parasuraman et al (1996)_work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success and well-being- j...

JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR 48, 275300 (1996)ARTICLE NO. 0025

Work and Family Variables, Entrepreneurial CareerSuccess, and Psychological Well-Being

SAROJ PARASURAMAN, YASMIN S. PUROHIT, AND VERONICA M. GODSHALK

Department of Management, Drexel University

AND

NICHOLAS J. BEUTELL

Hagan School of Business, Iona College

The study examines the influence of work and family variables on the career successand psychological well-being of 111 men and women entrepreneurs. The results showthat work-domain variables account for significant variation in time commitment towork, whereas family-domain variables explain substantial variation in time commit-ment to family. Time commitment to work and time commitment to family play animportant role in mediating the effects of gender, work and family characteristics, androle demands on work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict. These two typesof workfamily conflict in turn mediate the effects of time commitment to work andfamily and selected work and family variables on entrepreneurs career success andlife stress. Implications of the findings and directions for further research are discussed.q 1996 Academic Press, Inc.

In the context of widespread restructuring and downsizing of large Fortune500 companies, and the reduced opportunities for career advancement in thecorporate sector, entrepreneurship has become an increasingly attractive ca-reer alternative. This is reflected in the accelerated rate of new businessventure formation in the United States during the last decade, particularly ofbusinesses owned and operated by women (Main, 1990; Scott, 1986). Of thetwelve million small businesses in the United States, 30% are owned andoperated by women, and the proportion is growing (Goffee & Scase, 1985;Greenhaus and Callanan, 1994; National Foundation for Women Business

The authors thank Patricia Peacock and Samuel Rabinowitz for their help in data collectionfor this study. They also deeply appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions made bythe editor and the two anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Addresscorrespondence and reprint requests to: Dr. Saroj Parasuraman, Department of Management,Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

2750001-8791/96 $18.00

Copyright q 1996 by Academic Press, Inc.All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB

276 PARASURAMAN ET AL.

Owners Report, 1992). Greenhaus and Callanan (1994) have identified anumber of factors that distinguish entrepreneurial careers from the more tradi-tional careers of organizational employees. These include personal risk offailure, higher degree of personal commitment to the success of the firm, alower degree of structure, predictability, and support as well as the need toperform multiple functions. The increased influx of women and men intoentrepreneurial careers highlights the need to examine entrepreneurs as adistinct occupational group in order to understand the nature of their workexperiences, the pressures and satisfactions of owning and operating a busi-ness, and the factors that contribute to their career success and well-being.

Research on organizationally employed men and women has demonstratedthe interdependence of work and family roles (Gutek, Nakamura, & Nieva,1981), and emphasized the importance of examining both work- and family-domain variables in understanding the determinants of career success androle satisfaction (Bedeian, Burke, & Moffet, 1981; Frone, Russell, & Cooper,1992; ODriscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992; Parasuraman, Greenhaus, & Gran-rose, 1992). Although studies on entrepreneurship have acknowledged thepotential constraints on business growth and success arising from conflictsbetween work and family demands (Loscocco, Robinson, Hall, & Allen, 1991;Stoner, Hartman & Arora, 1990), the role of work and family variables asthey relate to the career success and psychological well-being of entrepreneurshas not yet been explored.

Comparative studies have shown that entrepreneurs enjoy somewhat greaterfreedom, autonomy, and opportunity for self-fulfillment than organizationallyemployed men and women (Eden, 1975; Mannheim & Schiffrin, 1984;Naughton, 1987). However, Eden (1975) reported that there were no differ-ences in satisfaction and psychological well-being between entrepreneurs andorganizational employees. Other research indicates that despite the freedomimplied in owning their businesses, entrepreneurs work long hours (Horna-day & Aboud, 1987), experience workfamily conflict, and are susceptibleto stress reactions (Cooper & Dunkelberg, 1986; Kets de Vries, 1988; Stoneret al., 1990). This underscores the need to examine the work and familycharacteristics and experiences of men and women entrepreneurs, and theireffects on entrepreneurs career success and well-being.

Studies on entrepreneurs have adopted a limited view of success, focusingalmost exclusively on their business success as indexed by hard measures offirm performance, (e.g., return on sales, sales growth, and return on assets)(Chaganti & Schneer, 1994; Kalleberg & Leicht, 1991; Loscocco, et al., 1991).With limited exceptions (Chay, 1993), these studies have generally not exploredthe softer, more personally defined criteria of success that reflect the internalcareer. The careers literature suggests that these include psychological indicatorsof success and well-being in both work and family domains, such as job satisfac-tion, career satisfaction, marital adjustment, family satisfaction, and life stress(Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994; Peluchette, 1993; Schein, 1978).

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB

277WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESS

The literature on entrepreneurs shows that men and women start businessesfor many of the same reasons, prominent among which are the need forachievement, autonomy, and flexibility (Bowen & Hisrich, 1986; Brenner,Pringle, & Greenhaus, 1991; Cromie, 1978; Moore, Buttner & Rosen, 1992;Quinn & Staines, 1978; Waddell, 1983). Women entrepreneurs, in particular,view the freedom and flexibility offered by business ownership as facilitatingthe pursuit of active careers and family roles simultaneously (Bowen & His-rich, 1986; Kaplan, 1988; Main, 1990). Greenhaus and Callanan (1994) havepointed out, however, that the relation between entrepreneurship and familyobligations is paradoxical. Theoretically, entrepreneurs are their own bosses,enjoy greater personal freedom than organizational employees, and have theflexibility to modify their work schedules to fulfill family commitments. Inreality, however, this freedom is bounded by their responsibility for the sur-vival and economic success of the enterprise. Success usually entails escalat-ing business demands that can diminish the time available to fulfill familyrole responsibilities (Goffee & Scase, 1985; Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994;Hornaday & Aboud, 1987; Loscocco et al., 1991; Mannheim & Schiffrin,1984). On the other hand, heavy family responsibilities limit the entrepre-neurs ability to devote time and energy to the enterprise.

Gender has long been assumed to influence the allocation of time andenergy to the competing role demands of work and family (Pleck, 1977;Pleck, Staines, & Lang, 1980). Early research on gender differences in com-mitment to the work role tended to be descriptive and atheoretical. Recenttheoretical formulations of work and family linkages propose that individualsinvestment in work and family roles can be explained in utilitarian termsbased on rational models of decision making, gender-role congruence, andthe psychological importance of the two roles (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991;Lobel, 1991; ODriscoll et al., 1992). Thus, it is necessary to examine therole of gender in influencing the time devoted to work and family, and theconsequences of this for entrepreneurs career success and well-being.

The present study seeks to address several gaps in the research on entrepre-neurial careers. First, it examines the relations of gender, work, and familyvariables with entrepreneurs personal career success and psychological well-being in both the work and family domains. Focusing on the internal career,the study examines three indicators of entrepreneurial success and well-being:career satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life stress. Moreover, the studyseeks to understand the mechanisms or processes that link work and familyvariables with career success and well-being among entrepreneurs, and to seeif they are similar to the findings relating to organizationally employed womenand men. Specifically, it investigates the role of time commitment to workand time commitment to family respectively as intervening variables linkingwork and family characteristics and role demands with workfamily conflict.

