work-family balance (Clark 2000), to conceptualize the facets and constructs constituting top executives’ work-family balance. Accordingly, this phenomenon is composed of top executives’ satisfaction, functioning, and role conflict. As the phenomenon work-family balance considers the work and the life domain at a time, all three facets are represented by a work-related and a familyrelated construct. A good work-family balance situation is thereby reflected in high satisfaction, good functioning and a minimum of role conflict in both life domains (Clark 2000). Figure 5-1: Preliminary conceptual framework of top executives’ work-family balance

EXECUTIVES’ WORK-FAMILY BALANCE

RELATED VARIABLES

EXECUTIVES’ SATISFACTION

INDIVIDUAL VARIABLES

− Work satisfaction − Home satisfaction EXECUTIVES’ FUNCTIONING − Functioning at work − Functioning at home EXECUTIVES’ ROLE CONFLICT − Work-to-family conflict − Family-to-work conflict

− Core self evaluation − Exhaustion − Health

WORK-RELATED VARIABLES − Organizational commitment − Effectiveness

130

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance



Furthermore, we use the predictions of role theory to select related variables of top executives’ work-family balance. Accordingly, we consider individual variables like core self evaluation (e.g., Barnett/Hyde 2001), exhaustion (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Boles/Johnston/Hair 1997; Geurts/Rutte/Peeters 1999), and health (e.g., Moen/Dempster-McClain/Williams 1992) as related to top executives’ work-family balance. Furthermore, role theory predicts that the engagement in multiple roles is associated with work-related variables like organizational commitment (e.g., Lyness/Thompson 1997; Tompson/Werner 1997), and effectiveness (e.g., Perrewé et al. 2002; Turbe/Collins 2000). Thereby a good work-family balance situation is associated with high core self evaluation, health, organizational commitment, and effectiveness opposed to low exhaustion. We rely on the results of our qualitative interviews with top executives, to approve these conceptually derived facets and constructs. Accordingly, in the next section (section 5.2) we will empirically verify the variables constituting our preliminary conceptual framework of top executives’ work-family balance. Subsequently (see section 5.3), we will enrich this preliminary framework and present the final empirically-grounded framework, which serves as a basis for the quantitative investigation of top executives’ work-family balance.

5.2

Qualitative Results Regarding Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

The qualitative interviews enable us to verify and enrich the conceptually derived facets and constructs of top executives’ work-family balance as well as related variables. We sought information about top executives’ work-family balance and related variables with two focused questions. To capture top executives’ work-family balance, we raised the question: “By which factors do you recognize if your actual work-family balance situation is good or bad?” The purpose of this question was to assess the distinction between satisfaction, functioning, and work-family conflict as facets of top executives’ work-family balance, as identified in the definition of work-family balance (Clark 2000). A second question focused on identifying related individual and work-related variables of top executives’ work-family balance: “Which phenomena in your work and private life are related to your work-family balance situation?” This relatively broad question was chosen in order to figure out, if top executives also perceive the assumed individual and work-related factors to be particularly associated with their work-family balance as we derived from role theory. Examples for top executives’ statements and corresponding field notes are illustrated in Table 5-1. Additionally, the qualitative analysis provides insights about the relevance of different facets of top executives’ work-family balance as well as related variables. For this purpose, the number of times a term is mentioned by an informant is identified by frequency counts. Table 5-2 depicts the perceived facets as well as related variables which are most frequently mentioned by the top executives during the interviews.

Qualitative Results Regarding Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

131

 Table 5-1: Examples for top executives’ statements and corresponding field notes Top executives’ work-family balance: By which factors do you recognize if your actual work-family balance situation is good or bad? Transcribed interview texts Transcribed field notes Top executives’ satisfaction Work satisfaction More top executives “I think you can’t achieve a higher satisfaction with your job than I have and that touch upon their satisfachelps.” tion with work than upon “Nearly every morning I love going to work and I am looking forward to the tasks I their satisfaction with have to do.” private life. Life satisfaction “I wanted this life with both, my work and my family and I am satisfied with it.” “I agree to my life situation and this leads to satisfaction, which in turn brings about an ease of mind and new energy.” Top executives’ functioning Personal accomplishment “In this job you have to work almost day and night. And this is what I can handle very well, better than most colleagues.” “The trust in the accuracy of your own reasoning determines your success as a manager.” Job involvement “I live for my job and at the same time don’t forget my family. I think this is the reason, why I can handle it that well.” “Your personal involvement in work and your relationship to the people are highly important.” Separation of work from family life “The most important thing is that I have time slots where I can blank out those business issues completely.” “When I leave the office, I am a normal person and not a business man any more.” “I don’t talk about business at home, unless someone asks me.” Family involvement “Home is always more important than work. When something at home is going wrong, I look after it immediately.” “I plan my private time like my business meetings. There are always time slots where the family has priority.” Top executives’ role conflict Work-to-family conflict “When I have had hard discussions at work all day long, I often return home with a low level of energy and I can’t cope adequately with conflicts in the family.” “As a father I often ask myself if I’m spending enough time with my children.”

Most top executives are confident of their good accomplishment at work and highly involved in their work. This good self-image helps them successfully managing their work life.

Many top executives account on the importance of a consequent separation of work and family life as well as a high involvement in family affairs. By doing so, the top executives try to maintain their functioning at home to some extent.

Almost all top executives complain about the difficulty of arranging their demanding work with their private life. More top executives succeed in keeping private problems out of their work life.

Family-to-work-conflict “When you have problems at home, they impair your enjoyment of work.” “Strain at home like my divorce some years ago inhibits me from working concentrated.” Work-family balance-related variables: Which phenomena in your work and private life are related to your work-family balance situation? Individual variables Core self evaluation Many top executives are “In a situation of balance I trust in my own decisions and do my job with certain aware of the relation of calmness.” their work-family balance “When everything is too much for me, I fear losing control over the success in my situation with their selfcareer.” perception and wellbeing.

 

132

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

Transcribed interview texts Continuation of individual variables Exhaustion “When I don’t succeed in differentiating between important and second or third rank tasks, then I get harried and exhausted. The danger is to fall into the trap not to say no at the right time.“ “When I don’t get enough sleep, I am on my last legs some day.” Health “My back pain forces me to change something, otherwise I can move less and less.” “I often sleep badly, thinking of work issues; that shows me that I have to change something.” Work-related variables Organizational commitment “Several times I got offers from headhunters. But I wanted to stay here.” “At my last organization, I had not enough flexibility and I decided to quit because of that.” Effectiveness “When I am in a balanced situation, I am very efficient and can deal with many processes in a short time.” “Under high pressure I get annoyed and impatient and that cuts down my effectiveness.”

Family-related variables Partner’s life satisfaction “My wife is satisfied with our life. She can keep herself busy when I am not at home.” “We have a clear division of tasks: She cares about the family and I work and earn the money. That is okay for both of us.” Partners’ satisfaction with top executives’ work-family balance “I’m not in Europe for about four months of the year. My wife takes advantage of my absences to work off her own things.” “My wife and I match perfectly. And when I go to Hong Kong tomorrow, she goes with me.” “When I was abroad, my wife felt that our relationship has suffered from my frequent absences. She remembers this time as very dissatisfying”

Transcribed field notes While a good workfamily balance first of all is associated with core self evaluation (i.e., selfreflection and confidence), a bad work-family balance is related to exhaustion and impaired health.

Top executives often touch upon job-related variables, associated with their work-family balance situation. They prefer talking about positive aspects of their work behavior and attitudes. Problems concerning the own performance are often admitted only on insistent demand. Top executives account on the high cohesion of their work-family balance situation and their private and family life. Especially the life partners enjoy a balanced life situation of the top executives or suffer from the imbalance, respectively.

The results of the semistructured interviews clarify top executives’ perspective of their workfamily balance. Regarding the question pertaining to top executives’ work-family balance, namely “By which factors do you recognize if your actual work-family balance situation is good or bad?” the top executives mentioned the following aspects most frequently. The figures in parenthesis behind the constructs indicate the number of top executives, who touched upon this construct at least once during the interview (see also Table 5-2): Satisfaction with the job (22), satisfaction with life (14), belief in own abilities (18), high job involvement (27), separation of work from private life (29), ability to blank out work from private life (16), time for family (14), work interfering with family (38), family interfering with work (14). We assigned these codings to the conceptually derived facets of work-family balance (Clark 2000) like described in the following.

Qualitative Results Regarding Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

133

 Table 5-2: Frequency of assigned codings Investigated issue

Construct

Assigned coding

Number of respondents who mentioned the construct at least one time

Times construct was mentioned throughout all interviews

22

46

14 18

35 31

27

59

Separation of work from private life

29

73

Ability to blank out work from private life

16

28

Time for family Work interfering with family

14 38

24 186

14

23

16

31

Top executives’ work-family balance Top execuWork satisfaction Satisfaction with the tives’ satisjob faction Life satisfaction Satisfaction with life Top execu- Personal accomBelief in own abilitives’ func- plishment ties tioning Job involvement High job involvement Separation of work from family life

Role conflict

Family involvement Work-to-family conflict

Family-to-workFamily interfering conflict with work Work-family balance-related variables Individual Core self evaluation Self reflection and variables confidence

Workrelated variables

Exhaustion

Feeling of exhaustion

16

22

Health Organizational commitment

Impairment to health Commitment to the company

16 7

20 7

Intention to quit the company

8

12

Own high effectiveness

16

21

Decrease of own effectiveness Partners’ satisfaction with life situation

14

21

31

105

Partner supports top executives’ work engagement

17

34

Effectiveness

Familyrelated variables

Partners’ life satisfaction Partners’ satisfaction with top executives’ work-family balance

134

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance



Regarding the facet satisfaction, top executives accounted on the high relevance of their work satisfaction (see sample statements). Contrary to expectations, top executives in the interviews did not only speak of their satisfaction with home life which includes issues like housework, parental and marital satisfaction, like proposed by Clark (2000). Asked for the factors which indicate their actual work-family balance situation, they rather talk about their life satisfaction as a whole. Probably, top executives’ home satisfaction is dominated by life satisfaction, because top executives do not see their home life as dominant facet constituting their self-image. The self-image is the way a top executive views him- or herself with different roles requiring slightly different versions of that self-image (Quick/Nelson/Quick 1987). In our qualitative interviews, regarding the facet satisfaction the top executives stressed their role as top executives by talking about their satisfaction with work. Their private role was expressed by talking about their satisfaction with their life as a whole, neglecting their home satisfaction in particular. Thus, top executives’ satisfaction in the following is captured by the two facets work satisfaction and life satisfaction. Regarding the relevance of these facets, work satisfaction is mentioned by far more top executives (22) than life satisfaction (14), pointing towards the widespread superiority of the work domain in top executives’ lives (e.g., Batt/Valcour 2003; Olson/Manocchio 1991). Regarding their functioning at work, top executives predominantly mentioned two aspects. First, 18 top executives expressed their belief in the own work-related abilities as relevant for the management of their work-family balance. These statements reflect the importance of a high personal accomplishment at work. Second, far more top executives (27) emphasized the relevance of a high job involvement. According to these qualitative results and the reviewed literature, these two constructs are highly suitable to capture top executives’ functioning at work. Top executives’ functioning at home is again captured by two top executive-specific aspects. First, the separation of work from private life related to the ability to blank out work from private life is seen to be highly relevant for managing the balance between work and family life. The high number of times these two codings were allocated (29 and 16, respectively) show the importance top executives attach to this facet of their work-family balance (see Table 5-2). Beside that, a high family involvement, expressed in taking time for family issues, is also mentioned as relevant factor for maintaining work-family balance. Again, the times high job involvement (27) and high family involvement (14) are mentioned by the top executives, underlines the superiority of the work domain over the family domain. Finally, two factors indicative for a rather bad work-family balance situation have been expressed by the top executives. Nearly all top executives (38) reported on their work interfering with their family life, namely work-to-family conflict. With 186 times this construct was mentioned throughout all interviews, this is the topic the top executives touched upon

Qualitative Results Regarding Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

135



most often. Another group of statements reflect a conflict in the opposite direction. Far fewer top executives (14) accounted on this interference of family with work issues, namely familyto-work conflict. In summary, the top executives particularly emphasized the expected three facets of workfamily balance, namely satisfaction, functioning, and role conflict. All three facets were mentioned in relation to work as well as private life. The fact that work-related codings were mentioned far more frequently than family-related codings, points at a dominance of the work domain in the top executives’ lives. The second question was aimed at revealing individual and work-related variables related to top executives’ work-family balance. The distinction between individual and work-related variables is based on literature on role theory and mechanisms of work-family linkage (see section 2.4). For verifying these facets, we asked the top executives “Which phenomena in your work and private life are related to your work-family balance situation?” With the help of this question, we figured out that top executives perceive the assumed individual and workrelated factors to be particularly associated with their work-family balance. Additionally, in connection with their work-family balance, they mentioned some family-related variables. Regarding individual variables related to their work-family balance, the top executives mentioned most frequently self reflection and confidence, feelings of exhaustion, and impairment to health. All three facets were mentioned 16 times each (see Table 5-2). The first coding represents the construct core self evaluation. The top executives report that positive self-assessments about their worthiness, competence, and capabilities (Judge et al. 2005) are related to a situation of good work-family balance. Exhaustion and impairment to health in turn are accounted in connection with situations of rather bad work-family balance. One top executive for example admits that his health complaints are related to the imbalanced life situation with his work dominating everything else. Accordingly, by neglecting their workfamily balance, top executives risk to exhaust their energy and jeopardize their health. Regarding work-related variables the following codings were assigned most often: commitment to the company (7), intention to quit the company (8), own high effectiveness (16), and decrease of own effectiveness (14). We assigned the first two codings (commitment to the company and intention to quit the company) to the construct organizational commitment. Thus, the actual work-family balance situation is found to be related to a top executives’ commitment to his or her company. Like reflected by the last statement, in the worst case a bad work-family balance situation can be related to the top executives’ quitting of the company. Two further codings regarding work-related variables turned out to be the own high effectiveness and a decrease of the own effectiveness. We assigned these statements to the construct top executives’ effectiveness. These statements clearly show that the top executives’ work-family balance situation is not merely a matter of the top executives’

136

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance



themselves, for instance in form of impaired well-being. At least since top executives’ effectiveness is concerned, the companies discover their interest in top executives’ workfamily balance situation (e.g., Graves/Ohlott/Ruderman 2007; Shelton/Danes/Eisenman 2008). Our findings underline this enormous relevance of top executives’ work-family balance for top executives’ effectiveness and related to this for the success of their companies. Additionally to these individual and work-related variables, in connection with their workfamily balance the top executives accounted on a relationship of their work-family balance with family-related variables. These family-related issues principally included the satisfaction of top executives’ life partners. First, they reported on partners’ life satisfaction as a whole, which is related to top executives’ work-family balance. Second, the partners’ satisfaction with work-family balance is referred to as highly important in this context (see sample statements). Thus, the top executives clearly detect a relationship between their work-family balance situation and the satisfaction of their life partners. These results underline the importance of the consideration of the life partners’ perspective additionally to the top executives’ own perspective. In summary, the results of the qualitative interviews verify our conceptually derived facets of top executives’ work-family balance as well as related variables. Additionally, concerning top executives’ satisfaction and functioning, the results assisted in the enrichment of our preliminary conceptual framework. With the help of our qualitative results we could add some top executive-specific constructs for the adequate consideration of top executives’ workfamily balance. In connection with related variables of top executives’ work-family balance, we furthermore complemented the individual and work-related variables with a third facet, namely family-related variables. The final empirically grounded framework of top executives’ work-family balance with all constructs and their definitions will be outlined in the following.

5.3

Final Empirically Grounded Framework of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

On the basis of our conceptual preoccupation with the phenomenon work-family balance and the results of our qualitative study, we elaborate further on our conceptualization of top executives’ work-family balance and related variables. The final empirically grounded framework of top executives’ work-family balance is shown in Figure 5-2. In the following, we present the empirically verified facets and constructs of this framework. We also define the constructs of the refined conceptualization of top executives’ work-family balance and related variables and thereby carry out step five of the procedure of taxonomy development (see Figure 2-1).

Final Empirically Grounded Framework of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

137

 Figure 5-2: Final empirically grounded framework of top executives’ work-family balance

EXECUTIVES’ WORK-FAMILY BALANCE

EXECUTIVES’ SATISFACTION − Work satisfaction − Life satisfaction EXECUTIVES’ FUNCTIONING Functioning at work − Personal accomplishment − Job involvement Functioning at home − Separation of work from family − Family involvement EXECUTIVES’ ROLE CONFLICT − Work-to-family conflict − Family-to-work conflict

RELATED VARIABLES

INDIVIDUAL VARIABLES − Core self evaluation − Exhaustion − Health

WORK-RELATED VARIABLES − Organizational commitment − Effectiveness

COMPANY-RELATED VARIABLES − Partners’ life satisfaction − Partners’ satisfaction with executives’ work-family balance

5.3.1 Top Executives’ Satisfaction Like in the work-family balance definition of Clark (2000), top executives’ satisfaction is considered from two perspectives: work and home. Work satisfaction is often touched upon by the top executives as relevant for their feeling of a balanced work and family life. The interviews revealed that many top executives in connection with their work-family balance talk not only about their satisfaction with home life, consisting of housework, parental and marital satisfaction. They rather talk about their satisfaction with their life as a whole. Thus, capturing a broader area beyond family life, in the following, we consider top executives’ life satisfaction instead of home or family satisfaction. Both facets of satisfaction were already defined previously (see section 4.3.3.1). 5.3.2 Top Executives’ Functioning Two other frequently mentioned aspects represent top executives’ functioning at work and at home. In connection with their functioning at work the top executives most often mention the belief in the own abilities and high job involvement (see Table 5-1 and Table 5-2). Thus, we use two constructs to capture top executives’ functioning at work: personal accomplishment

138

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance



at work and job involvement, both already defined in the chapter on top executives’ work relationship. These two constructs are not similar to the one used by Clark (2002) to capture employees’ good functioning at work. She used at this point employee citizenship in form of altruism (e.g., Smith/Organ/Near 1983). This comprises behaviors over and above simple conformance to work rules (i.e., being on time, not making personal calls during work time). This conformance to work rules is not appropriate to measure top executives’ good functioning at work as a high degree of professional behavior is a minimum requirement for top executives (Noordegraaf/Van Der Meulen 2008). Our interviews confirmed that citizenship behavior does not represent top executives’ good functioning at work. Rather top executives’ personal accomplishment at work and the degree of involvement in work differentiates between good and inferior top executives’ functioning at work. The construct functioning at home in our top executive setting is represented by the top executives’ separation of work from family life and top executives’ family involvement. These factors enable top executives to contribute to the maintenance of the family unit and the well-being of its members, namely their functioning at home (Linder-Pelz et al. 1984). Top executives’ family involvement corresponds to the construct used by Clark (2002) to measure employees’ functioning at home. This is defined as the degree of emotional bonding between family members (Olson/Sprenkle/Russell 1979) and thus refers to the psychological involvement in family issues. It is associated with an increase in the amount of time and effort devoted to the family and the mental preoccupation with the family role (Frone/Russell/Cooper 1992). Like the results of the qualitative interviews show, our top executive sample requires capturing the functioning at home with a second, top executive specific construct, namely the active separation of work from family life. With the help of this separation top executives try to protect and maintain their family life without too much influence of the often dominant work domain (Edwards/Rothbard 2000). This may be viewed as a method of coping with stress from the work domain (Lambert 1990). Apparently, in contrast to employees (Clark 2002), top executives do not perceive their degree of emotional bonding alone as good functioning at home. They dedicate a great portion of their life to work issues (e.g., Clark 1997; Rutherford 2001; Simpson 1998) and are often under high pressure in their work life (e.g., Delbecq/Friedlander 1995; Kets de Vries 1989; Kets de Vries 1994). Thereby, “even when executives are not working, work often occupies their minds” (Kofodimos 1990, p. 58). Thus, especially for top executives, in the rare time they are at home it seems to be of high importance to keep out work issues of family life. The inclusion of top executives’ work and family involvement as facets of their work-family balance is additionally supported by the following description of the phenomenon. According to Greenhaus and Singh, work-family balance implies “the extent to which individuals are

Final Empirically Grounded Framework of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

139



equally involved in - and equally satisfied with - their work role and family role” (Greenhaus/Singh 2003, p. 2). Thus, beside the satisfaction with work and family, the involvement in these roles is part of the phenomenon work-family balance. Relying on the results of our qualitative interviews, we complemented the work and family involvement as part of an individuals’ functioning with two top executive-specific constructs, namely personal accomplishment as second part of top executives’ functioning at work and separation of work from family life as second part of top executives’ functioning at home. Following Clark (2000), we additionally consider the conflict between these two roles as a third facet of top executives’ workfamily balance. This decision is supported by Frone who states that "… low levels of interrole conflict […] represent work-family balance" (Frone 2003, p. 145). 5.3.3 Top Executives’ Work-Family Conflict The topic top executives touched upon most often in connection to their work-family balance is work interfering with family, namely work-to-family conflict (e.g., Carlson et al. 2006; Frone/Russell/Cooper 1992; Frone/Yardley/Markel 1997; Greenhaus/Powell 2006). This is one dimension of the bi-directional work-family conflict, which is defined as “a type of interrole conflict that occurs when the role demands stemming from one domain (work or family) interfere or are incompatible with role demands stemming from the other domain (family or work)” (Greenhaus/Beutell 1985, p. 77). When family interferes with work, we talk about family-to-work conflict. Interestingly, this other direction of work-family conflict was mentioned far less often by the top executives. Obviously, the top executives are more successful in fulfilling the demands of their work role. This often seems to go at an expense of the fulfillment of the demands of the family role. 5.3.4 Related variables of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance In response to the question “Which phenomena in your work and private life are related to your work-family balance situation?”, the top executives reported individual, work-related, and family-related phenomena (see Table 5-1 for sample statements). Thus, besides the individual and work-related phenomena identified by role theory, our interviews additionally specified family-related variables related to top executives’ work-family balance. 5.3.4.1 Individual Variables Regarding individual variables, top executives mentioned the constructs core self evaluation, exhaustion and health as being related to their work-family balance. Core self-evaluation “represents the fundamental assessments that people make about their worthiness, competence, and capabilities” (Judge et al. 2005, p. 257). Exhaustion was already introduced and defined in relation to top executives’ work relationship. According to the World Health

140

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance



Organization health “is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (World Health Organization 1946, p. 100). 5.3.4.2 Work-Related Variables We considered top executives’ organizational commitment and effectiveness as work-related variable. Organizational commitment refers to the psychological attachment of top executives to their workplace (Allen/John 1990) and involves “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday/Porter/Steers 1982, p. 27). Effectiveness (Campion/Medsker/Higgs 1993) is already familiar as related variable to top executives’ work relationship (see section 4.3.3.2). 5.3.4.3 Family-Related Variables Partner’s life satisfaction and partner’s work-family balance satisfaction were mentioned by the top executives regarding family-related variables (see Table 5-2 for frequency counts). Partner’s life satisfaction refers to the partner’s judgment of his or her quality of life (Diener et al. 1985). Partner’s work-family balance satisfaction refers to the partners’ global appraisal of the degree of the top executives’ success in managing work and family roles (Valcour 2007). After this presentation and definition of all constructs which are part of our investigation of top executives’ work-family balance, we proceed with information on the measurement of these constructs. Furthermore, we outline the psychometric properties of the used scales.

