Family incivility and work-engagement: moderated mediation model of personal resources and family-work enrichment.

Research on work incivility has been abundant while that on family incivility is still in infancy stage. The current research attempts to bridge this gap. Using Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker's (2012) Work-Home Resources model (W-HR model), this study tested the role of active coping and self-efficacy in moderating the impact of family incivility on work engagement mediated through family-work enrichment. Data from 478 university faculty in different educational institutions across India tend to suggest that active coping and self-efficacy assist this sample in negating the negative impact of family incivility on work engagement through family-work enrichment. The mediated relationship between family incivility, family-work enrichment and work engagement was found to be stronger for those respondents with the dual resources of active coping and self - efficacy. The study found significant support for core propositions of the W-HR model and puts forward both theoretical and several practical implications. Future directions are also presented. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-01420-4.

Covid-19 pandemic has affected millions of people worldwide in one form or the other (van Bavel, et al., 2020). The pandemic has led to many organizations revamping their work policies and working styles (Vaziri, Casper, Wayne, & Matthews, 2020). The sudden onset of the COVID-19 has also led to a significant increase in remote working in a vast array of non-essential services throughout the globe (Cho, 2020). It has also brought about an unparalleled mental health concerns characterized by feelings of anxiety, a loss of control, uncertainty about the future, and worry about the health of self and that of family (Trougakos, Chawla, & McCarthy, 2020). Many employees have lost jobs (Beer, 2020) or face insecurities at work (Tozzi, 2020) or challenges working from home (Vaziri, et al., 2020).

Working people have had to adjust in many ways they never thought possible. Those previously working from offices now find themselves conducting their work responsibilities from home or in an office understaffed or half-staffed, either because people have been furloughed or because of the restrictions associated with social distancing (van Baval, et al., 2020). Many employees have been forced to spend considerably more time at home and this shift has affected the work-home interface and dynamics (Vaziri, et al., 2020). Working from home has brought about a host of new opportunities but it has also resulted in a variety of challenges. For many employees, these challenges include less segmentation between their work and family lives (Vaziri, et al., 2020).

Lockdowns and quarantines have resulted in significant changes in the place and space for work. Working from home in lockdown conditions has resulted in families spending increased periods of time in close proximity without the freedom of movement and access to personal space previously enjoyed. (Kumar & Dwivedi, 2020). Although this increased contact can be productive and meaningful if relationships are robust and healthy, it can also exacerbate tensions, including spousal abuse (Taub, 2020), in already strained and conflictual family systems. Even in healthy family systems, these unusual and forced working conditions, with their additional stressors related to job security and mental health, are likely to put strain on families and households (Song & Gao, 2020).

Research suggests that there has been a general increase in stress amongst parents and in families during the work-from-home time and some families are reportedly experiencing family burnout (McKinley et al., 2020).

Family burnout manifests in three ways - physical and emotional fatigue; inability to manage daily tasks and quick to anger, which can then result in a series of behaviors that characterize family incivility (Bai, Bai, Huang, & Hsueh, F. H.& Wang, P., 2020; Yozgat & Kamanli, 2016). Although working from home may have many advantages (Nakrošienė, Bučiūnienė, & Goštautaitė, 2019), (for example, less time commuting; lowered operational expenses), under the current circumstances, it could also result in various unanticipated stressors (Song & Gao, 2020). For example, in some cases, working parents are balancing their paid work with child-care responsibilities and protracted periods of home schooling, housework and personal care, which can all be time and energy consuming, leading to increased stress. This may also lead to more occurrences of family incivility, where impolite and discourteous behavior or insensitive comments, not consulting the person on matters of importance, etc. with the possibility to mentally harm, prevents inhabitants from feeling a general sense of safety and wellbeing. Such incivility could, in turn, have a negative impact on the family-work interface and work engagement. The effect of family incivility because of these vicissitudes in working patterns forms the central area of investigation of this article.

The specific problem we investigated is lack of a clear understanding of the effects of family incivility on employees’ work engagement and the personal attribute that may mitigate those effects. There is even less known information about the effects of family incivility in non-western cultures, such as India. To the best knowledge of the researchers of this study, no prior scientific research has studied the concept of family incivility in nations such as India, where extended families is the norm and home life is communal/collective than individualistic (Gopalan, Pattusamy, & Gollakota, 2020). Such a family atmosphere and expectations along with existing working conditions [at home] might lead to more stress and less productivity. We note that personal styles such as coping might mitigate the negative impact of stress (Violanti et al., 2018) emanating from family incivility.