Recent conceptual refinements in the definition of workfamily conflictemphasize the need to recognize the bidirectional nature of workfamily

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


FIG. 1. Conceptual model of work and family variables and entrepreneurial career success.

conflict (Frone et al., 1992; Gutek et al., 1991; ODriscoll et al., 1992), andto distinguish between work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict.Thus, we examine work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict assecond-level, intervening variables linking work demands and family roleresponsibilities with entrepreneurs well-being. In summary, the present studyexamines the role of time commitment to work and family, and workfamilyconflict in mediating the relations of gender, work and family characteristicsand role demands with entrepreneurs career success, family satisfaction, andlife stress.

The variables in the study and the pattern of relationships proposed amongthem are summarized in Figure 1. Gender, work-domain variables, and family-domain variables are expected to be directly related to time commitment towork and time commitment to family. These two variables in turn are positedto influence work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict, and throughthem the career satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life stress experiencedby entrepreneurs. Thus, time commitment to work and time commitment tofamily are expected to play a mediational role, linking gender and the anteced-ent work and family-domain variables to the two types of workfamily con-flict. Similarly, work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict are ex-pected to mediate the relation of time commitment to work and family respec-tively with the three indicators of well-being. Based on prior research wealso expect that work- and family-domain variables will have direct effectson the two types of workfamily conflict and the three outcome measures.The rationale for the variables selected and the hypothesized pattern of rela-tions among them are discussed in the following sections.

Previous research on workfamily dynamics has treated gender as both anindependent variable directly related to time commitment to work and timecommitment to family (Frone et al., 1992; Gutek et al., 1991), workfamily

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


conflict (Bedeian et al., 1988), and as a moderator of the relationship of roledemands with well-being (Gutek et al., 1991; Parasuraman et al., 1992).Greenhaus, Parasuraman, Granrose, Rabinowitz, & Beutell, (1989) found thatwomen professionals work fewer hours per week and rate their career ashaving lower priority than that of their partner. Gender asymmetries persistin the participation of men and women in home maintenance and child care,and women still bear primary responsibility for managing family-role de-mands in addition to their work-role demands (Lewis & Cooper, 1988; Para-suraman & Greenhaus, 1993). Consequently, women entrepreneurs have sub-stantially less time available for their businesses and experience more conflictbetween work and family than their male counterparts (Longstreth, Stafford, &Maudlin, 1987; Mannheim & Schiffrin, 1984). As a result, they are morelikely than men to spend fewer hours at work or to choose part-time work(Cromie, 1978; Main, 1990).

Two theoretical perspectives have been proposed concerning the relation-ships among gender, work and family role demands, time commitment to workand family, and workfamily conflict. According to the rational approach(Gutek et al., 1991), the amount of time devoted to work and family rolesinfluences workfamily conflict, and the direction of role interference (i.e.,the level of perceived work-to-family conflict, and family-to-work conflict).Thus, the greater the time commitment to work, the greater the perceivedwork-to-family conflict, and the greater the time commitment to family, thegreater the perceived family-to-work conflict (ODriscoll et al., 1992). Onthe other hand, the gender-role perspective suggests that time allocated torole demands that are consistent with traditional gender-role expectations willbe less strongly related to the two types of workfamily conflict than timeallocation that is incongruent with such norms. Although the gender-roleperspective has received some support, stronger support has been reportedfor the rational hypothesis (Gutek et al., 1991; ODriscoll et al., 1992). Basedon gender-role expectations and previous research, we propose that men entre-preneurs will display less time commitment to family and higher time commit-ment to work than women entrepreneurs. In terms of the rational approach(Gutek et al., 1991) discussed earlier, entrepreneurs who display heavy timecommitment to work are likely to experience greater work-to-family conflict.Conversely, individuals who invest high levels of time and energy in thefamily role are likely to experience greater family-to-work conflict. Therefore,time commitment to family is hypothesized to be positively related to family-to-work conflict.

We examined autonomy, schedule inflexibility, work-role overload, andjob involvement as relevant work-domain variables likely to influence timecommitment to work and family, workfamily conflict, and career successand well-being. Autonomy refers to the degree of freedom available on the job,and is a primary motivator in the choice of entrepreneurial careers (Brenner etal., 1991; Eden, 1975; Wortman, 1987). Insofar as autonomy increases per-

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


ceived control over situations, it can reduce the perceived severity of work-role stressors (Parasuraman & Alutto, 1981, 1984) and workfamily conflict(Greenhaus & Kopelman, 1981). Greenhaus et al. (1989) found autonomy tobe negatively related to time-based workfamily conflict among women, andto strain-based workfamily conflict among men. Autonomy has also beenreported to be associated with increased job satisfaction and decreased feltstress (Parasuraman & Alutto, 1984). In the case of entrepreneurs, the greaterperceived control implied by autonomy may enable them to structure theirwork in a manner that accommodates their family responsibilities, delegateresponsibility for certain work-related tasks, or be more efficient in accomp-lishing them, thereby making time for dealing with family role demands, andminimizing or reducing workfamily conflict (Greenhaus et al., 1989;Quinn & Staines, 1978).

Entrepreneurs, however, do not enjoy unfettered autonomy. Their degreesof freedom may be limited by the characteristics of the business in whichthey are engaged. Certain deadline-driven and/or client-centered businessesmay involve schedule constraints that exacerbate work-role pressures, andreduce the time available to devote to family-role demands. Schedule inflexi-bility represents a structural source of interference between work and familythat makes it difficult to devote the time needed to fulfill family responsibilities(Bowen & Hisrich, 1986; Kaplan, 1988). Business-related travel may alsoadd to schedule inflexibility. Thus schedule inflexibility reduces the degreesof freedom available to entrepreneurs in dealing with competing role demands(Loscocco & Roschelle, 1991; Pleck et al., 1980; Quinn & Staines, 1978).Although autonomy and schedule inflexibility are correlated, they are concep-tually and empirically distinct (Greenhaus et al., 1989). Thus, autonomy andschedule inflexibility are likely to have opposite effects on time commitmentto work and family. Despite the observation that a majority of men andwomen rank work second in importance to family, work demands usually takeprecedence over family-role demands. Autonomy is expected to be positivelyrelated to time commitment to work and family. Conversely, schedule inflex-ibility is expected to be associated with increased time commitment to workand decreased time commitment to family.

Work-role overload refers to the perceived magnitude of work-role de-mands, and the feeling that there are too many things to do and not enoughtime to do them (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pineau, 1975;Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus et al., 1989). The myriad tasks in-volved in starting and operating ones own business, the need to performmultiple functions concurrently, and the demands and pulls of different con-stituencies are likely to be reflected in perceptions of role overload(Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994). Work-role overload is hypothesized to beassociated with increased time commitment to work and decreased time com-mitment to family.

Job involvement, which refers to the psychological involvement in and

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


importance of work to the individual, represents an internal or self-inducedsource of work-role pressures. Job involvement influences the amount ofenergy invested in the work role, and it has been found to be positively relatedto conflict between work and family roles (Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus &Beutell, 1985; Wiley, 1987). Greenhaus et al. (1989) found job involvementto be associated with increased time-based and strainbased work-familyconflict among women. According to Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), highlevels of psychological involvement lead to increased energy and time devotedto the work role, thereby limiting the time available for the family role.Therefore, job involvement is expected to be positively related to time com-mitment to work and negatively related to time commitment to family.

