Reducing Work-Life Conflict: What Works? What Doesn't?

3.4 Supportive Managers

Our research has clearly demonstrated that work and family policies are ineffective if supervisors do not support them (Duxbury & Higgins, 1995). While employees want increased work-time and work location flexibility, simply offering flexible work arrangements and family-friendly benefits is not enough. There is a tremendous amount of inequity in organizations today because supervisors act as gatekeepers to many of the benefits offered by the firm. Who you work for within an organization has become more important than where you work. Employees who work for "supportive" supervisors who trust and respect their employees and who base their decisions on circumstances rather than "the book" report less stress and greater productivity than employees who work for managers who deny their employees any sort of flexibility (even when such arrangements are technically available) (Duxbury & Higgins, 1995). Formal policies alone are insufficient to ensure that employed parents are able to satisfy the role demands of work and family. Our research indicates that organizations need to alter the behaviour of their managers and supervisors to facilitate any form of permanent change. They also have to measure progress in these areas and make managers accountable for how they treat their people (Duxbury & Higgins, 1995).

Investigations by a number of researchers also point to the important role the immediate manager has to play with respect to work-life conflict. Galinsky and Stein (1990), for example, determined that the relationship with the supervisor is one of the most powerful predictors of work and family problems. They found that supervisor support lowers stress while lack of supervisor support increases stress. They also found that supervisor support of work and family issues occurs when supervisors: (1) feel that handling family issues, especially as they affect job performance, is a legitimate part of the role; (2) are knowledgeable about company policies that apply to family issues; (3) are flexible when work and family problems arise; and (4) handle employees' work and family problems fairly and without favouritism. It is interesting to note that these authors believe that having a supportive supervisor is roughly equivalent to having a supportive spouse with respect to its effects on stress (National Council of Jewish Women, 1988, cited in Galinsky & Stein, 1990).

Warren and Johnson (1995) can also be used to illustrate the important role the manager has to play in helping employees cope with demands at work and at the work-life interface. Their research found that the items that made the most difference in reducing strain were flexibility in work scheduling, permitting employees to come in late or leave early, to take occasional days off without pay and to receive phone calls from family at work.

Thompson et al. (1999) made the link between work culture and management behaviour. They defined work-family culture as "the shared assumptions, beliefs and values regarding the extent to which an organization supports and values the integration of employees' work and family lives" (p. 394). They went on to identify the three components of work-family culture as: (1) organizational time demands and the expectation that employees will prioritize work above family, (2) perceived negative career consequences associated with utilizing work-family benefits or devoting time to family responsibilities, and (3) managerial support and sensitivity to employees' family responsibilities. They argued that the availability of family-friendly benefits is not sufficient to help employees cope with work-family conflict and stress, as many employees will be hesitant to make use of such benefits for fear of being stigmatized. They also found that employees working in supportive work-family cultures were more likely to make use of formal work-family benefits, were more committed, less likely to quit their jobs and reported less work-family conflict. The first two dimensions of culture (i.e. culture of hours and work and family) were examined in Report Four of this series. The final dimension of culture, management support, is considered in this analysis.

A number of progressive organizations are responding to this issue by providing training to supervisors. This training focuses on sensitizing managers to work-family issues and showing supervisors how to behave in a manner that facilitates employees using the benefits to which they are entitled. The question remains, however: What makes a supportive supervisor? The measures of supervisor support used in this study (see Box Two) were developed and tested by Duxbury and Higgins over a 10-year period. The measures focus on behaviours associated with being a supportive or a non-supportive supervisor. Identification of key supportive and non-supportive behaviours provides organizations with a useful tool in the performance appraisal process, behaviourally based hiring and promotion decisions, managerial education programs, upward feedback exercises, and sensitivity training.

This section of the report is divided into three main parts. In the first section, we use two scales, the supportive manager measure and the non-supportive manager measure to delineate how many employees perceive that their manager is supportive (i.e. frequently engages in supportive behaviours), non-supportive (i.e. frequently engages in non-supportive behaviours) and mixed (i.e. sometimes engages in supportive behaviours, sometimes engages in non-supportive behaviours). Parts two and three look at the data analysis to answer the following two questions: Does having a manager who is perceived to be supportive help employees cope with work-life conflict? Does having a manager who is perceived to be non-supportive make it more difficult for employees to cope with work-life conflict? To answer these questions, we will look at the impact of management support/non-support on men and women, with and without dependent care, in management and professional jobs, and in other jobs. In both cases, analyses using the complete measure are presented first. This is followed by an in-depth analysis using each of the supportive and non-supportive behaviours included in the measures. As before, the discussion in the section below focuses only on supportive/non-supportive behaviours that significantly and substantively impact an employee's ability to cope with work-life conflict. The complete set of data on which this section is based can be found in Appendix D.

