Role of Spillover between Work and Family in Employees’ Wellbeing: Managerial Perspective on Active Coping Strategies

Abstract

This research contributes to the field of diversity and inclusion by analyzing how employers can assist women in shaping their career trajectories and strategies in relation to their additional family commitments. The study utilized a sample of 204 participants collected during the COVID-19 pandemic when the boundaries between work and family were blurred for many women. Existing established scales were used, and the reliability and validity of these scales were assessed in the selected context using exploratory factor analysis. OLS regression analysis followed by Welch ANOVA allowed to test research hypotheses. The findings confirmed the high role of negative spillover between work and family domains in employee’s well-being, while taking parental leave, distant work and attitude to COVID-19 were insignificant in this relationship. This might lead to employees’ withdrawal from the labor market. However, active coping strategies can mitigate this negative relationship. Employers can support active coping through corporate programs and managerial discourse in order to retain employees despite existing role conflicts.

1. Introduction

This chapter contributes to the research on the proactive career behavior of women [1]. Such behavior refers to preventive self-initiated intentions and actions aimed at changing personal attributes or the environment within one’s career track [2, 3]. These initiatives aim to increase person-environment fit [2], resulting in improved well-being [3], work-life balance, and subjective career satisfaction [4]. Proactive career behavior is particularly important for women with childcare commitments, who strive to find a balance between family and work domains, as they often require unique career trajectories and specific work conditions [1].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, work-life balance became an overwhelming challenge for many women, blurring the boundaries between these two domains. In 2020, nearly 3 million female employees in the US left their jobs to cope with increased family-related commitments [5]. However, there is a belief that women are more reliable workers during a crisis due to the relevant skills they have gained in the family domain [6]. Therefore, there can be both positive and negative spillover effects of the family domain on work-related commitments [7]. The same enrichment or conflict can also occur in the reverse direction, from family to work [8]. However, employees often adapt to both positive and negative circumstances by utilizing active coping strategies [9] to reconsider their career trajectories and improve subjective well-being [10] during crises [11].

Currently, there is a gap in understanding the role that employers can play in fostering favorable forms of proactive career behavior, such as proactive coping strategies, and mitigating negative ones, such as withdrawal from the labor market. The modern social contract between employer and employee (socially constructed unwritten agreements) does not typically allow companies to interfere in employees’ personal lives, despite the significant impact it can have on work. Companies have shifted towards indirect methods of management, where corporate discourse influences employees’ identity management, hopes, inspirations, role models, commitments, and more [12].

To address this gap, we conducted research with the following research questions:

• What is the effect of negative spillover between work and family on female employees’ well-being during COVID-19?

• What coping strategies can be fostered by employers to mitigate the negative spillover effect between work and family on female employees’ well-being?

We expect this research to make a practical contribution to the management of female employees during crisis periods by empowering favorable aspects of their proactive career behavior for employers. We expect that findings will also contribute to research related to diversity and inclusion by analyzing women’s strategies in relation to their additional family commitments.

2. Theoretical model and research design

Sample structure. For our research, we collected the dataset in partnership with SelfMama. SelfMama is a self-initiated proactive women consulting project that was launched in 2014 (n = 204). The core team is located in Moscow; however, it organizes events for women across the globe, both offline and online, inviting role models for three types of mothers: (1) those interested in leadership positions and career growth; (2) those inspired by entrepreneurship or freelance work; and (3) those radically changing their career trajectories.

For research purposes, we first developed a theoretical model based on a prior literature review and selected validated scales for each construct to form a survey. Then we translated the survey into the native language for the respondents, using backward translation for validation, as well as a prior pretest to correct translated statements and improve the face validity of the scales. The survey was distributed via SelfMama’s social networks using Google Forms. Respondents answered anonymously, and the instructions contained a promise to share a free link to the paid recording of the SelfMama conference, which was fulfilled at the end of the survey. Table 1 presents key information regarding the respondents after data cleaning.

	Mean	SE	Median	Moda	Min	Max
Age	35	0,57	35,85	37	19	39
Married	74%	3%	74%	1	0	1
Work fulltime	29%	3%	29%	0	0	1
Amount of kids	1,65	0,07	1,57	1	0	5
Life satisfaction	3,04	0,07	3,08	4	1	5

Table 1.

Description of the sample structure.

In the sample, 25% of respondents shared no affiliation with SelfMama, and another 23% stated that they joined SelfMama initiatives recently. Most of the respondents (91%) had kids and were married (74%). About 40% of respondents were from Moscow and Moscow Regin, and 13% were from other countries, such as Belarus and Ukraine.