We included parental demands, instrumental, and informational or emo-tional support and family involvement as salient variables in the family do-main that can influence time commitment to work and time commitment tofamily, and thereby career and family outcomes. Parenthood and the presenceof children greatly increase the time demands of the family role, and havebeen identified as primary sources of family-role stress that can have adverseeffects on the well-being of mothers, irrespective of their employment status(Lewis & Cooper, 1977, 1988) and fathers (Benin & Nienstedt, 1985). Paren-tal demands refers to the extent of responsibility for child care and houseworkborne by entrepreneurs, which have important implications for the time avail-able to devote to business and the work role. The extensiveness of parentaldemands is likely to depend upon a number of factors, but most importantlyon the presence or absence of children, and the number and ages of thechildren at home. In view of the greater dependence of infants and youngchildren on adults, the demands on the time and energy of parents are assumedto be the strongest among those with infants or preschool children, whichcorresponds to the peak stage in Lopatas (1966) model of family roles.Parental demands are assumed to be lower for those with school-aged children,and least for those with adult children not living at home (Osherson & Dill,1983). Individuals career orientation is likely to be strongly influenced bythe extensiveness of parental and family-role demands (Tinsley & Faunce,1980). The demands on the time and energy of entrepreneurs to fulfill theirparental role responsibilities necessitate decisions about the allocation of timebetween work and family roles. Thus, parental demands are expected to bepositively related to time commitment to family, and negatively related totime commitment to work.

Theoretical models of workfamily dynamics (Greenhaus & Parasuraman,1986) and related empirical research have demonstrated the importance ofsocial support, especially spouse support, in influencing the well-being oftwo-career couples (Frone et al., 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1992). Supportrepresents an interpersonal coping resource, and is conceptualized as the flowof resources from one partner to the other aimed at helping the receiver andenhancing his or her well-being. Spouse support has been found to influence

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


womens career aspirations and choices, career priority and commitment totheir career (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1993; Sekaran, 1986; Suchet & Bar-ling, 1986), as well as job satisfaction (Rudd & McEnery, 1986) and familysatisfaction (Parasuraman et al., 1992).

Recent research suggests that the beneficial effect of social support dependsupon the appropriateness of both the source of support and the type of supportin dealing with a particular stressor (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1994; Para-suraman & Greenhaus, 1994). Although a number of types of support havebeen identified in the support literature (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Greenhaus &Parasuraman, 1994), the empirical distinction among some of them is unclear.Two types of spouse support appear relevant in the context of workfamilyconflict: instrumental support, which refers to tangible help from the partnerin the form of participation in home maintenance and child care; and informa-tion or emotional support, which refers to information, advice, affirmationof affection, and concern for the receivers welfare displayed by the partner(Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1994; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1994). Thus,high levels of instrumental support provided by ones partner can ease theburden of family-role demands, and enable the entrepreneur to devote lesstime to the family role and more time to the work role. Informational oremotional support may enhance the entrepreneurs feelings of self-efficacyand thereby decrease the perceived severity of workfamily conflict. The twotypes of support may also be related directly with increased family satisfactionand decreased life stress.

Family involvement refers to the psychological involvement with and im-portance of the family to the individual. Analogous to job involvement, familyinvolvement is likely to generate internal pressures to devote more time tomeet family-role demands, and therefore demonstrate a positive relation totime commitment to family. Recent studies provide empirical support for thislinkage (Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus et al., 1989).

Studies of workfamily dynamics posit that time commitment to work andtime commitment to family are important intervening variables that link work-and family-domain variables with workfamily conflict (Bedeian et al., 1988;Parasuraman et al., 1989). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985: 77) conceptualizeworkfamily conflict as a form of interrole conflict in which the role pres-sures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in somerespect. Recent refinements in the conceptualization and operationalizationof workfamily conflict acknowledge the bidirectionality of such conflict anddistinguish between work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict (Froneet al., 1992; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1994; Gutek et al., 1991; ODriscollet al., 1992). Insofar as work and family compete for the attention and energyof the entrepreneur, the time allocated to the two domains is likely to influenceperceptions of work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict. Thegreater the time invested in one role (say work), the less the time availableto devote to the other role (family), and consequently, the greater is the

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


perceived interference of the work domain on the family domain (i.e., work-to-family conflict). Conversely, the investment of additional time in the familyrole diminishes time available for the work role, thereby generating percep-tions of family-to-work conflict. Hence this study examines both work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict experienced by entrepreneurs.

Career satisfaction, reflecting the entrepreneurs personal satisfaction withvarious aspects of career progress and success, was examined as an internalindex of career success. Family satisfaction and life stress were included asindicators of well-being in the family domain and life overall. Family satisfac-tion refers to entrepreneurs feelings of positive affect about their familysituation, whereas life stress reflects the psychological response state of dis-turbed affect in relation to stresses in ones life.

Previous research indicates that overall workfamily conflict is associatedwith lower levels of job, family, and life satisfaction, greater life stress, andsymptoms of decreased mental and physical well-being (Bedeian et al., 1988;Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983; Lewis & Cooper, 1988; Parasura-man et al., 1992; Pleck et al., 1980; Sekaran, 1986). ODriscoll et al. (1992)reported that job interference with family is associated with decreased nonjobsatisfaction, which in turn contributes to increased psychological strain. Basedon these findings, work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict arehypothesized to be negatively related to career satisfaction and family satisfac-tion, and positively related to life stress. Moreover, extending the findings ofFrone et al. (1992) and ODriscoll et al. (1992), the study posits that work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict will mediate the relations oftime commitment to work and time commitment to family respectively withthe three indicators of entrepreneurial career success and well-being.

METHOD

Sample

The sample consisted of 111 business owners who completed and returneda survey entitled Work and Family Research Study distributed in class tomen and women enrolled in continuing professional education courses forsmall business owners in two eastern universities. For the purpose of thisstudy a broad and inclusive definition of the term entrepreneur was used torefer to a self-employed person who owned and operated his or her ownbusiness (Evans, 1957). The criteria for inclusion in the present study wasthat the respondent be self-employed in his or her own business, work twentyhours or more per week in the business, and be a member of a two-careerrelationship. The surveys were anonymous and returned directly to researchersat the university. Of the 111 respondents, 59 were men and 52 were women.The age of the entrepreneurs in this study ranged from 2661 years; theiraverage age was 41 years. Over 60% of the sample had completed a bachelorsdegree or higher level of education.

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


Measures

The measures used to operationalize the variables in the study were selectedfrom the literature with appropriate modifications for use with a sample ofentrepreneurs. In all cases the alpha reliability coefficients of the adaptedmeasures were computed to test the appropriateness of the instrument for usewith a sample of business owners. Internal consistency reliability coefficientswere also calculated for the few new measures developed for this study.

Autonomy was measured by a four-item scale developed by Parasuramanand Alutto (1981, 1984) to reflect the extent of freedom involved in the job.The scale was used by Greenhaus et al. (1989) as an antecedent of workfamily conflict. An example of an item is How often do you find that youhave freedom to adopt your own approach to the job? The response anchorsranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The referent work or business wasused instead of job in this study. The alpha reliability coefficient of the scaleas used in the current study was .85.

Schedule inflexibility was assessed by a scale with three items developedby Greenhaus et al. (1989). Two items refer directly to inflexibility, (e.g.,How flexible is your work schedule, i.e., to what extent can you makeadjustments concerning the time you go to work and the time you leavework?) The response options ranged from 1 (not at all flexible) to 4 (veryflexible). A third item asked respondents to indicate the extent to which theirwork involved out-of-town travel. Responses were anchored on a five-pointscale ranging from 1 (almost none) to 5 (a great deal). Since frequent out-of-town travel increases the inflexibility of schedules, responses to the threeitems were standardized, and the mean was used as a composite measure ofschedule inflexibility (alpha .68).