Figure 24: Percent of Sample Working for Supportive Manager

3.4.1 Are Managers in Canada's Largest Organizations Supportive of Their Employees?

Figure 24 provides data on the number of employees in this sample (n = 26,796) who work for managers they perceive to be supportive, non-supportive and mixed as assessed using the supportive and non-supportive manager measures.

Less than half of the sample work for a supportive manager The data collected using the supportive manager measure indicate that:

• Just under half the employees in this study (47% of respondents) work for managers who frequently engage in the nine supportive management behaviours.
• 37% work for "mixed managers" who are not consistent with respect to the extent to which they engage in supportive behaviours (i.e. exhibit some behaviours but not others).
• 16% work for managers who rarely undertake any of the supportive actions included in the supportive manager measure.

One in seven works for a non-supportive manager The data collected using the non-supportive manager measure indicate that:

• 13% of the respondents work for a non-supportive manager who uses the six behaviours that employees have identified as typifying a non-supportive manager on a daily basis.
• Just under one in three of the employees in this study (29% of respondents) works for a manager who is not consistent in the extent to which they engage in the six management behaviours that employees find to be non-supportive (exhibit some behaviours and not others).
• Just over half (57%) work for managers who rarely display what employees consider non-supportive behaviours.

Management support is not a continuum When we started our research on management support, we envisioned this construct as a continuum with supportive management on one end and non-supportive management on the other. Our data indicate that while the supportive and non-supportive manager measures are strongly correlated (i.e. r = 0.60) they measure two quite different constructs and are not a continuum. In other words, the opposite of a supportive manager is one who is not supportive, while the opposite of a non-supportive manager is one who is not non-supportive. The breakdown of the sample using both the non-supportive and supportive manager measures can be found in Table 6. The following is a summary of the perceptions of employees about their managers:

• A plurality of respondents (42%) work for a manager who is supportive no matter what criteria are considered (i.e. frequently engages in supportive behaviours, rarely engages in non-supportive behaviours).
• Just over one in five (22%) of the employees who responded to our survey work for a manager who is inconsistent with respect to application of supportive behaviours but has the advantage of rarely displaying non-supportive behaviours.
• A substantive number of employees in the sample (14%) report to an individual who is inconsistent with respect to use of both supportive and non-supportive behaviours.
• One in ten of the Canadians in our sample reports to a manager who rarely engages in supportive behaviours and scores within the mixed range with respect to the non-supportive behaviours.

The above discussion suggests that there is value in looking at the impact of the two sets of management behaviours separately. Findings from this analysis are summarized in the sections below.

3.4.2 And So What? Are Employees Who Work for a Supportive Manager Better Able to Cope with Work-Life Conflict?

Analyses done to determine how management support impacts work-life conflict are provided in Appendix D. A summary of the key findings discussed in this section can be found in Tables 7 (gender by job type) and 8 (gender by dependent care). The link between management support (total measure) and work-life conflict are discussed first. This is followed by an overview of the impact the various behaviours that make up the supportive manager measure have on each dimension of work-life conflict. It should be acknowledged that the associations reported in this section can be explained in two ways. First, it is possible that employees with supportive managers work fewer hours and as such report lower levels of work-life conflict. Second, the findings could support the idea that supportive management makes it easier for employees to cope with the demands they do have. The fact that time in work is not associated with management support (data not shown) lends credence to the second interpretation of the data and reinforces our contention that employees who work for a supportive manager are more able to cope with work-life conflict than employees who do not.

Table 6: Breakdown of Sample Using Both Supportive and Non-Supportive Manager Measures

		Non-Supportive Manager Measure
		Not Non-Supportive	Mixed	Non-Supportive
Supportive Manager Measure	Not Supportive	3 %	10 %	3 %
	Mixed	22 %	14 %	2 %
	Supportive	42 %	4 %	0 %

Table 7: Impact of Supportive Management Behaviours on Work-Life Conflict: Gender by Job Type
a: Main Effects

