bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12120

Subordinate perceptions of family-supportive

supervision: the role of similar family-related
demographics and its effect on affective
commitment
Dynah A. Basuil, Graduate School of Management, University of Auckland Business
School
Jennifer G. Manegold, Management Department, Florida Gulf Coast University
Wendy J. Casper, Department of Management, College of Business Administration,
University of Texas at Arlington
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol ••, no ••, 2016, pages ••–••

Using survey data from 227 employees, we draw from shared reality theory to study subordinate perceptions
of family-supportive supervision, its antecedents and outcomes. We focus on similarity in salient subordinate
and supervisor family-related demographics as an antecedent to perceived family-supportive supervision.
As expected, female subordinates perceived more family-supportive supervision from female supervisors than
from male supervisors. Likewise, parent subordinates perceived parent supervisors, compared with nonparent
supervisors, to be more family supportive. Subordinate perception of family-supportive supervision also
positively related to affective commitment – mediating the indirect positive relationship between similarity
in family-related demographics and affective commitment.
Contact: Dynah A. Basuil, Graduate School of Management, University of Auckland Business
School, Auckland, New Zealand. Email: d.basuil@auckland.ac.nz
Keywords: family-supportive supervision; affective commitment; shared reality theory; social
identity theory

INTRODUCTION

I
n the US today, 47% of employees are women, 88.7% are parents and 81.4% are
spouses (www.bls.gov, 2015). Specifically in employment among women who are parents
(i.e. mothers) and married (i.e. partnered mothers), when compared with its OECD
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) peers, the US lags slightly behind
– 65% versus 66.8% and 64.7% versus 67.2%, respectively (OECD Family Database, 2013).
Parents and spouses are assumed to have family responsibilities that affect their work, and
women often take greater responsibility for family care than men (IWPR, 2015). Accordingly,
many US employers have used policies to support work–family balance in an effort to attract
and retain these workers (Kossek and Lambert, 2005). Because supervisors are often
gatekeepers for these policies, supervisor support is important in balancing work and family
(Hammer et al., 2009). Although some research has found that subordinate perceptions of
family-supportive supervision are linked to lower work–family conflict (Warner and Hausdorf,
2009), higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions (Bagger and Li, 2014), the research
on family-supportive supervision is relatively sparse, which belies the important role
supervisors play in employees’ work–family balance. Accordingly, this study explores how
subordinates’ perceived family-supportive supervision is affected by supervisor–subordinate
similarity in family-related demographics among subordinates in greater need of more family

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016 1

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Please cite this article in press as: Basuil, D.A., Manegold, J.G. and Casper, W.J. (2016) ‘Subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision: the role
of similar family-related demographics and its effect on affective commitment’. Human Resource Management Journal doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12120
Perceptions of family-supportive supervision

support in the workplace, namely, women, spouses and parents. Concurrently, it examines the
effect of subordinates’ perceived family-supportive supervision on their affective commitment.
This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, by examining similarity in
family-related demographics as predictors of perceived family-supportive supervision,
we expand our understanding of conditions under which perceptions of family-supportive
supervision may develop. Second, drawing from shared reality theory, we broaden the
theoretical grounds used to explain how subordinate perceptions of family-supportive
supervision may be engendered by supervisor–subordinate similarity in family-related
demographics. Third, we relate perceived family-supportive supervision to employee
attitudes. Although perceived family-supportive supervision has been linked to job
satisfaction and turnover intentions (Hammer et al., 2011; Bagger and Li, 2014) in past
studies, our article is one of the first to study how perceived family-supportive supervision
relates to an important attitude, affective commitment. Additionally, affective commitment
relates to key organisational outcomes including turnover (Cohen, 1993), job performance
(Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2002) and organisational citizenship behaviour (Riketta, 2002).
Studies have found that both general organisational support for family (Allen, 2001;
Wayne et al., 2013) and general perceived supervisor support relate to higher commitment
(Griffin et al., 2001; Gagon and Michael, 2004; Casper et al., 2011), suggesting that
perceived family-supportive supervision may also relate to affective commitment.

Similar family-related demographics and perceptions of family-supportive supervision

Relational demography theory (RDT) has been used to explore how supervisor–
subordinate similarity in demographics (e.g. gender and race) relate to relationship quality
(Tsui and O’Reilly, 1989; Tsui and Gutek, 1999). RDT asserts that similar people focus on
each other’s positive attributes, leading to a positive social identity (Tsui et al., 2002). A
few studies have applied RDT to explore how supervisor–subordinate gender similarity
relates to family-supportive supervision. One study found that female supervisors were
more likely to refer female over male employees to family assistance programmes (Gerstein
et al., 1993), a finding that was not supported by a later study (Hopkins, 2002). Another
study found that supervisors were more family supportive of subordinates of the same
gender, as well as those of the same race (Foley et al., 2006). Gender and race are the
demographics traditionally examined using RDT; however, similarity in family-related
demographics, like parental or marital status, may also be important to how supervisors
and subordinates relate around work–family issues. Based on shared reality theory (Hardin
and Higgins, 1996; Hardin and Conley, 2001; Jost et al., 2008; Echterhoff, 2012), people are
motivated to establish and maintain mutual understanding, or shared communality, in
relationships, which happens more easily for those undergoing similar experiences.
Accordingly, when subordinates hold a role where family demands tend to be greater
(e.g. being a female, spouse or parent) that they share with their supervisors, these
subordinates may experience more kinship with their supervisor, fostering perceptions
of family-supportive supervision.