Work-role overload refers to the perception that the quantity of work ex-ceeds the time or resources available to complete it. A four-item scale adaptedfrom Caplan et al. (1975) was used to operationalize this variable. A sampleitem is There is a great deal to be done at work, with responses made ona five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).The scale items were recoded and averaged such that high scores denotedhigh work-role overload (alpha .77).

Job involvement was measured by Lodahl and Kejners (1965) abbrevi-ated four-item scale, which has been used widely as an index of the psycho-logical importance of work in the persons life (Frone et al., 1992; Kopel-man et al., 1983; Greenhaus et al., 1989; Parasuraman & Alutto, 1984).An illustrative item is The most important things that happen to meinvolve my job. The word work was used instead of job as the referentfor entrepreneurs. The alpha coefficient of the measure of job involvementused in this study was .78.

Parental demands were assessed by a scale derived from several questionsrelating to the presence or absence of children, the number and ages of the

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


children living at home, and the age of the youngest child. Applying Lopatas(1966) model of family stages, we used the coding strategy used by Bedeianet al. (1988) to categorize the respondents into five groups to reflect increasinglevels of parental demands: 1 (no children), 2 (one or more children olderthan 22 but none under the age of 22) 3 (one or more children between 19and 22 but none under the age of 19), 4 (one or more children between 6and 18 but none under 6), and 5 (one or more children under 6 years ofage). The five groups were coded 1 to 5 and used to form an ordinal scaleindicating increasing parental role demands, reaching a peak for parents incategory 5 (i.e., one or more children under age 6). Instrumental supportwas measured by a single behavioral item developed by Parasuraman andGreenhaus (1994). Individuals were asked to indicate, On average dayswhen your spouse or partner is working, about how much time does he orshe spend on housework and/or childcare? A four-point response optionwas provided, ranging from 1 (less than 1 hour) to 4 (more than 4 hours).Although the reliability of a single-item measure is generally open to question,because this measure is behaviorally anchored it may be considered quasi-objective. This measure was related to selected variables in the expecteddirection in previous research (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1994), and in thecurrent study, for example, gender (r .39, p .001, where 0 womenand 1 men) and parental demands (r .40, p .001). These findingsprovide additional confidence in the validity of the measure. The level ofinformational or emotional support received by the entrepreneur was assessedby a six-item scale developed and used by Parasuraman et al., 1992. Respon-dents were asked to indicate how much support of various types they receivedfrom their spouse or partner. An illustrative item relating to informationalsupport is To what extent does your spouse or partner give you advice orsuggestions when you have a problem? An example of an item reflectingemotional support is To what extent is your spouse or partner willing tolisten to your problems? The response anchors ranged from 1 (almost none)to 5 (a great deal). The mean of the six items was used as a measure ofperceived informational or emotional support (alpha .86).

Family involvement was measured by a scale that paralleled the job involve-ment scale, with the word family substituted for the word job. This scale asmodified by Kopelman et al. (1983), has been used to assess family involve-ment in a number of research studies (e.g., Frone et al., 1992; Parasuramanet al., 1992). The negative correlation of this variable with job involvementand positive correlation with time commitment to family provide additionalconfidence in the validity of this scale as a measure of family involvement.The alpha coefficient of the scale as used in this study was .76. Gender wasa dummy variable coded 0 for women and 1 for men.

Time commitment to work was measured by a self-report, behaviorallyanchored item that asked respondents, How many hours would you say youwork in an average week? Include the time spent at the office, time spent

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


traveling, and time spent working at home. The response categories rangedfrom 1 (2029 hours) to 5 (60 hours or more). The modal time commitmentto work was 5059 hours for men and 4049 hours for women. Time commit-ment to family was assessed by a behaviorally anchored item: On the averageon days when you are working, about how much time do you spend onhousework and/or child care? Four response categories ranging from 1 (lessthan 1 hour) to 4 (more than 4 hours) were provided.

Work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict were measured by a setof items developed by Kopelman et al. (1983). The scale measuring work-to-family conflict consisted of six items dealing with the interference of workwith family. An illustrative item is: My work takes up time Id like to spendwith my family. Responses to these items were made on five-point scalesanchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). The mean of thesix items was used as a measure of work-to-family conflict (alpha .87).The measure of family-to-work conflict included four items reflecting theinterference of family with work (e.g., My family takes up time Id like tospend working) (alpha .64). The two types of workfamily conflict werecorrelated in the expected direction (r 0.31, p .01).

Career satisfaction was measured with a 5-item scale developed by Para-suraman et al. (1992). The items asked respondents to indicate their level ofsatisfaction with their career progress and success, including progress madein meeting goals for income and development of new skills. An example isHow satisfied are you with the progress you have made toward meetingyour overall career goals? The response options were anchored on a five-point scale from 1 (dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). The mean of the fiveitems was used as a measure of career satisfaction (alpha .87).

Family satisfaction was measured by a three-item scale used originallyby Kopelman et al. (1983) and subsequently by other researchers as well(Parasuraman et al., 1992). The items used a five-point rating scale, rangingfrom 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). An example is Generallyspeaking, I am very satisfied with my family. The items were recoded suchthat high scores denoted high family satisfaction (alpha .76).

Life stress was assessed by a ten-item scale developed by Parasuraman etal. (1992). The scale measures the psychological response state of disturbedaffect in relation to stressors in ones life. The scale items ask individuals toindicate the extent to which they experience various feelings about things intheir life such as being upset, frustrated, under pressure, feeling blue andtired or worn out. The ten items were averaged and used as a measure ofoverall life stress (alpha .89).

Control variables included the organizations size, and the number of yearsof business ownership. Previous research has shown these two variables tobe strongly related to gender, entrepreneurial business success, income, andsatisfaction (Chaganti & Schneer, 1994; Kalleberg & Leicht, 1991; Loscoccoet al., 1991). Hence they were treated as controls to avoid confounding the

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


results. Organization size was assessed by a nine-point scale ranging from 1(less than three employees) to 9 (more than 10,000 employees). Years ofbusiness ownership was assessed by a self-report item.

Analysis

Zero-order correlations were computed and examined to assess the generalpattern of relations among the study variables. Because the conceptual modelguiding this study is exploratory, our interest focused on understanding thenature of these relations and on theory development rather than theory testing.Path analysis using least-squares multiple regression analysis was performedto test the plausibility of the proposed relations among the study variables.In situations where theory is not well developed, path analysis is a usefulanalytical technique to assess the assumed causal linkages of the exogenousvariables with the endogenous variables (Heise, 1969). Path analysis involvesfewer constraints than LISREL, it allows control of possible confoundingvariables, and it permits the inclusion of dummy-coded categorical variables.Path analysis entails the same assumptions as those of multiple regressionanalyses (i.e., normal distribution of data, linear additive relations, low mea-surement error, absence of extreme multicollinearity, and uncorrelated residu-als) (Billings & Wroten, 1978). The internal consistency reliability coefficientsof the multi-item scales that ranged from .64 to .89 were considered satisfac-tory. Inspection of the intercorrelations among the independent variables re-vealed no evidence of extreme multicollinearity (i.e., rs .80). The Durbin-Watson d-statistics (Dillon & Goldstein, 1984) showed that the residuals forall but one of the dependent variables were substantially uncorrelated. Therobustness of the F and t tests used in multiple regression analysis makesthem resistant to minor violations in the assumptions.

