Correlates of work‐family conflicts among managers in Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The work‐family interface has received considerable attention during the past two decades but inconsistent findings have been reported. Reasons for this include the use of different work‐family conflict (WFC) measures, samples, outcomes, and countries and cultures. Carlson et al. developed and provided an initial validation of a new comprehensive measure of bi‐directional WFC having three forms: time‐, strain‐, and behavior‐based conflict. The purpose of this paper is to replicate and extended their work employing a large sample of managers working in various organizations and industries in Egypt, a large Muslim country, and including additional correlates. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 242 respondents, 146 males and 96 females, using anonymously completed questionnaires, a 48 percent response rate. Measures included three forms of WFC, personal demographic and work situation characteristics, stable individual difference personality factors, job behaviors, work outcomes, after‐work recovery experiences, indicators of quality of life (e.g. WFC, life satisfaction) and psychological well‐being. Findings The three measures of WFC were acceptably reliable and inter‐correlated to the same extent as reported by Carlson and her colleagues in their US study. The mean values in the Egyptian sample were higher than those in the US study indicating more WFC, and the gender differences reported by Carlson et al. were not found in the Egyptian sample. Both stable personality characteristics (e.g. need for achievement) and job demands (e.g. perceptions of work intensity) were positively associated with WFC. Use of recovery experiences after work had limited and mixed effects on levels of WFC. WFC generally had negative relationships with work outcomes and indicators of psychological well‐being. Research limitations/implications The presence of country differences suggests the need for more cross‐cultural research involving participants in the same occupations. Practical implications Results suggest that both individual characteristics and job demands are associated with levels of WFC. Efforts to reduce levels of WFC need to address both. Originality/value The paper adds to the understanding of work experiences of managers in Egypt and replicates and extends earlier work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".