Perceptions of family-supportive supervision and affective commitment

Employees can better manage work and family demands when they receive support at work.
Although work–family support policies can be useful, they may have little value if employees
believe that their career advancement is hampered by using them (Thompson et al., 1999; Allen,
2001). Supervisors are instrumental in how employees experience the work–family interface

2 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 Dynah A. Basuil, Jennifer G. Manegold and Wendy J. Casper

(Hyde et al., 1993; Blair-Loy and Wharton, 2002), as they create environments that do (or do not)
support work–family balance. Supervisors can be consciously unsupportive by expecting
allegiance to work at the cost of family (Lobel and Kossek, 1996), or unconsciously by lacking
awareness of support policies offered by the organisation (Neal and Hammer, 2007). In
contrast, supervisors can be supportive by making employees aware of work–family policies
(Casper et al., 2004), showing interest in employees’ personal lives, resolving schedule conflicts
(Hammer et al., 2011), providing flexibility and evaluating results rather than ‘face time’
(Hammer et al., 2009).
Studies have found that general perceived supervisor support is positively associated with
affective commitment (Griffin et al., 2001; Gagon and Michael, 2004; Casper et al., 2011), which
denotes the emotional attachment of an employee to his or her organisation (Mowday et al.,
1979; Meyer and Allen, 1991). Work–family support from the organisation (rather than the
supervisor) is also related to higher affective commitment (Allen, 2001; Wayne et al., 2013). This
research, together with the notion of reciprocity, wherein people feel an obligation to repay felt
debts (Blau, 1964), suggests that employees who perceive more family-supportive supervision
may become more emotionally attached to their employer and more likely to exhibit better job
performance, higher organisational citizenship behaviour and lower turnover and absenteeism
(Cohen, 1993; Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2002).

Shared reality theory

Shared reality theory (Hardin and Higgins, 1996) proposes that people are motivated to
develop shared reality (e.g. mutual understanding or communality of inner states) with others
(Jost et al., 2008: 173; Echterhoff, 2012). The motivation for shared reality derives from two
fundamental human needs: (a) relational or the need for affiliation and (b) epistemic or the need
to understand the world (Jost et al., 2008). First, relationships satisfy relational needs for
affiliation and belonging, which is related to greater emotional well-being and self-esteem
(Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Second, humans have a need for predictable, stable
environments that foster certainty (Jost et al., 2008). The strength of epistemic motives increases
with uncertainty regarding a target referent (Echterhoff, 2012). The underlying mechanisms
that drive the formation of shared reality (relational and epistemic needs) require a target
referent towards which shared reality is created (Echterhoff et al., 2009). In the case of work–
family experiences, the referent may be beliefs about a person’s family role (e.g. parent or
spouse). The need for a target referent differentiates shared reality from empathy and
emotional contagion, which can occur without the perception of shared experiences (Echterhoff
et al., 2009).
For shared reality to exist, people must share more than objective similarities – at least one
person must believe that his or her inner state (i.e. feelings and uncertainties regarding a
referent, such as the parent role) matches that of the other person (Echterhoff et al., 2009). While
both parties need not actually have the same inner state regarding the referent, the person who
has formed the shared reality must believe that there is a shared inner state about the target
referent (Echterhoff, 2012). This inference may develop based on observations of nonverbal
behaviour, shared conversations or advice, or may even be a projection of the subordinate’s
views onto the supervisor (Echterhoff, 2012). For example, when a parent believes that his or
her feelings and uncertainties about parenting are shared with his or her parent supervisor,
the subordinate develops shared reality. If later, it is revealed that the subordinate’s shared
reality with the supervisor was based on errant observations of supervisor beliefs, the shared
reality ceases to exist (Echterhoff, 2012).

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016 3

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Perceptions of family-supportive supervision

In the current research, we explore shared reality from the subordinate’s perspective, as it is
the subordinate’s perceptions that may foster his or her affective commitment, through
perceived family-supportive supervision. ‘When people establish a shared reality with another
person, they can trust the other’s view of things’ (Echterhoff et al., 2005: 259). Thus, when an
employee experiences shared reality with his or her supervisor (based on perceived
communalities relating to similar family-related demographics), this fosters positive feelings
or attitudes towards the supervisor, and the supervisor’s actions may be perceived as more
family supportive.

Hypotheses
Role socialisation experiences differ by gender, with work traditionally prescribed as a ‘male’
domain and family as a ‘female’ domain (Eagly et al., 2000). With more women entering the
work domain while still being expected to be the primary family caregiver, female employees
often face difficulties managing work and family. Indeed, research shows that women,
compared with men, face greater family-to-work conflict (Byron, 2005), perhaps reflecting
women’s internalisation of gender role expectations to prioritise family caregiving. Thus,
perceiving family-supportive supervision may be more important to female employees. In
addition, Hopkins (2002) argues that female employees may find male supervisors to be less
relatable than female supervisors and thus perceive little family-supportive supervision from
them. From a shared reality perspective, female subordinates may be less likely to develop
shared reality with male supervisors who do not share the same gender role expectations.
Female subordinates possess both relational and epistemic motives to develop kinship with
female supervisors. People are socialised to behave in ways that are acceptable for their gender
(Eagly et al., 2000; Eagly and Karau, 2002). Gender roles represent normative cultural beliefs
about what is good, right and desirable – socially constructed descriptions of what women
(and men) are like and what women (and men) ‘should’ be like (Eagly, 1987; Eagly and Karau,
2002). People usually adhere to prescribed gender role norms, given the social sanctions (i.e.
stigmatisation) of violating them (Eagly et al., 2000). Women receive strong social signals to
prioritise family caregiving, and such expectations are not confined to wives and mothers.
Single female employees without children also report caregiving responsibilities for parents,
siblings or other relatives (Casper et al., 2015), an experience that may also be shared by a female
supervisor, regardless of her parental and marital status.
Given the strong signals women receive about appropriate gender role behaviour (Eagly,
1987), a female subordinate may presume that her female supervisor has similar feelings about
her gender role, fostering a relational motive to develop shared reality with her supervisor. A
female subordinate may also possess an epistemic motive to understand how her female
supervisor manages gender role expectations for caregiving with work. When female
subordinates possess relational and epistemic motives to develop shared reality with female
supervisors, female subordinates may perceive more support for work–family concerns from
female supervisors.

Hypothesis 1: Similarity in subordinate–supervisor gender will relate to perceived family-supportive

supervision such that the direct effect will be stronger for female subordinates (compared with male
subordinates) with female supervisors.

Other family characteristics can also foster subordinate shared reality with a supervisor.
Parents share experiences such as disciplining children and overseeing their academic work

4 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 Dynah A. Basuil, Jennifer G. Manegold and Wendy J. Casper

(i.e. school work brought home) that differ from those of nonparents (Martocchio and Judge,
1995). Because understanding is reinforced when experiences are shared in important
relationships, like the supervisor–subordinate relationship, similar parental experiences can
foster shared reality (Hardin and Higgins, 1996). Thus, when a subordinate shares a child care
struggle with a supervisor who the subordinate believes shares this experience, there is an
epistemic motive to establish shared reality around balancing parenthood with work. By
forming shared reality, employees may see parent supervisors as more concerned about
working parents, fostering subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision.

