Research purpose: The objective was to determine the relationship between work resources, home resources, work engagement, family engagement and work-family enrichment. The aim was also to test two models representing work-to-family and family-to-work enrichment as mediators.

Motivation for the study: By investigating work-family enrichment, as a new research concept, and its antecedents and outcomes, this study will add to the positive side of the work-family interface literature and provide information to organisations.

Research design, approach and method: A cross-sectional survey design was used in this study with a sample of female workers (N = 420) in South Africa. Polychoric correlations, fit indices, structural equation modelling and testing mediation were used to analyse the data. Omegas and alpha coefficients were employed to determine the reliability.

Main findings: A positive relationship between work-family enrichment and its antecedents and outcomes was found. Furthermore, work-family enrichment (W-FE) mediated (large effect) the relationship between work resources and work engagement and family-work enrichment mediated (small effect) the relationship between home resources and family engagement.

Practical/managerial implications: The results provide more insight and understanding to organisations and female workers on the benefits of being involved in both the domain of work life and the domain of family life.

Contribution/value-add: The study contributes to the limited research undertaken on work-family enrichment within the South African context. The present study also contributes to the literature on the use of the newly developed MACE Work-Family Enrichment Instrument.

Assessing most recent literature relating to relevant antecedents for work-family enrichment (Cheng, Mauno & Lee, 2013; Kacmar, Crawford, Carlson, Ferguson & Whitten, 2014; Siu et al., 2010; Tang, Siu & Cheung, 2014) it seems that mainly home resources and work resources are used to evaluate the effect on workers’ work-family enrichment. According to Siu et al. (2010) and Kacmar et al. (2014), certain resources gained from work life had a positive effect on the work-to-family experiences of employees, whilst certain resources gained from a person’s home life had a positive effect on the family-to-work experiences of an employee. Apart from the aforementioned, these experiences may lead to positive outcomes for employees. Primarily, various studies tested work-family enrichment as a mediator for home resources and work resources (as antecedents) with engagement (as a consequence) (Cheng et al., 2013; Jaga & Bagraim, 2011; Nicklin & McNall, 2013; Siu et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2014). More specifically, these studies have shown that work engagement is an outcome of work-to-family enrichment and that family engagement is an outcome of family-to-work enrichment. In these studies support (from home and work) and job control (autonomy) were assessed as antecedents. However, as indicated in the previous paragraph as well, no distinction was made in the differences between men and women in the aforementioned studies. These studies mostly based their research on an overall worker corps or within a specific industry. This raises the question, what will work-family enrichment look like for female workers in the current work context in South Africa?

From reviewing the censuses undertaken in 2001 and 2011, it seems that the number of women entering the labour market showed an increase from 31.5% in 2001 to 34.6% in 2011, whilst a decrease was evident of unemployed and economically inactive females (Statistics South Africa, 2001; 2011). Women are becoming even more prominent in the work context; several reasons can be provided for this upsurge (i.e. more rigorous implementation of the Employment Equity Act, global economic changes) (Fernandez, 2013; McLellan & Uys, 2009; Van den Berg & Van Zyl, 2008). As mentioned earlier, women have always formed part of the labour market and been included in work-family interface studies (Barnett & Baruch, 1985; Tiedje et al., 1990), but more recent studies are lacking, especially concerning work-family enrichment pertaining to female workers. According to Franks, Schurink and Fourie (2006), even today women are still socialised to perform their traditional home roles (being a mother, wife and homemaker), but how this benefits the female worker in both her home life and work life is not known (Frone, 2003; Gareis et al., 2009). From the above arguments, it was important for the authors to determine whether work-family enrichment can be a mediator for work resources, home resources, work engagement and family engagement, specifically amongst female workers.

Both the concepts work-family enrichment and work-family positive spillover incorporate the notion that experiences or resources in one domain (work or family) can be transferred (spilled over) to the other domain (family or work) (see Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Hanson et al., 2006). Work-family enrichment, however, requires more than the transfer (i.e. spillover) of experiences or resources from one domain to the other. The transfer should also be applied successfully in a way that leads to improved performance or affect for the individual (Powell & Greenhaus, 2004).

On the other hand, work-family enrichment and work-family facilitation are more closely linked, since the facilitation focuses on the positive outcomes of the work-family interface. However, enrichment entails more than improvement in the role-performance of individuals’ lives (Wayne et al., 2007); it focuses on the individual and on the resources that assist improvement in their work or family life, whilst facilitation focuses on the system as such (i.e. work or family). Facilitation on the other hand aims at improving the entire system’s functioning for the individual (Wayne et al., 2007). By focusing more on the individual level, researchers may get a clearer picture of the person’s experiences and resources that may spill over across domains, leading to enhanced functioning in both domains and therefore a better quality of life. Therefore Greenhaus and Powell (2006) suggest that work-family enrichment best captures the mechanism of the positive work-family interface and define it as ‘the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role’ (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006, p. 72).

Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006) comprehensive theoretical framework of work-family enrichment draws upon previous work by Sieber (1974) and Marks (1977). In Sieber’s (1974) theory of role accumulation, people are thought to experience work-family enrichment because various rewards (e.g. role privileges, status enhancement and personality enrichment) occur when individuals participate in multiple roles. Marks’s expansionist approach argues that multiple roles may be performed without energy loss or may even create energy for use in that role or others. Thus, participating in a work role may generate resources that can energise an employee’s family role or vice versa. Work-family enrichment therefore investigates how involvement and resources (such as skills and perspectives, flexibility, psychological and physical resources, social-capital resources and material resources) gained in one domain (work or family) can contribute to and improve experiences in the other domain (work or family). Greenhaus and Powell (2006) point out that work-family enrichment is also considered to be bi-directional. This means that enrichment occurs in both directions. Furthermore, work-family enrichment can occur in two modes. Firstly, such enrichment takes place when resources gained from Role-A (the work or family life) directly improve performance in Role-B (the work or family life): the instrumental path. Secondly, this enrichment can occur indirectly through the resources’ influence on positive affect: the affective path (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).

Carlson et al. (2006) were the first to develop a measuring instrument based on Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006) theoretical model to assess work-family enrichment. However, the scale of Carlson et al. fails to address all of the necessary resources (skills and perspectives, psychological and physical, flexibility, social-capital and material) as proposed by Greenhaus and Powell’s work-family enrichment theoretical model. In an attempt to address this issue and further measurement issues, as well as matters on theory building related to the positive side of the work-family interface, De Klerk et al. (2013) developed the MACE Work-Family Enrichment Instrument. This instrument was also based on the work-family enrichment theoretical model proposed by Greenhaus and Powell.

This new instrument includes more resources (such as perspectives, affect, socio-capital and time-management) than Carlson et al.’s (2006) measure and measures the enrichment between work and family in both directions. In other words, it measures work-to-family enrichment (W-FE) and family-to-work enrichment (F-WE). The instrument consists of sub-dimensions (e.g. work-family perspectives, family-work perspectives, etc.) for each direction. In each case these sub-dimensions form part of a reciprocal process that improves the individuals’ quality in the work or family role (De Klerk et al., 2013). For purposes of this study the MACE Work-Family Enrichment Instrument was thus used, seeing that it provides more resources for an assessment.

Hypothesis 1a: There is a positive relationship between work resources and work-to-family enrichment amongst female workers.

Hypothesis 1b: There is a positive relationship between home resources and family-to-work enrichment amongst female workers.

Research that has been done on the relationship between work-family enrichment and work engagement found that work engagement mediates the relation between supervisor support and job autonomy (all of which form part of work resources) and work-to-family enrichment (Siu et al., 2010). This suggests that support from supervisors may help individuals’ work-family enrichment by enhancing their experience of their work role. Another indication is that individuals who perceive more work autonomy may experience higher work-family enrichment; thus, autonomy can provide employees with skill discretion and work creativity, which foster improved engagement in their work (Siu et al., 2010). Having vigour, absorption and dedication is also likely to have a positive impact on the atmosphere at home and may therefore result in work-to-family enrichment (Siu et al., 2010). According to COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), individuals tend to persevere, protect and expand their resources (e.g. objects, personal characteristics, conditions or energies) to reduce work disengagement. COR theory also suggests that employees invest resources in ways that will maximise their returns and in a manner that is most fitting with the specific resource invested; thus, work resources are often reinvested in the workplace (Hobfoll, 2001). Therefore, those with excess work resources (e.g. those with high engagement) are likely to reinvest those resources back into work (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008; Hobfoll, 2001) by doing their jobs exceptionally well (Saks, 2006; Salanova, Agut & Peiró, 2005). When one uses COR theory to understand the relationship between work-family enrichment and work engagement, it emphasises the dynamism of resources deployment. This is because one role provides resources that assist the person to manage the responsibilities of the other role and improve the quality of the receiving role. Based on COR theory and previous findings of existing relations between work engagement and work-to-family enrichment, it is hypothesised that:

Hypothesis 1c: There is a positive relationship between work engagement and work-to-family enrichment amongst female workers.

These findings can be elucidated by means of COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989). According to COR theory, individuals attempt to obtain, retain and protect resources (Hobfoll, 2002). These resources are defined as those conditions (such as marital status), personal characteristics (such as self-efficacy) and energies (such as time) that are valued by the individual. Individuals with greater resources are less likely to be affected by the drain of resources that accompany several role demands. Therefore it can be assumed that individuals are better able to cope with stress-related variables that negatively influence their well-being (McNall et al., 2010; Odle-Dusseau, Britt & Greene-Shortridge, 2012). When one uses COR theory to understand the relationship between family-work enrichment and family engagement, it emphasises the vitality of resources deployment. This is because one role provides resources that assist the person to manage the responsibilities of the other role and improve the quality of the receiving role, thereby enhancing the well-being of an individual. Based on COR theory and previous findings of existing relationships between family engagement and family-to-work enrichment, it is hypothesised that:

Hypothesis 1d: There is a positive relationship between family engagement and family-to-work enrichment amongst female workers.