Our research addresses the question: Is it possible that working from home for an extended period may also lead to an unproductive and stressful working environment?

We explored this research question on a sample of University faculty working in India. Although flexible work arrangements and the advantages of working from home have been debated at length in both academic and popular press articles (e.g. Pan, Cui, & Qian, 2020), when reporting on this new ‘working from home reality,’ most articles in the mainstream, popular press assume Western models of the nuclear family. Below, we provide more information about the unique characteristics of the location where this study was conducted.

The working population of India in 2019 was nearly 1.3 billion (source: worldbank.org, 2019). Thus, since the lockdowns, many employees in India, like elsewhere in the world have been required to work from their homes under circumstances that may affect their capacity to be fully involved in their work. We focus this paper in an Indian context, where family remains as the dominant social unit (Paltasingh & Tyagi, 2017). This culture is characterized by high power distance, high masculinity, as well as collectivist over individualist priorities and thus differs in many respects from Western orientations towards family and home life (Hui & Lent, 2018). Family, family roles and family responsibilities are paramount in the lives of most Indians. The wide network of family members is not restricted to immediate family but true to the characteristics of collectivist cultures, the extended family in India provides all manner of assistance to its members (Gopalan et al., 2020). This support is accompanied by expectations and obligations, including taking care of elderly parents (Barik, Agrawal, & Desai, 2017), sometimes, at the expense of work. Although having extended family members may offer different types of support, it is not clear how much they can assist during the current Covid-related restrictions.. The research that informs this paper delved into this specific context. It explored the experiences of how Indian faculty from traditional, face-to-face universities, now working from home, juggle with technological challenges associated with new, urgently required, online platforms for teaching (Ravi, 2020) while managing work-family dynamics. Like many other industries, a large number of universities in India have moved all operations and activities off campuses (Nambiar, 2020), which has meant faculty engage in their core job dimensions of teaching and learning, and research from home. Both the work and family domains host a variety of inherent resources and rewards and, by virtue of this, each domain can influence the other (Bachmann, et al., 2020). Research has indicated that the domains of work and family are inter-connected and that experiences in one domain have a high probability of swaying an individual’s functioning in the other domain (Lapierre et al., 2018). As we stated earlier, while family is a source of support (Gopalan et al., 2020), we contend that the new normal over a protracted period of time can also pave the way for instances of family incivility which may have a bearing on family-to-work experiences and ultimately a person’s work life. However, we recognize that personal attributes might play a tempering role and mitigate the unproductive impact of family incivility. Situating this research in India where family bonds are highly valued could enable us to ascertain how work-family dynamics play out in a culture diverse from the West, where mainstream research on work-family have been conducted. We elucidate the justification of our arguments and hypotheses in the ensuing paragraphs.

Unlike workplace incivility, research on incivility at home has not been studied comprehensively in work-family literature, with a few exceptions as noted below (e.g., Lin, Chang, Lee, & Johnson, 2020). The impact of family incivility on work engagement, an important construct in the work domain, remains unexplored as well. Hence, our study is a major contribution to the field of family and work domains in addition to furthering our understanding of the work-home resources model, the theoretical base of this paper and how it can be applied to further understand work-family dynamics. The assumption underlying this research is that, similar to work incivility, family incivility, if it exists, can negatively impact work engagement and productivity. However, such relationships might be moderated by individual differences.Theoretical framework: The current research has as its theoretical foundation the work-home resources (W-HR) model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). This model reflects how personal resources can connect demands and resources in one domain to those in the other. Thus, on the one hand, work-home conflict occurs when demands in one domain deplete personal resources, leading to lesser gains in the other domain. On the other hand, work-family enrichment, bi-directionally, occurs when resources in one domain lead to a subsequent rise in personal resources, which can be expended to increase positive outcomes in the other domain. The W-HR model is based on the premise that personality, social equality and even culture may affect work-family conflict and enrichment, bi-directionally. With this premise, key resources such as stable personality traits are likely to assist individuals in handling stress more efficiently. For example, the key resource of emotional stability tends to buffer expatriates against experiencing relocation stressors (Utami, et al., 2019) and people working far from home against experiencing homesickness (Du, Derks, Bakker, & Lu, 2018). The W-HR model, a more recent model than those traditionally used, has been tested in a handful of studies (e.g., Braun & Nieberle, 2017) thus far. In line with the propositions of the W-HR model, we argue that demands in the family domain, such as family incivility, can impair family to work enrichment, which may have a negative impact on work engagement for the academic faculty in India. That is, certain family experiences arising out of working from home over a longer period may also negatively affect both the family and the work domains of Indian academic faculty who teach, conduct scholarly activities and other academic service obligations from home. We anticipate such experiences may be more pronounced in the case of India faculty, as [extended] family is integral aspect of an Indian. Family duties may preclude the Indian academic faculty taking a defiant or active stance against insensitive treatment from family members though they may affect the individual faculty himself/herself, extending to his/her work lives. We contend, again in line with W-HR model, that active coping and self-efficacy, two key resources should serve to negate this unpleasant effect on both family and work domains.