Theoretical model and scales. A positive association between spillover effect and well-being has already been established in prior studies [13]. We used similar scales to test how the results would differ during COVID-19 times among Russian-speaking women. In the context analyzed by us, employees differ in identity work, as in CIS countries women joined the labor market much earlier than in the rest of the world, since 1917 [14]. They could already acknowledge the negative effect that work has on their family domain, especially during a crisis, thus it might not lead to a decrease in well-being. In CIS countries society treats normally working overtime, on weekends, or bringing work home. This attitude is shaped starting from school (and in many kindergartens), when kids bring home their school assignments, blurring the line between the two domains related to studies and life. Another reason for the difference is that women can rely on government support with childcare commitments, such as providing free places in kindergartens, schools, and summer camps; and society also treats situations when grandparents are involved in the childcare process positively. While the negative effect that family might have on work could cause role conflict, as it is not yet common in the chosen context to bring family issues to work. When family has a negative spillover effect on work, it might cause women to withdraw from the labor market. Nevertheless, there might be a difference in the level of personal control: respondents might feel more confident in their abilities to solve problems related to the family domain, while in relation to work domain, they might be more eager to use reactive strategies [15].

Thus, despite prior findings, we assume that during a crisis:

H1a: There is no relationship between negative work-to-family (WTF) spillover effect and well-being, measured as negative effect. H1b: Negative WTF spillover effect is not mitigated by active coping strategies.

H2a: There is a positive relationship between negative family-to-work (FTW) spillover effect and well-being, measured as negative effect. H2b: Negative FTW spillover effect is mitigated by active coping strategies.

Wellbeing was measured using the negative effect component of the NAPAS scale [10, 16] by asking “how do you feel”: (1). So sad nothing could cheer you up; (2). Nervous; (3). Restless or fidgety; (4). Hopeless; (5). That everything was an effort; (6). Worthless. This scale focuses on the emotional aspects of happiness, which are known to be more stable over time and less influenced by cultural differences compared to the PANAS scale [10]. To assess the spillover effect, we adopted a validated scale developed by Grzywacz and Marks [7], which consists of 8 statements measuring two negative aspects:

• negative work-to-family spillover

  1. Job reduces my effort on activities at home.

  2. Job stress makes me irritable at home.

  3. Job makes me too tired to do things at home.

  4. Job problems distract me at home.

• and negative family-to-work spillover

  1. Home responsibilities reduce the effort I exert on the job.

  2. Personal worries distract me on the job.

  3. Home chores prevent me to have enough sleep to do my job.

  4. Home stress makes me irritable on the job.

In terms of active coping strategies, we referred to the COPE inventory scale [9]:

• active coping

  1. I concentrate my efforts on doing something about it.

  2. I take additional action to try to get rid of the problem.

  3. I take direct action to get around the problem.

  4. I do what has to be done, one step at a time.

Additionally, we controlled for parental leave, telework, and COVID-19 fear [17]:

• fear of COVID-19

  1. I am most afraid of COVID-19

  2. It makes me uncomfortable to think about COVID-19

  3. My hands become clammy when I think about COVID-19

  4. I am afraid of losing my life because of COVID-19

  5. When watching news and stories about COVID-19 on social media, I become nervous or anxious

  6. I cannot sleep because I’m worrying about getting COVID-19

  7. My heart races or palpitates when I think about getting COVID-19

The Likert scale ranging from “always” (5) to “never” (1) was employed for the survey. We initially conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to ensure the reliability of each scale within the selected context. For the regression analysis, we utilized standardized mean values. Correlation analysis for each construct and the results of EFA are presented in Table 2.

Variable	Cronbach Alpha	Explained variance	Items loading	KMO	BTS (p)	2	3	4
1. Neg. affect	0,80	50,20%	0,62-0,77	0,79	0,00	0,28*	0,38*	-0,34*
2.WTF	0,83	66,01%	0,75-0,84	0,81	0,00	1	0,39*	n.s
3. FTW	0,81	63,76%	0,77-0,84	0,79	0,00		1	n.s.
4. Act. Coping	0,71	64,06%	0,70-0,86	0,63	0,00			1

Table 2.

Results of EFA and correlation analysis of variables (n = 204).

^*

p-value = 0,00.

n.s. – not significant.

The results of EFA caused a decrease in the dataset by omitting two items: attitude toward COVID-19 (2nd item) and active coping (3rd item). The rest scales fully satisfied expected level of validity and reliability. Correlation analysis showed a significant correlation between negative affect and all independent variables. It also showed no correlation or moderate level of it between independent variables. Negative correlation between negative affect and active coping, as well as positive correlation between the rest variables corresponded to prior expectations.

Further steps of the research design were the following. Firstly, we conducted OLS regression analysis to test hypotheses H1a and H2a. For testing H1b and H2b, secondly, we referred to analysis of variance (Welch ANOVA), conducted in SPSS.