These findings together with aforementioned support for the direct relationships between antecedents and outcomes may point towards the possibility of mediation. Only a few studies measured the mediating role of work-family enrichment for other variables. For example McNall, Masuda and Nicklin (2010) measured the mediating role of work-family enrichment between flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction and turnover intention. Furthermore, Baral and Bhargava (2010) measured the mediating effect of work-family enrichment between organisational interventions for work-family balance and job outcomes. Therefore, it seems necessary to further investigate the mediating effect of work-family enrichment between antecedents (such as work and home resources) and outcomes (such as work and family engagement). The mediation model was grounded on COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), the model of work-family enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) and previous research findings. COR theory proposes that to reduce stress, individuals tend to acquire and maintain resources, which can result in a positive gains spiral (Hobfoll, 2001). Resources include objects, personal characteristics, conditions, energies and social support (Hobfoll, 2002). This study used COR theory to understand the relationship between work resources, home resources, work engagement and family engagement. For example, work support, work developmental possibilities and work autonomy are resources and resources gained may reduce the experience of stress and its negative consequences, such as work disengagement. Resource generation is essential to the enrichment process (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006) model suggests that there are five kinds of resources (i.e. skills and perspectives, psychological and physical resources, social-capital resources, flexibility and material resources) that may be acquired in a role to improve performance in the other role. Going beyond the enrichment process, COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) is used to further understand the relationship between enrichment and outcomes such as work engagement and family engagement. For example, when female workers perceive their organisations to be helpful in managing their work and family roles, the employees should be able to generate more resources from their work and family roles leading to more engagement within their work and family lives. Therefore, based on COR theory, the model of work-family enrichment and previous research findings, it is predicted that changes in the level of resources could lead to changes in the level of enrichment within the work and the family domain, which in turn could lead to changes in the level of engagement amongst female workers. Hence, it is hypothesised that:

Hypothesis 2a: Work-family enrichment mediates the relationship between work resources and work engagement as an outcome amongst female workers.

Hypothesis 2b: Family-work enrichment mediates the relationship between home resources and family engagement as an outcome amongst female workers.

All the participants were female, of which 81.7% were white participants, 11.9% were African participants and 5.50% were mixed-race participants. In total, 84% of the participants spoke Western Germanic languages (Afrikaans or English) and 10.2% spoke African languages. In terms of age, the highest percentage (33.8%) of the population was between the ages of 24 and 33 years, followed by participants between 34 and 43 years of age (25.7%). With respect to qualification, the highest percentage (30.2%) of the participants had a Grade 12, followed by those with a postgraduate degree (27.9%).

Biographical characteristics: A biographical questionnaire was provided to gather information on the participants’ gender, age, ethnicity, language and highest qualification.

Work resources: Three work resources were measured, namely support, work-related developmental possibilities and autonomy. These three items of work resources were rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (always). Work support was measured by the scale developed by Bakker, Demerouti and Verbeke (2004). This entailed three items, for example ‘How often does it happen that you can count on your colleagues when you have difficulty in your work?’ Work-related developmental possibilities were assessed by three items that were conceptually mirrored from existing scales of home-related developmental possibilities developed by Demerouti et al. (2010). An example item is: ‘How often does it happen that at your work you have the opportunity to develop your strong points?’ Work autonomy was measured with the scale developed by Bakker et al. (2004). This consisted of three items, for example ‘How often does it happen that you have a say in decisions that affect your work?’

Home resources: The questions for home resources were developed by Demerouti et al. (2010) and conceptually mirror existing scales of work resources; several researchers have used a work-related measure successfully as a model to construct a symmetrical home-related measure (Frone & Rice, 1987; Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1992; Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk & Beutell, 1996). All these items of home resources were rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (always). Home support was measured in terms of four items, including ‘How often does it happen that your partner or family members show that they value you for the work you do at home?’ Home-related developmental possibilities were assessed by three items, including ‘How often does it happen that in your free time you have the opportunity to develop yourself?’ Home autonomy was assessed with four items, including ‘How often does it happen that you decide for yourself how you spend your leisure time?’

The MACE Work-Family Enrichment Instrument: This was measured using 30 items from the MACE Work-Family Enrichment Instrument developed by De Klerk et al. (2013). Respondents indicated their level of agreement to each statement (e.g. ‘My family life is improved by my work showing me different viewpoints’), on a four-point scale: 1 (disagree), 2 (neither agree nor disagree), 3 (agree) and 4 (strongly agree).

Work engagement: This was measured using the 11 items from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002). Respondents indicated their level of agreement to each statement (e.g. ‘At my work, I feel bursting with energy’) on a seven-point frequency rating scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (every day).