As shown above in Fig. 1, we propose that family incivility can have a negative influence on individual’s experience of family - work enrichment and work engagement. Key personal resources such as active coping moderate the negative impact of family incivility on family-work enrichment. At the same time, self-efficacy moderates the impact between family-work enrichment and work engagement. The theoretical framework therefore demonstrates the underlying logic of this study. Located in the Indian context during covid-19, we explore whether there is evidence of family incivility damagingly affecting work engagement. If this negative relationship exists, we further explore how family to work enrichment and selected personal resources can reduce this undesirable effect.

Fig. 1

Theoretical model

Family Incivility, Family-Work Enrichment and Work Engagement

In this section, we elaborate on the variables that constitute the main paths of this model (i.e., family incivility, family-work enrichment and work engagement) while substantiating for these hypothesized pathways.

Family incivility (FI)

Few studies have focused on FI than on work incivility to date (e.g. De Clercq, Haq, Azeem, & Raja, 2018; Lin et al., 2020; Yozgat & Kamanli, 2016). Lim and Tai (2014) define FI as those behaviors that have an ambiguous intent and violate expectations and norms of mutual respect in the family. Family members may not deliberately intend to harm each other but ignorance or insensitivity or other dysfunctional behaviors can lead to harmful effects (De Clercq et al., 2018). FI actions are of lower intensity compared with overt aggression or violence. Research shows that these micro-aggressions are more common among all members of a family unlike spousal conflict or parent-child conflict (Bai et al., 2020). Over time, persistent FI can lead to negative repercussions. Typical examples of FI include actions such as ignoring or neglecting the needs of a family member, dismissing their opinions, and making derogatory comments (Bai, Lin, & Wang, 2016). Individuals who suffer from FI experience a loss of family ties, which can be emotionally stressful and draining.

Family-Work Enrichment (FWE)

The seminal work of Greenhaus and Powell (2006) defines enrichment as “…the extent to which experiences in one role improves the quality of life in the other role” (p.73). An example of FWE is when individuals who, due to their happiness in their family life, unwittingly transfer such pleasant emotions to work. Thus, the enrichment construct operationalizes the positive side of the work-family interface where the work role benefits the family role and vice versa (Bai et al., 2020), and this benefit happens through transfer of resources and is sourced from the originating domain of family. Studies on FWE are not nearly as common as those on work to family enrichment (WFE) with a few exceptions (e.g. Gopalan, Grzywacz, & Cui, 2018; Lu, Han, Wang, & Tang, 2020). More studies are warranted to understand the precursors and outcomes of enrichment that occur between family and work (Bansal & Agarwal, 2019), especially in a non-Western context as most studies on enrichment have been conducted in Western contexts. It is thus worthwhile to carry out additional studies on non-Western samples (Bansal & Agarwal, 2019) to examine more closely how family to work enrichment takes place in different cultural contexts.

Work engagement (WE)

Studies on FWE show that (e.g. Kacmar, Andrews, Valle, Tillman, & Clifton, 2020) it is associated with work-related outcomes. One such outcome is WE, which is a positive state of mind (Schaufeli, 2016) characterized by absorption and dedication at work and is related to increased work performance as well as better entrepreneurship. Defined as “…one’s psychological presence or focus on role activities” (Rothbard, 2001, p. 656), WE involves attention (cognitive availability) and absorption (engrossed in a role). WE is related to other positive and desired work outcomes, such as high performance, better citizenship behavior in organizations, and improved service to one’s clients (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018). It is recognized as a desired organizational strength. It includes a ripple effect in teams when individual team members report work engagement (Van Mierlo & Bakker, 2018). Research thus indicates that family to work enrichment affects work engagement. Next, we establish the connection between all three main variables explained above.