5.4

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

5.4.1 Measures of Active Cluster Variables Constituting Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance To identify different top executives’ work-family balance types, we use cluster analysis and therefore must select active cluster variables to describe the investigated phenomenon (Homburg/Jensen/Krohmer 2008). In our quantitative study of top executives’ work-family balance, we use reflective models to measure all active cluster variables. Accordingly, we use top executive ratings on six scales (measuring top executives’ satisfaction, functioning at work, and work-family conflict) and partner ratings on two scales (measuring top executives’ functioning at home) to measure top executives’ work-family balance. While executives themselves are the best source of information on their satisfaction, functioning at work, and their work-family conflict, their life partners are assumed to be good informants on the executives functioning at home. Unless otherwise noted, survey measures use seven-point,

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

141



Likert-type rating scales with anchors ranging from “disagree strongly” (1) to “agree strongly” (7). 5.4.1.1 Top Executives’ Satisfaction Top executives’ work satisfaction (Hackman/Oldham 1975) and life satisfaction (Diener et al. 1985) are based on the same measures used in the investigation of top executives’ work relationship. Thus, the items used and their psychometric properties are already known (see section 4.4.2.1.1). 5.4.1.2 Top Executives’ Functioning Again, the measures used to capture top executives’ functioning at work, namely personal accomplishment (Maslach/Jackson/Leiter 1996) and job involvement (Frone/Russell 1995), were already considered in connection with top executives’ work relationship (see sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.2.1.24.3.3.2). Thus, they will not be repeated here. Two new constructs were used for the measurement of top executives functioning at home, namely separation of work from family life and family involvement. As life partners are the best source of information on top executives’ functioning at home, we obtained the ratings of these two constructs from them. Items adapted from the segmentation scale of Edwards and Rothbard (1999) serve to measure separation of work from family life. This scale includes five items, such as “In the evening s/he works at home” and “During holidays s/he is contactable for his/her organization.” Item-to-total correlations range between .60 and .74. Exploratory factor analysis reveals one factor, which explains 62.79 percent of the variance of the five indicators used to measure separation of work from family life. Factor loadings range between .75 and .85 and thus clearly exceed the recommended threshold of .60. The coefficient alpha of this scale is .85 and composite reliability is .90. Thus, all tested psychometric properties of the scale are very satisfying. The mean of the scale is 3.21 (s. d. = 1.35). We assess family involvement by posing items previously used by Frone, Russell, and Cooper (1995), such as “The most important things that happen to him/her involve his/her family” and “Most of his/her interests are centered around his/her family.” The five items show acceptable item-to-total correlations between .62 and .75. With the help of exploratory factor analysis we obtain one factor explaining 65.85 percent of the variance of the five indicators, whereas factor loadings reach values between .75 and .86. The coefficient alpha reaches a value of .87. Composite reliability reaches a value of .87, which exceeds the recommended value of .60. The mean of the family involvement scale is 4.81 (s. d. = 1.13).

142

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance



5.4.1.3 Top Executives’ Work-Family Conflict Both directions of work-family conflict are measured with a scale developed by Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996). As the scale for measuring work-to-family conflict was already presented in connection with top executives’ work relationship (see section 4.4.2.1.1), we introduce only the family-to-work conflict scale at this point. This scale includes five items, such as “The demands of my family or spouse/partner interfere with work-related activities” and “I have to put off doing things at work because of demand on my time at home.” The item-to-total correlations range between .41 and .73. With the help of an exploratory factor analysis one factor could be extracted which accounts for 60.61 percent of the variance of all indicators. The obtained factor loadings show satisfying values between .56 and .86. The coefficient alpha reaches a value of .82, which clearly exceeds the recommended value of .70. Furthermore, the composite reliability is .85, which is also satisfying. The mean of the 5-item family-to-work conflict scale is 2.42 (s. d. = .82). Taken together, the results of the factor analysis indicate that the items for the measurement of the active cluster variables all build unidimensional scales. Following the suggestions of Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we additionally checked for internal reliability of the scales and further conducted confirmatory factor analyses to establish convergent validity of the active cluster variables. In Table 5-3 we list coefficient alpha and composite reliability for each of the active cluster variables. Table 5-3: Scale names, coefficient alpha, and composite reliability of active cluster variables Scale name 1. Work satisfaction 2. Life satisfaction 3. Personal accomplishment 4. Job involvement 5. Separation of work from family 6. Family involvement 7. Work-to-family conflict 8. Family-to-work conflict

Į .76 .86 .76 .71 .85 .87 .83 .82

CR .83 .87 .76 .93 .90 .87 .90 .85

The scales show acceptable to satisfying coefficient alpha values ranging between .71 and .87. Concerning composite reliability, all constructs exceed the threshold value of .60 that is recommended in the literature (Bagozzi/Yi 1988, p. 82); the lowest reliability is again .76 for the construct personal accomplishment. Prior to cluster analysis, we checked for intercorrelations of the active cluster variables. The highest intercorrelations occur between work satisfaction and personal accomplishment (r = .50) and work satisfaction and life satisfaction (r = .47) (see Table 5-4). As these constructs are not supposed to be independent (Arabie/Hubert 1994), these intercorrelations are acceptable. We assess discriminant validity on the basis of criteria that Fornell and Larcker (1981)

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

143



suggested. The highest extent of shared variance between two latent variables in the phi matrix is .26, which is much lower than the average variance extracted of any construct. Thus, the criterion of discriminant validity was fulfilled by all active cluster variables included in our model. According to these results, all items loaded significantly on the respective latent constructs and each construct was unidimensional and empirically distinct from the others. Table 5-4 presents an overview of the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the active cluster variables. Table 5-4: Descriptive statistics, and intercorrelations among active cluster variables Variable

Mean

s. d.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1. Work satisfaction

5.87

.88

1.00

2. Life satisfaction 3. Personal accomplishment

5.46

.83

.47**

1.00

5.92

.57

.50**

.33**

1.00

4. Job involvement 5. Separation of work from family 6. Family involvement 7. Work-to-family conflict 8. Family-to-work conflict * p< .05; ** p< .01

4.90

.78

.01

-.14*

-.05

1.00

3.21

1.35

-.16*

-.05

-.19**

-.29**

1.00

4.81

1.13

.02

.16*

.07

-.23**

.15*

1.00

4.81

1.06

-.27**

-.25**

-.23**

.21**

-.18**

-.01

1.00

2.42

.82

-.20**

-.07

-.16*

-.06

-.05

-.01

.36**

8

1.00

5.4.2 Measures of Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance The conceptual preoccupation and the results of the qualitative study revealed three sorts of related variables of top executives’ work-family balance: individual variables, work-related variables, and family-related variables. We use top executive ratings on five scales and life partner ratings on two scales to measure these related variables. Individual and work-related variables are rated by the top executives, while family-related variables are rated by life partners. We use reflective models to measure all related variables of top executives’ work-family balance. 5.4.2.1 Individual Variables To examine top executives’ individual variables, we consider the broad personality trait core self evaluation, using the Core Self-Evaluations Scale (Judge et al. 2003). This scale features twelve items, such as “I am confident I get the success I deserve in life” and “Overall, I am satisfied with myself.” The items show acceptable item-to-total correlations between .31 and .65. With the help of exploratory factor analysis we obtain one factor explaining 52.74 per-

144

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance



cent of the variance of the twelve indicators, whereas factor loadings reach values between .41 and .74. The coefficient alpha reaches a value of .86. Composite reliability reaches a value of .89, which clearly exceeds the recommended value of .60. The mean of the scale is 5.44 (s.d.=.69). Furthermore, as individual variable related to top executives’ work-family balance we investigate top executives’ exhaustion (Maslach/Jackson/Leiter 1996). This measure was already discussed by considering top executives’ work relationship and will not be considered again at this point (see section 4.4.2.1.1). To measure top executives’ health we use ten items from the health scale of the Organizational Stress Indicator (Evers/Frese/Cooper 2000). Originally the scale is composed of two factors, namely mental health and physical health. Sample items are for example “Do you tend to feel restless and tense?” (mental health) and “Do you suffer from headaches?” (physical health). We omit four items from the original scale in order to shorten the questionnaire. Thus, we use four mental health items (items 1 to 4 in Table 6-1) and six physical health items (item 5 to 10 in Table 6-1) from the original scale. The item-to-total correlations range between .38 and .69. With the help of an exploratory factor analysis two factors were extracted which account for 53.28 percent of the variance of the ten indicators used. As all but two items loaded significantly on both factors, the items were additionally subjected to a principal factor analysis with a forced one factor solution. The results (see Table 6-1, Table 6-2, and Table 6-3 in the Appendix) indicated that all of the item loadings on the single factor were greater than .40, ranging from .48 to .78. Accordingly, we treat top executives’ health as a unidimensional construct. The coefficient alpha reaches a value of .84, which clearly exceeds the recommended value of .70. Furthermore, the composite reliability is .85, which is also satisfying. The mean of the 12-item health scale is 5.62 (s. d. = .80) 5.4.2.2 Work-Related Variables Organizational commitment was measured by a scale from Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993), containing items such as: “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization,” and “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.” Two items were dropped from the original scale because of their redundancy. The remaining items show acceptable item-to-total correlations between .57 and .82. With the help of exploratory factor analysis we obtain one factor explaining 66.59 percent of the variance of the five indicators, whereas factor loadings reach values between .70 and .91. The coefficient alpha reaches a value of .87, whereas composite reliability reaches a value of .88, both clearly exceeding the re-commended thresholds. The mean of the 5-item organizational commitment scale was 5.23 (s.d. = 1.21).

Measurement of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

145



The items to measure top executives’ effectiveness (Alper/Tjosvold/Law 2000) correspond to the ones used in connection with top executives’ work relationship and thus are not further considered here. All individual and work-related variables were rated by top executives themselves. 5.4.2.3 Family-Related Variables For measuring partner’s life satisfaction, we used the same items like for the measurement of top executives’ life satisfaction. Merely, the life partners rated them from their own perspective. The items show acceptable item-to-total correlations between .61 and .75. With the help of exploratory factor analysis we obtain one factor explaining 65.74 percent of the variance of the five indicators, whereas factor loadings reach values between .74 and .85. The coefficient alpha reaches a value of .86, and composite reliability reaches a value of .89, both clearly exceeding the recommended thresholds. The mean of the 5-item organizational commitment scale was 5.43 (s.d. = .93). Accordingly, partners’ satisfaction with work-family balance is based on the same items used to measure top executives’ satisfaction with work-family balance in connection with top executives’ work relationship (Valcour 2007). In contrast to this measure, the life partners with the help of this scale expressed their own satisfaction with the top executives’ work-family balance. The items show high item-to-total correlations between .80 and .87. With the help of exploratory factor analysis we obtain one factor explaining 80.91 percent of the variance of the five indicators, whereas factor loadings reach values between .87 and .92. The coefficient alpha and composite reliability reach both values of .94, which clearly exceed the recommended thresholds. The mean of the scale is 4.54 (s.d. = 1.06). Corresponding to the previously presented procedure of taxonomy development within the empirical part, in this section items were factor analyzed to assess their dimensionality and their measurement properties. Taken together, the results of the factor analysis indicated that the items were measuring a single global construct. Thus, all scales were found to be unidimensional. Additionally, we checked the psychometric properties of the scales like internal reliability and convergent validity. These checks bring out satisfying results. In Table 5-5 we list coefficient alpha and composite reliability for each of the related variables. All scales demonstrate reasonable reliability.

146

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

 Table 5-5: Scale names, coefficient alpha, and composite reliability of related variables Į .86 .82 .84 .87 .75 .86 .94

Scale name 1. Core self evaluation 2. Exhaustion 3. Health 4. Organizational commitment 5. Effectiveness 6. Partners’ life satisfaction 7. Partners’ work-family balance satisfaction

CR .89 .83 .85 .88 .80 .89 .94

The scales show satisfying coefficient alpha values ranging between .75 and .94. Concerning composite reliability, all constructs clearly exceed the threshold value of .60 that is recommended in the literature (Bagozzi/Yi 1988, p. 82); the lowest reliability is .80 for the construct effectiveness. Table 5-6 presents descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the related variables of top executives’ work-family balance. Table 5-6: Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among related variables Variable

Mean

s. d.

1

1. Core self evaluation

5.44

.69

1.00

2. Exhaustion

3.21

.98

-.63** 1.00

3. Health

5.62

.80

.53**

-.65** 1.00

4. Organizational commitment

5.23

1.21

.33**

-.27** .21**

1.00

5. Effectiveness

5.54

.58

.36**

-.25** .13

.18**

1.00

6. Partners’ life satisfaction 7. Partners’ work-family balance satisfaction * p< .05; ** p< .01

5.43

.93

.14*

-.05

.08

.06

.08

1.00

4.54

1.06

.12

-.05

-.02

.08

.17*

.35**

5.5

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.00

Interpretation of Cluster Solution

The cluster analysis regarding top executives’ work-family balance results in a five-cluster solution. Our next step toward the taxonomy of top executives’ work relationship is to validate whether these five clusters have meaningful interpretations (Rich 1992). This interpretation of the obtained cluster solutions corresponds to step eight of the taxonomy development procedure (see Figure 2-1). For this purpose we compare the between subject effects of the cluster means with Duncan’s multiple-range test (see Table 5-7).

Interpretation of Cluster Solution

147

 Table 5-7: Results of testing between subjects effects of active cluster variables Dependent variable

Work satisfaction

Life satisfaction

Personal accomplishment

Job involvement

Separation of work from family Family involvement Work-to-family conflict Family-to-work conflict

Type III sum of squares

Degrees of freedom

Mean of squares

F

Significance

14.365***

.000

18.018***

.000

9.378***

.000

10.884***

.000

Model

34.333

4

8.583

Error

128.465

215

.598

Model

37.672

4

9.418

Error

112.383

215

.523

Model

10.520

4

2.630

Error

60.298

215

.280

Model

23.240

4

5.810

Error

114.766

215

.534

Model Error

270.698 129.221

4 215

67.675 .601

112.598***

.000

Model Error Model Error Model Error

119.691 157.504 131.440 127.575 20.003 126.964

4 215 4 215 4 215

29.923 .773 32.860 .593 5.001 .591

40.846***

.000

55.378***

.000

8.468***

.000

* p<.10; ** p<.05; *** p<.01

Table 5-8 shows the cluster means for each of the eight cluster variables. Indications of statistical significance are given to aid interpretation of the distinguishing characteristics of each cluster. Cluster means carrying the same superscript do not differ on a five percent significance level. Additional descriptors that explore the clusters with regard to some demographic characteristics (sex, age, marital status, employment of life partner, children, number of employees in company, and industry) are shown in the lower part of Table 5-8. We find no significant differences between the five clusters concerning all demographic characteristics except the representation of service industry. Specifically, the third cluster is overrepresented by top executives working in the service sector (Ȥ2 = 10.06, df = 4, p = .04).

148

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

 Table 5-8: Statistical cluster description Cluster Active cluster variables

Total

1

2

3

4

5

100% 19.09% 17.73% 21.36% 23.64% 18.18% Percentage of observations (n = 220) (n = 42) (n = 39) (n = 47) (n = 52) (n = 40) 1. Work satisfaction 5.99b 5.79b 6.45a 5.79b 5.21c 2. Life satisfaction 5.69a 5.63a 5.72a 5.60a 4.59b 3. Personal accomplishment 5.99b 5.84b 6.22a 5.83b 5.55c 4. Job involvement 5.34b 4.55a 4.85a 4.53a 5.19b 5. Separation of work from family 1.94e 5.18a 2.35d 3.72b 2.97c 6. Family involvement 5.10b 4.79b 4.37c 5.86a 3.70d 7. Work-to-family conflict 5.75a 3.98c 3.89c 4.92b 5.64a 8. Family-to-work conflict 2.58a 2.01b 2.10b 2.60a 2.80a Descriptive variables Sex Male 100% 17.09% 18.35% 23.42% 24.05% 17.09% Female 100% 24.19% 16.13% 16.13% 22.58% 20.97% Age <45 100% 20.62% 18.56% 14.43% 23.71% 22.68% 46-55 100% 19.70% 16.67% 25.76% 27.27% 10.61% >55 100% 10.00% 20.00% 35.00% 25.00% 10.00% Marital status: Married 100% 23.22% 18.96% 18.01% 23.22% 21.33% Employment of partner Full-time employed 100% 17.89% 18.95% 23.16% 17.89% 22.11% Part-time employed 100% 12.73% 21.82% 27.27% 27.27% 10.91% Not employed 100% 22.60% 19.35% 19.35% 19.35% 19.35% Children: Living at home 100% 20.17% 13.45% 18.49% 30.25% 17.64% Number of employees <300 100% 22.22% 19.44% 22.22% 20.83% 15.28% in company 300-999 100% 20.51% 17.95% 23.08% 23.08% 15.38% 1.000-4.999 100% 11.36% 15.91% 20.45% 31.82% 20.45% 5.000-9.999 100% 22.22% 27.78% 11.11% 22.22% 16.67% >10.000 100% 20.00% 13.33% 24.44% 20.00% 22.22% Industry Banks and insurances 100% 12.12% 30.30% 18.18% 24.24% 15.15% Machinery 100% 27.27% 27.27% 18.18% 9.09% 18.18% Automotive 100% 22.73% 31.82% 13.64% 13.64% 18.18% Chemical / pharmaceutical 100% 22.22% 11.11% 22.22% 27.78% 16.67% Transport and logistics 100% 7.14% 21.43% 21.43% 21.43% 28.57% Telecommunication and information technology 100% 21.21% 12.12% 24.24% 27.27% 15.15% Healthcare 100% 7.69% 7.69% 46.15% 23.08% 15.38% Consulting 100% 30.00% 16.67% 13.33% 23.33% 16.67% Other services 100% 29.41% 5.88% 47.06% 11.76% 5.88% Notes: Reported values are mean values if not indicated otherwise. In each row, cluster means that have the same superscript are not significantly different (p < .05) on the basis of Duncan’s multiple-range test. Means in the highest bracket are assigned a, means in the next lower bracket b, and so forth.

To interpret the clusters, we assign names to each work-family balance type. Although such names represent oversimplifications, they also highlight empirically distinct aspects of the different top executives’ work-family balance types and facilitate the discussion of the results. In Figure 5-3, we illustrate how respondents in each of the five clusters score on satisfaction, functioning, and role conflict according to the deviation of the cluster means from the means of the whole sample. We describe the core characteristics of each work-family balance type in the following.