Family engagement: This was measured using an adapted version of 13 items from the UWES scale. Respondents indicated their level of agreement to each statement (e.g. ‘I am enthusiastic about spending time with my family’) on a seven-point frequency rating scale varying from 1 (never) to 7 (every day).

Furthermore, in the letter of the test booklet, female participants were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality with which the information would be dealt. The booklets were distributed personally to the female employees from the various participating organisations. Female participants were given two to three weeks to complete the research booklets before the researcher collected them.

In the measurement model, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to test the factorial validity of the measuring instruments. The input type was the covariance matrix. Furthermore, a correlation matrix from Mplus for the latent variables was also generated in the analysis for reporting. Due to the high correlations between individual latent factors, second-order latent variables were created, which amounts to the shared variance amongst individual latent indicators for the global construct (see Table 2). This was done to offset any potential multicollinearity or suppression effects in the model due to the high correlation coefficients.

Omega coefficients were used to determine the reliability of the constructs that were measured, seeing that omegas provide the most accurate estimate of reliability; values above 0.70 indicate good reliability (Revelle & Zinbarg, 2009; Stone et al., 2013). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were also used to determine the reliability of the constructs measured in this study. A cut-off point of 0.70, indicating high reliability, was applied (De Vos et al., 2011).

The following fit indices were considered to investigate the research model: the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). For the CFI and TLI, acceptable fit is considered to be a value of 0.90 and above and for the RMSEA a value of 0.08 and below is to be considered an acceptable model fit (Byrne, 2010).

To investigate the mediation effects of work-to-family enrichment and family-to-work enrichment, the model indirect function of Mplus was specified. According to Rucker, Preacher, Tormala and Petty (2011, p. 359), attention in mediation analysis ‘should be shifted towards the magnitude and significance of indirect effects’. Indirect effect refers to the reduction of the effect the initial variable has on the outcome variable; if the bias corrected 95% confidence interval estimates do not go through zero, a significant mediation effect will be reported (Byrne, 2010; Rucker et al., 2011; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Therefore, the bootstrapping resampling option was enabled in Mplus and set to draw 5000 samples (Hayes, 2009). Kappa-squared (κ²) effect size values were also calculated to help establish a basis from which to communicate the magnitude of the mediating effects (Preacher & Kelley, 2011). These values can be interpreted in the same light as squared correlation coefficients (R²) and can thus be classified as a small (0.01), medium (0.09) or large (0.25) effect.

Furthermore, home resources were practically correlated (medium effects) with family-work enrichment (r = 0.44), and also with family engagement (r = 0.43). Therefore, the results supported Hypothesis 1b, as a positive association is evident between the home resources and the family-work enrichment. Hypothesis 1d is also supported by the results, as it is evident that a positive association exists between family engagement and family-to-work enrichment (r = 0.47). However, this relationship is also a medium effect.

Other noteworthy correlations were between work resources and home resources, which bordered on medium practical significance (r = 0.29), work engagement and family engagement (r = 0.40; medium effect) and between work-family enrichment and family-work enrichment, which had a large practically significant association (r = 0.52).

Therefore, Hypothesis 2a is accepted fully, seeing that work-family enrichment does mediate the relationship between work resources, leading to work engagement as an outcome amongst female workers.

The results further showed a positive relationship between home resources and family-work enrichment (β = 0.83; p < 0.001), as well as between family-work enrichment and family engagement (β = 0.44; p < 0.001). Results from bootstrapping revealed that family-to-work enrichment mediated the relationship between home resources and family engagement with a significant indirect effect that did not go through zero (0.17; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.23). The κ² effect size value for the mediating effect of family-to-work enrichment between home resources and family engagement was calculated to be a medium effect (κ² = 0.16).

Therefore, Hypothesis 2b is accepted fully, seeing that family-work enrichment does mediate the relationship between home resources, leading to family engagement as an outcome amongst female workers.

The objective of this study was to investigate the relationships between the various dimensions of work-family enrichment in both directions. These consisted of the following: work resources (i.e. work support, work-related developmental possibilities and work autonomy), home resources (i.e. home support, home-related developmental possibilities and home autonomy), work engagement, family engagement and work-family enrichment. Furthermore, a work-family enrichment model was also tested on a sample of female workers. This was done by using work-to-family enrichment dimensions as mediators between work resources and work engagement and family-to-work enrichment dimensions as mediators between home resources and family engagement.

When female workers have more sense of control over their work and when their job is being enriched with opportunities to learn and to obtain new skills, these may be transferred to their family; such resources may thus affect how they feel about their management of family responsibilities and thereby enhance their competency as a family member (Baral & Bhargava, 2011). When an organisation provides a female worker with opportunities to progress in the organisation, she may then acquire new skills, perspectives and mental sharpness that may cause her to feel more positive about herself and her work. Such a female worker will then be able to carry these resources into her family domain, thus enriching her family life. This is consistent with research that found that when self-reported learning opportunities are present at work, it is associated with an increase of work-family enrichment (Voydanoff, 2004). Furthermore, previous research on certain dimensions of work-family enrichment and their relationships with certain antecedents has delivered the following findings: work-family development, work-family affect and work-family capital were shown to be related positively to developmental experiences at work, work autonomy and relation with supervisor (form of support) (Carlson et al., 2006).