Connecting Family-Work Enrichment (FWE), Family Incivility (FI) and Work Enrichment (WE)

Previous research suggests that family resources, such as family support, may positively influence FWE (Jain & Nair, 2017) which, in turn, boosts work engagement. FI, characterized by an emotional demand in the family domain, can be emotionally taxing (Bai et al., 2020). Certain research findings indicate that FI is more covert than work incivility and leads to negative work outcomes such as counterproductive work behaviors (Lim & Tai, 2014). There is also some evidence that personal resources may moderate the negative effects of FI (Bai et al., 2016). Understood in the context of the W-HR model, the above findings indicate that FI is an emotional contextual demand that can deplete personal resources, as it requires sustained physical and or psychological effort (Lim & Tai, 2014). Individuals experiencing FI are likely to experience low self-esteem, low self-worth and emotional stress (Naeem, Weng, Ali, & Hameed, 2020). In the current scenario of extended working from home, it is likely that FI can lead to lower enrichment from family to work which may negatively affect WE. We propose, however, that stable, key personal resources can reduce the negative influence of family incivility on FWE, which can have a positive knock-on effect on WE. This can help to mitigate the overall negative effect of FI on work engagement.

Effect of Active Coping

Below, we elaborate on both the moderators we used in this study, ‘active coping’ and ‘self-efficacy’ before delineating the hypotheses.

Active coping (AC)

People may engage in active coping through a variety of techniques, which include deliberately avoiding negative emotions, cognitive restructuring or seeking support to resolve the presenting stressors (Violanti et al., 2018). AC functions as a moderator between stressors and the negative consequences emanating from them. Several studies (e.g. George & Moolman, 2017; Skomorovsky, Norris, Martynova, McLaughlin, & Wan, 2019) suggest a positive correlation between AC and healthy adjustment to stress, including buffering negative outcomes from stressors such as burnout (Chen et al., 2018). Thus, an individual engaging in AC typically deals directly with a problem through adaptation in their thinking or behavior (Chen et al., 2018) or changes the nature of stressors instead of being emotionally upset and incapable of taking concrete actions to dissipate the situation (Skomorovsky et al., 2019). It thus follows that this style of coping can also buffer the otherwise negative influence of FI on FWE and those individuals who practice AC focus more on generating solutions to dissolve unhealthy outcomes from family incivility. Using these arguments, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: AC will influence the direct, negative impact of FI on FWE such that the negative impact will be less with increasing levels of AC.

Hypothesis 2: The mediated relationship between FI, FWE and WE will be stronger with increasing levels of AC.

Effect of Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy (SE)

The extensively studied construct of SE refers to ‘people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required in attaining designated types of performances’ (Bandura, 1986, p.391). SE is an individual’s trust in their own abilities to engage in actions needed to gain productive results. Research has shown how SE can act as a coping resource assisting individuals to persevere during hardships (e.g. Ersan, Dölekoğlu, Fişekçioğlu, İlgüy, & Oktay, 2018). Individuals with high SE are said to possess more personal resources to deal effectively across difficult and stressful situations (Makara-Studzińska, Golonka, & Izydorczyk, 2019). Self-efficacy can also direct individuals’ efforts and enable them to be persistent when faced with challenging situations (Consiglio, Borgogni, Di Tecco, & Schaufeli, 2016; Tomas, Seršić, & De Witte, 2019). Thus, SE influences WE, characterized by absorption and attention in a task. Previous research (e.g. Chan et al., 2017) has shown how SE positively influences the work-family balance, which in turn enables individuals to be more engaged in their work. Studies show a positive relationship between SE and WE as people scoring high in SE tend to be more absorbed in their job and better invest their time and energy (Perez-Fuentes, et al., 2019). Based on these previous research findings, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3: SE will influence the direct, positive path between FWE and work engagement such that the impact will be stronger with increasing SE.

Hypothesis 4: The mediated relationship between FI, FWE and WE will be higher for those with SE.

Method

Procedure and Participants

We used a cross-sectional design to test the proposed theoretical model among Indian academic faculty who attended several online training programs organized by the second author. The survey link was shared to approximately 2000 faculty. The response rate was 480 (24%). Two responses were deleted due to missing data and the final sample consisted of 478 responses. The average age of the sample was 32 years and average work experience was 13 years. Nearly 63% of respondents were female, 84% were married, 73% reported having children and 93% reported living with their family. The majority (74%) reported their rank as Assistant Professor, while 17% were in the Associate Professor rank. Only 5% identified as holding the rank of Professor.

Measures

Family Incivility

Was measured with a 6 items developed by Lim and Tai (2014), using a 5-point scale, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 5 is ‘many times.’ An example item was “paid little attention to your statement or showed little interest in your opinion.”