Interpretation of Cluster Solution

149

 Figure 5-3: Plot of mean scores for underlying variables of the five clusters

Executives‘ satisfaction

Work satisfaction

Life satisfaction

Personal accomplishment

Job involvement

Executives‘ functioning

Separation of work from family

Family involvement

Executives‘ work-family conflict

Work-to-family conflict

Family-to-work conflict

-2 The torn integrator The indifferent segmentor The happy performer The family-focuser The frustrated struggler

0

+2

(mean of whole sample)

Cluster 1: The torn integrator. The torn integrator is highly involved in his work, but shows only moderate work satisfaction and personal accomplishment in the work role. Despite the high job involvement, this work-family balance type tries to participate to some extent in family life. Thereby, the torn integrator highly integrates work and family life by extremely blending these two life domains. The concurrent participation in the multiple life roles is accompanied by high interrole conflicts, especially from work to family. This dominance of the work-to-family conflict assorts well with the theory of asymmetric permeability of occupational and domestic roles, first discussed by Pleck (1977). This theory suggests that work demands are more likely to interfere with home life than vice versa. Subsequent studies confirmed the asymmetry of the home-work relationship (Frone/Russell/Cooper 1992; Gutek/ Searle/Klepa 1991; Jones/Fletcher 1993) suggesting that work impacts on family life to a greater extent than vice versa. This finding is proved by our results as all top executives’ work-family balance types show higher work-to-family than family-to-work conflict (see

150

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance



Table 5-8). This disbalance is especially relevant for top executives, as they invest an extremely large proportion of time and energy in their job (e.g., Rutherford 2001; Simpson 1998). The extremely low separation of work from private life signifies that the torn integrator often takes work home and is nearly always contactable for the organization even on vacation. This implies that the torn integrators risk wearing themselves out between the two life domains. This result is in line with research of Hall and Richter (1988), who found home boundaries were frequently violated and were more permeable than work boundaries, as leaving the workplace did not necessarily mean reducing one's psychological job involvement. Thus, the torn integrator experiences difficulties in performing each role successfully because of conflicting demands (see average personal accomplishment, low separation of work and family life, and high conflicts between the life domains). Accordingly, the torn integrator is representative for the scarcity perspective of role theory (e.g., Barnett/Marshall/Singer 1992), since the multiple life roles compete for the scarce energy. Concerning the demographic characteristics, we could not find significant differences between the torn integrator and the other four clusters. Nevertheless, some trends are worth mentioning: Compared to the other four clusters, this cluster contains most female top executives who are seldom older than 55 years and relatively often live with children. It is known that women with children living at home often carry the major responsibility for family life (e.g. Aryee/Srinivas/Tan 2005; Batt/Valcour 2003). Additionally, this cluster is overrepresented by top executives working in the consulting sector, which is a highly demanding sector with much travelling and customer contact, which are potential sources of stress (e.g., Ashforth/Humphrey 1993; Danna/Griffin 1999; Hochschild 1979). Thus, the torn integrator has to manage the coincidence of an active family life and a highly demanding job. This may be an explanation for the great effort of these top executives to integrate their work in their family life. By doing so, they avoid refusing assignments at work and at the same time try to be present at home as often as possible. But just this blending of life roles brings work and family life into rivalry. Cluster 2: The indifferent segmentor. Compared to most other work-family balance types, the job involvement of the indifferent segmentors is rather low. Their satisfaction with this low involved work situation is only on average as well as their accomplishment at work. Thus, it can be assumed that the indifferent segmentors do not experience their work as highly rewarding. Therefore, their family involvement and life satisfaction are comparatively high. The extremely high separation of work from private life is the characteristic feature of this workfamily balance type. Thus, this type applies a mechanism of work-family linkage, namely segmentation (e.g., Lambert 1990; Piotrkowski 1979; Rice/Near/Hunt 1980). In doing so, the indifferent segmentor actively attempts to keep work issues out of family life. This prevents

Interpretation of Cluster Solution

151



negative thoughts or feelings spilling over from the less rewarding work domain into family life. By applying this mechanism the indifferent segmentor is successful in reducing interrole conflict. Accordingly, the indifferent segmentors’ work-to-family and family-to-work conflict both are comparatively low. Thus, the active separation of work and family can be viewed as a method of coping with stress from the work domain, which is also described as psychological disengagement from work (e.g., Kahn et al. 1964). This indifferent attitude toward work matches the low job involvement of this work-family balance type. This cluster also shows no significant differences to the other clusters on the part of demographic characteristics. Nevertheless, we report on some observable tendencies. The top executives in the indifferent segmentor cluster live least often of all clusters with children in the household. This family situation probably enables them to experience home life as refuge from work where they can relax and recharge from their unrewarding work life. They often work in banks and insurances as well as automotive industry. It seems that top executives are less likely to highly identify themselves with their job in these industries and thus more likely disengage from their work than do top executives in other industries like for example services (see the happy performer). Cluster 3: The happy performer. In comparison with all other clusters, the happy performers are most satisfied and successful in fulfilling their work role. Particularly, the work satisfaction and personal accomplishment of this work-family balance type shows very high scores. Also life satisfaction is rather high. Thus, the rewards of fulfilling the work role are associated with positive moods like high work and life satisfaction. This satisfied situation is paired with a moderately high job involvement. But the great emphasis on work life brings along a comparatively low functioning at home. Accordingly, the happy performer shows a rather low separation of work from family life and a rather low family involvement. Thus, this workfamily balance type seems to back out of the engagement in the family domain because of being highly engaged in work issues. Accordingly, the happy performer uses the fixed amount of available resources by making trade-offs between life roles (e.g., Lambert 1990). This brings along a limitation of the involvement in the family domain in order to accommodate better the demands of the work domain, corresponding to the mechanism of work-family linkage called accommodation (e.g., Barnett/Gareis 2006). Thus, the happy performer fully concentrates on the work role. Thereby this work-family balance type reduces potential role strain which would result from the involvement in multiple roles. Accordingly, besides the dominant work domain, family life does not play a highly important role in the life of the happy performer (see low family involvement). This clear dominance of the work domain prevents the happy performer from experiencing interrole conflicts. At the same time, the happy performers are relatively satisfied with their life and do not suffer from the comparatively low functioning at home, probably because this type gains so much satisfaction out of the work life.

152

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance



Concerning demographic characteristics, this work-family balance type shows a significant difference in comparison to the other types: The happy performers are more often employed in the service industry than the other work-family balance types. Additionally, some further tendencies concerning the demographic characteristics of this type are of interest for its interpretation. Beside the overrepresentation of other services, these top executives often work in the healthcare sector. Their jobs in the healthcare sector and other services are known to demand intensive, emotion-laden patient contacts and long hours (e.g., Hochschild 1979; Smets et al. 2004). To meet these demands, the happy performers have decided to put their emphasis on the work domain. But they seem to enjoy their high work engagement and obtain satisfaction from it. Furthermore, this cluster contains many male top executives over 55 years with full- or part-time employed partners. Thus, according to their comparatively high age, the happy performers often seem to be over their active family phase. Additionally, as their partners are also active in their own work life, the happy performers can highly concentrate on their job without too much remorse because of leaving their families alone. This additionally explains why these top executives do not experience much conflict between their life domains. Cluster 4: The family-focuser. The family-focuser shows the best functioning at home of all work-family balance types. Specifically, these top executives reach the highest score on family involvement and show a good separation of work from private life. Nevertheless, they have to handle their challenging work life as a top executive. But beside the high family involvement and much energy needed for family life, a concurrent high work engagement seems to be hard to achieve. Thus, the family-focuser uses the fixed amount of energy by making trade-offs between life roles. This brings along a limitation of the involvement in the work domain in order to accommodate better the high demands of the family domain. Thus, the family-focuser also uses the mechanism of accommodation (e.g., Barnett/Gareis 2006), but in contrast to the happy performer with an emphasis on the family domain. This is apparent in the greatest difference of all clusters between work and family involvement indicated by this work-family balance type, with family involvement showing higher scores than job involvement. Thus, this work-family balance type concentrates on the fulfillment of the family role (see high family involvement and high separation of work from family life) and thereby is relatively satisfied with life. At the same time, the family-focuser neglects to some extent work-related duties (see low job involvement and moderate personal accomplishment). This work situation is accompanied by a moderate work satisfaction. The focus on private life brings along some conflict between work and family life. Compared to the torn integrator and the frustrated struggler, who both also experience high interrole conflicts, the family-focuser experiences lower levels of work-to-family conflict but comparatively levels of family-towork conflict. This underlines the assumption that the family obligations of this work-family balance type are particularly competing with the fulfillment of the work role.

Interpretation of Cluster Solution

153



With regard to the demographic characteristics, this cluster shows some interesting tendencies. It contains the highest proportion of male top executives with a large proportion of parttime working partners. Additionally, this type most often of all clusters lives with children in the household. Thus, the family situation of this work-family balance type underlines that these top executives have to meet some obligations in the family domain. As their partners are often at least part-time employed, they partly have to look after the children and help managing family life. Furthermore, these top executives often work in middle-sized companies between 1.000 – 4.999 employees. Perhaps, their comparatively high family involvement is also due to the fact that many work-family benefits like childcare arrangements and flexible options are less available in smaller companies (Hertz/Ferguson 1998). Thus, top executives working in smaller companies have presumably to take more responsibility for the management of the family life themselves, which augments their family involvement. Cluster 5: The frustrated struggler. The frustrated struggler tries hard to perform well in the work domain and invests all energy in fulfilling the high demands. But these efforts are often in vain, apparent in the low personal accomplishment of this work-family balance type. Thus, despite work is a very important part of the frustrated strugglers’ life, they do not feel powerful and productive. At the same time, totally occupied with work, the frustrated strugglers neglect the family domain. Thus, the high job involvement seems to capture all energy and prevents them from engaging in family life. This situation is experienced by the frustrated struggler in the form of high conflicts between work and family life. The lack of rewards in both domains produces negative moods like dissatisfaction. The dissatisfying situation of the frustrated struggler stimulates efforts intended to change aspects of the domains (see low separation of work from family) and to avoid a domain in part or whole (see low family involvement). Apparently, the frustrated struggler tries to compensate a lack of satisfaction in the family domain by further enlarging the job involvement in order to find more satisfaction in the work domain, corresponding to the mechanism compensation (e.g., Staines 1980; Zedeck 1992). Concerning the demographic characteristics, the frustrated struggler also does not significantly differ from other work-family balance types. Nevertheless, some tendencies are worth mentioning. Specifically, this cluster contains the least middle age (46-55) or older (>55) top executives. Thus, these top executives are more likely than top executives in the other clusters to be in an earlier stage of their career, where they have to maintain their ground more intensively than older and already better settled top executives. As their struggle for achievement costs much of their energy but nevertheless often seems to be in vain, they are likely to get dissatisfied and frustrated. Furthermore, this cluster contains the largest proportion of fulltime working partners, who thus cannot invest much time themselves in the management of family life. But obviously, these partners attribute to the top executives a low functioning at home and thereby contribute to the conflict-laden situation of the frustrated strugglers.

154

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance



In summary, we find support for our prediction that top executives handle and experience their multiple life roles differently. This finding is consistent with the predictions of role theory and mechanisms of work-family linkage. Thus, our results partially confirm the theoretically predicted top executives’ work-family balance types. We find clear support for the role scarcity perspective (Goode 1960), predicting that the involvement in multiple life roles is associated with interrole conflict. The torn integrator, who conceives multiple life roles as conflicting, is prototypical for this perspective. In contrast, the enhancement perspective (Marks 1977; Sieber 1974), predicting that engagement in multiple roles can be beneficial for individuals, is not clearly represented in our top executive sample. No top executives’ work-family balance type highly engages in both roles and in doing so, experiences his workfamily situation as satisfying, shows a good functioning in both domains and little conflict between the life domains. The highest satisfaction and the least conflict are experienced by the happy performer. But contrary to the predictions of the enhancement perspective, the happy performer unilaterally engages in the work role, thereby neglecting his family role. This finding is in line with the one of Delbecq and Friedlander (1995), who found that successful top executives’ spouses always played the predominant role in managing family affairs. Apparently, like demonstrated by the torn integrator and the family-focuser, for a top executive, faced with an extremely demanding work role, a parallel engagement in another role is accompanied by role conflicts (e.g., Drew/Murtagh 2005). Furthermore, we find support for three mechanisms of work-family linkage: With the help of segmentation, the indifferent segmentor tries to keep work issues out of home life. Accommodation is used by the happy performer to concentrate on the work role as well as by the family-focuser, to dedicate more engagement to the family domain. Finally, the frustrated struggler decreases family involvement and (inefficiently) seeks for satisfaction in the work domain, which represents the mechanism of compensation. In our top executive sample, we could not find high similarities between the two domains as evidence for spillover effects between work and family life.

5.6

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Types

As a last step, we investigate the extent to which these configurations differ in terms of several related variables. Thus, we compare top executives’ work-family balance types on related variables using Duncan’s multiple-range test. We find significant differences between the cluster means for all related variables (Table 5-9). In Table 5-10, we provide the related variables associated with the five clusters. Means with the same superscript do not differ at a 5 percent significance level.

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Types

155

 Table 5-9: Results of testing between subjects effects of active cluster variables Related variables Dependent variable

Core self evaluation

Exhaustion

Health Organizational commitment

Effectiveness

Type III sum of squares

Degrees of freedom

Mean of squares

Model 21.814 Error 80.393

4 208

Model 47.678 Error 162.261

F

Significance

5.453 0.387

14.110***

.000

4 208

11.919 0.780

15.279***

.000

Model 12.804 Error 122.780

4 208

3.201 0.590

5.423***

.000

Model 40.172 Error 275.451

4 208

10.043 1.324

7.584***

.000

Model 6.888 Error 94.940

4 208

1.722 0.456

3.773***

.000

27.833 153.384

4 208

6.958 0.737

9.436***

.000

27.477 210.371

4 208

6.869 1.011

6.792***

.000

Partners’ life satisfaction Model Error Partners’ work-family balance satisfaction Model Error * p<.10; ** p<.05; *** p<.01

In this context, we draw a distinction between individual, work-related, and family-related variables. Specifically, we test whether cluster membership is associated with core self evaluation, exhaustion, and health (as individual variables), organizational commitment, and effectiveness (as work-related variables), as well as partners’ life satisfaction and partners’ satisfaction with top executives’ work-family balance (as family-related variables). The most favorable configuration of related variables is reached, when exhaustion shows low scores while the rest of the variables (i.e., core self evaluation, health, organizational commitment, effectiveness, partners’ life satisfaction and partners’ satisfaction with top executives’ workfamily balance) show high scores. The results concerning the related variables show that different combinations of top executives’ satisfaction, functioning, and role-conflict are differently associated with individual, work-related and family-related variables. Thereby, we could identify more and less favorable and middle-rate sets of related variables.

156

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance

 Table 5-10: Related variables of cluster membership Cluster Related variables

Total

1

2

3

4

5

100% 19.25% 17.84% 21.60% 23.00% 18.31% Percentage of observations (n = 213) (n = 41) (n = 38) (n = 46) (n = 49) (n = 39) 1. Core self evaluation 5.31c 5.65a,b 5.85a 5.49b,c 4.89d 2. Exhaustion 3.50b 3.27b 2.53c 3.21b 3.99a 3. Health 5.49b,c 5.68a,b 6.01a 5.64b 5.26c 4. Organizational commitment 5.40b 5.19b 5.90a 4.99b,c 4.61c 5. Effectiveness 5.67a 5.60a 5.68a 5.44a,b 5.19b 6. Partners’ life satisfaction 5.50a 5.71a 5.43a 5.71a 4.70b 7. Partners’ work-family balance satisfaction 4.52b 5.01a 4.62a,b 4.60a,b 3.85c Notes: Reported values are mean values if not indicated otherwise. In each row, cluster means that have the same superscript are not significantly different (p < .05) on the basis of Duncan’s multiple-range test. Means in the highest bracket are assigned a, means in the next lower bracket b, and so forth.

A middle-rate set of related variables represents the torn integrator. On the one hand, this work-family balance type lacks some self-confidence and self-worth (see comparatively low core self evaluation) and risks exhausting the available energy (see comparatively high exhaustion) and impairing one’s health (see comparatively low health). According to the predictions of role theory this unfavorable set of individual variables is due to the attempt to highly integrate both life domains (Hall/Richter 1988) and the high conflict between the multiple life roles (e.g., Barnett/Marshall/Singer 1992). On the other hand, this work-family balance type is highly committed to the company (see comparatively high organizational commitment) and maintains the work-related performance on a very high level (see high effectiveness). But the difficulties in performing both life roles successfully because of conflicting demands become apparent in a moderate partners’ satisfaction with top executives’ work-family balance. Thus, in the eyes of the partner, family life suffers under the high job involvement of the torn integrator. Nevertheless, the life partner is still relatively satisfied with the own life. In summary, the greatest risk of the torn integrator is exhausting the individual resources and losing the balance between work and family life. This risk is due to the extreme job involvement of this work-family balance type and the fact of being torn between the two life domains. The indifferent segmentor is the second configuration who shows a middle-range set of related variables. But in contrast to the torn integrator, the indifferent segmentor presents a better family-related situation. Specifically, concerning family-related variables, the partners of the indifferent segmentor indicate the highest satisfaction scores of all partners. Thus, the indifferent segmentors’ comparatively good functioning at home, apparent in an extreme separation of work from family life, is valued and rewarded by their life partners. This positive partners’ attitude contributes to the fact that the indifferent segmentors can use their family life as a refuge from work life. Thus, the mechanism of segmentation seems to be

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Types

157



successful in ameliorating the top executives’ work-life balance situation. This situation is accompanied by a satisfactory top executives’ self-image (see comparatively high self evaluation). Nevertheless, the indifferent segmentor shows some signs of exhaustion and suffers from some health problems. Probably, this is a result of the rather unrewarding work situation of this work-family balance type. Accordingly, on the part of work-related variables, the organizational commitment of this type is moderate, which also fits the rather low job involvement. But nevertheless, the indifferent segmentor’s effectiveness at work is comparatively high. Thus, despite this work-family balance type has a rather indifferent relationship to work issues and experiences this life domain as rather unrewarding, the indifferent segmentor performs well at work. The obviously most favorable set of related variables is reached by the happy performer. This work-family balance type is extremely committed to the organization. Furthermore, the happy performers have a high self-worth and self-confidence (see high self evaluation) and feel powerful and healthy (see low exhaustion and high health). Apparently, the mechanism of accommodation, used by the happy performer, is successful in ameliorating the work-related feelings and behaviors. Thus, these top executives identify themselves fully with their job and their company. This enables them to be continuously concerned with work issues, thereby neglecting their private life (Hall/Richter 1988). To some extent, they seem to be spoiled by their success. Thus, they are not escaping from their private life, but are simply not interested in it (Bartolomé 1983). But despite the happy performers’ comparatively bad functioning at home in form of low separation of work from family and low family involvement, their partners are nevertheless relatively satisfied with their life and even moderately satisfied with the top executives’ work-family balance. Accordingly, the same manner the top executives themselves do not suffer from their rather low involvement in family life, the life partners are relatively satisfied with this situation. Probably, the partners accept the top executives’ clear emphasis on the work domain because they themselves are active in their own work life (Bedeian/Mossholder/Touliatos 1986). Additionally, the top executives’ highly rewarding work situation is associated with positive feelings which possibly spill over into the family domain and thereby contribute to the satisfaction of the life partners. The family-focuser is the third type with a middle-range set of related variables. Thereby, this type shows moderate individual variables, comparatively low work-related variables, and rather high family-related variables. As demonstrated in the cluster description, the familyfocuser tries to take an active part in his family life in addition to the demanding work life as a top executive. This engagement for the family is rewarded by high partners’ satisfaction scores. But trying to meet the requirements of both roles at a time, the family-focuser partly loses self-worth and self-confidence and shows first signs of exhaustion and health problems. Additionally, the organizational commitment of this type as well as the effectiveness at work are rather low. Thus, the accommodation mechanism used by the family-focuser on the one

158

Investigation of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance



hand is associated with a favorable family situation. On the other hand, the partially unfavorable individual and work-related variables provide some indication for the moderate success of this strategy. Thus, for top executives the mechanism of accommodation seems to be less effective when applied to reduce the engagement in the work domain, rather than when applied to reduce the engagement in the family domain like done by the happy performer. Accordingly, on the one hand, the limitation of the involvement in the work domain of the family-focuser is associated with a less favorable set of work-related variables in comparison to the happy performer. On the other hand, both types show a comparatively good set of family-related variables. Thus, while work suffers from the family-oriented accommodation of the family-focuser, the family does not profit in the same manner. The least favorable set of related variables is faced by the frustrated struggler. The daily struggle of this work-family balance type is on the part of individual variables accompanied by self-doubts, high exhaustion, and bad health. Additionally, work-related variables show relatively low scores. Specifically, the frustrated struggler shows a low organizational commitment and low effectiveness at work. The greatest difference of the frustrated struggler to the other work-family balance types appears with reference to the family-related variables. Accordingly, the partners of the frustrated struggler are highly dissatisfied with their own life and the top executives’ work-family balance situation. Surely they realize that the top executives more and more withdraw from family life. At the same time they notice that the top executives’ work-related effort remains without success. Thus, the partners are not willing to support the behavior of the top executives and strongly complain about this adverse situation. But this negative position of the life partners intensifies the top executives’ use of the mechanism compensation and more and more reinforces their retraction from family life. Thereby, their highly demanding jobs serve as a rationale to cope with private problems (Bartolomé/Evans 1980). Thus, the top executives use their work as an excuse for their actual or psychological absence from home. This situation is aggravated by the fact that the mechanism of compensation, used by the frustrated struggler does not help to improve the work-related feelings and performance. In contrast, negative spillover of thoughts and feelings between the two domains may aggravate the experience of stress and decreases psychological well-being and performance in both domains. Accordingly, the frustrated struggler is situated in a vicious circle which more and more threatens the top executives’ well-being, performance, and family life. In summary, considering the related variables of top executives’ work-family balance, we find support for our prediction that different configurations of top executives’ satisfaction, functioning, and role conflict are highly relevant for individual, work-related, and familyrelated variables. Accordingly, all variables highly differ between different work-family balance types. On the one hand, top executives with higher satisfaction and functioning in at least one life domain and lower conflict between the domains show a more favorable set of

Related Variables of Top Executives’ Work-Family Balance Types

159



individual (i.e., self evaluation, exhaustion, and health), work-related (i.e., commitment, and effectiveness), and family-related (i.e., partners’ life satisfaction and partners’ work-family balance satisfaction) variables. Accordingly, we find one configuration of top executives’ work-family balance which is associated with a highly favorable set of related variables. Most of all, the individual and work-related variables indicated by happy performers reach the best values of all clusters. On the other hand, configurations with lower satisfaction and functioning as well as higher conflict between the domains show less favorable values on all related variables. These results are in line with the scarcity perspective of role theory, which predicts that a conflict-laden involvement in multiple roles is related to reduced individual well-being and work-related performance. Accordingly, we identify one cluster which is associated with a highly unfavorable set of related variables. Specifically, the frustrated strugglers and their life partners indicate the worst scores on all related variables. The three configurations showing middle-range sets of related variables differ concerning their scores on individual, work-related, and family-related variables. On the one hand, the torn integrator shows a more favorable set of work-related variables than the family-focuser. Accordingly, the torn integrators’ emphasis on work life seems to bear fruit in this life domain. On the other hand, the indifferent segmentor and the family-focuser score better on family-related variables than the torn integrator. Thus, their better functioning at home is rewarded by the life partners. Despite these three work-family balance types indicate nearly equal scores on individual variables, there are some tendencies which are worth mentioning. Accordingly, the torn integrator reaches the lowest scores of these three middle-range types on all three individual variables. Thus, the fact of being torn between the two life domains is associated with lower levels of self evaluation and health as well as slightly higher levels of exhaustion. In contrast, the indifferent segmentors’ lower involvement in work issues is associated with slightly better self-worth and health. Furthermore, we find support for another mechanism of work-family linkage by considering related variables of top executives’ work-family balance. Specifically, positive spillover seems to positively influence the happy performers’ family life. Additionally, negative spillover between the work and family domains seems to aggravate the unfavorable situation of the frustrated struggler.