Hypothesis 2: Similarity in subordinate–supervisor parental status will relate to perceived family-

supportive supervision such that the direct effect will be stronger for parent subordinates (compared
with nonparent subordinates) with parent supervisors.

Finally, similar marital status may also foster shared reality. For instance, married people
may share an understanding of resolving conflicts in a marital relationship (Fincham et al.,
2004). Thus, compared with a single subordinate, a married subordinate may perceive more
communality with a married supervisor. Married supervisors may be perceived as more
receptive to requests for family support to help a spouse (e.g. leaving work early to help a
spouse with car trouble) than to requests to accommodate other family roles (e.g. attending a
nephew’s baseball game). In short, if an employee believes that he or she shares the experiences
and uncertainties that are unique to being married with his or her married supervisor, this may
foster that employee’s sense of shared reality and perceived family-supportive supervision.

Hypothesis 3: Similarity in subordinate–supervisor marital status will relate to perceived family-

supportive supervision such that the direct effect will be stronger for married subordinates
(compared with single subordinates) with married supervisors.

Thus far, our hypotheses focus on similarity in family-related demographics as an

antecedent to perceived family-supportive supervision. Besides understanding what drives
subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision, it is relevant to understand how
such perceptions relate to organisational outcomes. Past research reveals that subordinates
report higher commitment when their supervisors are demographically similar (Shore et al.,
2003), when their organisations are more family supportive (Allen, 2001; Wayne et al.,
2013), and when their supervisors are more supportive in general (Griffin et al., 2001; Gagon
and Michael, 2004; Casper et al., 2011). We draw from these findings and shared reality
theory to propose that similarity in family-related demographics engenders subordinate
perceptions of family-supportive supervision, which in turn fosters affective commitment.
Employees with high affective commitment are loyal to their organisations, as reflected by
their commitment to organisational goals and desire to remain with the organisation (Meyer
and Allen, 1991).
The notion that subordinates will perceive greater family-supportive supervision and feel
more committed to their organisation when they have similar family-related demographics
with their supervisor is consistent with shared reality theory (Hardin and Higgins, 1996) in
conjunction with social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). A subordinate’s shared reality
with his or her supervisor, which is related to work–family roles (e.g. gender role expectations,
child care difficulties or balancing one’s work schedule with a spouse’s), can reduce a
subordinate’s epistemic uncertainty (Echterhoff et al., 2009). When a subordinate develops
shared reality with his or her supervisor, this validates the subordinate’s experience, thereby

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016 5

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Perceptions of family-supportive supervision

reducing uncertainty and boosting self-esteem. Thus, a subordinate who perceives family-
supportive supervision may create an inclusive superordinate identity in the supervisor–
subordinate relationship by forming shared reality around a similar life experience when
managing multiple roles.
According to social identity theory, employees identify with a social group (e.g. their
organisation) because it enhances their self-esteem and reduces uncertainty (Tajfel and Turner,
1986; Turner, 1987). As affective commitment involves identification with the organisation
(Ellemers et al., 2004), subordinates who embrace multiple roles are more likely to identify with
their organisation when they perceive family-supportive supervision due to shared reality.
When subordinates perceive commonalities with their supervisors, their beliefs are validated
and self-image enhanced, fostering more positive attitudes (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004)
towards the organisation wherein supervisors act as agents (Rousseau, 1989). Thus,

Hypothesis 4: Similarity in subordinate–supervisor gender will have a positive indirect effect on

affective commitment through perceived family-supportive supervision, such that the effect will be
stronger for female subordinates (compared with male subordinates) with female supervisors.

Hypothesis 5: Similarity in subordinate–supervisor parental status will have a positive indirect

effect on affective commitment through perceived family-supportive supervision, such that the
indirect effect will be stronger for parent subordinates (compared with nonparent subordinates) with
parent supervisors.

Hypothesis 6: Similarity in subordinate–supervisor marital status will have a positive indirect effect
on affective commitment through perceived family-supportive supervision, such that the indirect
effect will be stronger for married subordinates (compared with single subordinates) with married
supervisors.

METHODOLOGY

Sample
Given that student-recruited samples have not been found to be significantly different from
non-student-recruited samples and to have conservative effect sizes on observed relationships
(Wheeler et al., 2014), we enlisted students to aid in participant recruitment. To receive extra
credit, students at a university in the central US recruited participants who are employed full
time. After completing an online survey, participants provided contact information. Students
were informed that participants would be contacted to verify participation, and that points
would be deducted from their grade if it were determined that they were not legitimate
participants.
After removing those with missing data, the final sample included 227 employees who
worked an average of 45 hours and spent an average of 21 hours in family activities each week.
The final sample was 37% men and 60% Caucasian, but also included African-Americans
(20%), Hispanics (8%), Asians (6%) and other races (6%). Seven per cent had a high school
diploma/GED (General Educational Development), 13% had some college, 8% had an
Associate’s degree, 41% had a Bachelor’s degree and 29% had a graduate degree. Fifty-two
per cent were married/cohabiting, and 46% had child(ren) at home. Supervisors were 56%
men, 76% Caucasian, 81% married/cohabiting and 44% parents.

6 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 Dynah A. Basuil, Jennifer G. Manegold and Wendy J. Casper

Measures
Affective commitment Five items from Meyer and Allen (1991) measured affective
commitment (e.g. My organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me), with responses
on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Alpha was 0.82.
Subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision Three items from Clark (2001)
measured perceived family-supportive supervision (e.g. My supervisor understands my family
demands), with responses on the same five-point Likert scale. Alpha was 0.89.
Family-related demographics Employees reported their gender, parental and marital status as
well as that of their supervisor. Dummy variables were created for supervisor and subordinate
parental status (1 = with child/ren under 18 years at home, 0 = no children at home), marital
status (1 = married/cohabiting, 0 = unmarried) and gender (1 = female, 0 = male).
Similarity in family-related demographics Riordan and Wayne (2008) describe three ways that
demographic similarity can be measured within relational demography research. Two of these
measures are more objective – a difference score and an interaction effect – and the other is a
measure of perceived similarity. Our interest was in a more objective measure, but difference
scores have several disadvantages, including ambiguity in directionality when there is
dissimilarity (Edwards, 1994). Therefore, we assessed supervisor–subordinate similarity via
interaction effects. For example, we assessed supervisor–subordinate similarity in parental
status with the subordinate parental status (parent vs. nonparent) × supervisor parental status
(parent vs. nonparent) interaction. We created interaction effects for gender similarity and
marital status similarity accordingly.
Control variables We controlled for hours spent in family activities and hours spent in work
activities by the subordinate each week.