Management Behaviours	Overload	Work to Family	Family to Work	Caregiver Strain
Gives recognition when I do my job well	F = 280.1, α = .000 R2 = .045, Δ = - 0.3	Interaction	R2 = .004	R2 = .031
Provides constructive feedback	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .003	R2 = .029
Makes expectations clear	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .009	R2 = .031
Listens to my concerns	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .006	R2 = .033
Shares information with me	F = 228.3, α = .000 R2 = .042, Δ = - 0.4	Interaction	R2 = .007	R2 = .031
Is available to answer questions	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .007	R2 = .032
Is effective at planning work	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .009	R2 = .032
Asks for input before making decisions that affect my work	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .006	R2 = .035
Provides me with challenging opportunities	R2 = .028	R2 = .039	R2 = .003	R2 = .031
Supports my decisions	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .007	R2 = .035

Table 7: Impact of Supportive Management Behaviours on Work-Life Conflict: Gender by Job Type
b. Significant Interactions

Management Behaviours	Overload	Work to Family	Family to Work	Caregiver Strain
Gives recognition when I do my job well	ns	F = 2.92, α = .008 R2 = .061	ns	ns
Provides constructive feedback	F = 3.58, α = .002 R2 = .043	F = 6.61, α = .000 R2 = .058	ns	ns
Makes expectations clear	F = 2.76, α = .01 R2 = .049	F = 4.48, α = .000 R2 = .065	ns	ns
Listens to my concerns	F = 5.23, α = .000 R2 = .051	F = 6.11, α = .000 R2 = .075	ns	ns
Shares information with me	ns	F = 2.52, α = .000 R2 = .057	ns	ns
Is available to answer questions	F = 4.49, α = .000 R2 = .051	F = 6.27, α = .000 R2 = .071	ns	ns
Is effective at planning work	F = 2.12, α = .03	F = 6.01, α = .000	ns	ns
	R2 = .056	R2 = .072
Supports my decisions	F = 2.55, α = .01 R2 = .041	F = 2.76, α = .01 R2 = .061	ns	ns
Asks for input before making decisions that affect my work	F = 3.45, α = .002 R2 = .044	F = 6.16, α = .000 R2 = .071	ns	ns

Table 8: Impact of Supportive Management Behaviours on Work-Life Conflict: Gender by Dependent Care
a. Main Effects

Management Behaviours	Overload	Work to Family	Family to Work	Caregiver Strain
Gives recognition when I do my job well	F = 252.91, α = .000 R2 = .056, Δ = - 0.3	F = 312.94, α = .000 R2 = .041, Δ = - 0.4	R2 = .045 **	F = 21.48, α = .000 R2 = .045, Δ = - 0.3
Provides constructive feedback	F = 233.59, α = .000 R2 = .053, Δ = - 0.4	R2 = .039	R2 = .044 **	R2 = .043 **
Makes expectations clear	F = 277.51, α = .000 R2 = .057, Δ = - 0.3	F = 378.94, α = .000 R2 = .053, Δ = - 0.4	R2 = .048 **	R2 = .043 **
Listens to my concerns	Interaction	F = 480.53, α = .000 R2 = .053, Δ = - 0.5	R2 = .045 **	R2 = .047 **
Shares information with me	F = 207.54, α = .000 R2 = .052, Δ = - 0.3	R2 = .036	R2 = .046 **	R2 = .043 **
Is available to answer questions	F = 271.53, α = .000 R2 = .058, Δ = - 0.4	F = 418.64, α = .000 R2 = .051, Δ = - 0.5	R2 = .046 **	R2 = .044 **
Is effective at planning work	F = 155.9, α = .000 R2 = .065, Δ = - 0.5	F =488.71, α = .000 R2 = .063, , Δ = - 0.5	R2 = .048 **	R2 = .044 **
Provides me with challenging opportunities	R2 = .036	R2 = .010	R2 = .042 **	R2 = .045 **
Supports my decisions	F = 127.6, α = .000 R2 = .051, Δ = - 0.3	R2 = .039	R2 = .047 **	R2 = .048 **
Asks for input before making decisions that affect my work	F = 212.51, α = .000 R2 = .051, Δ = - 0.4	F = 406.46, α = .000 R2 = .048, Δ = - 0.5	R2 = .046 **	R2 = .046 **

Table 8: Impact of Supportive Management Behaviours on Work-Life Conflict: Gender by Dependent Care
b. Significant Interactions

Management Behaviours	Overload	Work to Family	Family to Work	Caregiver Strain
Listens to my concerns	F = 3.21, α = .000 R2 = .059	ns	ns	ns

3.4.2.1 Impact of Supportive Manager (Total Measure) on Work-Life Conflict

Management support is linked to lower levels of role overload

This analysis links supportive management with an increased ability to cope with role overload. The fact that management support is significantly and substantively associated with role overload in both the gender and job type and the gender and dependent care analyses emphasizes the importance of the link between management support and role overload for today's employees.