161



6 6.1

Discussion Contribution of the Thesis

This thesis represents a first step towards a theory-based, empirically grounded understanding of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. It offers a conceptualization and operationalization of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance by distinguishing several major facets and constructs constituting these phenomena. To our knowledge, in the existing literature the underlying constructs have not yet been explored holistically and integrated in one investigation. Overall, our findings provide strong support for the existence of different top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance types and the supposed association of these configurations with related variables. These findings appear to have important content-related implications for management research. We structured our research according to the taxonomy development process, presented at the beginning of this thesis (see Figure 2-1). This process consists of a conceptual part, which specifies and conceptualizes the phenomena under study based on theory. The second part of the taxonomy development process is methodological. In this section we first use semistructured interviews to further elaborate on our conceptualizations of the two phenomena under study. Second, we perform cluster analysis techniques to build different top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance types. Accordingly, the contribution of our research is three-fold: content-related (see section 6.1.1), conceptual (see section 6.1.2), and methodological (see section 6.1.3). 6.1.1 Content-Related Contribution From a content-related perspective, our research provides an approach to the reduction of complexity of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance by developing two taxonomies. As proposed in the literature, we structure these highly complex areas by applying a configurational approach, which provides a framework for describing complex organizational phenomena (e.g., Doty/Glick 1994; Ketchen et al. 1997; Meyer/Allen/Smith 1993). Concerning top executives’ work relationship, prior research has studied selected top executives’ job-related demands (e.g., Ohlott/Ruderman/McCauley 1994; Sanders/Carpenter 1998) and resources (e.g., Carmeli 2005; Lee/Ashforth 1996). Concerning the balance

162

Discussion



between work and family, very little research has investigated this interplay at a top executive level (e.g., Delbecq/Friedlander 1995; Drew/Murtagh 2005; Judge/Boudreau/Bretz 1994). Prior research has investigated selected issues such as job and life attitudes (e.g., Judge/Boudreau/Bretz 1994) and strategies for personal and family renewal (Delbecq/Friedlander 1995). However, to our knowledge, there has been no integrative research that considers a theoretically grounded broad range of the facets underlying the two phenomena under study. To close this gap, this thesis considers top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance holistically with all facets. The taxonomies developed here, are able to structure and categorize the highly complex field of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. Concerning top executives’ work relationship, four homogeneous configurations are identified. These configurations consist of different combinations of top executives’ job-related demands and resources. The dominant characteristic of the internally driven enjoyer is a high internal drive to perform. Fortunately, high job-related demands are buffered by relatively high resources, in particular, job involvement and enjoyment. While the internally driven enjoyer is mainly driven by internal demands, the externally driven workaholic is additionally driven by an extreme organizational pressure to perform. In addition, these top executives lack important job-related resources, and for this reason represent the least favorable configuration of top executives’ work relationship. In contrast, the most favorable configuration is represented by the balanced selfmanager, who is faced with low internal and external job-related demands, and has high jobrelated resources available, especially self-management and ability to delegate. The indifferent also shows relatively low scores on job-related demands. But unfortunately, this top executive lacks in job-related resources to cope with potential requirements at work. Concerning top executives’ work-family balance, we identify five homogeneous work-family balance types based on different combinations of top executives’ satisfaction, functioning and work-family conflict. The torn integrator strongly mixes the two domains, which is accompanied by conflicts between work and family life. In contrast, the indifferent segmentor strongly separates his family life from work and experiences low levels of work-family conflict. But the emotionless attitude of this work-family balance type toward work is coupled with moderate levels of work satisfaction and personal accomplishment. The happy performer is fully concentrated on and involved in his work role, which is accompanied by high levels of satisfaction and personal accomplishment. In contrast, the family-focuser engages to a high extent in his family life, neglecting to some extent his demanding work role. Finally, the frustrated struggler engages enormously in his work role and at the same time neglects his family, leaving him dissatisfied with his whole life. Furthermore, our research develops taxonomies that describe different types of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance as they occur in practice. This finding chal-

Contribution of the Thesis

163



lenges stereotypes that are often published about top executives (e.g., Brenner/Tomkiewicz/ Schein 1989; Cooper/Kirkcaldy 1995; Duehr/Bono 2006). Our taxonomies reveal significant variation experienced by top executives in job-related demands and resources on the one hand and the interplay of work and family life on the other hand. Thus, according to our findings, caution is warranted when making general statements about the work relationship or workfamily balance of top executives. A further content-related contribution of the thesis is the inclusion of psychological and behavioral constructs regarding top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. As prior research on top executives has largely focused on demographic variables, more recent research advises the investigation of psychological characteristics (Hambrick 2007). Despite the fact that information on psychometric characteristics are hard to obtain from top executives (Hambrick 2007), and in contrast to the majority of existing studies on top executives, we investigate psychological and behavioral constructs instead of the commonly used demographical characteristics. We are convinced that only these psychological and behavioral constructs are able to describe the relationship of top executives to their work and the interplay of their work and family life. To our knowledge, this is the first study, which develops and investigates top executive-specific work relationship and work-family balance taxonomies based on psychological and behavioral constructs. Thus, this thesis provides a first step in overcoming the large void of a top executive-specific subjective consideration of work relationship and work-family balance. In addition to the identification of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance types, we investigate to what extent the different configurations differed from each other concerning several related variables. We differentiated between executive-related (top executives’ well-being and performance), family related, and organizational performance variables. In the field of organizational psychology, psychological variables related to a person’s work relationship and work-family balance have been well investigated at the employee level (e.g., Burke 2001; Schaufeli/Bakker 2004; Sonnentag/Zijlstra 2006; Thompson et al. 2004; Van Yperen/Hagedoorn 2003), but performance related variables have been largely neglected. To our knowledge, this is the first study which investigates psychological as well as performance-related variables related to work relationship and work-family balance types at a top executive level. As there has been almost no investigation of the effect of top executives work relationship and work-family balance on performance variables, this contribution of the work is seen as especially important. The results provide evidence that different configurations of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance are associated with more or less favorable sets of related variables. Concerning top executives’ work relationship, different configurations of top executives’ jobrelated demands and resources turned out to be relevant for top executives’ well-being, satis-

164

Discussion



faction and performance. In line with our theoretical considerations, results reveal higher performance-related variables for top executives’ work relationship types with high scores on job-related resources (i.e., the balanced self-manager and the internally driven enjoyer). The most favorable set of related variables is achieved by the balanced self-manager, who possesses high job-related resources and comparatively low job-related demands. In contrast, the least favorable set of related variables is achieved by the externally driven workaholic, who is characterized by low job-related resources and high job-related demands. As predicted by the job demands-resources model (e.g., Bakker/Demerouti 2007; Demerouti et al. 2001; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007a; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007b), this configuration seems to deplete the top executive’s energy and effectiveness. Concerning top executives’ work-family balance, we focus on individual, work-related and family-related variables. On the one hand, the happy performer indicates a highly favorable set of related variables. Thus, the clear emphasis on work life of this work-family balance type is associated with a good individual shape, success at work, and a relatively satisfied partner. This high satisfaction of the happy performers’ life partners is probably a result of a spillover effect between the top executives’ highly rewarding work situation and family life. On the other hand, the frustrated struggler is associated with a highly unfavorable set of related variables. The daily struggle of this work-family balance type leads to a vicious circle which increasingly threatens the top executives’ individual well-being, performance, and family relations. The remaining three configurations show middle-range sets of related variables. Among these, the torn integrator shows a more favorable set of work-related variables but reaches the lowest scores on all individual variables. Accordingly, the emphasis on work life of this work-family balance type seems to bear fruit in the work domain but, at the same time being torn between the two life domains is associated with individual costs. In contrast, the indifferent segmentor and the family-focuser score better on family-related variables. Thus, their better functioning at home is rewarded by their life partners’ satisfaction. Nevertheless, their lower level of concentration on work life brings along some work-related problems. 6.1.2 Conceptual Contribution As our taxonomy is strongly rooted in theory, this thesis also contributes to academic management research from a theoretical perspective. Taxonomies serve the purpose of creating prototypical patterns that reflect reality (e.g., Arthur 1994; Bunn 1993; Cannon/Perreault 1999). For this reduction of complexity, a theoretical foundation is necessary to make the reduction of information comprehensible. However, taxonomy development processes are often exclusively based on empirical data, missing a conceptual grounding of the investigated phenomenon (e.g., Miller 1996). Following recommendations from management literature (e.g., Doty/Glick 1994; Hambrick/Mason 1984; Rich 1992), we develop our taxonomies based on theory. Thereby, we identify the major facets and constructs of our two phenomena drawing

Contribution of the Thesis

165



upon relevant theoretical approaches. Concerning top executives work relationship, we specifically use the job demands-resources model and upper echelons theory to derive relevant job-related demands and resources. Both theories are highly relevant to structure top executives’ job-related demands and resources. Based on the job demands-resources model, we distinguish between job-related demands and resources in order to categorize relevant facets of top executives’ work relationship. Regarding job-related demands, upper echelons theory provides an important contribution by introducing two categories, i.e., internal and external demands. Regarding top executives’ work-family balance, we use the two perspectives of role theory to predict different manners of top executives’ handling of their work and family. Furthermore, with the help of mechanisms of work-family linkage we predict different manners of dealing with the involvement in work and family roles. By considering different configurations of top executives’ work-family balance, we find support for three mechanisms of workfamily linkage. First, segmentation is used by the indifferent segmentor to keep work issues out of home life. Second, accommodation helps the happy performer to fully concentrate on the work role, and the family-focuser to dedicate more engagement to the family domain. Third, with the help of compensation, the frustrated struggler decreases the involvement in family life and tries to seek satisfaction in the work domain. Additionally, the chosen theoretical approaches provide important insight regarding the variables related to different work relationship and work-family balance types. In line with our theoretical reasoning with reference to top executives’ work relationship, our results reveal higher performance-related variables for top executives’ work relationship types with high scores on job-related resources (i.e., attitudes toward work, working style, and coping strategies). In contrast, work relationship types with high scores on job-related demands (i.e., perceived organizational pressure culture and internal drive to perform) show lower scores on the related variables, especially if combined with low scores on job-related resources. As predicted by theory, this configuration seems to deplete the top executive’s energy and effectiveness. Concerning top executives’ work-family balance, top executives with lower satisfaction and functioning in at least one life domain and higher conflict between the domains show a less favorable set of individual (i.e., self evaluation, exhaustion, and health), work-related (i.e., commitment, and effectiveness), and family-related (i.e., partners’ life satisfaction and partners’ work-family balance satisfaction) variables. This result is in line with the scarcity perspective of role theory. Additionally, by considering the variables related to top executives’ work-family balance, we could find evidence for a mechanism of workfamily linkage, specifically positive as well as negative spillover between the life domains. On the one hand, the happy performers’ positive work-related thoughts and feelings apparently spill over into the family domain. On the other hand, negative spillover of thoughts and feelings between the two domains may aggravate the unfavorable situation of the frustrated struggler.

166

Discussion



Furthermore, we introduce the job demands-resources model, role theory, and the mechanisms of work-family linkage to management research. These models are originally rooted in organizational psychology. However, we feel that they provide important insights for the understanding of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. Additionally, this thesis provides an empirical verification of recent developments in upper echelons theory (Hambrick 2007; Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a): First, we investigate the role of internal and external job-related demands in the context of top executive performance. Second, we focus on psychometric variables, trying to “open up the black box” (Hambrick 2007, p. 337) of the psychological processes of top executives at their workplace to a certain extent. In doing so, we distinguish between job-related demands and resources as major categories to describe different types of top executives’ work relationship. Finally, we find support for the theoretical prediction of upper echelons theory that job-related resources of top executives become especially important, if the top executive is faced with high job-related demands. This configuration is represented by the internally driven enjoyer, who shows better well-being and performance variables than the externally driven workaholic. This finding is explained by the combination of high job-related demands with high job-related resources, the latter helping the top executives to cope with the former. In contrast, the externally driven workaholic experiences comparable high job-related demands, but does not have the advantage of high resources. To summarize, as predicted by upper echelons theory, high personal job-related resources are beneficial to top executives’ performance, while top executives’ work relationship types with high scores on job-related demands show lower performance variables, if not buffered by high resources. 6.1.3 Methodological Contribution From a methodological perspective, some characteristics of the thesis are worth mentioning. First, we use a multi-method approach, referred to as triangulation (e.g., Homburg/Schilke/ Reimann 2009; Jick 1979; Scandura/Williams 2000). Specifically, we conduct two separate studies in order to develop our taxonomy of top executives’ work relationship and workfamily balance. Study one is designed as a qualitative study based on personal semi-structured interviews, in order to categorize and more deeply understand the phenomenon under investigation. The qualitative approach is necessary to first structure the field, as to our knowledge there hardly exists any top executive-specific research on work relationship and work-family balance. Study two samples quantitative data with the means of a survey instrument, which delivers quantitative data. The multi-method approach allows us to first explore the field of study through the personal interaction with top executives, and then verify and investigate the identified facets and constructs of top executives’ work relationship in a quantitative manner. Such a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies is highly recommended in

Contribution of the Thesis

167



literature (e.g., Casper et al. 2007; Jick 1979; Ruderman et al. 2002; Scandura/Williams 2000). An additional form of triangulation is the multi-sample approach (e.g., Anderson 1987; Anderson/Narus 1990; Bagozzi/Youjae/Phillips 1991; Campbell/Fiske 1959; Jick 1979; Knudsen/Ducharme/Roman 2009) used in our quantitative study. Specifically, we gather dyadic data from top executives and their life partners. This dyadic approach is considered to be highly important as top executives themselves could be motivated to give a distorted image of the reality. Many top executives are known to be very good in impression management, often denying their own weaknesses or problems (e.g., Carter 2006; Gardner/Avolio 1998; Gardner/ Martinko 1988). Other managers may exaggerate their work-related burden, always wanting to appear very occupied and busy. To address this problem, we additionally assess top executive well-being, satisfaction, and personal accomplishment based on life partner data. The life partners are assumed to rate the work-related stress of the top executives without the need for whitewashing, impression management or exaggeration. Together, these two sources of information provide a comprehensive picture of top executives’ well-being, satisfaction and performance variables. Finally, a further interesting characteristic of this thesis relates to the uniqueness of its sample. In this thesis, we use a pure top executive sample in order to assess top executives’ work relationship. The access to large numbers of top executives is considered highly difficult (Hambrick 2007). Nevertheless, we choose to address top executives themselves, complemented by information of their life partners. Top executives’ work and family life as well as related psycho-social and performance variables must be experienced or perceived by the affected individual him or herself (Hambrick/Finkelstein/Mooney 2005a). In addition, these are highly sensitive and private topics. Thus, top executives’ themselves are considered to be the most appropriate informants on their own work relationship and work-family balance. Furthermore, they are a competent source of firm-level information (Norburn/Birley 1988). Because of the reasons outlined above, we complement the measurement of top executives’ well-being, satisfaction, personal accomplishment, and family-related variables with the additional ratings of life partners. 6.1.4 Implications for Business Practice Beside the so far discussed wide range of content-related, conceptual, and methodological contributions to existing research, our results have important implications for business practice. “Too often, organizational rewards are won at the expense of personal lives. But both top executives and their firms could benefit from a more balanced approach to work and life” (Kofodimos 1990, p. 58). For the achievement of this goal, our work provides important results which can be used to support top executives and their companies to ameliorate top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance. Specifically, we have shown that there

168

Discussion



are more or less favorable configurations of top executives’ work relationship and workfamily balance. Regarding top executives’ work relationship, on the one hand, a high amount of job-related demands can severely impair top executives’ well-being, satisfaction, and performance. Especially high external job-related demands are detrimental to the variables related with top executives’ work relationship. Thus, companies should appreciate that their organizational pressure culture as an external job-related demand can impede top executives and consequently their organizational performance. On the other hand, a high amount of jobrelated resources was shown to be beneficial for top executives’ well-being, satisfaction, and performance. These resources are even useful to buffer the detrimental effects of high jobrelated demands. Accordingly, companies can increase their top executives’ well-being, satisfaction, and performance by supporting the development of high job-related resources. The importance of personal job-related resources proven in this thesis also has implications for the selection and promotion of future top executives. As “recruiting for leadership positions presumably draws from a smaller pool of qualified applicants, which may increase the costs of successfully identifying a new leader” (Knudsen/Ducharme/Roman 2009, p. 84), it is of high importance to be aware of the applicants’ characteristics on which the selection should be based. As personal job-related resources like positive attitudes toward work and control strategies are deeply grounded in an individual’s personality, they are only moderately shapeable (Carver/Scheier 2007). Thus, companies should search for future top executives who are equipped with these important job-related resources. In contrast, work-related skills like selfmanagement and ability to delegate are more easily shapeable (Carver/Scheier 2007). Accordingly, companies can support the extension of top executives’ job-related resources by giving them opportunities to increase their work-related skills. A useful and popular method for this purpose of personal development is top executives’ personal coaching (e.g., Nyman/Thach 2009; Peters 2009). Thus, companies should aim to increase top executives’ job-related resources. This could promote energy and performance and diminish job-related demands in order to prevent exhaustion and decreasing performance. In this sense, like stated in the introduction of this thesis, top executives’ work relationship is not only a private issue of top executives but a company issue as well. A top executives’ work relationship has been shown to be critical for top executives’ well-being, satisfaction, and performance and thus is a social responsibility and of economic interest to the company. Hence, the job demands-resources model and its implications offer a valuable heuristic tool for human resource management efforts to promote the optimal functioning, motivation, and flourishing of top executives. The results of this thesis show that besides top executives’ work relationship, their workfamily balance is related to top executives’ performance. Thus, companies should not limit their view on the first perspective of this thesis concerning their top executives’ work rela-

Limitations and Future Research

169



tionship. Additionally, companies should also consider the second perspective taken in this thesis and support their top executives’ work-family balance in order to enhance their performance. But often “organizations pressure managers to focus a great deal of energy on work and reward them for doing so” (Kofodimos 1990, p. 59). But an overly high investment in work not only does harm to the top executives’ well-being and to the satisfaction of their families, but also endangers the top executives’ performance and thus also that of the company (e.g., Graves/Ohlott/Ruderman 2007; Shelton/Danes/Eisenman 2008). Furthermore, top executives’ attitudes toward work-family issues are not only relevant for their own work-family balance and the satisfaction of their families. Additionally, top executives’ support is critical to the success of work-life balance initiatives at the employee level (e.g., Tombari/Spinks 1999; Watkins 1995). This support of top executives is of high importance as companies have to undergo a fundamental culture shift that recognizes the legitimacy of work-family issues (Parasuraman/Greenhaus 1997). This culture shift is of high importance, as balancing work and family has overtaken benefits and compensation as a key factor in employee satisfaction. Consequently, work-family balance is also a key concern for organizations in attracting and retaining high-quality professional staff (Lobel 1999). Thus, workfamily problems not only affect individuals and their families, but also adversely affect their employers and the success of their organizations. Accordingly, difficulties in managing work and family life have been shown to negatively impact organizational performance (Shelton/ Danes/Eisenman 2008). Hence, the responsibility for developing and implementing effective ways of establishing work-family balance should be shared by organizations and their top executives. Such a culture shift makes it possible to change the deeply held organizational beliefs, values, and assumptions regarding employees’ needs for balanced work-family lives and is critical to the success of implementing various work-family benefits and policies (Allen 2001; Thompson/Beauvais/Lyness 1999). But top executives’ views on the work-life balance culture of their company are biased by their typically long working hours (Hogarth/Hasluck/Pierre 2001). Accordingly, top executives who value and take care of their own work-family balance are more likely to help their employees maintain a balance between work and family (Lewison 2006). Thus, if top executives are enabled to achieve a good work-family balance, this is beneficial for the top executives and their families, for their subordinates, as well as for the companies they are leading.