The availability of developmental possibilities and autonomy at home may also increase the probability of female workers having more resources to apply in their work life, thereby enhancing their work life. This may be because if female workers feel that they have more sense of control over activities at home and have opportunities at home to improve their family life, they may feel more equipped to acquire self-concept, skills and perspectives, and better time-management, which in turn can enhance the quality of their work life.

From this a directive can be inferred for organisations: they should focus on providing resources for their female workers, because, as was indicated above, female workers are likely to apply the resources they gain at work to their family life and thus enhance the quality of that life. Therefore, organisations are likely to benefit, since female workers will be more engaged at work. Studies have shown that when female workers experience enrichment at home, it may improve their vigour, absorption and dedication at work (Hakanen et al., 2011). For example, when female workers are more involved in their work, they may experience more energy in and enthusiasm towards their work.

Hypothesis 2b stated that family-work enrichment mediates (with a medium effect) the relationship between home resources, leading to family engagement as an outcome amongst female workers. This may indicate, similar to Hypothesis 2a, that when home resources are available, female workers are more likely to experience higher family-to-work enrichment, which might then lead to an increase in family engagement. Family-to-work enrichment is therefore needed in the relationship between home resources and family engagement to enhance the experience of how home resources, through family-to-work enrichment, can lead to increased engagement in family life. Other studies have also found evidence to confirm this mediating effect of the concept work-family enrichment (Baral & Bhargava, 2010; McNall et al., 2010; Nicklin & McNall, 2013).

Both of the mediation results are in line with COR theory and the positive gain spiral that has been suggested (Hobfoll, 2001). Therefore, resource gains result in positive gains which can then lead to more gains in terms of well-being and motivation (engagement) (cf. Salanova, Schaufeli, Xanthopoulou & Bakker, 2010). Work-to-family enrichment and family-to-work enrichment therefore seem to play an important indirect role in the obtainment of both work and family engagement through the applicable resources.

The evidence presented here should lead organisations to question their role in valuing their employees’ family life. This is because female workers who enjoy a quality family life could be more likely to develop into a better worker, which may therefore also enhance their engagement at work (Hakanen et al., 2011). Female workers can also focus on generating the antecedents (home resources) that can lead to family-work enrichment and in turn result in improved family engagement. Therefore, the more resources generated at home, such as support, autonomy and developmental possibilities, the more they are likely to experience family-to-work enrichment, which then can lead to them experiencing family engagement.

A second limitation is that the study made use of only self-reported questionnaires. This type of questionnaire is a practical way of obtaining meaningful information and can be seen as a cost-effective method for data collection (Olwage, 2012). However, this can be seen as a limitation as this could lead to a rise in the common method variance problem; also, the use of only a single method of data collection may increase the likelihood that associations could be false and insignificant (Olwage, 2012; Oosthuizen, 2011). Such a method can also lead to unfairness because respondents’ personal perceptions are being measured and it may be difficult to distinguish between the constructs that are measured (Olwage, 2012).

Thirdly, the study was done on a homogeneous sample consisting of only women. Therefore, almost no attention has been given to whether the experience of W-FE is gender specific (Baral & Bhargava, 2011). However, since women still tend to carry most of the home responsibilities (Franks et al., 2006) and are thus more likely to experience W-FE, it seemed sensible to make use of only a sample of female workers. It should also be noted that, in the South African context, only limited research has been done on W-FE. Thus, a study focusing on a good sample of female workers fills an important gap. However, future researchers should make it their objective to investigate this W-FE phenomenon amongst a sample of male workers in South Africa as well. In the past it has indeed been found that men and women experience different relationships between their work and family domains (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). Men may also experience work-family enrichment differently, as their household situation differs from than that of women. For example, men may give more priority to being the breadwinner, and women may give more priority to being the homemaker and mother (Ezzedeen & Ritchey, 2009; Gutek, Searle & Klepa, 1991; Rothbard, 2001).

Lastly, this study only focused on certain antecedents and outcomes of work-family enrichment; therefore, it is recommended that future research investigates other antecedents and outcomes for work-family enrichment and their possible relationships with work-family enrichment can also be assessed.

There are also recommendations that can be proposed for organisations. Firstly, it is crucial for organisations to understand the significance of work-family enrichment and how this concept influences their female employees, and in turn the organisation. A better understanding of work-family enrichment will also help the organisation to encourage female workers to use the resources they gain from work to benefit them. For example, organisations can ensure that they have sufficient resources available at work to which female workers can have access. These employees will then be able to transfer the resources to their family life and enhance the quality of that life. As indicated from the study, work resources include support (supervisor and social), work-related developmental possibilities and autonomy.