Active Coping

Was measured with the 5 items scale developed by Parker and Endler (1990), using a 7-point scale, where 1 is “strongly disagree’ and 7 is ‘strongly agree.’ An example item was “I try to first understand the situation.”

Self-Efficacy

Was measured with the 6-items scale developed by Jerusalem and Schwarzer (1995), using a 7-point scale where 1 is “strongly disagree’ and 7 is ‘strongly agree.’ An example item was “There are times when I cannot meet everyone’s expectations.”

Family-Work Enrichment

Was measured with the 3-items, short version scale developed by Kacmar, Crawford, Carlson, Ferguson and Whitten (Kacmar, Crawford, Carlson, Ferguson, & Whitten, 2014), using a 7-point scale where 1 is “strongly disagree’ and 7 is ‘strongly agree.’ An example item was “Helps me acquire skills and this helps me be a better worker.”

Work Engagement

Was measured with the 9 items, two-dimensional scale developed by Rothbard (2001). The first dimension is ‘attention’ and it was measured using 4 items. An example item is “I spend a lot of time thinking about my work.” The second dimension is ‘absorption,’ measured using 5 items. An example item is “When I am working, I am totally absorbed by it.” Both dimensions were measured using the 7-point scale where 1 is “strongly disagree’ and 7 is ‘strongly agree.’

Additionally, age, gender, marital status, children status, living arrangements, work experience and designation were included as control variables.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlation were conducted using the statistical package for Social Sciences (SPSS v.21). Further, we used AMOS v.21 software to perform Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). In the CFA model, we compared a single factor model to a six-factor model where, family incivility, active coping, self-efficacy, family-work enrichment, absorption and attention were considered as individual factors. PROCESS Macro package through SPSS was used to test the moderated mediation hypotheses. We ran Models 7, 14 and 21 to test the hypotheses (Hayes, 2017). Bootstrapping was applied to test the moderated mediational hypotheses in the above-mentioned models. Percentile bootstrap estimation with 5000 resamples was used to generate the 95% confidence interval. The effect is considered significant if, in the confidence interval, zero is not included between its lower limit and upper limit values. Below, we report the details of these analyses along with corresponding tables.

Results

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and correlation values. Reliability of all measures were within satisfactory limits.

Table 1

Zero order correlations, descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s Alpha values

Variables	Mean	S.D.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Age	42.13	8.47	–
2. Work Experience	13.43	8.21	.76**	–
3. Family Incivility	2.16	0.96	-.18**	−.12**	.88
4. Active Coping	5.88	0.76	.07	.09	−.09*	.79
5. Self-Efficacy	4.62	1.29	−.09*	−.07	.38**	.02	.85
6. Family-Work Enrichment	5.72	1.20	.14**	.11*	−.29**	.24**	−.09	.85
7. Work Engagement	5.51	0.90	.04	.11*	.03	.22**	.25**	.22**	.83

Note: N = 478, **p < .01, *p < .05. S.D. Standard Deviation, Cronbach’s alpha values are presented in the diagonal with bold font

The CFA based measurement model comparison was performed to validate the measures, test the discriminant validity and common method bias. The six-factor model (χ2=514.02, df=258, χ2/df=1.99, GFI=.92, CFI=.95, RMSEA=.046, AIC=648.02) produced better model fit values compared with the single factor model (χ2=3841.05, df=273, χ2/df=14.07, GFI=.52, CFI=.37, RMSEA=.16, AIC=3945.05). The six-factor model treated all the constructs as individual construct (work engagement ‘attention’ dimension, work engagement ‘absorption’ dimension, family incivility, family-work enrichment, active coping, and self-efficacy). Therefore, following Lim and Tai (2014), we can conclude that there is no concern with common method bias and discriminant validity was established. During the CFA analysis, we used the item parceling approach to retain the poorly loaded items (Matsunaga, 2008).

Hypotheses Tests

We performed the entire moderated mediation analysis based on Welsh, Ellis, Christian, and Mai (2014) and methodological recommendations available in the literature. While testing this model none of the control variables were significantly related to family-work enrichment. However, work experience was significantly related to work engagement (b=.01, p< .05). We also performed this analysis with (a) all of the control variables, (b) with only work experience and (c) without any of the control variables. There was not much variation in results. The coefficient estimate for the moderated mediation model for work engagement is presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Coefficient Estimate for the Moderated Mediation Model for Work Engagement