6.2

Limitations and Future Research

Being one of the first investigations on top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance types, our findings must be considered in the context of several limitations that should be overcome by future studies. Thus, in this section we would like to provide further ideas for approaches to future research in this area.

170

Discussion



First, future research should conduct an in depth analysis of structural linkages of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance types. This would include analyses of moderating effects, for example, the effect of environmental uncertainty (e.g., Duncan 1972; Li 1998) not addressed in this thesis. Second, future research should assume a longitudinal perspective and measure configurations at different times. While our research is based on a static design, a longitudinal analysis of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance could shed a valuable light on potential changes in top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance types over the course of time. For example, a young and highly ambitious internally driven enjoyer could perhaps change with more experience and cool-headedness in the job to a balanced selfmanager. In this context, causes for changes in top executives’ work relationship and workfamily balance types should be investigated. These results could bring about recommendations for top executives and their companies on how to develop a more positive and effective work relationship and work-family balance. Third, our cross-sectional design impedes us from making causal inferences. Thus, it is important to interpret the results with caution, especially with respect to causality. Therefore, we cannot exclude, for instance, that top executives report a good work relationship because of their high level well-being and performance and not vice versa. Furthermore, we are aware that relationships between work and family constructs cannot be ultimately designated without a specification of their causal structures (e.g., Frone/Russell/Cooper 1994; Near 1984; Near/Rice/Hunt 1980). A longitudinal design could overcome this shortcoming by analyzing the influence of top executives work relationship and work-family balance on related variables over time. As our study, like most existing studies, has been cross-sectional, we can not determine the direction of causality, i.e. whether multiple roles lead to increased well-being, or whether top executives with higher levels of well-being are more likely to successfully adopt both work and private roles. Alternatively, it may be the degree of complexity of roles, in terms of an individual’s investment and involvement in that role, which is important, rather than purely the quantity of roles an individual occupies (Cooke/Rousseau 1984). In this context, the role of a top executive is likely to create greater and more complex demands than other work roles (e.g., Batt/Valcour 2003; Kets de Vries 1994). Fourth, our performance measures are mainly based on subjective data, obtained from top executives and their life partners. Although we have checked and proven the correlation of these subjective measures with some objective indicators of organizational performance, future research could use additional objective data in order to measure top executive as well as organizational performance (Bakker/Demerouti 2007). Top executives’ work relationship could for example have some effects on client satisfaction, the ability to attract and retain essential employees, the market share or the profitability of the company.

Limitations and Future Research

171



Fifth, despite the fact that our quantitative study included life partner ratings for measuring related variables, we built the taxonomies by using only the self-report ratings of the top executives. This increases the possibility of contamination of the reported relationship because of common-method variance (Podsakoff et al. 2003; Podsakoff/Organ 1986). Additionally, in future research it could be advantageous to validate the top executives’ subjective ratings of their work relationship and work-family balance with objective measures of their work and family behaviors. Furthermore, it would be interesting to learn how a top executive’s work relationship affects risk taking, decision making and other forms of important strategic behavior. Additionally, diverging top executives’ work relationship could have an effect on the work behavior and performance of the subordinates who work with them. It is known that positive and negative feelings can spread throughout a working group via emotional contagion (e.g., Barsade 2002; Bartel/Saavedra 2000). In addition, the charisma and behavior of top executives is known to influence subordinates’ health, motivation, and performance (e.g., Gilbreath/Benson 2004; Lowe/Galen Kroeck 1996). Finally, the presented thesis is based on data of top executives working in a single country. A multi-national sample would offer the possibility to compare top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance in different countries and to study the influence of cultural characteristics. Perhaps additional work relationship types could be detected and indications of the homogeneity of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance within different countries could be found. Accordingly, work-family balance may be perceived more positively for top executives in certain cultures and thus may be easier to achieve (Lyness/Judiesch 2008). This thesis of top executives’ work relationship and work-family balance thus represents a highly interesting and promising configurational approach to a better understanding of the behavior and performance of top executives. This thesis indicates that there are different types of work relationship and work-family balance, leading to diverging levels of top executive and organizational performance. However, there is much more to be learned about the work relationship and work-family balance of top executives and their effects on individual wellbeing and top executive as well as organizational performance. Thus, a fruitful area of research on top executives between the poles of work and family waits for organizational and management scholars.

173



References Agle, B. R./Nagarajan, N. J./Sonnenfeld, J. A./Srinivasan, D. (2006), Does CEO Charisma Matter? An Empirical Analysis of the Relationships among Organizational Performance, Environmental Uncertainty, and Top Management Team Perceptions of CEO Charisma, Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1, 161-174. Akhmedov, A./Bessonova, E./Cherkshin, I./Denisova, I./Grishina, E./Nekipelov, D. (2004), Wto Accession and the Labor Market: Estimations for Russia, Moscow. Allan, C./O'Donnell, M./Peetz, D. (1999), More Tasks, Less Secure, Working Harder: Three Dimensions of Labor Utilization, Journal of Industrial Relations, 41, 4, 519-535. Allen, N. J./John, P. M. (1990), The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1, 1-18. Allen, T. D. (2001), Family-Supportive Work Environments: The Role of Organizational Perceptions, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435. Allen, T. D./Herst, D. E. L./Bruck, C. S./Sutton, M. (2000), Consequences Associated with Work-to-Family Conflict: A Review and Agenda for Future Research, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308. Allgood, S./Farrell, K. A. (2003), The Match between CEO and Firm, Journal of Business, 76, 2, 317-341. Alper, S./Tjosvold, D./Law, K. S. (2000), Conflict Management, Efficacy, and Performance in Organizational Teams, Personnel Psychology, 53, 3, 625-642. Altrichter, H./Posch, P./Somekh, B. (1996), Teachers Investigate Their Work: An Introduction to the Methods of Action Research, London. Amason, A. C. (1996), Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1, 123-148. Anderson, J. C. (1987), An Approach for Confirmatory Measurement and Structural Equation Modeling of Organizational Properties, Management Science, 33, 4, 525. Anderson, J. C./Gerbing, D. W. (1988), Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 3, 411-423. Anderson, J. C./Narus, J. A. (1990), A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships, Journal of Marketing, 54, 1, 42-58. Arabie, P./Hubert, L. (1994), Cluster Analysis in Marketing Research, in: Bagozzi, R. P. (Ed.), Advanced Methods of Marketing Research, 160-179. Armstrong, J. S./Overton, T. S. (1977), Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 14, 3, 396-402. Arthur, J. B. (1994), Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 3, 670-687. Aryee, S./Fields, D./Luk, V. (1999), A Cross-Cultural Test of a Model of the Work-Family Interface, Journal of Management, 25, 4, 491-511. Aryee, S./Luk, V./Leung, A./Lo, S. (1999), Role Stressors, Interrole Conflict, and WellBeing: The Moderating Effect of Spousal Support and Coping Behavior among Employed Parents in Hong-Kong, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 259-278.

174

References



Aryee, S./Srinivas, E. S./Tan, H. H. (2005), Rhythms of Life: Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Balance in Employed Parents, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1, 132146. Ashforth, B. E./Humphrey, R. H. (1993), Emotional Labor in Service Roles: The Influence of Identity, Academy of Management Review, 18, 88-115. Ashforth, B. E./Kreiner, G. E./Fugate, M. (2000), All in a Day's Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions, Academy of Management Review, 25, 472-191. Backhaus, K./Erichson, B./Plinke, W./Weiber, R. (2006), Multivariate Analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung, 11th Edition, Berlin. Bagozzi, R./Baumgartner, H. (1994), The Evaluation of Structural Equation Models and Hypothesis Testing, in: Bagozzi, R. (Ed.), Principles of Marketing Research, 386-442. Bagozzi, R./Yi, Y. (1988), On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 1, 74-97. Bagozzi, R. P./Youjae, Y./Phillips, L. W. (1991), Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 3, 421-458. Bailyn, L. (1977), Accommodation of Work to Family: An Analysis of Couples with Two Careers, Sloan Working Papers, http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1922 (accessed 14/04/2009). Bakker, A. B./Demerouti, E. (2007), The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 3, 309-328. Bakker, A. B./Demerouti, E./Boer, E. D./Schaufeli, W. B. (2003a), Job Demands and Job Resources as Predictors of Absence Duration and Frequency, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 341-356. Bakker, A. B./Demerouti, E./Euwema, M. C. (2005), Job Resources Buffer the Impact of Job Demands on Burnout, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170-180. Bakker, A. B./Demerouti, E./Schaufeli, W. B. (2002), Validation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory - General Survey: An Internet Study, Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 15, 3, 245-260. Bakker, A. B./Demerouti, E./Schaufeli, W. B. (2003), Dual Processes at Work in a Call Centre: An Application of the Job Demands-Resources Model, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 12, 4, 393-417. Bakker, A. B./Demerouti, E./Taris, T. W./Schaufeli, W. B./Schreurs, P. J. G. (2003b), A Multigroup Analysis of the Job Demands-Resources Model in Four Home Care Organizations, International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 1, 16-38. Bakker, A. B./Demerouti, E./Verbeke, W. (2004), Using the Job Demands-Resources Model to Predict Burnout and Performance, Human Resource Management, 43, 1, 83-104. Bantel, K./Jackson, S. (1989), Top Management and Innovations in Banking: Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference?, Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107124. Barnett, R. C. (1998), Toward a Review and Reconceptualization of the Work/Family Literature, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124, 125-182. Barnett, R. C./Gareis, K. C. (2006), Role Theory Perspectives on Work and Family, in: PittCatsouphes, M./Kossek, E. E./Sweet, S. A. (Ed.), The Work and Family Handbook: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Methods, and Approaches, 209-222. Barnett, R. C./Hyde, J. S. (2001), Women, Men, Work, and Family, American Psychologist, 56, 10, 781. Barnett, R. C./Marshall, N. L./Singer, J. D. (1992), Job Experiences over Time, Multiple Roles, and Women's Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 62, 4, 634-644.

References

175



Barsade, S. G. (2002), The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and Its Influence on Group Behavior, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 4, 644-675. Barsade, S. G./Ward, A. J./Turner, J. D. R./Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000), To Your Heart's Content: A Model of Affective Diversity in Top Management Teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 4, 802-836. Bartel, C. A./Saavedra, R. (2000), The Collective Construction of Work Group Moods, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 2, 197-231. Bartolomé, F. (1983), The Work Alibi: When It’s Harder to Go Home, Harvard Business Review, 61, 2, 67-75. Bartolomé, F./Evans, P. A. L. (1980), Must Success Cost So Much?, Harvard Business Review, 58, 137-148. Baruch, Y. (1999), Response Rate in Academic Studies - a Comparative Analysis, Human Relations, 52, 4, 421-438. Bass, B. M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership, 3rd Edition, New York. Batt, R./Valcour, P. M. (2003), Human Resources Practices as Predictors of Work-Family Outcomes and Employee Turnover, Industrial Relations, 42, 2, 189-220. Beatty, C. A. (1996), The Stress of Managerial and Professional Women: Is the Price Too High?, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 3, 233-251. Becker, J. (1999), Marktorientierte Unternehmensführung. Messung - Determinanten - Erfolgsauswirkungen, Wiesbaden. Bedeian, A. G./Mossholder, K. W./Touliatos, J. (1986), Individual Propensities for Emotional Supportiveness within a Dual Career Context: Work and Non-Work Reactions, International Journal of Manpower, 7, 4, 7-12. Bewick, V./Cheek, L./Ball, J. (2004), Statistics Review 9: One-Way Analysis of Variance, Crit Care, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=420045 (accessed 12/05/2009). Beynon, H./Grimshaw, D./Rubery, J./Ward, K. (2002), Managing Employment Change: The New Realities of Work, New York. Bigley, G. A./Wiersema, M. F. (2002), New CEOs and Corporate Strategic Refocusing: How Experience as Heir Apparent Influences the Use of Power, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 4, 707-727. Bingham, J. B./Boswell, W. R./Boudreau, J. W. (2005), Job Demands and Job Search among High-Level Managers in the United States and Europe, Group & Organization Management, 30, 6, 653-681. Black, T. R. (1999), Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA. Bliese, P. D. (2000), Within-Group Agreement, Non- Independence, and Reliability: Implications for Data Aggregation and Analysis, in: Klein, K. J./Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Ed.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, 349–381. Boeker, W. (1997), Strategic Change: The Influence of Managerial Characteristics and Organizational Growth, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1, 152-170. Boles, J. S./Johnston, M. W./Hair, J. F. J. (1997), Role Stress, Work-Family Conflict and Emotional Exhaustion: Inter-Relationships and Effects on Some Work-Related Consequences, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, XVII, 1, 11-28. Bond, J. T./Galinsky, E./Swanberg, J. E. (1998), The 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce, New York.

176

References



Bond, J. T./Thompson, C. A./Galinsky, E./Prottas, D. (2003), Highlights of the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce, New York. Boone, C./Van Olffen, W./Van Witteloostuijn, A./De Brabander, B. (2004), The Genesis of Top Management Team Diversity: Selective Turnover among Top Management Teams in Dutch Newspaper Publishing, 1970-94, Academy of Management Journal, 47, 5, 633-656. Boudreau, J. W./Boswell, W. R. (2001), Effects of Personality on Executive Career Success in the United States and Europe, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 53-81. Brenner, O. C./Tomkiewicz, J./Schein, V. E. (1989), The Relationship between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics Revisited, Academy of Management Journal, 32, 3, 662-669. Brigham, K. H./De Castro, J. O./Shepherd, D. A. (2007), A Person-Organization Fit Model of Owner-Managers' Cognitive Style and Organizational Demands, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31, 1, 29-51. Broadhead, R. S. (1980), Multiple Identities and the Process of Their Articulation: The Case of Medical Students and Their Private Lives, Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 3, 171-191. Brown, A. D./Starkey, K. (2000), Organizational Identity and Learning: A Psychodynamic Perspective, Academy of Management Review, 25, 1, 102-120. Brown, S. L./Booth, A. (2002), Stress at Home, Peace at Work: A Test of the Time Bind Hypothesis, Social Science Quarterly, 83, 4, 905-920. Buergin, D. (2000), The Principles of Compensation and Pain as Organizing Factors of the Psychic Apparatus, in: Klitzing, K./Tyson, P./Buergin, D. (Ed.), Psychoanalysis in Childhood and Adolescence, 144-153. Bunn, M. D. (1993), Taxonomy of Buying Decision Approaches, Journal of Marketing, 57, 1, 38-56. Burchielli, R./Bartram, T./Thanacoody, R. (2008), Work-Family Balance or Greedy Organizations?, Industrial Relations, 63, 1, 108-133. Burke, R. J. (2000), Workaholism among Women Managers: Personal and Workplace Correlates, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 5/6, 520. Burke, R. J. (2001), Organizational Values, Work Experiences, and Satisfactions among Managerial and Professional Women, Journal of Management Development, 20, 4, 346. Burke, R. J./Greenglass, E. (1987), Work and Family, in: Cooper, C. L./Robertson, I. T. (Ed.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 273-320. Burke, R. J./Richardsen, A. M./Mortinussen, M. (2004), Workaholism among Norwegian Managers Work and Well-Being Outcomes, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 5, 459-470. Bushman, R. M./Indejejikian, R. J./Smith, A. (1996), CEO Compensation: The Role of Individual Performance Evaluation, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21, 161-193. Butler, A. B./Grzywacz, J. G./Bass, B. L./Linney, K. D. (2005), Extending the DemandsControl Model: A Daily Diary Study of Job Characteristics, Work-Family Conflict and Work-Family Facilitation, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 78, 2, 155-169. Caligiuri, P. M./Cascio, W. F. (1998), Can We Send Her There? Maximizing the Success of Western Women on Global Assignments, Journal of World Business, 33, 4, 394. Calinski, T./Harabasz, J. (1974), A Dendrite Method for Cluster Analysis, Communications in Statistics, 3, 1-27. Campbell, D. T./Fiske, D. W. (1959), Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56, 2, 81-105.

References

177



Campbell, J. P. (1990), The Role of Theory in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, in: Dunnette, M. D./Hough, L. M. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 39-74. Campion, M. A./Medsker, G. J./Higgs, A. C. (1993), Relations between Work Group Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective Work Groups, Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850. Cannella, A. A./Holcomb, T. R. (2005), A Multi-Level Analysis of the Upper-Echelons Model, Bingley, UK. Cannon, J. P./Perreault, W. D. J. (1999), Buyer-Seller Relationships in Business Markets, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 36, 4, 439-460. Caplan, R. O./Cobb, S./French, J. R./Van Harrison, R./Pinneau, S. R. (1975), Job Demands and Worker Health: Main Effects and Occupational Differences, Washington, DC: US. Carlson, D. S./Kacmar, K. M./Wayne, J. H./Grzywacz, J. G. (2006), Measuring the Positive Side of the Work-Family Interface: Development and Validation of a Work-Family Enrichment Scale, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131-164. Carmeli, A. (2005), Exploring Determinants of Job Involvement: An Empirical Test among Senior Executives, International Journal of Manpower, 26, 5, 457-472. Carpenter, M. A./Fredrickson, J. W. (2001), Top Management Teams, Global Strategic Posture, and the Moderating Role of Uncertainty, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 3, 533-545. Carpenter, M. A./Geletkanycz, M. A./Sanders, W. M. G. (2004), Upper Echelons Research Revisited: Antecedents, Elements, and Consequences of Top Management Team Composition, Journal of Management, 30, 6, 749-778. Carter, S. M. (2006), The Interaction of Top Management Group, Stakeholder, and Situational Factors on Certain Corporate Reputation Management Activities, Journal of Management Studies, 43, 5, 1145-1176. Carver, C./Scheier, M. (2007), Perspectives on Personality, 6th Edition, Boston. Casper, W. J./Bordeaux, C./Eby, L. T./Lockwood, A./Lambert, D. (2007), A Review of Research Methods in Io/Ob Work--Family Research, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1, 28-43. Casper, W. J./Fox, K. E./Sitzmann, T. M./Landy, A. L. (2004), Supervisor Referrals to WorkFamily Programs, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 2, 136-151. Champoux, J. E. (1978), Perceptions of Work and Nonwork: A Reexamination of the Compensatory and Spillover Models, Socialogy of Work and Occupations, 5, 402-422. Chandola, T./Kuper, H./Singh-Manoux, A./Bartley, M./Marmot, M. (2004), The Effect of Control at Home on CHD Events in the Whitehall Ii Study: Gender Differences in Psychosocial Domestic Pathways to Social Inequalitites in CHD, Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1501-1509. Chatterjee, A./Hambrick, D. C. (2007), It's All About Me: Narcissistic Chief Executive Officers and Their Effects on Company Strategy and Performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 3, 351-386. Chen, G./Gully, S. M./Eden, D. (2001), Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale, Organizational Research Methods, 4, 1, 62-83 Chen, Y.-L./Hu, H.-L. (2006), An Overlapping Cluster Algorithm to Provide Non-Exhaustive Clustering, European Journal of Operational Research, 173, 3, 762-780.

178

References



Chen, Z. X./Francesco, A. M. (2003), The Relationship between the Three Components of Commitment and Employee Performance in China, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 490-510. Chew, V. (1976), Uses and Abuses of Duncan's Multiple Range Test, Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society, 89, 251-253. Church, A. H. (1993), Estimating the Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates: A Meta-Analysis, Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 62-79. Church, A. H./Waclawski, J. (1998), The Relationship between Individual Personality Orientation and Executive Leadership Behaviour, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 71, 2, 99-125. Churchill, G. A. J. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, 16, Feb, 64-73. Clark, A. (1997), Job Satisfaction and Gender: Why Are Women So Happy at Work?, Labour Economics, 4, 341-372. Clark, S. C. (2000), Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Balance, Human Relations, 53, 6, 747-770. Clark, S. C. (2002), Communicating across the Work/Home Border, Community, Work and Family, 5, 1, 23-48. Cohen, L./Manion, L. (1986), Research Methods in Education, London. Colquitt, J. A./Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007), Trends in Theory Building and Theory Testing: A Five-Decade Study of the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal, 50, 6, 1281-1303. Cooke, R. A./Rousseau, D. M. (1984), Stress and Strain from Family Roles and Work Role Expectations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 252-260. Cooper, C. L./Kirkcaldy, B. D. (1995), Executive Stereotyping between Cultures: The British Vs. German Manager, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10, 1, 3-6. Cooper, C. L./Payne, R. (1988), Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work, Chichester, UK. Cordes, C. L./Dougherty, T. W. (1993), A Review and an Integration of Research on Job Burnout, Academy of Management Review, 18, 4, 621-656. Cortina, J. M. (1993), What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 1, 98-104. Craen, S. d./Commandeur, J. J. F./Frank, L. E./Heiser, W. J. (2006), Effects of Group Size and Lack of Sphericity on the Recovery of Clusters in K-Means Cluster Analysis, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 2, 127-145. Cronbach, L. J. (1951), Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests, Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. Crossland, C./Hambrick, D. C. (2007), How National Systems Differ in Their Constraints on Corporate Executives: A Study of CEO Effects in Three Countries, Strategic Management Journal, 28, 8, 767-789. Cycyota, C. S./Harrison, D. A. (2006), What (Not) to Expect When Surveying Executives: A Meta-Analysis of Top Manager Response Rates and Techniques over Time, Organizational Research Methods, 9, 2, 133-160. Cyert, R. M./March, J. G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Danna, K./Griffin, R. W. (1999), Health and Well-Being in the Workplace: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature, Journal of Management, 25, 357-384.