Secondly, managers can ensure that there is sufficient support available in their organisation, for example adequate supervisory relationships. This can be done by the supervisor being available for the employees and by maximising the relationship, seeing that an average relationship is not good enough (Mostert, 2012). Organisations may also wish to provide training for supervisors, in order to educate them on the importance of supervisor support for their subordinates; supervisors can also be trained to show supportive behaviour towards their employees (Franks et al., 2006). In addition, organisations can ensure that employees have access to other employees in order to promote social support at work.

Thirdly, work-related developmental possibilities have been shown to be a very strong driver for finding psychological meaning in work (Mostert, 2012) and therefore also an important resource at work. Work-related developmental possibilities can include variety and opportunities to learn (Mostert, 2012). Organisations can ensure that work has variety by including an assortment of tasks in job assignments. Opportunities to learn must also be made available for employees, seeing that learning opportunities require new skills, as well as the need to be innovative and creative (Mostert, 2012). This in turn can ensure that resources are transferred to the family life.

Fourthly, organisations need to ensure that their employees enjoy autonomy at work. To accomplish this, organisations can trust in their employees’ ability to be independent with their work activities and work content. This is because autonomy allows for flexibility in the planning of work activities (Mostert, 2012).

Lastly, organisations can encourage their workers to have a positive family life and to utilise the resources gained from their family life to enhance their work life. Organisations can accomplish this by implementing intervention plans, such as a short workshop on how to be involved positively with one’s family life. Other possible interventions are to re-design jobs in order to provide employees with more autonomy, to provide benefits and policies such as flexitime and to develop a family-friendly organisational culture at the workplace (Baral & Bhargava, 2010). Research has also found that by having such interventions, positive benefits will be reaped on certain job outcomes such as employees’ level of commitment, engagement and job satisfaction (Allen, 2001; Gordon et al., 2007; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Kopelman, Prottas, Thompson & Jahn, 2006; Lambert, 2000; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson, Beauvais & Lyness, 1999).

Aryee, S., Srinivas, E.S., & Tan, H.H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 , 132–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.132

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20004

Balmforth, K., & Gardner, D. (2006). Conflict and facilitation between work and family: Realising the outcomes for organizations. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35, 69–76.

Baral, R., & Bhargava, S. (2010). Work-family enrichment as a mediator between organizational interventions for work-life balance and job outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 274–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941011023749

Baral, R., & Bhargava, S. (2011). Examining the moderating influence of gender on the relationships between work-family antecedents and work-family enrichment. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 26(2), 122–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17542411111116545

Barnett, R.C. (1998). Toward a review and reconceptualization of the work/family literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124, 125–182.

Barnett, G.C., & Baruch, G.K. (1985). Women’s involvement in multiple roles, role strain, and psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 135–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.135

Barnett, G.C., & Hyde, J.S. (2001). Women, men, work and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56 (10), 781–796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.781

Beutell, N.J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (2008). Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for generation X, baby boomers, and matures: Generational differences, predictors, and satisfaction outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23 (5), 507–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940810884513

Bezuidenhout, A., & Cilliers, F.V.N. (2010). Burnout, work engagement and sense of coherence in female academics in higher-education institutions in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(1), 1–10.

Boixados, M., Hernandez, E., Guillamon, N., & Pousada, M. (2010). Working women’s lifestyles and quality of life in the Information society. Health Care for Women International, 31 (6), 552–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07399331003721365

Britz, Y. (2010). Exploring the relationship between work and non-work roles of parenting males at a higher education institution, Unpublished master’s dissertation, School of Human Resource Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. (2nd edn.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers.

Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Wayne, J.H., & Grzywacz, J.G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface: Development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 , 131–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002

Cheng, T., Mauno, S., & Lee, C. (2013). Do job control, support, and optimism help job insecure employees? A three-wave study of buffering effects on job satisfaction, vigor and work-family enrichment. Social Indicators Research, 118, 1–23.

De Beer, L.T., Pienaar, J., & Rothmann, S. Jnr. (2013). Investigating the reversed causality of engagement and burnout in job demands-resources theory. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(1), 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v39i1.1055

De Klerk, M., Nel, J.A., Hill, C., & Koekemoer, E. (2013). The development of the MACE Work-Family Enrichment Instrument. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1147–1162.

De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouché, C.B., & Delport, C.S.L. (2011). Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and human service professions. (4th edn.) Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.

Demerouti, E. (2012). The spillover and crossover of resources among partners: The role of work-self and family-self facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17 , 184–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026877

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A.B. (2011). The Job Demands-Resources model: Challenges for future research. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 1–9.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Voydanoff, P. (2010). Does home life interfere with or facilitate job performance? European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 19 (2), 128–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320902930939

Demerouti, E., Geurts, S.A.E., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2004). Positive and negative work-home interaction: Prevalence and correlates. Equal Opportunities International, 23, 6–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610150410787837

Edwards, J.R., & Rothbard, N.P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25 , 178–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259269

Ezzedeen, S.R., & Ritchey, K.G. (2009). Career advancement and family balance strategies of executive women. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 24 (6), 388–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17542410910980388

Fernandez, R. (2013). Cultural change as learning: The Evolution of female labor force participation over a century. American Economic Review, 103(1), 472–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.1.472

Franks, K., Schurink, W., & Fourie, L. (2006). Exploring the social construction of life roles of career-oriented women. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 32(1), 17–24.

