Organizational Work-Home Culture and its Relations with the Work–Family Interface and Employees’ Subjective Well-being

11Citations
Citations of this article
64Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The two studies reported in this paper aimed to present and discuss both the validation of the Work-Home Culture (WHC) scale (Dikkers et al., Work & Stress, 21(2), 155–172, 2007) in the Italian context (Study 1), and a relational model that links the WHC to subjective well-being via the mediation of three facets of the work-home interface: work-family conflict, work-family enrichment and work-family balance (Study 2). Heterogeneous samples of workers from different organisations took part in the cross-sectional studies. Substantial support was provided for the robustness of the factorial structure of the 18-item WHC scale with five factors (three support dimensions and two hindrance dimensions). Individuals’ perceptions of a supportive WHC that characterises the organisation they work for – particularly with respect to work-family issues and the use of family-friendly benefits – turned out to be positively associated with work-family enrichment and balance. Only organisational time demands, which is a hindrance dimension, was associated with work-family conflict. Moreover, our findings suggest that WHC is significantly associated with subjective well-being and that this association is largely indirect – through the facets of work-family interface – rather than direct. The results of the two studies represent a relevant achievement from the perspective of conducting future research using this measure in different socio-cultural environments and ad hoc interventions in the fields of organisational psychology and occupational health.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bobbio, A., Canova, L., & Manganelli, A. M. (2022). Organizational Work-Home Culture and its Relations with the Work–Family Interface and Employees’ Subjective Well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(5), 2933–2966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-022-10048-w

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free