Variables		First Stage Dependent Variable: Family-Work Enrichment						Second stage Dependent Variable: Work Engagement
	Step 1			Step 2			Step 1			Step 2
	B	SE	t-value	B	SE	t-value	B	SE	t-value	B	SE	t-value
Constant	4.44	0.43	10.36**	6.84	0.89	7.70**
Family Incivility	−.35	.05	−6.46**	−1.43	.35	−4.02**
Active Coping	.35	.07	5.09**	−.06	.15	-.43ns
Family Incivility × Active Coping				.19	.06	3.08**
Constant							3.58	.26	13.61**	1.04	.64	1.61 ns
Family Incivility							.00	.05	−.04 ns	.01	.05	.29 ns
Family-Work Enrichment							.19	.03	5.47**	.63	.11	5.83**
Self-Efficacy							.19	.03	5.77**	.71	.12	5.69**
Family-Work Enrichment × Self-Efficacy										−.09	.02	−4.32**
R2	.13			.15			.12			.15
F value	37.30 **			28.46**			21.94**			21.74**

Note: N = 478, B - Unstandardized regression coefficients, SE - Standard Error, **p < .01

In hypothesis 1, the relationship between family incivility and family-work enrichment was significantly moderated by active coping (interaction effect=.19, CI= .08, .31). The simple slope effect for this relationship is significant at low level of the moderator (simple slope= -.48, CI= -.62, -.35), mean level (simple slope=-.33, CI=-.44, -.23) and high level (simple slope= -.18, CI=-.32, -.04). Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported.

In hypothesis 2, the mediated relationship of family-work enrichment between family incivility and work engagement was moderated in the first stage by active coping. The conditional indirect effect for this first stage moderated mediation model at low (conditional indirect effect= -.09, CI= -.14, -.03), mean (conditional indirect effect= -.06, CI= -.10, -.02), and high level (conditional indirect effect= -.03, CI= -.07, -.006) of the moderator is significant. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is also supported.

In hypothesis 3, the relationship between family-work enrichment and work engagement is significantly moderated by self-efficacy (b= -.09, CI= -.13, -.05). The simple slope effect for this relationship is significant at low level of the moderator (simple slope=.31, CI=.22, .40) and mean level of the moderator (simple slope=.19, CI=.12, .26). But, for the high level of the moderator the simple slope is not significant (simple slope=.07, CI= -005, .15). Therefore, hypothesis 3 is supported.

In hypothesis 4, the mediated relationship between family incivility and work engagement through family-work enrichment was significantly moderated by self-efficacy at low level (conditional indirect effect = -.11, CI= -.17, -.05) and mean level (conditional indirect effect = -.07, CI = -.11, -.03) of the self-efficacy but not at the high level of the self- efficacy (conditional indirect effect= -.02, CI= -.06, .003). Hence, hypothesis 4 is supported.

Figure 2 shows the interaction effect between family incivility and family-work enrichment at low and high level of active coping. Similarly, Fig. 3 shows the interaction effect between family-work enrichment and work engagement at low and high level of self- efficacy.

Fig. 2

Interaction between family incivility and family-work enrichment by active coping

Fig. 3

Interaction between family-work enrichment and work engagement by self-efficacy

We also tested the full model, using Model 21 in process macro, with family-work enrichment mediating the effects of family incivility on work engagement, with active coping moderating between family incivility and family-work enrichment, and with self-efficacy moderating between family-work enrichment and work engagement. We specifically estimated the conditional indirect effect using 5000 bootstrap samples to establish the confidence interval around the conditional indirect effects. As shown in Table 3, we found significant interaction between family incivility and family-work enrichment by active coping (b=.19, CI=.08, .31), and between family-work enrichment and work engagement by self-efficacy (b= -.09, CI=.13, -.05). The index of moderated mediation is significant (index= -.018, CI= -.03, -.002). Therefore, we established overall support for our hypothesized model. We found support for the moderated mediational relationship between family incivility and work engagement through family-work enrichment, moderated by active coping, in the first stage and self-efficacy in the second stage.

Table 3

Bootstrap Results for the Conditional Indirect Effects

Condition	Indirect effect	SE	Boot LL 95% CI	Boot UL 95% CI
Low Active Coping, Low Self-Efficacy	−.15	.04	−.22	−.08
Low Active Coping, High Self-Efficacy	−.04	.02	−.09	−.001
High Active Coping, Low Self-Efficacy	−.06	.03	−.13	−.02
High Active Coping, High Self-Efficacy	−.02	.01	−.04	.001

Note: CI Confidence Interval, LL Lower Limit, UL Upper Limit, Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size is 5000

Discussion

The current study tested the potential influence of family incivility on family-work enrichment and work engagement as well as how active coping and self-efficacy moderated this relationship. Our hypotheses, tested on Indian faculty who were obliged to engage in remote work due to the COVID pandemic, were supported. Many individuals across a multitude of industries are working from home and rapidly adapting to this new 'normal’ in the work-family environment. Mainstream online publications and popular press articles (for example, CNBC's make it; QuartzatWork, SCMagazine; HBR) have produced descriptive narratives about the challenges and opportunities for work-family dynamics in North American settings during the pandemic. Locating this study in India, with its unique culture of high power distance, low individualism, high masculinity, and highly regarded traditions, provided an opportunity to explore these constructs in a rarely studied, non-Western context.