Friedman, S.D., & Greenhaus, J.H. (2000). Work and family – allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195112757.001.0001

Frone, M.R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J.C. Quick, & L.E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10474-007

Frone, M.R., & Rice, R.W. (1987). Work-family conflict: The effect of job and family involvement. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 11, 79–96.

Frone, M.R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 , 65–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.65

Gareis, K., Barnett, R.C., Ertel, K.A., & Berkman, L.F. (2009). Work-family enrichment and conflict: Additive effects, buffering, or balance? Journal of Marriage and Family, 71 , 696–707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00627.x

Geurts, S.A.E., Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J., Dikkers, J.S.E., Van Hooff, M.L.M., & Kinnunen, U.M. (2005). Work-home interaction from a work psychological perspective: Development and validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING. Work & Stress, 19 , 319–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370500410208

Gillespie, N.A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A.H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupational stress in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress. Work & Stress, 15 , 53–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370117944

Gordon, J.R., Whelan-Berry, K., & Hamilton, E.A. (2007). The relationship among work-family conflict and enhancement, organizational work-family culture, and work outcomes for older working women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12 (4), 350–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.4.350

Graves, L.M., Ohlott, P.J., & Ruderman, M.N. (2007). Commitment to family roles: Effects on managers’ attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 , 44–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.44

Greenhaus, J.H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G.N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 391–412). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Greenhaus, J.H., & Powell, G. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625

Grzywacz, J.G., & Marks, N.F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5 , 111–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.111

Gutek, B.A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 560–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.4.560

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16, 250–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 495–513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001

Hakanen, J.J., Peeters, M.C., & Perhoniemi, R. (2011). Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and at home: A 3-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 8–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02014.x

Halbesleben, J.R.B., & Wheeler, A.R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22 , 242–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370802383962

Halbesleben, J.R.B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M.C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(6), 1452–1465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017595

Hanson, G.C., Hammer, L.B., & Colton, C.L. (2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive spillover. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 249–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.3.249

Hayes, A.F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360

Hill, E.J. (2005). Work-family facilitation and conflict, working fathers and mothers, work-family stressors and support. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 793–819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192513X05277542

Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

Hobfoll, S.E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062

Hobfoll, S.E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6 , 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307

Hunter, E.M., Perry, S.J., Carlson, D.S., & Smith, S.A. (2010). Linking team resources to work-family enrichment and satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 304–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.009

Innstrand, S.T., Langballe, E.M., & Falkum, E. (2010). Exploring occupational differences in work-family interaction: Who is at risk? International Journal of Stress Management, 27 (1), 38–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018565

Jaga, A., & Bagraim, J. (2011). The relationship between work-family enrichment and work-family satisfaction outcomes. South African Journal of Psychology, 41(1), 52–62.

Jaga, A., Bagraim, J., & Williams, Z. (2013). Work-family enrichment and psychological health. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1–10.

Kacmar, K.M., Crawford, W.S., Carlson, D.S., Ferguson, M., & Whitten, D. (2014). A short and valid measure of work-family enrichment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19 , 32–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035123

Karatepe, O.M., & Bekteshi, L. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family facilitation and family-work facilitation among frontline hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(4), 517–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.09.004

Koekemoer, E., Mostert, K., & Rothmann, S. Jr. (2010). Interference between work and nonwork roles: The development of a new South African instrument. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 36(1), 1–4.

Kopelman, R.E., Prottas, D.J., Thompson, C.A., & Jahn, E.W. (2006). A multi-level examination of work-life practices: Is more always better? Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 232–253.

Kossek, E.E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict policies and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behaviour-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.139

Lambert, S.J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 43 , 801–815. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556411

Lewis, S. (1997). An international perspective on work-family issues. In S. Parasuraman, & J.H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 91–103). Westport, CT: Quorom.

Marks, S.R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921–936. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094577

McLellan, K., & Uys, K. (2009). Balancing dual roles in self-employed women: An exploratory study. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1), 1–10.

McNall, L.A., Masuda, A.D., & Nicklin, J.M. (2010). Flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work-to-family enrichment. The Journal of Psychology, 144, 61–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980903356073

Montgomery, A.J., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Den Ouden, M. (2003). Work-home interference among newspaper managers: Its relationship with burnout and engagement. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16 (2), 195–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2003.10382973

Mostert, K. (2012, 17 February). Employee Wellness. Workshop presented for the course IOPS 616 (Employee Wellness), North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Mostert, K., Cronje, S., & Pienaar, J. (2006). Job resources, work engagement and the mediating role of positive work-home interaction of police officers in the North West Province. Acta Criminologica, 19(3), 64–87.

Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2013). Mplus User’s Guide. (7th edn.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nicklin, J.M., & McNall, L.A. (2013). Work-family enrichment, support, and satisfaction: A test of mediation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22 (1), 67–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.616652

Odle-Dusseau, H.N., Britt, T.W., & Greene-Shortridge, T.M. (2012). Organizational work family resources as predictors of job performance and attitudes: The process of work-family conflict and enrichment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17 , 28–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026428

Olwage, D. (2012). Predictors of burnout and engagement of university students. Unpublished doctoral thesis, School of Human Resource Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Oosthuizen, J. (2011). Job characteristics, work-nonwork interference and the role of recovery strategies among employees in a tertiary institution. Unpublished doctoral thesis, School of Human Resource Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y.S., Godshalk, V.M., & Beutell, N.J. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48 (3), 275–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0025

Ployhart, R.E., & Vandenberg, R.J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36(1), 94–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110

Powell, G., & Greenhaus, J. (2004). Is the opposite of positive negative? The relationship between work-family enrichment and conflict. New Orleans, LA: Academy of Management Meetings.

Preacher, K.J., & Kelley, K. (2011) Effect sizes measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115.

Rantanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., & Tillemann, K. (2011). Introducing theoretical approaches to work-life balance and testing a new typology among professionals. In S. Kaiser, M. Ringlstetter, D. Eikhof, & M. Cunha (Eds.), Creating balance?! International perspectives on the work-life integration of professionals (pp. 27–46). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R.E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the GLB: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74, 145–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z

Rothbard, N.P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094827

Rucker, D.D., Preacher, K.J., Tormala, Z.L., & Petty, R.E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x

Ruderman, M.N., Ohlott, P.J., Panzer, K., & King, S.N. (2002). Benefits of multiple roles for managerial females. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (2), 369–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069352

Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27 , 600–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J.M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217

Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W.B., Xanthopoulou, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). The gain spiral of resources and work engagement: Sustaining a positive worklife. In A.B. Bakker, & M.P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 118–131). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

Schutte, N., Toppinen, S., Kalimo, R., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2000). The factorial validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) across occupational groups and nations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73 , 53–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317900166877

Shrout, P.E., & Bolger, N. (2002) Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7 , 422–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

Sieber, S.D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39 , 567–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094422

Siu, O., Lu, J., Brough, P., Lu, C., Bakker, A., Kalliath, T. et al. (2010). Role resources and work-family enrichment: The role of work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 470–480.

Statistics South Africa. (2001). Census 2001. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http:/www.statssa.gov.za

Statistics South Africa. (2011). Census 2011. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http:/www.statssa.gov.za

Stone, L.L., Otten, R., Ringlever, L., Hiemstra, M., Engels, R.C.M.E., Vermulst, A.A. et al. (2013). The parent version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Omega as an alternative to alpha and a test for measurement invariance. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(1), 44–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000119

Tang, S., Siu, O., & Cheung, F. (2014). A study of work-family enrichment among Chinese employees: The mediation role between work support and job satisfaction. Applied Psychology, 63(1), 130–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00519.x

Ten Brummelhuis, L.L., & Bakker, A. (2012). A resource perspective on the work-home interface. American Psychologist, 67(7), 545–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027974

Thomas, L.T., & Ganster, C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 , 6–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6

Thompson, C., Beauvais, L, & Lyness, K. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 54 (3), 392–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1681

Tiedje, L.B., Wortman, C.B., Downey, G., Emmons, C., Biernat, M., & Lang, R. (1990). Women with multiple roles: Role-compatibility perceptions, satisfaction, and mental health. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 63–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352838

Van Aarde, A., & Mostert, K. (2008). Work-home interaction of working females: What is the role of job and home characteristics? South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 34(3), 1–10.

Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology , advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740

Van den Berg, H., & Van Zyl, E. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of the stress experienced by high-level career women. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 34(3), 17–21.

Van Steenbergen, E.F., Ellemers, N., & Mooijaart, A. (2007). How work and family can facilitate each other: Distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for women and men. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12 , 279–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.279

Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66 , 398–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00028.x

Wadsworth, L.L., & Owens, B.P. (2007). The effects of social support on work-family enhancement and work-family conflict in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 67 (1), 75–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00698.x

Wayne, J.H., Grzywacz, J.G., Carlson, D.S., & Kacmar, K.M. (2007). Work-family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 63–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.01.002

Wayne, J.H., Randel, A.E., &, Stevens, J. (2006). The role of identity and work-family support inwork-family enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69 , 445–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.07.002

Weer, C.H., Greenhaus, J.H., & Linnehan, F. (2010). Commitment to nonwork roles and job performance: Enrichment and conflict perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 306–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.07.003

Winfield, I., & Rushing, B. (2005). Bridging the border between work and family: The effects of supervisor-employee similarity. Sociological Inquiry, 75 (1), 55–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2005.00112.x