Results
Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, correlations and alphas. Table 2 describes the
subordinate–supervisor dyads based on gender, parental and marital status. As expected, there
was a positive relationship between affective commitment and perceived family-supportive
supervision (r = 0.47, p < 0.01). Supervisor marital and parental status were positively related
(r = 0.22, p < 0.01), as were subordinate marital and parental status (r = 0.16, p < 0.05).
Compared with male supervisors, female supervisors were more likely nonparents (r = 0.20,
p < 0.01) and single (r = 0.24, p < 0.01).
Common method variance (CMV) is not of true concern when interactions define
relationships of interest (Siemsen et al., 2010) and is less concerning with objective measures like
demographics. However, because we propose a relationship between perceived family-
supportive supervision and affective commitment, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis
to check the magnitude of CMV between these two variables (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results
showed a better fit for the two-factor model (versus a one-factor model), χ 2(19) = 52.82,
comparative fit index = 0.96, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.93, standardised root mean square
residual = 0.04 and root mean square error of approximation = 0.09. The χ 2 difference test was
significant (Δχ 2(1) = 202.3; p < 0.01), with the two-factor model exhibiting better fit. Further,
results of an unmeasured latent method factor analysis (Podsakoff et al., 2003) suggested that
most of the variance between perceived family-supportive supervision and affective
commitment reflects true variance (57%) rather than method effects (5%). This suggests that
CMV does not substantially bias our study results.
Regression analysis was used to test Hypotheses 1–3. We used the MODPROBE program
(Hayes and Matthes, 2009), as it utilises a Johnson–Neyman technique to probe the levels in

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016 7

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Perceptions of family-supportive supervision

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Affective commitment 3.45 0.87 (0.82)

2 Subordinate perceptions of 3.82 0.85 0.47** (0.89)
family-supportive
supervision
3 Subordinate gender 0.63 0.48 0.12 0.19** (—)
4 Subordinate parental status 0.46 0.50 0.04 0.08 0.01 (—)
5 Subordinate marital status 0.52 0.50 0.12 0.05 0.01 0.16* (—)
6 Supervisor gender 0.44 0.50 0.12 0.31** 0.39** 0.02 0.07 (—)
7 Supervisor parental status 0.44 0.50 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.20** (—)
8 Supervisor marital status 0.81 0.39 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.24** 0.22* (—)
9 Hours spent in family 21.24 14.05 0.02 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.10 0.03 (—)
activities
10 Hours spent in work 44.97 8.34 0.13* 0.01 0.18** 0.02 0.05 0.15* 0.05 0.03 0.17*
activities

Notes
N = 227. Supervisor and subordinate parental status (1 = with child/ren under 18 years at home, 0 = no children at home),
supervisor and subordinate marital status (1 = married/cohabiting, 0 = unmarried) and supervisor and subordinate
gender (1 = female, 0 = male).
SD, standard deviation; alphas in parentheses.
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0 0.01.

one of the variables where similarity (the interaction effect) is significant. In each analysis, the
first-order effect of gender, parental status and marital status of the subordinate and supervisor
were entered, followed by similarity in family-related demographics (the two-way interactions,
e.g. subordinate gender × supervisor gender) as predictors of perceptions of family-supportive
supervision (Table 3). Similarity in supervisor–subordinate gender was significant, predicting a
2% increment in the variance of perceived family-supportive supervision. Hypothesis 1, that
female supervisors would be seen as more family supportive by female subordinates compared
with male subordinates, was supported. Specifically, the conditional direct effect when the
supervisor was female (DE = 0.52, LL = 0.08, UL = 0.96) on perceived family-supportive
supervision was positive and significant, indicating that female supervisors were perceived
as more family supportive by female subordinates than male subordinates (Figure 1A).
Similarity in subordinate–supervisor parental status predicted an increment of 5% of the
variance of perceived family-supportive supervision. The conditional direct effect was significant
for parent supervisors (DE = 0.61, LL = 0.29, UL = 0.94). Parent supervisors were perceived as
more family supportive by parent subordinates than by nonparent subordinates (Figure 1B),
supporting Hypothesis 2. Similarity in subordinate–supervisor marital status was not a
significant predictor of perceived family-supportive supervision, failing to support Hypothesis 3.
We tested the indirect effect of similarity in family-related demographics on subordinate
affective commitment through perceived family-supportive supervision (Hypotheses 4–6;
Table 4) using mediation methods with bootstrapping per Preacher and Hayes (2004).
Similarity in supervisor–subordinate gender showed a positive indirect effect on affective
commitment through perceived family-supportive supervision (IE = 0.25, LL = 0.07, UL = 0.49)
for female supervisors. Therefore, compared with male subordinates, female subordinates with
female supervisors had greater affective commitment through higher perceived family-
supportive supervision, supporting Hypothesis 4. For similarity in supervisor–subordinate

8 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 Dynah A. Basuil, Jennifer G. Manegold and Wendy J. Casper

TABLE 2 Number of supervisor–subordinate dyads with different family-related demographic characteristics

Supervisor: Gender

Female Male Total

Subordinate: Female 84 59 143

Subordinate: Male 16 68 84
Total 100 127 227
Supervisor: Parental
With child/ren Without child/ren Total
Subordinate: With child/ren 41 63 104
Subordinate: Without child/ren 59 64 123
Total 100 127 227
Supervisor: Marital
Married/cohabiting Unmarried Total
Subordinate: Married/cohabiting 98 20 118
Subordinate: Unmarried 87 22 109
Total 185 42 227

parental status, the indirect effect was significant for parent supervisors (IE = 0.29, LL = 0.14,
UL = 0.49). Hence, when compared with nonparent subordinates, parent subordinates with
parent supervisors had higher affective commitment through perceived family-supportive
supervision, supporting Hypothesis 5. Finally, similarity in marital status did not have a
significant indirect effect; hence, Hypothesis 6 was not supported.

