Work–family conflict, social support, and turnover intentions: A longitudinal study

Abstract

This longitudinal study examined the relative merits of two alternative perspectives on the interplay between work–family conflict, social support, and turnover intentions. According to the cross-domain perspective, family-to-work conflict (FWC) should be more important in predicting increases in turnover intentions than work-to-family conflict (WFC). According to the matching-perspective, however, WFC should be more important in predicting increases in turnover intentions than FWC. We expanded the debate about matching- versus cross-domain relationships by testing whether resources (i.e., social support) should stem from the same domain (i.e., work or family) as the conflict (i.e., matching-principle) or from the other domain (i.e., cross-domain perspective). Additionally, authors hypothesized that changes in WFC and FWC predicted changes in turnover intentions and tested reciprocal relationships between WFC/FWC and turnover intentions. This longitudinal study (5-month time lag) with 665 employees revealed that (increases in) WFC predicted increases in turnover intentions, whereas (increases in) FWC did not. The relationship between WFC and increases in turnover intentions was buffered by work–family specific leader support but not by work–family specific support from family and friends. Further, results revealed reverse relationships such that turnover intentions predicted increases in WFC and FWC. Taken together, the results of this study supported the matching-principle rather than the cross-domain perspective. The reverse relationships found between work–family conflict and turnover intentions challenge the common view that work–family conflict antecedes turnover intentions in a unidirectional way.