References

179



Dau-Schmidt, K. G./Ray, M. C. (2004), The Definition Of "Employee" In American Labor and Employment Law. De Jonge, J./Dormann, C. (2006), Stressors, Resources, and Strain at Work: A Longitudinal Test of the Triple-Match Principle, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 6, 1359-1374. De Lange, A. H./Taris, T. W./Kompier, M. A./Houtman, I. L./Bongers, P. M. (2003), The Very Best of the Millennium: Longitudinal Research and the Demand-Control-(Support) Model, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 282-305. De Ruyter, K./Wetzels, M./Feinberg, R. (2001), Role Stress in Call Centers: Its Effects on Employee Performance and Satisfaction, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 23-35. Deci, E. L./Ryan, R. M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, New York. Deery, S./Iverson, R./Walsh, J. (2002), Work Relationships in Telephone Call Centers: Understanding Emotional Exhaustion and Employee Withdrawal, Journal of Management Studies, 39, 4, 471-496. Delaney, J. T./Huselid, M. A. (1996), The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 4, 949-969. Delbecq, A. L./Friedlander, F. (1995), Strategies for Personal and Family Renewal: How a High-Survivor Group of Executives Cope with Stress and Avoid Burnout, Journal of Management Inquiry, 4, 3, 262-269. Demerouti, E./Geurts, S. (2004), Towards a Typology of Work-Home Interaction Community, Work and Family, 7, 3, 285-309. Demerouti, E./Nachreiner, F./Baker, A. B./Schaufeli, W. B. (2001), The Job DemandsResources Model of Burnout, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3, 499-512. Diener, E./Emmons, R. A./Larsen, R. J./Griffin, S. (1985), The Satisfaction with Life Scale, Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 1, 71-75. Dollinger, M. J./Golden, P. A. (1992), Interorganizational and Collective Strategies in Small Firms: Environmental Effects and Performance, Journal of Management, 18, 4, 695-715. Dolnicar, S. (2002), A Review of Unquestioned Standards in Using Cluster Analysis for DataDriven Market Segmentation, Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/273/ (accessed 18/04/2009). Doty, D. H./Glick, W. H. (1994), Typologies as a Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improved Understanding an Modeling, Academy of Management Review, 19, 2, 230-251. Drew, E./Murtagh, E. M. (2005), Work/Life Balance: Senior Management Champions or Laggards?, Women in Management Review, 20, 4, 262-278. Dubin, R. (1967), Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study of the Central Life Interests of Industrial Workers, in: Smigel, E. (Ed.), Work and Leisure, 143-174. Duda, R. O./Hart, P. E. (1973), Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis, New York. Duehr, E. E./Bono, J. E. (2006), Men, Women, and Managers: Are Stereotypes Finally Changing?, Personnel Psychology, 59, 815-846. Duncan, D. B. (1955), Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests, Biometrics, 11, 1-42. Duncan, R. (1972), Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 313-327. Duxbury, L./Higgins, C. A. (1991), Gender Differences in Work-Family Conflict, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 60-74. Eckenrode, J./Gore, S. (1999), Stress between Work and Family, New York.

180

References



Edelbrock, C. (1979), Comparing the Accuracy of Hierarchical Clustering Algorithms: The Problem of Classifying Everybody, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 367-384. Edwards, J. A. (2001), The Transcription of Discourse, in: Schiffrin, D./Tannen, D./Hamilton, H. E. (Ed.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 321-348. Edwards, J. R./Rothbard, N. P. (1999), Work and Family Stress and Wellbeing: An Examination of Person-Environment Fit in the Work and Family Domains, Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 77, 85–129. Edwards, J. R./Rothbard, N. P. (2000), Mechanisms Linking Work and Family: Clarifying the Relationship between Work and Family Constructs, Academy of Management Review, 25, 178-199. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989a), Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 532-550. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989b), Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-Velocity Environments, Academy of Management Journal, 32, 3, 543-576. Eisenhardt, K. M./Bourgeois, L. J. (1988), Politics of Strategic Decision Making in HighVelocity Environments: Toward a Midrange Theory, Academy of Management Journal, 31, 4, 737-770. Etzion, D./Smokoviti, L. N./Bailyn, L. (1993), A Cross-Cultural Comparison of American, Israeli, and Greek Women Pursuing Technical and Scientific Careers, International Review of Sociology, 1-2, 76-94. Evans, P./Bartolomé, F. (1984), The Changing Pictures of the Relationship between Career and Family, Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5, 9-21. Evers, A./Frese, M./Cooper, C. L. (2000), Revisions and Further Developments of the Occupational Stress Indicator: LISREL Results from Four Dutch Studies, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73, 2, 221-240. F.A.Z.-Institut für Management-, Markt- und Medieninformationen GmbH (2009), Kundenkompass Stress: Aktuelle Bevölkerungsbefragung: Ausmaß, Ursachen und Auswirkungen von Stress in Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main. Falconer, D./Hodgett, R. A. (1999), Why Executives Don’t Respond to Your Survey, 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Atlanta, GA, 279-285. Feyerherm, A./Vick, Y. H. (2005), Generation X Women in High Technology: Overcoming Gender and Generational Challenges to Succeed in the Corporate Environment, Career Development International, 10, 3, 216-227. Fields, J. (2004), America's Families and Living Arrangements: 2003 in: Current Population Reports, Washington. Finkelstein, S. (1992), Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation, Academy of Management Journal, 35, 3, 505-538. Finkelstein, S. (2003), Why Smart Executives Fail and What You Can Learn from Their Mistakes, New York. Finkelstein, S./Boyd, B. K. (1998), How Much Does the CEO Matter? The Role of Managerial Discretion in the Setting of CEO Compensation, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 2, 179-199. Finkelstein, S./Hambrick, D. C. (1990), Top-Management-Team Tenure and Organizational Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Managerial Discretion, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 3, 484-503. Finkelstein, S./Hambrick, D. C. (1996), Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on Organizations, St. Paul.

References

181



Flood, P. C./Hannan, E./Smith, K. G./Turner, T./West, M. A./Dawson, J. (2000), Chief Executive Leadership Style, Consensus Decision Making, and Top Management Team Effectiveness, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 9, 3, 401-420. Flood, P. C./MacCurtain, S./West, M. A. (2001), Effective Top Management Teams, Los Angeles, CA. Folkman, S./Lazarus, R./Dunkel-Schetter, C./DeLongis, A./Gruen, R. (1986), Dynamics of a Stressful Encounter: Cognitive Appraisal, Coping, and Encounter Outcomes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003. Forgy, E. W. (1965), Cluster Analysis of Multivariate Data: Efficiency Vs. Interpretability of Classifications, Biometrics, 21, 768-769. Fornell, C. (1982), A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis Methods, New York. Fornell, C./Larcker, D. F. (1981), Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 18, 1, 39-50. Frone, M. R. (2003), Work-Family Balance, in: Quick, J. C./Tetrick, L. E. (Ed.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, 143–162. Frone, M. R./Russell, M. (1995), Job Stressors, Job Involvement and Employee Health: A Test of Identity Theory, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 68, 1, 111. Frone, M. R./Russell, M./Cooper, M. L. (1992), Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Conflict: Testing a Model of the Work-Family Interface, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65-78. Frone, M. R./Russell, M./Cooper, M. L. (1994), Relationship between Job and Family Satisfaction: Causal or Noncausal Covariation?, Journal of Management, 20, 3, 565-579. Frone, M. R./Yardley, J. K./Markel, K. S. (1997), Developing and Testing an Integrative Model of Work-Family Interface, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145-167. Ganster, D. C. (2005), Executive Job Demands: Suggestions from a Stress and DecisionMaking Perspective, Academy of Management Review, 30, 3, 492-502. Garden, A.-M. (1989), Burnout: The Effect of Psychological Type on Research Findings, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 3, 223-234. Gardner, D. G. (1986), Activation Theory and Task Design: An Empirical Test of Several New Predictions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 411-418. Gardner, W. L./Avolio, B. J. (1998), The Charismatic Relationship: A Dramaturgical Perspective, Academy of Management Review, 23, 1, 32-58. Gardner, W. L./Martinko, M. J. (1988), Impression Management in Organizations, Journal of Management, 14, 2, 321-338. Gerbing, D. W./Anderson, J. C. (1988), An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 25, 2, 186-192. Geurts, S./Rutte, C./Peeters, M. (1999), Antecedents and Consequences of Work–Home Interference among Medical Residents, Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1135–1148. Gilbreath, B./Benson, P. G. (2004), The Contribution of Supervisor Behavior to Employee Psychological Well-Being, Work & Stress, 18, 3, 255-266. Gioia, D. A./Pitre, E. (1990), Multiparadigm Perspectives on Theory Building, Academy of Management Review, 15, 4, 584-602. Glomb, T. M./Rotundo, M./Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2004), Emotional Labor Demands and Compensating Wage Differentials, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 4, 700-714.

182

References



Goldstein, R./Ju, N./Leland, H. (2001), An EBIT-Based Model of Dynamic Capital Structure, Journal of Business, 74, 4, 483-512. Goode, W. J. (1960), A Theory of Role Strain, American Sociological Review, 25, 483-496. Gordon, A. D. (1999), Classification, 2nd Edition, Florida. Graebner, M. E./Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004), The Seller's Side of the Story: Acquisition as Courtship and Governance as Syndicate in Entrepreneurial Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 3, 366-403. Graves, L. M./Ohlott, P. J./Ruderman, M. N. (2007), Commitment to Family Roles: Effects on Managers’ Attitudes and Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1, 44-56. Gray, S. R./Cannella, A. A. J. (1997), The Role of Risk in Executive Compensation, Journal of Management, 23, 4, 517. Grayson, K./Rust, R. (2001), Interrater Reliability, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10, 1/2, 71-73. Greenglass, E. R./Burke, R. J./Konarski, R. (1998), Components of Burnout, Resources, and Gender-Related Differences, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 12, 1088-1106. Greenhaus, J./Singh, R. (2003), Work-Family Linkages, a Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia Entry, Chestnut Hill, MA. Greenhaus, J. H./Beutell, N. J. (1985), Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles, Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88. Greenhaus, J. H./Parasuraman, S. (1999), Research on Work, Family, and Gender: Current Status and Future Directions, in: Powell, G. N. (Ed.), Handbook of Gender and Work, 391-412. Greenhaus, J. H./Powell, G. N. (2006), When Work and Family Are Allies: A Theory of Work–Family Enrichment, Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92. Gregersen, H. B./Black, J. S. (1992), Antecedents to Commitment to a Parent Company and a Foreign Operation, Academy of Management Journal, 35, 1, 65-90. Griffin, R. W./Welsh, A./Moorhead, G. (1981), Perceived Task Characteristics and Employee Performance: A Literature Review, Academy of Management Review, 6, 655-664. Grzywacz, J. G./Marks, N. F. (2000), Reconceptualizing the Work–Family Interface: An Ecological Perspective on the Correlates of Positive and Negative Spillover between Work and Family, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126. Guillaume, C./Pochic, S. (2009), What Would You Sacrifice? Access to Top Management and the Work-Life Balance, Gender, Work & Organization, 16, 1, 14-36. Gutek, B. A./Searle, S./Klepa, L. (1991), Rational Versus Gender Role Explanations for Work-Family Conflict, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560-568. Hackman, J. R./Oldham, G. R. (1975), Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 2, 159-170. Haines, V. A./JHurblert, J. S./Zimmer, C. (1991), Occupational Stress, Social Support, and the Buffer Hypthesis, Work & Occupations, 18, 212-235. Hair, J. F./Black, B./Babin, B./Anderson, R. E./Tatham, R. L. (2005), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th Edition, New Jersey. Hakanen, J. J./Schaufeli, W. B./Ahola, K. (2008), The Job Demands-Resources Model: A Three-Year Cross-Lagged Study of Burnout, Depression, Commitment, and Work Engagement, Work & Stress, 22, 3, 224-241. Halbesleben, J. R. B./Buckley, M. R. (2004), Burnout in Organizational Life, Journal of Management, 30, 6, 859-879.

References

183



Hall, D. T./Richter, J. R. (1988), Balancing Work Life and Home Life: What Can Organizations Do to Help?, Academy of Management Executive, 2, 213-223. Hambrick, D. C. (1984), Taxonomic Approaches to Studying Strategy: Some Conceptual and Methodological Issues, Journal of Management, 10, 1, 27-41. Hambrick, D. C. (1989), Guest Editor’s Introduction: Putting Top Managers Back in the Strategy Picture, Strategic Management Journal, 10, 5-15. Hambrick, D. C. (2007), Upper Echelons Theory: An Update, Academy of Management Review, 32, 2, 334-343. Hambrick, D. C./D'Aveni, R. A. (1992), Top Team Deterioration as Part of the Downward Spiral of Large Corporate Bankruptcies, Management Science, 38, 10, 1445-1466. Hambrick, D. C./Finkelstein, S. (1987), Managerial Discretion: A Bridge between Polar Views of Organizational Outcomes, Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 369-406. Hambrick, D. C./Finkelstein, S./Mooney, A. C. (2005a), Executive Job Demands: New Insights for Explaining Strategic Decisions and Leader Behaviors, Academy of Management Review, 30, 3, 472-491. Hambrick, D. C./Finkelstein, S./Mooney, A. C. (2005b), Executives Sometimes Lose It, Just Like the Rest of Us, Academy of Management Review, 30, 3, 503-508. Hambrick, D. C./Mason, P. A. (1984), Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers, Academy of Management Review, 9, 2, 193-206. Hambrick, R. C./Geletkanycz, M. A./Fredrickson, J. W. (1993), Top Executive Commitment to the Status Quo: Some Tests of Its Determinants, Strategic Management Journal, 14, 6, 401-418. Hammer, L. B./Colton, C. L./Caubet, S./Brockwood, K. B. (2002), The Unbalanced Life: Work and Family Conflict, in: Thomas, J. C./Hersen, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Mental Health in the Workplace, 83-101. Hattie, J. (1985), Methodology Review: Assessing Unidimensionality of Tests and Items, Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, June, 139-64. Heckscher, C. (1995), White Collar Blues, New York. Helsen, K./Green, P. E. (1991), A Computational Study of Replicated Clustering with an Application to Market Segmentation, Decision Sciences, 22, 5, 1124-1141. Henderson, A. D./Fredrickson, J. W. (1996), Information-Processing Demands as a Determinant of CEO Compensation, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 3, 575-606. Henderson, A. D./Miller, D./Hambrick, D. C. (2006), How Quickly Do CEOs Become Obsolete? Industry Dynamism, CEO Tenure, and Company Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 27, 447-460. Hertz, R./Ferguson, F. I. (1998), Only One Pair of Hands: Ways That Single Mothers Stretch Work and Family Resources, Community, Work & Family, 1, 1, 13-37. Higgins, C. A./Duxbury, L. E./Irving, R. H. (1992), Work-Family Conflict in the Dual-Career Family, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 51, 51-75. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989), Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress, American Psychologist, 44, 513-524. Hobfoll, S. E./Freedy, J. (1993), Conservation of Resources: A General Stress Theory Applied to Burnout, in: Schaufeli, W. B./Maslach, C./Marek, T. (Ed.), Professional Burnout: Recent Developments in Theory and Research, 115-129.

184

References



Hobfoll, S. E./Johnson, R. J./Ennis, N./Jackson, A. P. (2003), Resource Loss, Resource Gain, and Emotional Outcomes among Inner City Women, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 84, 3, 632-643. Hobfoll, S. E./Shirom, A. (2001), Conservation of Resources Theory: Applications to Stress and Management in the Workplace, in: Golembiewski, R. T. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, 57-80. Hochschild, A. (1979), Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575. Hogarth, T./Hasluck, C./Pierre, G. (2001), Work - Life Balance 2000: Results from the Baseline Study, Labour Market Trends, 109, 7, 371-373. Homburg, C./Baumgartner, H. (1995), Bewertung von Kausalmodellen: Bestandsaufnahme und Anwendungsempfehlungen, Marketing-ZFP, 17, 3, 162-176. Homburg, C./Giering, A. (1992), Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung komplexer Konstrukte, Marketing-ZFP, 18, 1, 5-24. Homburg, C./Giering, A. (2001), Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty - an Empirical Analysis, Psychology & Marketing, 18, 1, 43-66. Homburg, C./Jensen, O./Krohmer, H. (2008), Configurations of Marketing and Sales: A Taxonomy, Journal of Marketing, 72, 2, 133-154. Homburg, C./Krohmer, H. (2006), Marketingmanagement, Wiesbaden. Homburg, C./Schilke, O./Reimann, M. (2009), Triangulation von Umfragedaten in der Marketing- und Managementforschung, Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69, 2, 175-195. Hood, J. (2008), The Organization as a Reflection of Its Followership: Servant Leadership as a Model for Leading in the Upper Echelons, Iaquinto, A. L./Fredrickson, J. W. (1997), Top Management Team Agreement About the Strategic Decision Process: A Test of Some of Its Determinants and Consequences, Strategic Management Journal, 18, 1, 63-75. Igbaria, M./Parasuraman, S./Badawy, M. K. (1994), Work Experiences, Job Involvement, and Quality of Work Life among Information Systems Personnel, MIS Quarterly, June, 175201. Jacobs, J. A./Gerson, K. (1997), The Endless Day or Flexible Office? Working Hours, WorkFamily Conflict, and Gender Equity in the Modern Workplace, New York, NY. Jain, A. K./Murty, M. N./Flynn, P. J. (1999), Data Clustering: A Survey, Computing Surveys, 31, 3, 264-333. James, L. R. (1982), Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement, Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 2, 219-229. Janssen, O. (2001), Fairness Perceptions as a Moderator in the Curvilinear Relationships between Job Demands, and Job Performance and Job Satisfaction, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 5, 1039-1050. Jardine, N./Sibson, R. (1971), Mathematical Taxonomy, New York. Jarvis, C. B./Mackenzie, S. B./Podsakoff, P. M./Mick, D. G./Bearden, W. O. (2003), A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199-218. Jehn, K. (1997), A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.