DISCUSSION

Recently, work–family researchers have lamented the lack of meaningful work–family support
in the US workforce (Kossek, 2015). The current study makes several contributions towards
understanding what factors affect subordinates’ perceptions of family-supportive supervision.
Drawing from shared reality theory, we argued that subordinates sharing family-related
demographics with their supervisor would experience greater communality with the
supervisor, perceive him or her as more family supportive, resulting in higher affective
commitment to their organisation. As expected, perceived family-supportive supervision
explained the positive indirect relationship between similarity in family-related demographics
and affective commitment for two of three family characteristics examined (being female and a
parent). Findings suggest that subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision are
engendered by supervisor–subordinate similarity in family-related demographics, likely
because of the subordinate’s sense of shared reality. Our results extend past RDT research
(Shore et al., 2003) finding higher organisational commitment among employees whose
supervisors are more demographically similar to them by exploring a mechanism to explain
these findings. Our study highlights the central role of perceived family-supportive supervision
in explaining the relationship between supervisor–subordinate similarity in family
characteristics and subordinate affective commitment.
Female subordinates with female supervisors
Similarity in subordinate–supervisor gender predicted perceptions of family-supportive
supervision and affective commitment when the supervisor was female. Compared with male
subordinates, female subordinates perceived female supervisors to be more family supportive.
Gender role theory (Eagly et al., 2000; Eagly and Karau, 2002) in conjunction with shared reality

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016 9

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 10
TABLE 3 Effects of similarity in subordinate and supervisor family-related demographics on subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision
2 2 2
Variable B SE t R B SE T R B SE t R

Dependent variable: Subordinate perceptions of family- 0.15*** 0.18*** 0.13***

supportive supervision
Hours spent in family activities 0.01 0.00 1.49 0.01 0.00 1.83 0.01 0.00 1.66
Hours spent in work activities 0.01 0.01 0.85 0.01 0.01 1.32 0.01 0.01 1.05
Subordinate gender (1 = female, 0 = male) 0.01 0.15 0.08 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.16 0.12 1.59
Subordinate parental status (1 = child/ren, 0 = none) 0.10 0.11 0.92 0.20 0.14 1.43 0.15 0.11 1.32
Subordinate marital status (1 = married, 0 = unmarried) 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.02 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.25 0.43
Perceptions of family-supportive supervision

Supervisor gender (1 = female, 0 = male) 0.15 0.23 0.65 0.66 0.13 5.29*** 0.53 0.13 4.19***
Supervisor parental status (1 = child/ren, 0 = none) 0.17 0.11 1.45 0.20 0.14 1.43 0.13 0.11 1.16
Supervisor marital status (1 = married, 0 = unmarried) 0.14 0.14 0.97 0.18 0.14 1.30 0.07 0.20 0.37
Subordinate gender × supervisor gender 0.53 0.27 1.96* 0.02*
Subordinate parental status × supervisor parental status 0.82 0.22 3.70*** 0.05***
Subordinate marital status × supervisor marital status 0.14 0.28 0.50 0.00
Conditional direct effects Effect SE95% CI Effect SE95% CI Effect SE95% CI
LL UL LL UL LL UL
Supervisor gender: Female 0.52* 0.22 0.08 0.96
Supervisor gender: Male 0.01 0.15 0.31 0.28
Supervisor parental status: With child 0.61*** 0.16 0.29 0.94
Supervisor parental status: Without child 0.20 0.14 0.49 0.08
Supervisor marital status: Married 0.03 0.12 0.21 0.27
Supervisor marital status: Unmarried 0.11 0.25 0.61 0.39

Note: n = 227.
Unstandardised regression coefficients are reported.
CI, confidence interval; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit.
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 Dynah A. Basuil, Jennifer G. Manegold and Wendy J. Casper

FIGURE 1 Interaction graphs between subordinate/supervisor family-related demographics and subordinate

perceptions of family-supportive supervision

theory (Hardin and Higgins, 1996; Hardin and Conley, 2001) provides a lens through which to
understand these findings. Female subordinates may perceive more common experiences with
female supervisors and feel that they can relate to them more than male supervisors. When a
subordinate believes that her supervisor understands her experiences as a woman, she may
develop shared reality and hence interpret her supervisor’s actions positively, fostering
perceived family-supportive supervision.
Although not formally hypothesised in the study, we found it interesting that bivariate
relationships indicated that, in general, female supervisors were seen as more family supportive

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016 11

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 12
TABLE 4 Mediation effects of similarity in subordinate and supervisor family-related demographics on affective commitment through subordinate
perceptions of family-supportive supervision
2 2 2
Variable B SE t R B SE t R B SE t R

Dependent variable model: Affective commitment 0.27*** 0.27*** 0.27***

Hours spent in family activities 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.08
Hours spent in work activities 0.02 0.01 2.39** 0.02 0.01 2.62** 0.02 0.01 2.60*
Subordinate gender (1 = female, 0 = male) 0.12 0.11 1.09 0.13 0.12 1.14 0.13 0.12 1.13
Subordinate parental status (1 = child/ren, 0 = none) 0.17 0.10 1.66 0.18 0.10 1.72 0.17 0.10 1.69
Perceptions of family-supportive supervision

Subordinate marital status (1 = married, 0 = unmarried) 0.21 0.10 2.10* 0.22 0.10 2.11* 0.22 0.10 2.17*
Supervisor gender (1 = female, 0 = male) 0.04 0.11 0.32 0.06 0.12 0.47
Supervisor parental status (1 = child/ren, 0 = none) 0.05 0.10 0.49 0.06 0.11 0.60
Supervisor marital status (1 = married, 0 = unmarried) 0.15 0.13 1.10 0.15 0.13 1.10
Subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision 0.47 0.06 7.79*** 0.48 0.06 7.60*** 0.48 0.06 7.61***
Conditional indirect effects with bootstrap method Effect SE95% CI Effect SE95% CI Effect SE95% CI
LL UL LL UL LL UL
Supervisor gender: Female 0.25** 0.11 0.07 0.49
Supervisor gender: Male 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.14
Supervisor parental status: With child 0.29** 0.09 0.14 0.49
Supervisor parental status: Without child 0.10 0.07 0.25 0.03
Supervisor marital status: Married 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.12
Supervisor marital status: Unmarried 0.05 0.13 0.31 0.20

Note: n = 227.
Unstandardised regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 10,000.
CI, confidence interval; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit.
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 Dynah A. Basuil, Jennifer G. Manegold and Wendy J. Casper

than male supervisors. That is, although female employees perceived female supervisors to be
more family supportive than did male employees, male subordinates also perceived female
supervisors to be slightly more family supportive than male supervisors. It is possible that,
because of gender role socialisation, female supervisors are seen as more supportive of
subordinate family needs than male supervisors (Eagly et al., 2000; Hopkins, 2002), regardless
of demographic similarity. Findings that women embody more communal and participative
leadership styles (Eagly and Johnson, 1990; Eagly and Carli, 2003; Vinkenburg et al., 2011) are
consistent with the notion that female supervisors may be viewed as providing more support
than male supervisors, fostering perceptions of family-supportive supervision.