Consistent with the W-HR model, we first hypothesized (H1) that key resources such as active coping will decrease the negative effect of family incivility on family-work enrichment such that the negative impact will be less for those who report higher active coping. Results confirm that a person’s coping style can mitigate the negative experiences of family incivility. Through active coping, individuals make a conscious effort to disallow its instances to affect them and rather focus on the positive dynamics existing in their family lives (Jamal, 2017). Active coping includes a variety of strategies involving deep, conscious introspection and solution-seeking behaviors that diffuse otherwise volatile situations. The role of active coping is also pronounced in the second hypothesis (H2). Support for this hypothesis not only validates the W-HR model propositions, but also shows that active coping tends to negate the unhealthy impact of family incivility and this helps to maintain or increase a person’s experience of family to work enrichment. Higher active coping also tends to positively affect the distal outcome of work engagement. The value of active coping is reflected in studies where the effect of negative experience is nullified leading to a positive work experience (e.g. Einarsen, Skogstad, Rørvik, Lande, & Nielsen, 2018).

Overall, support for the first two hypotheses tend to suggest the following. Our sample of Indian faculty had to adapt with speed to the emergency remote teaching environment due to the Covid-19 lockdown and ensuing restrictions. Work engagement is a crucial ingredient in successful and productive remote working. For academics working at traditional residential universities, this required preparing new approaches for online teaching, adapting to an online mode of instruction, ensuring the integrity and quality of online assessments, while still devoting time to scholarship and meeting various committee obligations. We were interested in how this sample was coping with the challenges associated with this transition in a remote work context with a high probability of family conflict. Results suggested how key personal resources such as active coping could diminish the unproductive influence of family incivility. Through active coping, individuals may choose to focus less on stressors (Skomorovsky et al., 2019) and more on positive aspects emanating from their daily experience. Previous studies (Chen et al., 2018) have noted how a person’s coping style can mitigate or diminish stressful happenings in their life. Active coping, such as self-distraction or attempting to identify the positive aspects of traumatic experiences, may fortify an individual’s resilience (Rückholdt, Tofler, Randall, & Buckley, 2019). It follows that individuals with greater active coping abilities may be more likely to approach occurrences of family incivility more positively. They may, for example, choose to see these incidents not as insoluble tensions but rather as instances to learn more about themselves and family members or even to embrace innovative ways to handle work responsibilities proficiently while working from home.

A somewhat unexpected but welcome result of the study was the relatively low levels of perceived family incivility. Family holds an important position in the lives of people in India (Gopalan et al., 2020). The primacy of family may influence how family conflict is perceived and managed and its impact on work engagement may be buffered through traditional values held on family solidarity. For instance, the collectivism and gender role notions existent in India may mean the need to maintain individualism and boundary expectations between family and work is less expected in India than in Western countries. For example, females are expected to do household chores and take care of family members, including elders and in-laws. The term, ‘family’ itself commonly includes extended relatives and in-laws. Neighbors are often perceived as part of the family. Such cultural nuances might suggest that the need or desire to maintain individuality and focus only on one’s immediate family is less pronounced in an India context (Gopalan et al., 2020).

We found support for hypothesis 3, which predicted that the key resource of self-efficacy moderates the relationship between family-work enrichment and work engagement. Interestingly, possessing moderate self-efficacy (as opposed to high), suffices to capitalize on or leverage positive outcomes from family-work enrichment while it also facilitates greater work engagement. Similarly, in analyzing hypothesis 4, we found that self-efficacy has a positive effect on the mediated relationship between family incivility, family-work enrichment and work engagement. These results show that having self-efficacy assists family-work enrichment, positively influencing work engagement. The relationship was thus supported, however, we noted that having a higher level of self-efficacy does not necessarily strengthen the relationship at any subsequent level. Although speculative, we contend this suggests that even a moderate level of self-efficacy may assist in producing positive outcomes. Whether the findings for H3 and H4 are culture- and context-specific needs further exploration.