References

185



Jessell, K. A./Madura, J./Martin, A. D. (1996), Determinants of CEO Compensation in Small Publicity-Traded Business, American Business Review, 14, 1, 80-88. Jia Lin, X./Johns, G. (1995), Job Scope and Stress: Can Job Scope Be Too High?, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 5, 1288-1309. Jick, T. D. (1979), Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 4, 602-611. Jones, F./Fletcher, B. C. (1993), An Empirical Study of Occupational Stress Transmission in Working Couples, Human Relations, 46, 881-903. Jones, F./Fletcher, B. C. (1996), Taking Work Home: A Study of Daily Fluctuations in Work Stressors, Effects on Moods and Impacts on Marital Partners, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 69, 1, 89-106. Jöreskog, K. G./Sörbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. , Hillsdale, NJ. Judge, T. A./Bono, J. E./Erez, A./Locke, E. A. (2005), Core Self-Evaluations and Job and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance and Goal Attainment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 2, 257-268. Judge, T. A./Boudreau, J. W./Bretz, R. D. J. (1994), Job and Life Attitudes of Male Executives, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 5, 767-782. Judge, T. A./Cable, D. M./Boudreau, J. W./Bretz Jr, R. D. (1995), An Empirical Investigation of the Predictors of Executive Career Success, Personnel Psychology, 48, 3, 485-519. Judge, T. A./Erez, A./Bono, J. E./Thoresen, C. J. (2003), The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a Measure, Personnel Psychology, 56, 303-331. Judge, T. A./Locke, E. A./Durham, C. C. (1997), The Dispositional Causes of Job Satisfaction: A Core Evaluation Approach, Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188. Judiesch, M. K./Lyness, K. S. (1999), Left Behind? The Impact of Leaves of Absence on Managers' Career Success, Academy of Management Journal, 42, 6, 641-651. Kabanoff, B./O'Brien, G. E. (1980), Work and Leisure: A Task Attributes Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 596-609. Kahn, R. L./Wolfe, D. M./Quinn, R./Snoek, J. D./Rosenthal., R. A. (1964), Organizational Stress, New York. Kaiser, H. F. (1974), An Index of Factorial Simplicity, Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. Kaiser, S./Tuma, T. (2009), Eine Kultur der Sprachlosigkeit, Der Spiegel, 19, 78-82. Kanungo, R. N. (1982), Measurement of Job and Work Involvement, Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 3, 341-349. Karasek, R. A. (1979), Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 2, 285-308. Karasek, R. A./Theorell, T. (1990), Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life, New York, NY. Kasper, H./Meyer, M./Schmidt, A. (2005), Managers Dealing with Work-Family Conflict: An Explorative Analysis, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 5, 440-461. Katz, D./Kahn, R. L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd Edition, New York. Kelly, R./Voydanoff, P. (1985), Work/Family Role Strain among Employed Parents, Family Relations, 34, 367-374. Ketchen, J. D. J./Combs, J. G./Russell, C. J./Shook, C./Dean, M. A./Runge, J./Lohrke, F. T./Naumann, S. E./Haptonstahl, D. E./Baker, R./Beckstein, B. A./Handler, C./Honig,

186

References



H./Lamoureux, S. (1997), Organizational Configurations and Performance: A MetaAnalysis, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1, 223-240. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1989), Leaders Who Self-Destruct: The Causes and Cures, Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 5-17. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1992), Whatever Happened to the Philosopher-King? The Leader's Addiction to Power, Journal of Management Studies, 28, 4, 339-351. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1994), The Leadership Mystique, Academy of Management Executive, 8, 3, 73-89. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1999), Managing Puzzling Personalities: Navigating Between "Live Volcanoes"And "Dead Fish", European Management Journal, 17, 1, 8-19. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2006), The Dangers of Feeling Like a Fake, Harvard Business Review, 84, 128-129. Kets de Vries, M. F. R./Korotov, K. (2007), Creating Transformational Executive Education Programs, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 3, 375-387. King, E. B./de Chermont, K./West, M./Dawson, J. F./Hebl, M. R. (2007), How Innovation Can Alleviate Negative Consequences of Demanding Work Contexts: The Influence of Climate for Innovation on Organizational Outcomes, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 80, 4, 631-645. Kinnear, T. C./Taylor, J. R. (1991), Multivariate Methods in Marketing Research: A Further Attempt at Classification, Journal of Marketing, 34, October, 56-59. Kipnis, D./Schmidt, S. M. (1988), Upward-Influence Styles: Relationship with Performance Evaluations, Salary, and Stress, Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 4, 528-542. Klein, D. J./Verbecke, W. (1999), Autonomic Feedback in Stressful Environments: How Do Individual Differences in Autonomic Feedback Relate to Burnout, Job Performance, and Job Attitudes in Salespeople?, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 6, 911-924. Knight, D./Pearce, C. L./Smith, K. G./Olian, J. D./Sims, H. P./Smith, K. A./Flood, P. (1999), Top Management Team Diversity, Group Process, and Strategic Consensus, Strategic Management Journal, 20, 5, 445-465. Knudsen, H. K./Ducharme, L. J./Roman, P. M. (2009), Turnover Intention and Emotional Exhaustion „at the Top“: Adapting the Job Demands-Resources Model to Leaders of Addiction Treatment Organizations, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 84-95. Kofodimos, J. R. (1990), Why Executives Lose Their Balance, Organizational Dynamics, 19, 1, 58-73. Kossek, E. E./Ozeki, C. (1998), Work-Family Conflict, Policies, and the Job-Life Satisfaction Relationship: A Review and Directions for Organizational Human Resource Research, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139-149. Techniker Krankenkasse (2009), Von der Hausfrau bis zum Manager - Deutschland im Stress, Hamburg. Kuckartz, U. (2001), MAX-QDA Qualitative Data Analysis. Software and Manual, London/Thousand Oaks. Kuiper, F. K./Fisher, L. A. (1975), A Monte Carlo Comparison of Six Clustering Procedures, Biometrics, 31, 777-783. Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Thousand Oaks, California. Lambert, R. A./Larcker, D. F./Weigelt, K. (1993), The Structure of Organizational Incentives, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 3, 438-461.

References

187



Lambert, S. J. (1990), Processes Linking Work and Family: A Critical Review and Research Agenda, Human Relations, 43, 239-257. Lambert, S. J. (2000), Added Benefits: The Link between Work-Life Benefits and Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 801-815. Lappa, K. (1989), More Than 98% of Health Care CEOs Feel Stressed, Hospitals and Health Networks, 63, 18, 50-55. Larson, J. R., Jr. (1989), The Dynamic Interplay between Employees' Feedback-Seeking Strategies and Supervisors' Delivery of Performance Feedback, Academy of Management Review, 14, 408-422. Larwood, L./Falbe, C. M./Kriger, M. P./Miesing, P. (1995), Structure and Meaning of Organizational Vision, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 3, 740-769. Lassiter, D. (2004), Preventing Executive Burnout, Leadership Advantage Newsletter, 3, 1, 1. Lee, C.-F./Zumwalt, J. K. (1981), Associations between Alternative Accounting Profitability Measures and Security Returns, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 16, 1, 7193. Lee, R. T./Ashforth, B. E. (1996), A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Correlates of the Three Dimensions of Job Burnout, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 2, 123-133. Lewis, S./Cooper, C. L. (1999), The Work-Family Research Agenda in Changing Contexts, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 382-393. Lewison, J. (2006), The Work/Life Balance Sheet So Far, Journal of Accountancy, 202, 2, 4549. Li, M., & Simery, R. (1998), The Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism on the Ownership and Performance Relationship, Strategic Management Journal, 19, 169-179. Linder-Pelz, S./Levy, S./Tamir, A./Spenser, T./Epstein, L. M. (1984), A Measure of Family Functioning for Health Care Practice and Research in Israel, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 15, 211-230. Lingard, H./Francis, V. (2005), Does Work-Family Conflict Mediate the Relationship between Job Schedule Demands and Burnout in Male Construction Professionals and Managers?, Construction Management & Economics, 23, 7, 733-745. Lobel, S. A. (1999), Impacts of Diversity and Work-Life Initiatives in Organizations, in: Powell, G. N. (Ed.), Handbook of Gender and Work, 453-474. Locke, E. A./Latham, G. P. (1990), Work Motivation and Satisfaction: Light at the End of the Tunnel, Psychological Science, 1, 4, 220-246. Love, P. E. D./Edwards, D. J. (2005), Taking the Pulse of UK Construction Project Managers' Health: Influence of Job Demands, Job Control and Social Support on Psychological Wellbeing, Engineering Construction & Architectural Management, 12, 1, 88-101. Lovelace, K. J./Manz, C. C./Alves, J. C. (2007), Work Stress and Leadership Development: The Role of Self-Leadership, Shared Leadership, Physical Fitness and Flow in Managing Demands and Increasing Job Control, Human Resource Management Review, 17, 4, 374387. Lowe, K. B./Galen Kroeck, K. (1996), Effectiveness Correlates of Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of the MLQ Literature, Leadership Quarterly, 7, 3, 385-425. Lucier, C./Schuyt, R./Handa, J. (2004), CEO Succession 2003: The Perils Of "Good" Governance, Strategy and Business, 35, 1-17.

188

References



Lyness, K. S./Judiesch, M. K. (2008), Can a Manager Have a Life and a Career? International and Multisource Perspectives on Work-Life Balance and Career Advancement Potential, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 4, 789-805. Lyness, K. S./Thompson, D. E. (1997), Above the Glass Ceiling? A Comparison of Matched Samples of Female and Male Executives, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359-375. MacKenzie, S. B./Podsakoff, P. M./Jarvis, C. B. (2005), The Problem of Measurement Model Misspecification in Behavioral and Organizational Research and Some Recommended Solutions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 4, 710-730. MacQueen, J. (1967), Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations, Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Berkeley, California, 281-297. Madsen, S. R./Hammond, S. C. (2005), The Complexification of Work-Family Conflict Theory: A Critical Analysis, TAMARA: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 4, 1/2, 151-179. Madura, J. (1993), A Proposal for Aligning CEO Compensation with Performance, Human Resource Management Review, 3, 1, 15-28. Mäkikangas, A./Kinnunen, U. (2003), Psychosocial Work Stressors and Well-Being: SelfEsteem and Optimism as Moderators in a One-Year Longitudinal Sample, Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 537-557. March, J. G./Simon, H. A. (1958), Organizations, New York. Marks, M. A./Mathieu, J. E./Zaccaro, S. J. (2001), A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes, Academy of Management Review, 26, 3, 356-376. Marks, S. R. (1977), Multiple Roles and Role Strain: Some Notes on Human Energy, Time and Commitment, American Sociological Review, 42, 6, 921-936. Marks, S. R./MacDermid, S. M. (1996), Multiple Roles and the Self: A Theory of Role Balance, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 417-432. Martins, L. L./Eddleston, K. A./Veiga, J. F. (2002), Moderators of the Relationship between Work-Family Conflict and Career Satisfaction, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 2, 399-409. Maslach, C./Jackson, S. E./Leiter, M. P. (1996), Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual 3rd Edition, Palo Alto, CA. Maslach, C./Schaufeli, W. B./Leiter, M. P. (2001), Job Burnout, Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1, 397-422. May, T. (2001), Open Doors to the Things Executives Know, Computerworld, 35, 15, 25. McKelvey, B. (1975), Guidance for the Empirical Classification of Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 4, 509-525. McLean, R. J./Stuckey, J. A./Barton, D. (1991), Leveraging CEO Time, McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 106-115. McMillan, L. H. W./Brady, E. C./O'Driscoll, M. P./Marsh, N. V. (2002), A Multifaceted Validation Study of Spence and Robbins' (1992) Workaholism Battery, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75, 3, 357-368. Meijman, T. F./Mulder, G. (1998), Psychological Aspects of Workload, in: Drengh, P. J./Thierry, H. (Ed.), Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5-33. Merz, G. R./Sauber, M. H. (1995), Profiles of Managerial Activities in Small Firms, Strategic Management Journal, 16, 7, 551-564.

References

189



Meyer, A. D./Tsui, A. S./Hinings, C. R. (1993), Configurational Approaches to Organizational Analysis, Academy of Management Journal, 36, 6, 1175-1195. Meyer, J. P./Allen, N. J./Smith, C. A. (1993), Commitment to Organizations and Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 4, 538-551. Miles, M./Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Edition, Thousand Oaks. Miller, C. C./Cardinal, L. B./Glick, W. H. (1997), Retrospective Reports in Organizational Research: A Reexamination of Recent Evidence, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1, 189-204. Miller, D. (1996), Configurations Revisited, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 7, 505-512. Miller, D./Droge, C. (1986), Psychological and Traditional Determinants of Structure, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 4, 539-560. Milligan, G. W. (1980), An Examination of the Effect of Six Types of Error Perturbation on Fifteen Clustering Algorithms, Psychometrika, 45, 3, 325-342. Milligan, G. W. (1996), Clustering Validation: Results and Implications for Applied Analyses, in: Arabie, P./Hubert, L./Soete, G. D. (Ed.), Clustering and Classification, 341-375. Milligan, G. W./Cooper, M. C. (1985), An Examination of Procedures for Determining the Number of Clusters in a Data Set, Psychometrika, 50, 159-179. Mills, P. K. (1983), Self-Management: Its Control and Relationship to Other Organizational Properties, Academy of Management Review, 8, 3, 445-453. Minervini, R./Meyer, M./Rourke, L. (2003), Human Capital Management: A Handbook for Sa Managers, Johannesburg. Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mintzberg, H. (1983), Power in and around Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mischel, W. (1977), The Interaction of Person and Situation, in: Magnusson, D./Endler, N. S. (Ed.), Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology, 166-207. Moen, P./Dempster-McClain, D./Williams, R. M. (1992), Successful Aging: A Life-Course Perspective on Women's Multiple Roles and Health, The American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1612-1638. Moen, P./Roehling, P. (2005), The Career Mystique, Lanham, MD. Montgomery, A. J./Peeters, M. C. W./Schaufeli, W. B./Ouden, M. d. (2003), Work-Home Interference among Newspaper Managers: Its Relationship with Burnout and Engagement, Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16, 2, 195-211. Moore, J. E. (2000), Why Is This Happening? A Causal Attribution Approach to Work Exhaustion Consequences, Academy of Management Review, 25, 2, 335-349. Morse, J. M./Richards, L. (2002), Readme First: For a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods, Thousand Oaks. Mowday, R. T./Porter, L. W./Steers, R. M. (1982), Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, New York. Near, J. P. (1984), Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction: Test of a Causal Model, Social Indicators Research, 15, 351 -367. Near, J. P./Rice, R./Hunt, R. (1980), The Relationship between Work and Nonwork Domains: A Review of Empirical Research, Academy of Management Review, 5, 415-429. Netemeyer, R. G./Boles, J. S./McMurrian, R. (1996), Development and Validation of Work Family Conflict and Family - Work Conflict Scales, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 4, 400-410.

190

References



Nieva, V. (1995), Work and Family Linkages, in: Larwood, L./Stromberg, A./Gutek, B. (Ed.), Women and Work: An Annual Review, 162-190. Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1995), Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday Life, Chicago. Noblet, A./Rodwell, J./McWilliams, J. (2001), The Job Strain Model Is Enough for Managers, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 8, 635-649. Noordegraaf, M./Van Der Meulen, M. (2008), Professional Power Play: Organizing Management in Health Care, Public Administration, 86, 4, 1055-1069. Norburn, D./Birley, S. (1988), The Top Management Team and Corporate Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 9, 3, 225-237. Norušis, M. J. (2008), SPSS 16.0 Guide to Data Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd Edition, New York. Nyman, M./Thach, L. (2009), Coaching: A Leadership Development Option, Supervision, 70, 3, 19-22. O’Neil, R./Greenberger, E. (1994), Patterns of Commitment to Work and Parenting: Implications of Role Strain, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 101-112. Ohlott, P. J./Ruderman, M. N./McCauley, C. D. (1994), Gender Differences in Managers' Developmental Job Experiences, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1, 46-67. Olson, D. H./Sprenkle, D. H./Russell, C. S. (1979), Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems: I. Cohesion and Adaptability Dimensions, Family Types, and Clinical Applications, Family Process, 18, 1, 3-28. Olson, U.-J./Manocchio, T. (1991), The Executive on the Couch - a New Approach to Help the Troubled Executive, Management Services, 35, 3, 32-35. Orpen, C. (1979), The Effects of Job Enrichmetn on Employee Satisfaction, Motivation, Involvement, and Performance: A Field Experiment, Human Relations, 32, 3, 189-217. Osterman, P. (2009), The Truth About Middle Management: Who They Are, How They Work, Why They Matter, Harvard. Parasuraman, S./Greenhaus, J. H. (1997), Integrating Work and Family: Challenges and Choices for Changing World, Westport, CT. Parasuraman, S./Greenhaus, J. H./Granrose, C. S. (1992), Role Stressors, Social Support, and Well-Being among Two-Career Couples, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 4, 339356. Paris, H. (1990), Balancing Work and Family Responsibilities: Canadian Employer and Employee Viewpoints, Human Resource Planning, 13, 147-157. Peay, E. R. (1975), Nonmetric Grouping: Clusters and Cliques, Psychometrika, 40, 297-313. Perrewé, P. L./Hochwarterb, W. A./Rossic, A. M./Wallaced, A./Maignane, I./Castrof, S. L./Ralstong, D. A./Westmanh, M./Vollmeri, G./Tangj, M./Wanj, P./Deusenk, C. A. V. (2002), Are Work Stress Relationships Universal? A Nine-Region Examination of Role Stressors, General Self-Efficacy, and Burnout, Journal of International Management, 8, 163-187. Perry-Smith, J. E./Blum, T. C. (2000), Work-Family Human Resource Bundles and Perceived Organizational Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 6, 1107-1117. Peters, H. (2009), The Case for Coaching, Chief Learning Officer, 8, 2, 46-48. Peterson, R. S./Martorana, P. V./Smith, D. B./Owens, P. D. (2003), The Impact of Chief Executive Officer Personality on Top Management Team Dynamics: One Mechanism by

References

191



Which Leadership Affects Organizational Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 5, 795-808. Pierce, J. L./Gardner, D. G./Cummings, L. L./Dunham, R. B. (1989), Organization-Based Self-Esteem: Construct Definition, Measurement, and Validation, Academy of Management Journal, 32, 3, 622-648. Pines, A./Aronson, E./Kafry, D. (1981), Burnout, New York. Piotrkowski, C. (1979), Work and the Family System, New York. Piotrkowski, C. S./Rapoport, R. N./Rapoport, R. (1987), Families and Work, in: Sussman, M./Steinmetz, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 251-283. Pleck, H. (1977), The Work-Family Role System, American Journal of Sociology, 50, 417425. Podsakoff, P. M./MacKenzie, S. B./Jeong-Yeon, L./Podsakoff, N. P. (2003), Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 5, 879-903. Podsakoff, P. M./Organ, D. W. (1986), Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects, Journal of Management, 12, 4, 531-544. Powell, T. C. (1992), Organizational Alignments as Competitive Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, 13, 2, 119-134. Prieto, L. L./Soria, M. S./Matínes, I. M./Schaufeli, W. (2008), Extension of the Job DemandsResources Model in the Prediction of Burnout and Engagement among Teachers over Time, Psicothema, 20, 3, 354-360. Punj, G./Stewart, D. W. (1983), Cluster Analysis in Marketing Research: Review and Suggestions for Application, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 20, 2, 134-148. Quick, J. C./Nelson, D. L./Hurrell, J. J. J. (1997), Preventive Stress Management in Organizations, Washington, DC. Quick, J. C./Nelson, D. L./Quick, J. D. (1987), Successful Executives: How Independent?, Academy of Management Executive, 1, 2, 139-145. Raykov, T. (1997), Estimation of Composite Reliability for Congeneric Measures, Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 2, 173-184. Rice, R. W./Near, J. P./Hunt, R. G. (1980), The Job-Satisfaction/Life-Satisfaction Relationship: A Review of Empirical Research, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 37-64. Rich, P. (1992), The Organizational Taxonomy: Definition and Design, Academy of Management Review, 17, 4, 758-781. Richter, P./Hacker, W. (1998), Belastung und Beanspruchung: Stress, Ermüdung und Burnout im Arbeitsleben, Heidelberg. Riolli, L. (2003), Optimism and Coping as Moderators of the Relation between Work Resources and Burnout in Information Service Workers, International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 235–252. Rodham, K. (2000), Role Theory and the Analysis of Managerial Work: The Case of Occupational Health Professionals, Journal of Applied Management Studies, 9, 1, 71-81. Rothausen, T. J. (1999), Family in Organizational Research: A Review and Comparison of Definitions and Measures, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 817-836. Rothbard, N. P. (2001), Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of Engagement in Work and Family Roles, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684. Rothbard, N. P./Phillips, K. W./Dumas, T. L. (2005), Managing Multiple Roles: Work-Family Policies and Individuals' Desires for Segmentation, Organization Science, 16, 243-258.

192

References



Rothmann, S./Joubert, J. H. M. (2007), Job Demands, Job Resources, Burnout and Work Engagement of Managers at a Platinum Mine in the North West Province, South African Journal of Business Management, 38, 3, 49-61. Ruderman, M. N./Ohlott, P. J./Panzer, K./King, S. N. (2002), Benefits of Multiple Roles for Managerial Women, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 2, 369-386. Rutherford, S. (2001), Organizational Cultures, Women Managers and Exclusion, Women in Management Review, 16, 7/8, 371-382. Rydstedt, L. W./Devereux, J./Sverke, M. (2007), Comparing and Combining the DemandControl-Support Model and the Effort Reward Imbalance Model to Predict Long-Term Mental Strain, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 16, 3, 261-278. Salanova, M./Agut, S./Peiró, J. M. (2005), Linking Organizational Resources and Work Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty: The Mediation of Service Climate, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 6, 1217-1227. Sanders, W. M. G./Carpenter, M. A. (1998), Internationalization and Firm Governance: The Roles of CEO Compensation, Top Team Composition, and Board Structure, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 2, 158-178. Sarle, W. S. (1983), Cubic Clustering Criterion, in: SAS Technical Report Cary, NC. Scandura, T. A./Williams, E. A. (2000), Research Methodology in Management: Current Practices, Trends, and Implications for Future Research, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 6, 1248-1264. Schaufeli, W. B./Bakker, A. B. (2004), Job Demands, Job Resources, and Their Relationship with Burnout and Engagement: A Multi-Sample Study, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 3, 293-315. Schein, E. H. (1994), The Role of the CEO in the Management of Change: The Case in Information Technology, in: Allen, T. J./Morton, M. S. S. (Ed.), Information Technology and the Corporation of the 1990s, 325-345. Schneer, J. A./Reitman, F. (1993), Effects of Alternate Family Structures on Managerial Career Paths, Academy of Management Journal, 36, 4, 830-843. Schneer, J. A./Reitman, F. (2002), Managerial Life without a Wife: Family Structure and Managerial Career Success, Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 1, 25-38. Schnell, R./Hill, P. B./Esser, E. (2005), Methoden der Empirischen Sozialforschung, 7th Edition, Oldenbourg. Schriesheim, C. A./Neider, L. L./Scandura, T. A. (1998), Delegation and Leader-Member Exchange: Main Effects, Moderators, and Measurement Issues, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 3, 298-318. Schutjens, V. A./Wever, E. (2000), Determinants of New Firm Success, Papers in Regional Science, 79, 135-159. Schwab, D. P. (1980), Construct Validity in Organizational Behavior, in: Cummings, L. L./Staw, B. M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 3–43. Shaffer, M. A./Harrison, D. A. (1998), Expatriates' Psychological Withdrawal from International Assignments: Work, Nonwork, and Family Influences, Personnel Psychology, 51, 87-118. Shelton, L. M./Danes, S. M./Eisenman, M. (2008), Role Demands, Difficulty in Managing Work-Family Conflict, and Minority Entrepreneurs, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 13, 3, 315-342. Shepherd, C. D./Fine, L. M. (1994), Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Reconsidered, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14, 2, 57-65.