A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed toassess the effects of gender, work-domain variables, and family-domain vari-ables respectively on each successive dependent variable in the model, whilecontrolling for the size of the organization and entrepreneurs years of experi-ence as a business owner. Thus, time commitment to work and time commit-ment to family respectively were regressed on the controls in the first step,with gender added in the second step. Work- and family-domain variableswere entered separately in the third and fourth steps respectively in order toassess the independent contribution of each domain to variation in the depen-dent measures. Similarly, work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflictwere regressed on the two control variables in step one; gender, work-domainvariables, and family-domain variables in steps two, three, and four respec-tively; and time commitment to work and time commitment to family in thefifth step. Finally, career satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life stress wereeach regressed first on the controls, with gender, work- and family-domainvariables added in the second and third steps, followed by time commitment

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


to work and time commitment to family, and work-to-family conflict andfamily-to-work conflict in the fourth and fifth steps respectively.

The hierarchical regression procedure facilitates the interpretation and un-derstanding of the path analysis results in two ways. First, it allows assessmentof the unique contribution of a set of variables or a single variable to ex-plaining variation in the dependent variables (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Thechange in R2 obtained at each step of the hierarchical regression analysisreflects the explanatory power of the variables included in that step in influ-encing the dependent variable. Second, it permits partitioning of the totalvariance into direct and indirect effects of the independent variable on thedependent measure (Alwin & Hauser, 1975). The initial beta weight of avariable when it first enters a regression equation represents the total effectof that variable on the dependent measure, and the standardized regressionweight (beta) obtained in the final step of the analysis represents the directeffect. The difference between the total and direct effect is the indirect effect(Ross, 1975). The direct effect indicates the strength and direction of therelationship of the independent variable with the dependent measure.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations amongthe study variables. The correlations show that the bivariate relations amongseveral of the variables were in the expected direction and statistically signifi-cant. Of the work-domain variables, schedule inflexibility, work-role over-load, and job involvement were positively related to time commitment towork. The correlates of time commitment to family include parental demands,and instrumental support. Gender was significantly related to several of thestudy variables. Thus, male entrepreneurs tended to be more job involved,received more instrumental support from their spouses, and displayed moretime commitment to work, and lower time commitment to family than womenentrepreneurs.

Table 2 presents the path analysis results for time commitment to workand time commitment to family, respectively. The results show that genderwas related to time commitment to work and time commitment to family. Aspredicted, men entrepreneurs devoted significantly more time to work (b .41, p .001) and less time to family (b 0.46, p .001) than womenentrepreneurs. The work-domain variables collectively explained significantunique variation in time commitment to work (D R2 .21, p .001). Thefamily-domain variables accounted for significant unique variation in timecommitment to family (D R2 .21, p .001). Work-role overload (b .36, p .001) and schedule inflexibility (b .19, p .01) were the principalwork-domain variables associated with increased time commitment to work.Similarly, parental demands (b .32, p .001) and instrumental support(b .25, p .01) were positively related to time commitment to family.

The path analysis results for work-to-family conflict and family-to-work

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


TAB

LE1

Mea

ns,S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

ns,a

nd

Inte

rcor

rela

tions

among

Stud

yV

aria

bles

Var

iabl

esM

ean

SD1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1.G

ende

r2.

Aut

onom

y4.

49.65

.07

3.W

ork

role

over

load

3.61

.76

.19

.06

4.Sc

hedu

lein

flexi

bilit

y0.

30.71

.04

0.18

.10

5.Jo

bin

volv

emen

t3.

10.76

.25

.23

.28

.23

6.Pa

rent

alde

man

ds2.

831.

91.00

.03

.00

.05

.06

7.In

fo./E

mot

iona

lsu

ppor

t3.

87.87

.24

.31

.14

0.03

.11

0.03

8.In

stru

men

tals

upp

ort

2.04

.99

.39

0.14

0.01

.26

.17

.40

0.02

9.Fa

mily

invo

lvem

ent

4.01

.84

0.03

.10

.07

0.33

0.30

.22

.40

0.09

10.

Tim

eco

mm

itmen

tto

wo

rk3.

481.

33.43

.07

.47

.24

.34

0.02

.13

.29

0.11

11.

Tim

eco

mm

itmen

tto

fam

ily2.

041.

050.

470.

110.

280.

010.

26.42

0.13

.15

.15

0.33

12.

Wor

k-to

-fam

ilyco

nfli

ct3.

02.82

.19

0.01

.61

.22

.22

.06

.07

.10

0.15

.51

0.31

13.

Fam

ily-to

-wor

kco

nfli

ct2.

25.64

0.11

0.36

.08

.18

.20

.13

0.38

.08

0.32

0.06

.13

.16

14.

Care

ersa

tisfa

ctio

n.00

.73

.31

.32

.22

0.09

.26

0.02

.27

.11

.11

.27

0.12

.03

0.28

15.

Fam

ilysa

tisfa

ctio

n2.

86.80

0.04

0.13

0.02

0.28

0.06

0.16

.05

0.06

.04

0.09

.10

0.02

0.03

.21

16.

Life

stre

ss2.

88.67

0.12

0.20

.34

.12

0.02

.17

0.08

.09

0.08

.11

.03

.53

.33

0.16

.04

.25

Not

e.G

ende

rwas

code

d0

wom

en,

1

men

.r

.15

,p

.05

;r

.25

,p

.01

;r

.36

,p

.00

1.

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


TABLE 2Path Analysis Results for Time Commitment to Work and Time Commitment to Family

Time commitment to work Time commitment to family

Direct DirectIndependent variables effect b R 2 DR 2 effect b R 2 DR 2

Controls .04 .02Gender .41*** .21*** .17*** 0.46*** .23*** .21***Work domainAutonomy .04 0.04Schedule inflexibility .19* .05Work-role overload .36*** 0.16Job involvement .14 .42*** .21*** 0.13 .29*** .06Family domainParental demands 0.06 .32***Info./emotional support 0.01 .03Instrumental support .19 .25*Family involvement 0.05 .45*** .03 .03 .50*** .21***

Adjusted R 2 .38*** .44***

Note. The control variables were organizational size and number of years of business owner-ship. Gender was coded 0 women, and 1 men.

* p .05.** p .01.

*** p .001.

conflict are reported in Table 3. The results provide substantial support forthe hypothesis that time commitment to work and time commitment to familywill be directly related to the two types of workfamily conflict. Time com-mitment to work was related positively with work-to-family conflict (b .25, p .05), whereas time commitment to family was negatively relatedwith both family-to-work conflict (b 0.24, p .05) and work-to-familyconflict (b 0.24, p .05). Work-role overload (b .49, p .001) andparental demands (b .22, p .05) also were associated with heightenedwork-to-family conflict. Cross-domain effects were noted for job involvement,which was positively related to work-to-family conflict (b .31, p .001)and for family involvement, which was associated with decreased work-to-family conflict (b 0.22, p .05). Autonomy (b 0.32, p .001) hada direct negative effect on family-to-work conflict. Informational/emotionalsupport (b .25, p .01) was negatively associated with family-to-workconflict.