Examination of the data in Figure 25a shows that the relationship between management support and role overload varies by gender when job type is taken into consideration. The following conclusions can be drawn by examining this figure:

• Supportive management is associated with a greater reduction in role overload for employees working in other positions within the organization (Δ = -.5) than for those in managerial and professional positions (Δ = -.4).
• Having a manager who displays mixed levels of management support is associated with a significant reduction in role overload for women in management and professional positions (Δ = -.3). These women receive little additional benefit (Δ = -.1 in role overload) from having a supportive manager. Females in other positions, on the other hand, experience only a small reduction in role overload when working for a mixed manager compared to a not supportive manager (Δ = -.2). These women experience a further decline in role overload of - .3 when they move from a mixed to a supportive manager.

Figure 25: Link Between Work-Life Conflict and Supportive Management: Gender by Job Type Analysis
a. Role Overload

Figure 25: Link Between Work-Life Conflict and Supportive Management: Gender by Job Type Analysis
b. Work-to-Family Interference

Figure 26: Relationship Between Work-Life Conflict and Management Support When Dependent Care Status Taken into Account

The relationship between supportive management and role overload when dependent care status is taken into account is straightforward (Figure 26) and identical for men and women: the greater the levels of support, the lower the levels of role overload (Δ = -.5), regardless of dependent care status.

Management support is linked to lower levels of work-to-family interference

This analysis links supportive management with an increased ability to cope with work-to-family interference. The strength of this relationship and the fact that it can be observed in both the gender and job type and the gender and dependent care analyses suggest that employers that wish to help employees cope with this form of work-life conflict implement strategies to increase management support.

Examination of the data in Figure 25b indicates that the relationship between management support and work-to-family interference depends on both gender and job type. The following conclusions can be drawn by examining this figure:

• Supportive management is associated with a greater reduction in work-to-family interference for those in other positions (Δ = -.7) than for managers and professionals (Δ = -.5).
• There are no gender differences in the relationship between management support and work-to-family interference for men and women in managerial and professional positions.
• The relationship between work-to-family interference and management support is associated with gender for those in other positions within the organization, as shown in Figure 25b.

The relationship between supportive management and work-to-family interference when dependent care status is taken into account is straightforward (Figure 26) and identical for men and women: the greater the levels of support the lower the levels of this type of interference (Δ = -.6), regardless of dependent care status.

Management support is linked to lower levels of family-to-work interference and caregiver strain

The relationship between these two forms of work-life conflict and management support (Figure 26) is fairly straightforward, albeit very different from that observed for role overload and work-to-family interference. High levels of management support are associated with lower levels of family-to-work interference (Δ = .3) and caregiver strain (Δ = .4) for both men and women when dependent care status is taken into account.³⁰ It is also interesting to note that having a mixed manager does not provide any assistance to employees who need to cope with these forms of conflict.

3.4.2.2 Impact of the Different Supportive Behaviours

The measure of supportive management included in this analysis includes 10 behaviours. To help employers evaluate which of these behaviours are the most important in terms of the reduction of work-life conflict, we examined the extent to which each of these 10 supportive behaviours helped employees cope with each of the four types of work-life conflict considered in this study. Furthermore, to help employers target their interventions appropriately we looked at whether or not the employee's gender, their job type and their dependent care status have an impact on the extent to which these different behaviours helped employees cope with work-life conflict.

The discussion in the section below focuses only on those behaviours that substantively impact an employee's ability to cope with work-life conflict. Substantiveness was determined by first looking at the R² of the ANOVA and identifying behaviours that explained approximately 5% of the variance in work-life conflict. We then calculated the difference (?) between the level of work-life conflict experienced by someone who has a manager who is supportive with respect to this behaviour compared to an individual who rates their manager's behaviour as mixed or low. Behaviours with little to no association with work-life conflict (defined as a non-significant finding and/or a Δ of less than 0.3) are not discussed. The interested reader can, however, find the complete set of data upon which this section is based in Appendix D or consult Table 7 (summarizes key findings from gender by job type analysis) and Table 8 (summarizes key findings from gender by dependent care analysis). Information on the labelling conventions used in Tables 8 through 10 is given in Box Eight.