Overall, these results suggest that having confidence the ability to juggle both family and work expectations, and finding a way to navigate unexpected family/work duties and demands may go a long way in enhancing the experience of work engagement. Previous research (Di Paula & Campbell, 2002) has investigated the role of self-efficacy in addressing stressful life situations and found a strong correlation between self-efficacy and effectively handling tension and difficulties. Working during the pandemic fortifies academics ability to develop resilience in dealing with lockdown restrictions. There was a rapid adjustment to online instruction and working from home (Kumar & Dwivedi, 2020).

Similar to employees in other industries, academics working from home experience have reported experiencing less separation between work and family life while many have to accommodate more family responsibilities such as household chores and childcare. Self-efficacy during these times enables individuals to have a more optimistic outlook on handling the “new normal” (Labrague, & De los Santos, J. A. A., 2020) which, in turn, provides them with the necessary resilience to engage more actively at work. Displaying self-reliance and assuredness during nerve-wracking or demanding times is crucial to experiencing family to work enrichment and subsequently, work engagement.

Theoretical and Practical Contributions

Theoretical

This study tested and found support for several pathways proposed in the W-HR model. First, the model proposes how demands in one domain may affect the individual through a reduction of their personal resources and their performance in another domain. Our study found that family incivility (a family domain demand) not only affect the individual (short-term process) himself through reduction in their personal resources, but it may also harmfully affect the individual’s work life over an extended period of time (long-term process). Second, the model highlights the significance of key personal resources that can mitigate a damaging experience in one domain impacting on another. Our study confirmed that active coping and self-efficacy, two key resources, reduced the unproductive results of family incivility affecting family-work enrichment and work engagement. In sum, we found support for some of the key propositions of the W-HR model. The finding that a higher level of self-efficacy, a key resource, did not add over and above the effect produced by moderate levels of self-efficacy needs closer study. Whether this finding is culture-specific or not also warrants further attention. Incorporating different key resources as intervening variables and testing the model we analysed in this study on diverse samples may add more depth to the W-HR model propositions. To date, there have been a small number of studies testing the W-HR model (e.g., Braun & Nieberle, 2017; Du et al., 2018). Our study contributes to this body of work and attests to the robustness and applicability of the W-HR model in work-family research.

Practical

Our study aimed to explore the topic of family incivility in a culture where family has a primary role in the lives of individuals, and family configurations and expectations reflect the mores of a collectivist culture.

We premised the study on the assumption that family incivility can potentially have a negative influence on work, by diminishing family to work enrichment, which in turn impairs the use of work resources and limits performance. Consistent with the W-HR model, we assumed that family incivility affects the work domain through a process of personal resources depletion. Working from home adds a potentially new layer of complexity for working individuals who live with family. It is important for organizations to recognize that while employees may be present at the home-based work station, ruminating about family issues can be distracting. Should family incivility be a common experience in remote workplaces, management is encouraged to consider intervention programs such as support groups, counselling, and even flexible work arrangements that can help employees deal with family issues.

This study was undertaken during the time of a global pandemic that has brought about unprecedented changes in many aspects of working life. While family can be a source of support, our study suggests that tensions from family incivility can impede satisfactory family-work enrichment and the capacity to engage in work. It foregrounds the importance of employees cultivating resources to circumvent family incivility, such as developing a proactive coping style. It also suggests that employers need to become more cognizant of how working from home for a lengthy period can influence their employees. Sensitivity, flexibility and understanding on the part of the employer can go a long way to ease the tensions inherent in this shift to increased working from home.

Limitations and Future Directions

We did not include variables to assess participants’ mood or social desirability bias, which might have influenced their responses. Future studies should factor this into account. Our study was conducted in a predominantly collectivistic, family-oriented, high power distance culture. Hence, the results might be culture- or sample-specific. Although the purpose of our study was to conduct research in a non-Western context, we recognize the need for further research before generalizing our conclusions. For example, cultural nuances such as the role of extended family or cultural norms associated with family and gender specific roles, could add insightful contributions to this field.

Conclusions

The purpose of the study was to assess the impact of family incivility on the family-work interface and work engagement. Using the W-HR model, we proposed and found evidence that family incivility could potentially affect the family domain interfering with the work domain, which in turn could affect work engagement. Most of our hypotheses were supported, indicating the important role of active coping and self-efficacy, especially during these unprecedented times where people are living in a ‘new normal’. While family dynamics themselves may not be within the purview of an organization, understanding them is becoming relevant and valuable especially in increasing work-from-home circumstances.

(DOCX 25 kb)