Table 4 presents the path analyses results for career satisfaction, familysatisfaction, and life stress. The work-domain variables as a set accountedfor most of the variation in career satisfaction (D R2 .25, p .001). Theworkfamily conflict variables also made a significant incremental contribu-

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB

291WORK AND FAMILY VARIABLES AND SUCCESSTA

BLE

3Pa

thA

naly

sisR

esul

tsfo

rWor

k-to

-Fam

ilyCo

nflic

tand

Fam

ily-to

-Wor

kCo

nflic

t

Wor

k-to

-fam

ilyco

nfli

ctFa

mily

-to-w

ork

confli

ct

Tota

lD

irect

Tota

lD

irect

effe

ctef

fect

Indi

rect

effe

ctef

fect

Indi

rect

Inde

pend

entv

aria

bles

bb

effe

cta

R2

DR

2b

bef

fect

aR

2D

R2

Cont

rols

.03

.06

Gen

der

.19

0.13

.32

.06

.03

0.10

.01

0.09

.07

.01

Wor

kdo

mai

nA

uton

omy

0.02

0.05

0.03

0.40

0.32

***

.08

Sche

dule

infle

xibi

lity

.13

.05

.08

0.03

.01

.04

Wor

k-ro

leo

ver

load

.58

.49

***

.09

.02

.15

0.13

Job

invo

lvem

ent

.02

0.12

.14

.41

***

.35

***

.33

.31

***

.02

.27

***

.20

***

Fam

ilydo

mai

nPa

rent

alde

man

ds.13

.22

*0.

09.18

.13

.05

Info

./em

otio

nals

upp

ort

.08

.09

0.01

0.24

0.25

.01

Inst

rum

enta

lsupp

ort

.00

.01

0.01

0.07

0.08

.01

Fam

ilyin

volv

emen

t0.

240.

22*

0.02

.45

***

.04

0.13

0.15

.02

.39

***

.09

This

com

mitm

entt

ow

ork

.25

.25

*.00

0.15

0.15

.00

Tim

eco

mm

itmen

tto

fam

ily0.

240.

24*

.00

.52

***

.07

***

.13

.13

.00

.39

***

.02

Adju

stedR

2.45

***

.30

***

Not

e.Th

eco

ntr

olvar

iabl

esw

ere

org

aniz

atio

nals

ize

and

num

bero

fyea

rsofb

usin

ess

ow

ner

ship

.Gen

derw

asco

ded

0

wom

en,

1

men

.a

The

indi

rect

effe

ctis

the

diffe

renc

ebe

twee

nth

eto

tale

ffect

and

the

dire

ctef

fect

.*

p

.05

.*

*p

.01

.*

**

p

.00

1.

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB

292 PARASURAMAN ET AL.TA

BLE

4Pa

thA

naly

sisR

esul

tsfo

rCar

eerS

atisf

actio

nan

dW

ell-B

eing

ofE

ntre

pren

eurs

Care

ersa

tisfa

ctio

nFa

mily

satis

fact

ion

Life

stre

ss

Tota

lD

irect

Indi

rect

Tota

lD

irect

Indi

rect

Tota

lD

irect

Indi

rect

Inde

pend

entv

aria

bles

effe

ctb

effe

ctb

effe

cta

R2

DR

2ef

fect

bef

fect

bef

fect

aR

2D

R2

effe

ctb

effe

ctb

effe

cta

R2

DR

2

Cont

rols

.02

.18

***

.03

Gen

der

.16

.08

.08

.05

.03

0.08

.05

0.03

.19

***

.00

0.13

0.21

.08

.05

.02

Wor

kdo

mai

nA

uton

omy

.33

.24

*.09

0.20

0.20

.00

0.18

0.09

0.09

Sche

dule

infle

xibi

lity

0.14

0.14

.00

0.23

0.26

*.03

.02

0.06

.08

Wor

k-ro

leover

load

.17

.17

.00

.02

.05

0.03

.38

.13

.25

Job

invo

lvem

ent

.22

.35

***

0.13

.30

***

.25

***

.10

.14

0.04

.25

***

.06

0.04

0.13

.09

.21

***

.16

***

Fam

ilydo

mai

nPa

rent

alde

man

ds0.

080.

08.00

0.07

0.18

.11

.21

.10

.11

Info

./em

otio

nals

upp

ort

.00

0.06

.06

.09

.04

.05

.06

.07

0.01

Inst

rum

enta

lsupp

ort

.11

.02

.09

.07

.02

.05

.07

.11

0.04

Fam

ilyin

volv

emen

t.14

.07

.07

.31

***

.01

0.14

0.12

0.02

.27

***

.02

0.19

0.04

0.15

.27

***

.06

Tim

eco

mm

itmen

tto

work

.09

.08

.01

0.12

0.18

.06

0.02

0.12

.10

Tim

eco

mm

itmen

tto

fam

ily.21

.21

.00

.34

***

.03

.24

.29

*0.

05.31

***

.04

0.11

0.01

.10

.27

***

.00

Wor

k-to

-fam

ilyco

nfli

ct0.

140.

14.00

.17

.17

.00

.51

.51

***

.00

Fam

ily-to

-wor

kco

nfli

ct0.

260.

26*

.00

.40

***

.06

*0.

080.

08.00

.33

***

.02

.20

.20

*.00

.44

***

.17

***

Adju

stedR

2.29

***

.22

***

.35

***

Not

e.Th

eco

ntr

olvar

iabl

esw

ere

org

aniz

atio

nals

ize

and

num

bero

fyea

rsofb

usin

ess

ow

ner

ship

.Gen

derw

asco

ded

0

wom

en,

1

men

.a

The

indi

rect

effe

ctis

the

diffe

renc

ebe

twee

nth

eto

tale

ffect

and

the

dire

ctef

fect

.*

p

.05

.*

*p

.01

.*

**

p

.00

1.

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


FIG. 2. Direct and indirect effects of work and family variables on entrepreneurial careersuccess and psychological well-being.

tion (D R2 .06, p .05) to variation in career satisfaction, with family-to-work conflict decreasing career satisfaction (b 0.26, p .05). Themodel variables explain 33% of the variation in family satisfaction. Scheduleinflexibility (b 0.26, p .05) detracted from family satisfaction, and timecommitment to family (b .29, p .05) enhanced satisfaction. Neither of thetwo types of workfamily conflict was directly related to family satisfaction.

Consistent with our hypothesis, work-to-family conflict (b .51, p .001) and family-to-work conflict (b .20, p .05) were related directly tolife stress, and jointly make a substantial incremental contribution (D R2 .17, p .001) to variation in life stress. The effects of gender and severalwork and family variables on life stress were transmitted through time com-mitment to work and time commitment to family at the first level, and throughthe two types of workfamily conflict at the second level. Thus, the resultsprovide moderately strong support for the mediational role of time commit-ment to work and family and workfamily conflict.

Figure 2 summarizes the total pattern of significant relations among thestudy variables. The diagram shows that time commitment to work partiallymediated the effects of gender, role overload, and schedule inflexibility onwork-to-family conflict. Similarly, time commitment to family served a partialmediational role in transmitting the effects of gender, parental demands, andinstrumental support on work-to-family conflict and family satisfaction. Inother words, the effect of work and family variables on the two types ofworkfamily conflict was transmitted through time commitment to work andtime commitment to family. Work-to-family conflict mediated the effects of

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


time commitment to work, time commitment to family, role overload, parentaldemands, and family involvement on life stress. The effects of time commit-ment to family, autonomy, job involvement, and informational or emotionalsupport on career satisfaction and life stress were mediated through family-to-work conflict. Family satisfaction was influenced directly by schedule in-flexibility. Overall, the results demonstrated that time commitment to workand family, and work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict operatedas key intervening mechanisms through which work and family variablesaffected entrepreneurs career success, family satisfaction, and life stress.