Employees who have a manager who is consultative and good at planning report lower levels of role overload

Eight of the ten supportive behaviours can be seen to help men and women cope with role overload, regardless of their dependent care status. What helps employees cope with role overload, regardless of gender or dependent care status³¹ is a manager who:

• is effective at planning the work to be done (Δ = - 0.5)
• is available to answer questions (Δ = -0.4)
• provides constructive feedback (Δ = -0.4)
• asks for input before making decisions that affect their work (Δ = -0.4)
• supports their decisions (Δ = - 0.3)
• gives recognition for a job well done (Δ = -0.3)
• makes expectations clear (Δ = -0.3)
• shares information with them (Δ = -0.3)

These data suggest that employees are more able to deal with role overload when they have a manager who is good at planning and managing the work to be done as well as communicating work expectations. Managers do this by being consultative (i.e. involving employees at the front end of the planning process), by providing clarity on what is to be done and how it is to be done (i.e. share information with employees, make themselves available, provide constructive feedback, make expectations clear). In all cases, these types of behaviours can be expected to increase an employee's efficiency and ability to plan their own work day -- strategies that in turn help employees cope with work demands. The data suggest that these behaviours are moderately effective at reducing role overload (i.e. R² range from 5% to 7% while Δ's range from - .3 to - .5).

It should also be noted that two of the supportive behaviours, shares information with employees (Δ = -0.4) and gives recognition for a job well done (Δ = -0.3), were also significant predictors of role overload in the gender by job type analysis. While the amount of role overload explained by these behaviours falls slightly below our cut-off criteria, these findings are important as they indicate that employees at all job levels would benefit from having a manager who provides positive feedback and shares information with them.

Managers who seek to reduce role overload in other positions need to plan the work to be done and make expectations clear

The extent to which the following three supportive behaviours are associated with lower levels of role overload depends on both gender and job type:

• is effective at planning the work to be done
• is available to answer questions
• makes expectations clear

These relationships are shown in Figure 27a (expectations), Figure 27b (availability) and Figure 27c (planning). The following observations can be drawn from these figures:

• Men and women in other positions realize the most benefit (i.e. greatest drop in role overload) from having a manager who is effective at planning the work to be done, makes expectations clear and is available to answer questions.
• Managers who wish to help their females in other positions cope with role overload should focus on planning the work to be done (Δ = -0.7).

These findings emphasize the link between understanding what one is to do at work (i.e. plans and expectations are clear) and role overload for employees in general and front-line employees in particular. While the exact causal mechanism is unclear, it is likely that employees who have a manager who focuses on these activities are more able to work efficiently (i.e. fewer mistakes, less duplication of work, better scheduling of tasks) and hence feel less overloaded.

Figure 27: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Role Overload Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
a. Makes Expectations Clear

Figure 27: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Role Overload Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
b. Is Available to Answer Questions

Figure 27: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Role Overload Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
c. Is Effective at Planning the Work to Be Done

Figure 27: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Role Overload Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
d. Listens to My Concerns

Figure 28: Relationship Between Listens to My Concerns and Role Overload: Gender by Dependent Care Analysis

Women who report to a manager who listens to their concerns report lower levels of role overload

Finally, it is important to note that our data (Figures 27d and 28) show that basic management skills such as listening make a significant difference in the levels of role overload reported by employees. While all employees with a manager who has good listening skills appear to benefit from this behaviour, the data indicate that women, regardless of job type or dependent care status, benefit more from this behaviour than men (i.e. drop in role overload is greater). Women in other positions within the organization, in particular, seem to benefit from having a manager who listens (Δ = -0.7). These findings are consistent with those reported with respect to planning and suggest that women at the bottom levels of the organizational hierarchy find it easier to balance work and life when they have a manager who helps them understand what is to be done and is aware of their circumstances at work and at home (i.e. listens).

Employees with managers who are good at planning and directing the work to be done report lower levels of work-to-family interference

Half of the supportive behaviours are associated with lower levels of work-to-family interference, regardless of their gender or dependent care status.³² What helps employees, regardless of gender or dependent care status, cope with work-to-family interference? The list is very similar to that observed for role overload and includes having a manager who:

• is effective at planning the work to be done (Δ = -0.6)
• asks for input before making decisions that affect their work (Δ = -0.5)
• listens to their concerns (Δ = -0.5)
• is available to answer questions (Δ = - 0.5)
• makes expectations clear (Δ = -0.4)

These data support our previous observations that employees find it easier to balance work and non-work roles if they know exactly what it is that they have to do at work (i.e. manager effective at planning, makes expectations clear, and is available to answer questions) and have input into how their work is to be done (i.e. manager listens to subordinates and consults them before making decisions that affect their work). In other words, they have a manager who is good at people management and planning. While it is hard to determine exactly why such behaviour reduces work-to-family interference, we can speculate that these forms of management support increase employees' ability to schedule and plan their own work around their non-work responsibilities. In other words, managers help employees deal with this form of interference by giving them more control over the work-life interface.