Parent subordinates with parent supervisors

Consistent with expectations, parent subordinates perceived more family-supportive
supervision and reported greater affective commitment when they worked with parent
(compared with nonparent) supervisors. This finding can also be explained by shared reality
(Hardin and Higgins, 1996; Hardin and Conley, 2001). Based on relational and epistemic needs,
parents may seek out other parents to help make sense of parenting challenges. When parent
subordinates experience shared reality with parent supervisors, this may foster perceived
family-supportive supervision.
Interestingly, post hoc analyses revealed a trend towards nonparent supervisors being
perceived as more family supportive by nonparent employees than parent employees, consistent
with shared reality theory. However, the fact that this effect was not significant suggests that the
relational and epistemic motives that foster shared reality may be stronger for parents than
nonparents. Indeed, one could argue that the US workforce is structured towards individuals
who will prioritise work-related commitments over other commitments. For example, paid
parental leave continues to be difficult to access across the majority of US employers (Kossek,
2015).1 Thus, it makes sense that we found more powerful effects for individuals with a greater
need for family support in the workplace (e.g. parents as opposed to nonparents). This is not
surprising, given parenting is a highly salient personal identity (Katz-Wise et al., 2010), and
people may form shared reality more readily around salient identities.

Married subordinates with married supervisors

Although supervisor–subordinate similarity in gender and parental status predicted perceived
family-supportive supervision and affective commitment, similar marital status did not. This
may reflect the differential importance of marital and parental roles to work–family management.
Although the family support needs of married and single employees may differ, the differences
may be fewer than those that emerge from parenting. An employee may need support in his or
her spouse role less often than in his or her parent role. Thus, the epistemic and relational motives
for married subordinates to build a shared reality with married supervisors may be too weak to
engender greater subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision.

Perceived family-supportive supervision and affective commitment

Social identity theory suggests that employees commit to their organisation because identifying
with the collective enhances their self-esteem and reduces uncertainty (Tajfel and Turner, 1986;
Turner, 1987). When supervisors and subordinates share family characteristics, perceived
family-supportive supervision can result from a subordinate’s shared reality. This shared
reality can enhance self-esteem and reduce uncertainty for female and parent subordinates,
fostering commitment to their organisations. For employees who are uncertain about balancing

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016 13

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Perceptions of family-supportive supervision

work and family as women or parents, perceiving family-supportive supervisors who share
those realities reduces uncertainty. Moreover, a supervisor who is perceived to understand
employees’ family demands can be a potential source of advice, boosting subordinate self-
esteem and attachment to the organisation.

Practical implications
Subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision can translate to employee affective
commitment. With affective commitment linked to lower turnover (Cohen, 1993) and
intentions to remain with the organisation (Armstrong-Stassen and Schlosser, 2010),
organisations with more family-supportive supervisors may be more effective and successful
in retaining employees who seek balance between work and family. Thus, training to teach
supervisors to be family supportive, which has been shown to improve individual job attitudes,
health and well-being (Hammer et al., 2011), may also foster subordinate commitment, a crucial
organisational outcome. Our study suggests that such training may be particularly helpful to
supervisors who differ from their employees, as these supervisors may not intuitively
understand how to support employees whose family experiences are unfamiliar to them.
Moreover, if supervisors indeed provide more support to those with whom they share family-
related demographics, diversity training may raise their awareness about this. As a preference
for similar others is often based on implicit attitudes that are unconscious (Greenwald and
Banaji, 1995), exposing supervisors to their unconscious stereotypes may help them to be more
consistently supportive of all employees, including those whose family status differs from them.
Promoting supervisor awareness through diversity training may also lower a company’s risk of
being branded – or even sued – for discrimination based on caregiver status (Williams, 2004).
Subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision are shaped by similarity in parental
status and gender between a subordinate and supervisor. Practically, our findings highlight the
importance of supervisor diversity. Employees who are female or parents may feel they relate to
supervisors who are also females or parents. Thus, organisations that want to promote work–
family balance should ensure that women and parents are represented among supervisors.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

As with all research, limitations of this study should be noted. Although results were consistent
with several hypotheses derived from shared reality, we did not directly measure perceptions
of communality. Thus, future studies should measure this mechanism as a more rigorous test of
this theory. We hypothesised and tested perceived family-supportive supervision as a
mediating mechanism underlying the relationship between shared family-related
demographics and affective commitment. Nevertheless, other mechanisms – such as positive
affect or trust – are additional possibilities and could be tested in future research. We also
considered subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision alone, which is
appropriate because subordinate perceptions drive subordinate attitudes. However, future
studies should examine both subordinate and supervisor perceptions. Additionally, ideologies
surrounding the acceptability of female workers and parental rights in the workplace vary
across cultural contexts, limiting the generalisability of our study. Because our sample was
based in the US, employers in countries that share similarly high levels of individualism
(Hofstede, 1980) may find the results of this study to be particularly relevant to their context.
For example, Lapierre et al. (2008) found that across five Western countries (Australia, Canada,
Finland, New Zealand and the US), perceptions of a family-supportive workplace reduced
levels of work–family conflict. Future research could explore the applicability of shared reality