DISCUSSION

This study breaks new ground in research on entrepreneurs by examiningthe effect of both work and family variables on entrepreneurial career successand psychological well-being. The results provide interesting insights into therelation of specific characteristics of the work and family domains and associ-ated role demands with entrepreneurs time commitment to work and timecommitment to family, respectively. The results indicate that entrepreneurstime commitment to work is influenced primarily by work-domain characteris-tics and role pressures (i.e., schedule inflexibility and work-role overload).On the other hand, time commitment to family is influenced largely by paren-tal demands and instrumental support provided by the partner. Thus, work-domain variables account for significantly greater variation in time commit-ment to work than in time commitment to family, whereas family-domainvariables explain substantially more variation in time commitment to familythan in time commitment to work. These findings parallel the results reportedin studies of organizationally employed men and women, that within-domainrelations are stronger than between-domain relations (Frone et al., 1992;Parasuraman et al., 1992).

The findings reveal that gender influences the career success and well-being of entrepreneurs primarily through its effects on time commitment towork and time commitment to family. Women entrepreneurs devote signifi-cantly more time to family than men, and men entrepreneurs devote moretime to work than women. Viewed in conjunction with the direct effects oftime commitment to work and family on work-to-family conflict, the resultssuggest women attempt to reduce anticipated workfamily conflicts by scal-ing down their time commitment to work and increasing their time commit-ment to family. These findings are consistent with our hypotheses and tradi-tional gender-role norms and expectations. Gender does not have direct effectson workfamily conflict or the outcome variables. The significant correlationsof gender with job involvement and the two types of social support, viewedin conjunction with the direct effects of job involvement on work-to-familyconflict, and of social support on work-to-family conflict suggests a morecomplex web of relations among these variables and their effects on workfamily conflict and entrepreneurs well-being. It is also possible that gender

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


and some of the work and family variables (parental demands, job involve-ment, and instrumental social support) have interaction effects on the depen-dent measures.

Contrary to expectations, the results indicate that psychological involve-ment in work and family roles have virtually no effect on time commitmentto work and time commitment to family; rather, they have direct effects onthe two types of workfamily conflict. Moreover, job involvement and familyinvolvement have differential cross-domain effects on workfamily conflict.High levels of job involvement are associated with increased family-to-workconflict independently of the time commitment to work, whereas high levelsof family involvement are associated with decreased work-to-family conflict.Thus, as suggested by Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1994), it appears that theextent of psychological involvement in a role importantly affects perceptionsof the direction of role interference.

Our findings indicate that extensive parental demands necessitate increasedtime commitment to family, which in turn is associated with decreased work-to-family conflict, but unrelated to family-to-work conflict. It appears fromthis that the additional time devoted to the family role by entrepreneurs withyoung children is viewed positively by them and is not perceived to interferewith the work role. The positive direct relation of spouse instrumental supportwith time commitment to family is surprising and contrary to what wasexpected. This may reflect in part the operation of reciprocity in the exchangeof support by entrepreneurs and their spouses (i.e., entrepreneurs who provideextensive instrumental support to their spouse, are also likely to receive similarsupport in return) (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1994). However, the possibilityof common method variance contributing to the result cannot be ruled out.

The beneficial effects of autonomy in enabling entrepreneurs to meet thedual demands of work and family roles are reflected in the direct negativeeffect of autonomy on family-to-work conflict. This finding suggests thatthe latitude provided by autonomy enables the entrepreneur to minimize theintrusion of family into work. An additional benefit of autonomy is its positiveeffect on career satisfaction.

An important contribution of this study is the confirmation of the role oftime commitment to work and time commitment to family in mediating theeffects of gender, work-domain, and family-domain variables on work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict, respectively. The findings alsodemonstrate that the two types of conflict operate as second-level, interveningvariables, through which the effects of time commitment to work and timecommitment to family are transmitted to career success and life stress. It isinteresting to note that work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflicthave cross-domain consequences on entrepreneurs well-being. Work-to-fam-ily conflict is associated with heightened life stress, whereas family-to-workconflict is associated with decreased career satisfaction of entrepreneurs.Work-to-family conflict also plays a more important mediating role than

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


family-to-work conflict in terms of the number of paths from antecedentvariables that go through it. Moreover, the magnitude of the path coefficientfrom work-to-family conflict to life stress is more than twice that of the pathfrom family-to-work conflict to life stress. The differential pattern and strengthof the relations of work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict withthe antecedent and outcome variables underscore the importance of specifyingthe type of conflict involved in gaining a deeper understanding of the mecha-nisms and processes through which work and family variables affect thecareer success and well-being of entrepreneurs.

In conclusion, the study extends prior research on entrepreneurial careersby defining success more broadly to include internal or personal criteria ofcareer success and indicators of psychological well-being in the work andfamily domains. The results demonstrate the utility of examining both work-domain and family-domain variables simultaneously in gaining a deeper un-derstanding of the factors that influence entrepreneurial success and well-being. In particular, they highlight the importance of time commitment towork and time commitment to family as intervening variables through whichwork and family domain variables influence different types of workfamilyconflict, and eventually the success and the well-being of entrepreneurs.

Although the findings provide some support for the assumed causal linkagesamong the study variables, no causal inferences can be drawn about the patternof relations reported in the results section because of the cross-sectional designof this study. The failure to confirm some of the predicted paths (e.g., fromwork-to-family conflict to career satisfaction) may be due to problems in themeasures used to assess some variables, unmeasured variables (James, 1980;James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982), and problems inherent in single-item scales.This suggests the need is to identify and examine other salient variables likelyto influence entrepreneurial career success and well-being. Future researchshould examine explicitly interactions among gender and other work andfamily variables (e.g., job involvement, family involvement) in order to un-cover possible joint moderating effects of these variables on career and familyoutcomes. Such research should also include more macrolevel variables, re-flecting the nature of the business and management practices and processesthat are likely to influence career success and other outcomes.

REFERENCESAlwin, D. E., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). Decomposition of effects in path analysis. American

Sociological Review, 40, 3747.Bedeian, R. C., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. C. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conflict among

male and female professionals. Journal of Management, 14, 475491.Benin, M. H., & Nienstedt, B. C. (1985). Happiness in single and dual-earner families: The

effects of marital happiness, job satisfaction, and life cycle. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 47, 975984.

Beutell, N. J., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1980). Some sources and consequences of interrole conflictamong married women. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Eastern Academy ofManagement, 17, 26.

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


Billings, R. S., & Wroten, S. P. (1978). Use of path analysis in industrial/organizational psychol-ogy: Criticisms and suggestions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 677699.

Bowen, D. D., & Hisrich, R. D. (1986). The female entrepreneur: A career development perspec-tive. Academy of Management Review, 11, 393407.

Brenner, O. C., Pringle, C. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1991). Perceived fulfillment of organizationalemployment versus entrepreneurship: Work values and career intentions of business collegegraduates. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(7), 6274.

Brett, J., & Yogev, S. (1988). Restructuring work for family: How dual-earner couples withchildren manage. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 159174.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Harrison, R. U., & Pineau, S. R. (1975). Job demandsand worker health, NIOSH Report.

Chaganti, R., & Schneer, J. A. (1994). A study of the impact of owners mode of entry onventure performance and management patterns. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 243260.