Relationship between management behaviour and work-to-family interference depends on both gender and job type

The data show that management behaviour has a substantive impact on work-to-family interference when job type is taken into consideration. The strength of this association can be illustrated by several findings. First, nine of the ten supportive management behaviours demonstrated significant negative associations with this form of work-life conflict (i.e. higher levels of support were associated with lower levels of interference), regardless of the gender of the employee or the type of position held. Second, the amount of variation in work-to-family interference explained by each behaviour was substantive (i.e. ranged from 5.5% to 7.5%).

To fully understand this relationship, one needs to look at both gender and job type.³³ This examination identifies three patterns of relationships (Figure 29) in the data. Details on each are given below.

Figure 29: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Work-to-Family Interference Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
a. Gives Recognition

Figure 29: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Work-to-Family Interference Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
b. Gives Constructive Feedback

Figure 29: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Work-to-Family Interference Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
c. Makes Expectations Clear

Figure 29: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Work-to-Family Interference Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
d. Listens to My Concerns

Figure 29: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Work-to-Family Interference Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
e. Shares Information with Me

Figure 29: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Work-to-Family Interference Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
f. Is Effective at Planning Work to Be Done

Figure 29: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Work-to-Family Interference Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
g. Asks for Input Before Making Decisions That Affect Employee's Work

Figure 29: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Work-to-Family Interference Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
h. Supports Employee's Decisions

Figure 29: Relationship Between Management Behaviour and Work-to-Family Interference Depends on Both Gender and Job Type
i. Is Available to Answer Questions

Behaviours that benefit employees in other positions more than their managerial and professional counterparts

When gender is taken into account, those in other positions in the organization benefit more than their counterparts in managerial and professional positions from having a manager who makes expectations clear and involves them in the decision-making process. Specifically, the following management behaviours are associated with an increased ability to cope with work-to-family interference for those in other positions than for those in managerial and professional positions:

• asks for input into decisions that affect their work
• makes expectations clear
• gives recognition for a job well done
• supports their decisions
• is available to answer questions

This last behaviour, in particular, is associated with a large drop in work-to-family interference for those in other positions (Δ = -0.7).

Behaviours that with one exception (female managers and professionals) benefit all employees

Higher incidence of two of the supportive behaviours, gives constructive feedback and shares information with employees, is associated with substantive declines in work-to-family interference for all but one group of employees -- women in managerial and professional positions.

Behaviours that benefit women more than men

Two of the management behaviours, listens to my concerns and is effective at planning the work to be done, are strongly associated with the ability to cope with work-to-family interference. In both cases, however, the linkage between this behaviour and lower levels of work-to-family interference varies significantly with both gender and job type. Who benefits the most from having a manager who listens to concerns and is effective at planning the work? The answer varies depending on how the comparison is done. When the comparison is done within gender, these management behaviours are associated with a larger drop in work-to-family interference for those in other positions than for managers and professionals. When the comparison is done within job type, these two behaviours are linked to a greater decline in this form of work-life conflict for women rather than men. Overall, women in other positions and female managers and professionals appear to benefit the most from having a manager who is supportive with respect to these behaviours. Men in managerial and professional positions, on the other hand, realize much smaller gains with respect to reductions in work-to-family interference from having a manager who listens to them and is effective at planning the work to be done.

None of the supportive behaviours substantively helps employees deal with family-to-work interference and caregiver strain

None of the 10 supportive management behaviours considered in this analysis were effective at helping employees cope with either family-to-work interference or caregiver strain. These findings are consistent with those observed with perceived flexibility and support our contention that the two forms of work-life conflict that arise from pressures within the home environment (need to care for children and/or elderly dependents) cannot be appreciably reduced by any one of the behaviours associated with management support. Rather, these data and the findings obtained with the total management support measure suggest that coping with these two forms of work-life conflict only occurs when an employee works for a manager who consistently displays a number of the supportive behaviours. These findings also imply that employers, wishing to support their employees' need to care for children and elderly dependents, need to look beyond what the immediate manager can do informally to help their employees.