References

193



Shrout, P. E./Fleiss, J. L. (1979), Intraclass Correlations: Uses in Assessing Rater Reliability, Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428. Sieber, S. D. (1974), Toward a Theory of Role Accumulation, American Sociological Review, 39, 4, 567-578. Simons, T./Pelled, L. H./Smith, K. A. (1999), Making Use of Difference: Diversity, Debate, and Decision Comprehensiveness in Top Management Teams, Academy of Management Journal, 42, 6, 662-673. Simpson, R. (1998), Presenteeism, Power and Organizational Change: Long Hours as Career Barrier and the Impact on the Working Lives of Women Managers, British Journal of Management, 9, Special Issue, S37-S50. Smets, E. M. A./Visser, M. R. M./Oort, F. J./Schaufeli, W. B./Haes, H. J. C. J. M. d. (2004), Perceived Inequity: Does It Explain Burnout among Medical Specialists, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 9, 1900-1918. Smith, C. A./Organ, D. W./Near, J. P. (1983), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663. Smith, J. E./Carson, K. P./Alexander, R. A. (1984), Leadership: It Can Make a Difference, Academy of Management Journal, 27, 4, 765-776. Sonnentag, S./Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2006), Job Characteristics and Off-Job Activities as Predictors of Need for Recovery, Well-Being, and Fatigue, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 2, 330-350. Spector, P. E. (1992), Summated Rating Scales: An Introduction, Newbury Park, CA. Spence, J. T./Robbins, A. S. (1992), Workaholism: Definition, Measurement, and Preliminary Results, Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 1, 160-178. Spradley, J./McCurdy, D. (1972), The Cultural Experience: Ethnography in Complex Society, Boston. Srivastava, A./Blakely, G. L./Andrews, M. C./McKee-Ryan, F. M. (2007), Mechanisms Linking Nationality and Subjective Well-Being in Managers in China and the United States, Journal of Managerial Issues, 19, 4, 494-516. Staines, G. L. (1980), Spillover Versus Compensation: A Review of the Literature on the Relationship between Work and Nonwork, Human Relations, 33, 2, 111-129. Steenkamp, J. E./Van Trijp, H. C. (1991), The Use of LISREL in Validating Marketing Constructs, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 4, 283-299. Stephens, M. A. P./Townsend, A. L. (1997), Stress of Parent Care: Positive and Negative Effects of Women's Other Roles, Psychology and Aging, 12, 376-386. Stevens, J. M./Beyer, J. M./Trice, H. M. (1978), Assessing Personal, Role, and Organizational Predictors of Managerial Commitment, Academy of Management Journal, 21, 3, 380-396. Steyn, H. S./Ellis, S. M. (2009), Estimating an Effect Size in One-Way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 1, 106-129. Stock-Homburg, R./Bauer, E.-M. (2009), How Do Top Executives Handle Their Work? A Taxonomy of Top Executives' Relationship with Work, Working Paper, Darmstadt. Stock, R. (2004), Erfolgsauswirkungen der marktorientierten Gestaltung des Personalmanagements, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 56, Mai, 237-258. Styles, C. (1998), Export Performance Measures in Australia and the United Kingdom, Journal of International Marketing, 6, 3, 12-36. Tajfel, H. (1982), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge.

194

References



Taris, T. W./Beckers, D. G. J./Verhoeven, L. C./Geurts, S. A. E./Kompier, M. A. J./van der Linden, D. (2006), Recovery Opportunities, Work-Home Interference, and Well-Being among Managers, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 15, 2, 139157. Taris, T. W./Schaufeli, W. B./Verhoeven, L. C. (2005), Workaholism in the Netherlands: Measurement and Implications for Job Strain and Work-Nonwork Conflict, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 1, 37-60. Tay, C./Quazi, H./Kelly, K. (2006), A Multi-Dimensional Construct of Work-Life System: Its Link to Employee Attitudes and Outcomes. Thompson, C. A./Beauvais, L. L./Lyness, K. S. (1999), When Work-Family Benefits Are Not Enough: The Influence of Work-Family Culture on Benefit Utilization, Organizational Attachment, and Work-Family Conflict, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392-415. Thompson, C. A./Jahn, E. W./Kopelman, R. E./Prottas, D. J. (2004), Perceived Organizational Family Support: A Longitudinal and Multilevel Analysis, Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 4, 545-565. Thompson, J. A./Bunderson, J. S. (2001), Work-Nonwork Conflict and the Phenomenology of Time, Work & Occupations, 28, 1, 17-39. Tomaskovic-Devey, D./Leiter, J./Thompson, S. (1994), Organizational Survey Nonresponse, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 3, 439-457. Tombari, N./Spinks, N. (1999), The Work-Family Interface at the Royal Bank Financial Group: Successful Solutions - a Retrospective Look at Lessons Learned, Women in Management Review, 14, 5, 186-194. Tompson, H./Werner, J. (1997), The Impact of Role Conflict/Facilitation on Core and Discretionary Behaviors: Testing a Mediated Model, Journal of Management, 23, 4, 583-601. Turbe, T. C./Collins, J. M. (2000), Jackson and Schuler (1985) Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Job Performance, Journal of Management, 26, 1, 155-169. Uchitelle, L./Kleinfield, N. R. (1996), On the Battlefields of Business, Millions of Casualties, The New York Times, 1, 26-27. Valcour, M. (2007), Work-Based Resources as Moderators of the Relationship between Work Hours and Satisfaction with Work-Family Balance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 6, 1512-1523. van Bergeijk, P. A. G./Mensink, N. W. (1997), Measuring Globalization, Journal of World Trade, 31, 3, 159-168. van Vegchel, N./de Jonge, J./Landsbergis, P. A. (2005), Occupational Stress in (Inter)Action: The Interplay between Job Demands and Job Resources, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 5, 535-560. Van Yperen, N. W./Hagedoorn, M. (2003), Do High Job Demands Increase Intrinsic Motivation or Fatigue or Both? The Role of Job Control and Job Social Support, Academy of Management Journal, 46, 3, 339-348. Van Yperen, N. W./Snijders, T. A. B. (2000), A Multilevel Analysis of the Demands-Control Model: Is Stress at Work Determined by Factors at the Group Level or the Individual Level?, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 182-190. Veliyath, R./Cordeiro, J. (2001), New Evidence on the Structuring of CEO Incentive Pay Ratios, Journal of Applied Business Research, 17, 1, 95-106. Ward, J. H., Jr. (1963), Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236-244.

References

195



Warr, P./Connor, M. (1992), The Measurement of Effective Working Styles During EntryLevel Training, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 17-32. Watkins, K. E. (1995), Changing Managers’ Defensive Reasoning About Work-Family Conflicts, Journal of Management Development, 14, 2, 77-88. West, M. A./Anderson, N. R. (1996), Innovation in Top Management Teams, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 6, 680-693. Westman, M. (2001), Stress and Strain Crossover, Human Relations, 54, 6, 717-751. Westphal, J. D. (1999), Collaboration in the Boardroom: Behavioral and Performance Consequences of CEO-Board Social Ties, Academy of Management Journal, 42, 1, 7-24. Westphal, J. D./Stern, I. (2006), The Other Pathway to the Boardroom: Interpersonal Influence Behavior as a Substitute for Elite Credentials and Majority Status in Obtaining Board Appointments, Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 2, 169-204. Whyte, W. F./Whyte, w. t. c. o. K. K. (1984), Learning from the Field, Beverly Hills, CA. Wilk, S. L./Moynihan, L. M. (2005), Display Rule "Regulators": The Relationship between Supervisors and Worker Emotional Exhaustion, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 5, 917-927. Williams, J. (2000), Unbending Gender: Why Work and Family Conflict and What to Do About It, New York. Wishart, D. (1969), An Algorithm for Hierarchical Classifications, Biometrics, 22, 165-170. Wong, S.-S./DeSanctis, G./Staudenmayer, N. (2007), The Relationship between Task Interdependency and Role Stress: A Revisit of the Job Demands-Control Model, Journal of Management Studies, 44, 2, 284-303. Wood, J., J. A./Winston, B. E. (2005), Toward a New Understanding of Leader Accountability: Defining a Critical Construct, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 3, 84-93. World Health Organization (1946), Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as Adopted by the International Health Conference, in: Official Records of the World Health Organization, New York. Wright, T. A./Bonett, D. G. (1997), The Contribution of Burnout to Work Performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 491-499. Xanthopoulou, D./Bakker, A. B./Demerouti, E./Schaufeli, W. B. (2007a), The Role of Personal Resources in the Job Demands-Resources Model, International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 121-141. Xanthopoulou, D./Bakker, A. B./Dollard, M. F./Demerouti, E./Schaufeli, W. B./Tans, T. W./Schreurs, P. J. G. (2007b), When Do Job Demands Particularly Predict Burnout? The Moderating Role of Job Resources, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 8, 766-786. Zedeck, S. (1992), Introduction: Exploring the Domain of Work and Family Concerns, in: Zedeck, S. (Ed.), Work, Families, and Organizations, 1-32. Zedeck, S./Mosier, K. L. (1990), Work in the Family and Employing Organization, American Psychologist, 45, 2, 240-251. Zerbe, W. J./Paulhus, D. L. (1987), Socially Desirable Responding in Organizational Behavior: A Reconception, Academy of Management Review, 12, 2, 250-264.

197

Appendix Table 6-1: Scales scored only by top executives (alphabetical order): Scale items with corresponding item-tototal correlations and factor loadings

Ability to delegate 1. I try to do as much as possible of the work by myself. (rev) 2. Before I work on a task by myself I check the possibility to delegate. 3. It is easy for me to delegate responsibility to colleagues/co-workers.

Denial 1. When there are difficulties I pretend that everything is OK. 2. When problems arise I avoid thinking about them. 3. Whenever possible I try to stay away from problems. 4. I avoid annoying confrontation with my supervisors and/or colleagues. 5. In problematic situations I just wait and see what will happen.

Drive 1. I feel obligated to work hard, even when it’s not enjoyable. 2. I often feel there’s something inside me that drives me to work hard. 3. I often find myself thinking about work, even when I want to get away from it for a while. 4. I feel guilty when I take time off from work. 5. It’s important to me to work hard, even when I don’t enjoy what I’m doing. 6. I seem to have an inner compulsion to work hard. 7. Between my job and other activities I’m involved in I don’t have much free time.

Compensating behavior (formative measure) 1. I notice that I drink more alcohol when I have problems. 2. Under pressure I lose myself in daydreaming or fantasies. 3. When there are problems I tend to take more risks. 4. Under pressure I overreact.

Core self evaluation 1. I am confident I get the success I deserve in life. 2. Sometimes I feel depressed. (rev) 3. When I try, I generally succeed. 4. Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless. (rev) 5. I complete tasks successfully. 6. Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work. (rev) 7. Overall, I am satisfied with myself. 8. I am filled with doubts about my competence. (rev)

Item-tototal correlation .65 .56 .53 Item-tototal correlation .54 .53 .63 .58 .56 Item-tototal correlation .47 .58 .49 .48 .46 .65 .43 Item-tototal correlation Item-tototal correlation .46 .65 .31 .55 .34 .47 .64 .60

Factor loading .86 .81 .78

Factor loading .71 .70 .79 .75 .73

Factor loading .81 .64 .53 .40 .81 .71 .45

Factor loading -

Factor loading .57 .71 .41 .62 .44 .56 .74 .68

198

Appendix

Continuation of core self evaluation 9. I determine what will happen in my life. 10. I do not feel in control of my success in my career. (rev) 11. I am capable of coping with most of my problems. 12. There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me. (rev)

Effectiveness 1. I actively engage in reviewing my work so that I can improve it. 2. I work effectively. 3. I am committed to producing quality work. 4. I search for ways to be more productive. 5. I have successfully implemented ideas to come up with higher quality. 6. I have successfully implemented plans to be more productive.

Enjoyment 1. My job is so interesting that it often doesn’t seem like work. 2. Most of the time my work is very enjoyable/pleasurable. 3. Sometimes when I get up in the morning I can hardly wait to get to work. 4. My job is more like fun than work. 5. I like my work more than most people do. 6. I seldom find anything to enjoy about my work. (rev)

Family-to-work conflict 1. The demands of my family or spouse/partner interfere with work-related activities. 2. I have to put off doing things at work because of demand on my time at home. 3. Things I want to do at work don’t get done because of the demands of my family or spouse/partner. 4. My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work. 5. Family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties.

Item-tototal correlation .51 .63 .61 .67 Item-tototal correlation .52 .42 .42 .62 .73 .73 Item-tototal correlation .69 .58 .47 .57 .54 .45 Item-tototal correlation .64 .63 .72 .73 .41 Item-tototal correlation .69

Health 1. During an ordinary working day are there times when you feel unsettled though the reasons for this might not always be clear? 2. Do you tend to feel restless and tense? .62 3. If the jobs you are doing start to go wrong do you sometimes feel a lack of confidence .49 and panicky? 4. Do you find yourself experiencing fairly long periods in which you feel melancholy .60 for no apparent reason? 5. Do you suffer from inability to get to sleep? .48 6. Do you suffer from headaches? .47 7. Do you suffer from pricking sensations or twinges in parts of your body? .56 8. Do you suffer from feeling as though you do not want to get up in the morning? .55 9. Do you suffer from feeling dizzy? .57 10. Do you suffer from tinnitus? (a noise in the ear which has no perceptible exterior .38 source)

Factor loading .62 .72 .71 .74 Factor loading

.66 .55 .56 .77 .85 .85

Factor loading .80 .77 .60 .71 .71 .65

Factor loading .78 .80 .86 .86 .56 Factor loading

.78 .73 .61 .71 .59 .57 .66 .65 .66 .48

Appendix Item-tototal correlaOrganizational commitment tion 1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. .57 2. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own. .58 3. I feel “emotionally attached” to this organization. .82 4. I am proud to be a member of this organization. .70 5. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. .80 Item-tototal Perceived market performance: Compared to other organizations that do the same kind of work, how would you compare the organization’s performance over the last correla3 years in terms of… tion 1. Marketing .81 2. Growth in sales .78 3. Profitability .50 4. Market share .70 Item-tototal correlaPerceived organizational pressure culture: In my organization... tion 1. work should be the primary priority in a person’s life. .50 2. long hours inside the office are the way to achieving advancement. .62 3. it is best to keep family matters separate from work. .60 4. it is considered taboo to talk about life outside of work. .57 5. employees who are highly committed to their personal lives cannot be highly commit- .67 ted to their work. 6. attending to personal needs, such as taking time off for sick children, is frowned upon. .71 7. employees should keep their personal problems at home. .66 8. the way to advance in this company is to keep nonwork matters out of the workplace. .70 9. individuals who take time off to attend to personal matters are not committed to their .78 work. 10. it is assumed that the most productive employees are those who put their work before .77 their family life. 11. employees are given ample opportunity to perform both their job and their personal .63 responsibilities well. 12. offering employees flexibility in completing their work is viewed as a strategic way of .34 doing business. 13. the ideal employee is the one who is available 24 hours a day. .55 Item-toPerceived overall performance: Compared to other organizations that do the same total kind of work, how would you compare the organization’s performance over the last correla3 years in terms of… tion 1. Quality of products, services, or programs .55 2. Development of new products, services, or programs .50 3. Ability to attract essential employees .56 4. Ability to retain essential employees .57 .60 5. Satisfaction of customers or clients

199 Factor loading

.70 .71 .91 .83 .91 Factor loading

.91 .90 .66 .84

Factor loading .62 .57 .66 .52 .60 .76 .73 .77 .83 .82 .68 .40 .61 Factor loading

.74 .69 .71 .74 .78

200

Appendix

Self-management 1. I do not let important tasks become urgent. 2. The daily work routine diverts me from important things. (rev) 3. I have a functioning time-schedule. 4. I can plan my time well. 5. I approach complex tasks in a structured way. 6. In my work area I have organized the workload very well. 7. I have organized the running of my projects smoothly.

Job involvement 1. The most important things that happen to me involve my present job. 2. Most of my interests are centered around my job. 3. To me, my job is a very large part of who I am. 4. I am very much personally involved in my job. 5. My job is a very important part of my life.

Item-tototal correlation .46 .43 .71 .61 .56 .67 .51 Item-tototal correlation .45 .53 .52 .47 .46

Factor loading .59 .56 .82 .75 .69 .80 .67

Factor loading .63 .70 .70 .72 .71

Table 6-2: Scales scored only by life partners (alphabetical order): Scale items with corresponding item-to-total correlations and factor loadings

Family involvement 1. The most important things that happen to him/her involve his/her family. 2. Most of his/her interests are centered around his/her family. 3. To him/her, his/her family is a very large part of who he/she is. 4. He/she is very much personally involved in his/her family. 5. His/her family is a very important part of his/her life.

Partners’ life satisfaction 1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal. 2. The conditions of my life are excellent. 3. I am satisfied with my life. 4. So far I have got the important things I want in life. 5. If I could live my life again, I would change almost nothing.

Separation of work from family 1. During his/her spare he/she is contactable for his/her organization. 2. In the evening he/she works at home. 3. During holidays he/she is contactable for his/her organization. 4. He/she works during his/her holidays. 5. He/she works on the weekend.

Item-tototal correlation .75 .74 .62 .69 .67 Item-tototal correlation .74 .68 .75 .66 .61 Item-tototal correlation .67 .63 .60 .74 .67

Factor loading .86 .85 .75 .81 .79

Factor loading .85 .82 .86 .77 .74

Factor loading .79 .77 .75 .85 .80

Appendix

201

Table 6-3: Scales scored by top executives as well as life partners (alphabetical order): Scale items with corresponding item-to-total correlations and factor loadings

Exhaustion 1. I feel/he/she feels burned out from my/his/her work. 2. I feel/he/she feels used up at the end of the workday. 3. I feel/he/she feels emotionally drained from my/his/her work. 4. I feel/he/she feels tired when I get/her/she gets up in the morning and have/has to face another day on the job. 5. Working all day is really a strain for me/him/her.

Item-to-total correlation Execu- Partner tive .68 .72 .66 .78 .68 .67 .55 .59 .53 .58 Item-to-total correlation Execu- Partner tive .71 .75 .70 .66 .75 .77

Life Satisfaction 1. In most ways my/his/her life is close to my/his/her ideal. 2. The conditions of my/his/her life are excellent in my/his/her opinion. 3. I am/he/she is satisfied with my/his/her life. 4. So far I have/he/she has got the important things I want he/she wants in life. .65 .64 5. If I/he/she could live my/his/her life again, I/he/she would change almost nothing. .63 .63 Item-to-total correlation Execu- Partner Personal accomplishment tive 1. I have/he thinks he/she has accomplished many worthwhile things in this job. .57 .58 2. I/he/she can effectively solve the problems that arise in my/his/her work. .45 .48 3. I feel I am/he/she feels he/she is making an effective contribution to what this/his/her organization does. .57 .72 4. In my/his/her opinion, I am/he/she is good at my/his/her job. .61 .67 5. I feel/he/she feels exhilarated when I accomplish/he/she accomplishes something at work. .42 .49 6. At my/his/her work, I feel/he/she feels confident that I am/he/she is effective at getting things done. .46 .65 Item-to-total correlation Satisfaction with work-family balance: How satisfied are you/is your Execu- Partner partner with... tive 1. the way you divide/he/she divides your/his/her time between work and personal or family life? .81 .87 2. the way you divide/he/she divides your/his/her attention between work and home? .83 .87 3. how well your/his/her work life and your/his/her personal or family life fit together? .79 .80 4. your//his/her ability to balance the needs of your/his/her job with those of your/his/her personal or family life? .79 .84 5. the opportunity you have/he/she has to perform your/his/her job well and yet be able to perform home-related duties adequately? .83 .82

Factor loading Executive .82 .80 .82

Partner .84 .88 .81

.71 .73 .69 .72 Factor loading Executive .83 .82 .86

Partner .85 .80 .86

.77

.76

.77 .77 Factor loading Execu- Parttive ner .73 .63

.72 .62

.73 .76

.83 .79

.60

.64

.64 .79 Factor loading Execu- Parttive ner .88

.92

.89

.92

.87

.87

.87

.90

.89

.89

202

Appendix

Work-to-family conflict 1. The demands of my/his/her work interfere with my/his/her home and family life. 2. The amount of time my/his/her job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities. 4. Things I want/he/she wants to do at home do not get done because of the demands my/his/her job puts on me/him/her. 5. My/his/her job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill family duties. 6. Due to work-related duties, I have/he/she has to make changes to my/his/her plans for family activities.

Work satisfaction 1. Generally speaking, I am/he/she is very satisfied with this job. 2. I frequently think/he/she frequently thinks of quitting this job. (rev). 3. I am/he/she is generally satisfied with the kind of work I do/he/she does in this job.

Item-to-total Factor loading correlation Execu- Partner Execu- Parttive tive ner .66

.66

.80

.79

.73

.76

.86

.87

.65

.76

.79

.86

.51

.59

.66

.73

.61 .64 Item-to-total correlation Execu- Partner tive .72 .78 .54 .59

.76 .77 Factor loading Executive .91 .77

Partner .92 .80

.61

.86

.86

.65