Conflict (Work-Family and Family-Work) and Task Performance: The Role of Well-Being in This Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent societal changes have brought new challenges to contemporary organisations, e.g., how to properly manage the work-family/family-work dyad and, thus, promote adequate task performance. This paper aimed to study the relationship between conflict (work-family and family-work) and task performance, and whether this relationship was moderated by well-being. Thus, the following hypotheses were formulated: (1) conflict (work-family and family-work) is negatively associated with task performance; (2) conflict (work-family and family-work) is negatively associated with well-being; (3) well-being is positively associated with task performance; and (4) well-being moderates the relationship between conflict (work-family and family-work) and task performance. A total of 596 subjects participated in this study, all employed in Portuguese organisations. The results underlined that only family-work conflict was negatively and significantly associated with task performance. Work-family conflict established a negative and significant relationship with well-being. Well-being was positively and significantly associated with performance and moderated the relationship between conflict (work-family and family-work) and task performance. These results show that organisations should provide employees with situations that promote their well-being, especially in Portugal, where a relationship culture exists (rather than task culture, which is predominant in the USA and Canada, for example) which means that additional and considerable time must be dedicated to personal and family matters for people to fit in and be accepted harmoniously.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".