14 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 Dynah A. Basuil, Jennifer G. Manegold and Wendy J. Casper

theory as a theoretical basis for explaining how subordinate perceptions of family-supportive

supervision are engendered in different cultural contexts.
While we included some covariates relevant to perceived family-supportive supervision, we
failed to include others, such as organisational-level family support (Warner and Hausdorf,
2009), and encourage future studies to incorporate them. Further, because of data limitations, we
were unable to examine all possible combinations of demographic variables. For example, we could
not compare single parent supervisors of single parent subordinates to single parent supervisors
of married subordinates without children. This is another interesting direction for future research.
Finally, our measures are all self-reported. However, because demographics are more
objective and most of our key findings involved interactions, CMV is less likely to be a problem.
Also, unmeasured latent method factor analysis suggested that the variance between perceived
family-supportive supervision and affective commitment was due mostly to true variance
rather than method effects. We assessed similarity in demographics with interaction effects.
While this approach avoided problems associated with difference scores (Edwards, 1994) and
enabled us to look at the type of similarity, interaction effects have low power (Aguinis, 2004),
which may account for non-findings for marital status. Still, despite the low power, interaction
effects assessing similarity were significant for gender and parental status. Collecting data
online limited our ability to control environmental factors that may impact responses. However,
studies have found equivalence between online and paper-and-pencil surveys (Stanton and
Rogelberg, 2002; Deutskens et al., 2006), and no data falsification was found in our study.
This suggests that our data collection methods are not likely to be majorly problematic.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that perceived family-supportive supervision is engendered when sharing
a reality based on some family-related demographics, which translates to employee affective
commitment. When working for female supervisors, female subordinates perceived more
family-supportive supervision and affective commitment than did male subordinates.
Similarly, when supervisors were parents, parent subordinates reported greater perceived
family-supportive supervision and affective commitment than nonparent subordinates.
Findings suggest that sharing family-related realities between subordinates and supervisors
relates to affective commitment via perceived family-supportive supervision. Thus, developing
supervisors to provide family-supportive supervision to all employees is a useful strategy for
enhancing employee affective commitment.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Associate Editor, Prof. Mila Lazarova, and two anonymous reviewers for
their helpful comments and suggestions.

Note
1. We thank the Associate Editor for offering this insight.

REFERENCES
Aguinis, H. (2004). Regression Analysis for Categorical Moderators, New York: Guilford.
Allen, T.D. (2001). ‘Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions’. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 58: 3, 414–435.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016 15

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Perceptions of family-supportive supervision

Armstrong-Stassen, M. and Schlosser, F. (2010). ‘When hospitals provide HR practices tailored to older
nurses, will older nurses stay? It may depend on their supervisor’. Human Resource Management Journal,
20: 4, 375–390.
Bagger, J. and Li, A. (2014). ‘How does supervisory family support influence employees’ attitudes and
behaviors? A social exchange perspective’. Journal of Management, 40: 4, 1123–1150.
Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1995). ‘The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation’. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 3, 497–529.
Blair-Loy, M. and Wharton, A.S. (2002). ‘Employees’ use of work–family policies and the workplace social
context’. Social Forces, 80: 3, 813–845.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Byron, K. (2005). ‘A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents’. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 67: 2, 169–198.
Casper, W.J., Fox, K.E., Sitzmann, T.M. and Landy, A.L. (2004). ‘Supervisor referrals to work–family
programs’. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9: 2, 136–151.
Casper, W.J., Harris, C., Taylor-Bianco, A. and Wayne, J.H. (2011). ‘Work–family conflict, perceived
supervisor support and organizational commitment among Brazilian professionals’. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79: 3, 640–652.
Casper, W.J., Marquardt, D., Roberto, K. and Buss, C. (2015). ‘The hidden family lives of singles without
dependent children’, in L.T. Eby and T.D. Allen (eds), Oxford Handbook of Work and Family, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Chattopadhyay, P., Tluchowska, M. and George, E. (2004). ‘Identifying the ingroup: a closer look at the
influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee identity’. Academy of Management Review, 29: 2,
180–202.
Clark, S.C. (2001). ‘Work cultures and work/family balance’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 3, 348–365.
Cohen, A. (1993). ‘Organizational commitment and turnover: a meta-analysis’. Academy of Management
Journal, 36: 5, 1140–1157.
Deutskens, E., de Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (2006). ‘An assessment of equivalence between online and
mail surveys in service research’. Journal of Service Research, 8: 4, 346–355.
Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role Interpretation, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. (2003). ‘The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence’.
Leadership Quarterly, 14: 6, 807–834.
Eagly, A.H. and Johnson, B.T. (1990). ‘Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis’. Psychological Bulletin,
108: 2, 233–256.
Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002). ‘Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders’. Psychology
Review, 109: 3, 573–598.
Eagly, A.H., Wood, W. and Diekman, A.H. (2000). ‘Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: a
current appraisal’, in T. Eckes and H.M. Trautner (eds), The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender,
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Echterhoff, G. (2012). ‘Shared-reality theory’, in P.A.M. Van Lange, A.W. Kruglanski and E.T. Higgins
(eds), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E.T. and Groll, S. (2005). ‘Audience-tuning effects on memory: the role of shared
reality’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89: 3, 257–276.
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E.T. and Levine, J.M. (2009). ‘Shared reality: experiencing communality with
others’ inner states about the world’. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4: 5, 496–521.
Edwards, J.R. (1994). ‘The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: critique and a
proposed alternative’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58: 1, 51–100.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D. and Haslam, S.A. (2004). ‘Motivating individuals and groups at work: a social
identity perspective on leadership and group performance’. Academy of Management Review, 29: 3, 459–478.
Fincham, F.D., Beach, S.R.H. and Davila, J. (2004). ‘Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage’. Journal
of Family Psychology, 18: 1, 72–81.
Foley, S., Linnehan, F., Greenhaus, J.H. and Weer, C.H. (2006). ‘The impact of gender similarity, racial similarity,
and work culture on family-supportive supervision’. Group & Organization Management, 31: 4, 420–441.