Chay, Y. W. (1993). Social support, individual differences and well-being: A study of smallbusiness entrepreneurs and employees. The Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 66, 285302.

Christensen, K., & Staines, G. (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work-family conflict. TheJournal of Family Issues, 11, 455476.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences, Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis, Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 98, 310357.

Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work roleexpectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 253260.

Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership.Strategic Management Journal, 7, 5368.

Cromie, S. (1978). Motivations of aspiring male and female entrepreneurs. Journal of Occupa-tional Behavior, 8, 251261.

Dillon, W. R., & Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate analysis: Methods and applications. NewYork: Wiley.

Eden, D. (1975). Organizational membership versus self-employment: Another blow to the Amer-ican dream. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 7994.

Evans, H. G. (1957, April). A century of entrepreneurship in the United States with emphasison large manufacturing concerns, 18501957. The Entrepreneur. Presented at the Annualconference of the Economic History Society.

Frone, M. R., & Rice, R. W. (1987). Work-family conflict: The effect of job and family involve-ment. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 4553.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-familyconflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,6578.

Goffee, R., & Scase, R. (1985). Business ownership and womens subordination: A preliminarystudy of female proprietors. The Sociological Review, 31, 625648.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.Academy of Management Review, 10, 7688.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Callanan, G. A. (1994). Career management. Ft. Worth, TX: The DrydenPress.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Kopelman, R. E. (1981). Conflict between work and nonwork roles. Implica-tions for the career planning process. Human Resource Planning, 4(1), 110.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1986). A worknonwork interactive perspective of stressand its consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8(2), 3760.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1994). Work-family conflict, social support, and well-

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


being. In M. J. Davidson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Women in management: Current researchissues. (pp. 213229) London: Paul Chapman.

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N. J. (1989).Sources of work-family conflict among two-career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior,34, 133153.

Gutek, B. A., Nakamura, C., & Nieva, V. (1981). The interdependence of work and family roles.Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 116.

Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role expectations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560568.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-WesleyPublishing Co.

Heise, D. R. (1969). Problems in path analysis and causal inference. In E. F. Borgatta (Ed.),Sociological methodology, (pp. 3873). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. (1987). The woman entrepreneur. In C. M. Baumback & J. R.Mancuso (Eds.). Entrepreneurship and venture management (pp. 187189). (Second Edi-tion). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hornaday, J. A., & Aboud, J. (1987). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. In C. M.Baumback, & J. R. Mancuso (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and venture management (pp. 2436) (second Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

James, L. R. (1980). The unmeasured variables problem in path analysis. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 65, 415421.

James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, anddata. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.

Kalleberg, A., & Leicht, K. T. (1991). Gender and organizational performance: Determinants ofsmall business survival and success. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 136161.

Kaplan, E. (1988). Women entrepreneurs: Constructing a framework to examine venture successand failure. Proceedings of the Babson Entrepreneurship Conference, (pp. 643653).

Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family andinterrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, 32, 198215.

Kets de Vries, M. F. (1988). Stress and the entrepreneur. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne. CurrentConcerns in Occupational Stress (pp. 4359), Chichester: Wiley.

Lewis, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1977). Stress in dual-earner couples and stage in the life cycle.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 289303.

Lewis, S. N. C., & Cooper, C. L. (1988). Stress in dual-earner families. In B. A. Gutek, A. H.Stromberg, & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women and work: An annual review (pp. 139168).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment in work and family roles: Alternative theories andimplications for research. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 507521.

Lodahl, T., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journalof Applied Psychology, 49, 2433.

Longstreth, M., Stafford, K., & Maudlin, T. (1987). Self-employed women and their families:Time use and socioeconomic characteristics. Journal of Small Business Management, 25(7),3037.

Lopata, H. Z. (1966). The life cycle of the social role of housewife. Sociology and SocialResearch, 51, 522.

Loscocco, K. A., Robinson, J., Hall, R. H., & Allen, J. K. (1991). Gender and small businesssuccess: An inquiry into womens relative disadvantage. Social Forces, 70, 6585.

Loscocco, K. A., & Roschelle, A. R. (1991). Influences on the quality of work and nonworklife: Two decades in review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 182225.

Main, J. (1990). A golden age for entrepreneurs. Fortune, February, pp. 120125.Mannheim, B., & Schiffrin, M. (1984). Family structure, rewards and strains as related to work

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


role centrality of employed and self-employed professional women with children. Journalof Occupational Behavior, 51, 83101.

Moore, D. T. P., Buttner, E. H., & Rosen, B. (1992). Stepping off the corporate track: Theentrepreneurial alternative. In U. Sekaran & F. T. L. Leong (Eds.), Womanpower: NewburyPark, CA.: Sage.

National Foundation for Women Business Owners. (1992). Women owned business: The neweconomic force, 1992 data report.

Naughton, T. J. (1987). Contrasting models of working life among the self-employed: An empiri-cal test. Academy of Management Proceedings, 47, 7881.

ODriscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities,interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 272279.

Osherson, S., & Dill, D. (1983). Varying work and family choices: Their impact on mens worksatisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 339346.

Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1981). An examination of the organizational antecedents ofstressors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 4867.

Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1984). Sources and outcomes of stress in organizational settings:Toward the development of a structural model. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 330350.

Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1993). Personal portrait: The lifestyle of women managers.Women in management: Trends, issues and challenges (vol. 4, pp. 186211). NewburyPark, CA: Sage Publishers.

Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1994). Determinants of support provided and received bypartners in two-career relationships. In L. A. Heslop (Ed.), The ties that bind (pp. 121145). Calgary, Alberta: Canadian Consortium of Management Schools.

Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, andwell-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339356.

Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., Rabinowitz, S., Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1989).Work and family variables as mediators of the relationship between wives employmentand husbands well-being. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 185201.

Peluchette, J. V. E. (1993). Subjective career success: The influence of individual difference,family, and organizational variables, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 198208.

Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work-family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417427.Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life.

Monthly Labor Review, 103(3), 2932.Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1978). The 1977 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor, MI:

ISR, University of Michigan.Ross, D. R. (1975). Direct, indirect, and spurious effects: Comments on causal analysis of

interorganizational relations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 295297.Rudd, N. M., & McEnery, P. C. (1986). Family influences on the job satisfaction of employed

mothers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 363372.Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.Scott, C. E. (1986). Why more women are becoming entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business

Management, 4, 3744.Sekaran, U. (1986). Dual-career families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Stoner, C. R., Hartman, R. I., & Arora, R. (1990). Work-home role conflict in female owners

of small businesses: An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business Management, 28, 3038.

Suchet, M., & Barling, J. (1986). Employed mothers: Interrole conflict, spouse support, andmarital functioning. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 7, 167178.

Tinsley, D. J., & Faunce, P. S. (1980). Enabling, facilitating, and precipitating factors associatedwith womens career orientation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 183194.

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB


Waddell, F. T. (1983). Factors affecting choice, satisfaction, and success in the female self-employed. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 294304.

Wiley, D. L. (1987). The relationship between work/nonwork role conflict and job-related out-comes. Some unanticipated findings. Journal of Management, 13, 467472.

Wortman, M. S. (1987). Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empiri-cal research in the field. Journal of Management, 13(2), 259279.

Received: August 2, 1994.

6305$$1499 05-06-96 07:23:18 jvba AP: JVB

parasuraman et al (1996)_work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success and well-being- j...

Documents

family variables

work conflict

familydomain variables

family characteristics

influence of work

selected work

women entrepreneurs

effects of time commitment