3. Results and findings

Figure 1 highlights the results of two linear regression analyses conducted in SPSS. We built a separate model for each coping strategy. The model fit (R² and F statistics) in all empirical models was acceptable, with a VIF value <1, stating no evidence of multicollinearity.

Figure 1.

Results of the OLS regression analysis, conducted in SPSS. **p = <0.01, *p = <0.05, n.s. – not significant.

The results allow us to support H2a, regarding the positive relationship between negative FTW spillover effect and negative affect. Contrary to expectations, it also showed a positive relationship between negative WTF spillover effect and negative effect, which is in line with results conducted in other countries [11]. The role of the negative effect of family-to-work spillover in negative affect was indeed higher, as we expected.

The results show that the negative spillover effect is indeed associated with a decrease in wellbeing. In such situations, women might act unfavorably for employers, for example, by quitting; or choose more favorable forms of proactive career behavior, like proactive coping strategies.

As we can see from the regression analysis, coping strategies can mitigate negative affect. However, it would be interesting to analyze if there is a difference in perception of the spillover effect based on the level of active coping strategies.

Figure 2 summarizes the findings of Welch ANOVA. We divided the entire sample into three categories: (1) those who marked the lowest level of cognitive strategy use; (2) those who confessed advanced levels of expertise in the analyzed strategy, and (3) those who had intermediate results (Table 3).

Figure 2.

Difference in negative spillover effect for respondents with low, intermediate, and high levels of active coping strategies.

Level of active coping			N	Mean	SD	SE	Min	Max	Welch ANOVA
WTF	Low active coping		74	3,28	0,79	0,09	1	5	(F (2,127) = 1,39, p = 0,25)
	Intermediate ac. coping		67	3,07	0,71	0,09	1	4,75
	High active coping		63	3,15	1,11	0,14	1	5
	Total		204	3,17	0,88	0,06	1	5
	Model	Fixed effects			0,88	0,06
		Random effects				0,06
FTW	Low active coping		74	3,09	0,66	0,08	1,75	4,75	(F (2,127) = 4,07, p = 0,02)
	Intermediate ac. coping		67	2,83	0,86	0,10	1	5
	High active coping		63	2,73	0,90	0,11	1	5
	Total		204	2,89	0,81	0,06	1	5
	Model	Fixed effects			0,80	0,06
		Random effects				0,11

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics for active coping.

SD – standard deviation, SE – standard error.

The Welch ANOVA results showed a significant level of difference in the negative family-to-work spillover effect. According to the C-Dunnett post hoc test, respondents with a high level of active coping strategies differed from those with a low level by 0.35 scores. There was no statistically significant difference between the other groups and sub-groups. Thus, the results allowed us to support hypotheses H1b and H2b.

4. Conclusion

The research aimed to explore possible means by which employers can help their personnel cope with negative spillover effects between work and family domains. The fragile balance was threatened during the COVID-19 crisis, which was also associated with lowering well-being (H1a, H1b) [5]. However, as the regression analysis showed, it was not the fear of COVID-19 that increased the negative effect on employees. Neither distant work, nor being on parental leave had any association with the negative effect.

Pandemic initiatives increased engagement in parental commitments due to the closing of schools, kindergartens, playgrounds, and the cancelation of external leisure events for kids [5]. The work domain also faced severe changes due to pandemic restrictions. Both negative WTF and FTW spillover effects played a critical role in well-being, but the role of negative FTW spillover effect turned to be more pressing, which corresponds to prior studies [17]. This could be explained by a higher perceived control over the family domain, motivating active coping, and a rather reactive strategy to the work domain.

Existing social norms do not allow employers to directly interfere in the family domain, even though they face negative consequences, for example, when employees make decisions about withdrawal from the labor market. Nevertheless, employers are eager to provide indirect support through corporate discourse and learning initiatives. One possible way to support employees is by shaping a positive attitude towards proactive coping strategies.

The results of our research showed an association between active coping strategies and decreased negative affect, as well as a lower negative FTW effect. The lack of such association in the case of WTF spillover effect might testify to a low level of autonomy, meaning that employees are not confident in their abilities to adjust work-related loads. Thus, there is a necessity to increase support for proactive career behavior, empowering employees’ autonomy, so they can apply active coping strategies for work-related spillover as well.

Further studies might be devoted to different practices and interventions, which could lead to higher active coping. For example, employees can be supported through engagement in initiatives of self-initiated groups, like SelfMama, where different role models are presented, so women face higher variety of alternatives on how to improve their well-being and solve role conflicts than just quitting. The second step in their self-construction, after finding acting, following preferred role models, is raising agency, and finally - becoming authors of their own career trajectories [18]. Analysis of novel career trajectories is another possible research direction.