16 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 Dynah A. Basuil, Jennifer G. Manegold and Wendy J. Casper

Gagon, M.A. and Michael, J.H. (2004). ‘Outcomes of perceived supervisor support for wood production
employees’. Forest Products Journal, 54: 12, 172–177.
Gerstein, L., Moore, D., Duffy, K. and Dainas, C. (1993). ‘The effects of biological sex and ethnicity on EAP
utilization and referrals’. Consulting Psychology Journal, 45: 4, 23–27.
Greenwald, A.G. and Banaji, M.R. (1995). ‘Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes’.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102: 1, 4–21.
Griffin, M.A., Patterson, M.G. and West, M.A. (2001). ‘Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of supervisor
support’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 5, 537–550.
Hammer, L.B., Kossek, E.E., Yragui, N.L., Bodner, T.E. and Hanson, G.C. (2009). ‘Development and
validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB)’. Journal
of Management, 35: 4, 837–856.
Hammer, L.B., Kossek, E.E., Anger, K., Bodner, T. and Zimmerman, K. (2011). ‘Clarifying work–family
intervention processes: the roles of work–family conflict and family supportive supervisor behaviors’.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 1, 134–150.
Hardin, C.D. and Conley, T.D. (2001). ‘A relational approach to cognition: shared experience and
relationship affirmation in social cognition’, in G.B. Moskowitz (ed.), Cognitive Social Psychology: The
Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hardin, C.D. and Higgins, E.T. (1996). ‘Shared reality: how social verification makes the subjective objective’,
in R. Sorrentino and E.T. Higgins (eds), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, New York: Guilford Press.
Hayes, A.F. and Matthes, J. (2009). ‘Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic
regression: SPSS and SAS implementations’. Behavior Research Methods, 41: 3, 924–936.
Hofstede, G. (1980). ‘Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad?’.
Organizational Dynamics, 9: 1, 42–63.
Hopkins, K.M. (2002). ‘Interactions of gender and race in workers’ help seeking for personal/family problems:
perceptions of supervisor support and intervention’. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38: 1, 156–176.
Hyde, J.S., Essex, M.J. and Horton, F. (1993). ‘Fathers and parental leave: attitudes and experiences’. Journal
of Family Issues, 14: 4, 616–638.
Institute for Women’s Policy Research (2015). The Status of Women in the States 2015, Washington: IWPR.
Jost, J.T., Ledgerwood, A. and Hardin, C.D. (2008). ‘Shared reality, system justification, and the relational
basis of ideological beliefs’. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2: 1, 171–186.
Katz-Wise, S.L., Priess, H.A. and Hyde, J.S. (2010). ‘Gender-role attitudes and behavior across the transition
to parenthood’. Developmental Psychology, 46: 1, 18–28.
Kossek, E.E. (2015). ‘Capturing social and cultural influences: relating individual work–life experiences to
context’. Community, Work & Family, 18: 4, 371–376.
Kossek, E.E. and Lambert, S.J. (2005). Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cultural, and Individual
Perspectives, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lapierre, L.M., Spector, P.E., Allen, T.D., Poelmans, S., Cooper, C.L., O’Driscoll, M.P., Sanchez, J.I., Brough,
P. and Kinnunen, U. (2008). ‘Family-supportive organization perceptions, multiple dimensions of
work–family conflict, and employee satisfaction: a test of model across five samples’. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 73: 1, 92–106.
Lobel, S. and Kossek, E.E. (1996). ‘Human resource strategies to support diversity in work and personal
lifestyles: beyond the “family-friendly” organization’, in E.E. Kossek and S. Lobel (eds), Managing
Diversity: Human Resource Strategies for Transforming the Workplace, Oxford: Blackwell.
Martocchio, J.J. and Judge, T.A. (1995). ‘When we don’t see eye to eye: discrepancies between supervisors
and subordinates in absence disciplinary decisions’. Journal of Management, 21: 2, 251–278.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991). ‘A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment:
some methodological considerations’. Human Resource Management Review, 1: 1, 61–98.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002). ‘Affective, continuance, and normative
commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences’. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 61: 1, 20–52.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979). ‘The measurement of organizational commitment’.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14: 2, 224–247.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016 17

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Perceptions of family-supportive supervision

Neal, M.B. and Hammer, L.B. (2007). Working Couples Caring for Children and Aging Parents: Effects on Work
and Well-being, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
OECD Family Database (2013). Available at: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/LMF_1_3_Maternal_
employment_by_partnership_status.xlsx (accessed 11 April 2016).
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). ‘Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88: 5, 879–903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004). ‘SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects
in simple mediation models’. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36: 4,
717–731.
Riketta, M. (2002). ‘Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis’. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 23: 3, 257–266.
Riordan, C.M. and Wayne, J.H. (2008). ‘A review and examination of demographic similarity
measures used to assess relational demography within groups’. Organizational Research Methods,
11: 3, 562–592.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989). ‘Psychological and implied contracts in organizations’. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 2: 2, 121–139.
Shore, L.M., Cleveland, J.N. and Goldberg, C.B. (2003). ‘Work attitudes and decisions as a function of
manager age and employee age’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 3, 529–537.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A. and Oliveira, P. (2010). ‘Common method bias in regression models with linear,
quadratic, and interaction effects’. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 3, 456–476.
Stanton, J.M. and Rogelberg, S.G. (2002). ‘Beyond online surveys: internet research opportunities for
industrial-organizational psychology’, in S.G. Rogelberg (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986). ‘The social identity theory of intergroup behavior’, in S. Worchel and W.
Austin (eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L. and Lyness, K.S. (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 Behavior, 54: 3, 392–415.
Tsui, A.S. and Gutek, B.A. (1999). Demographic Differences in Organizations: Current Research and Future
Directions, Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Tsui, A.S. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1989). ‘Beyond simple demographic effects: the importance of
relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads’. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 2,
402–423.
Tsui, A.S., Porter, L. and Egan, T. (2002). ‘When both similarities and dissimilarities matter: extending the
concept of relational demography’. Human Relations, 55: 8, 899–929.
Turner, J.C. (1987). ‘A self-categorization theory’, in M. Hogg, P. Oakes, S. Reicher and M.S. Wetherell
(eds), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory, Oxford: Blackwell.
Vinkenburg, C.J., van Engen, M.L., Eagley, A.H. and Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2011). ‘An exploration of
stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: is transformational leadership a route to women’s
promotion?’. Leadership Quarterly, 22: 1, 10–21.
Warner, M. and Hausdorf, P.A. (2009). ‘Understanding work-to-family conflict: the role of
organization and supervisor support for work–life issues’. Organization Management Journal, 6:
3, 130–145.
Wayne, J.H., Casper, W.J., Mathews, R.A. and Allen, T.D. (2013). ‘Family-supportive organization
perceptions and organizational commitment: the mediating role of work–family conflict and
enrichment and partner attitudes’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 4, 606–622.
Wheeler, A.R., Shanine, K.K., Leon, M.R. and Whitman, M.V. (2014). ‘Student-recruited samples in
organizational research: a review, analysis, and guidelines for future research’. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 87: 1, 1–26.
Williams, J.C. (2004). ‘The maternal wall’. Harvard Business Review, 82: 10, 26–28.

18 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL ••, NO ••, 2016

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.