See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254188305

A study of work-family conflict, family-work conflict and the

contingent effect of self-efficacy of retail salespeople in a
transitional economy

Article  in  European Journal of Marketing · November 2011

DOI: 10.1108/03090561111167333

CITATIONS READS
15 1,797

2 authors:

Cristian Chelariu Rodney L. Stump

Suffolk University Towson University
32 PUBLICATIONS   567 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   1,998 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect of FIFA 11+ program on some biomechanical risk factors of ACL injury during cutting maneuver View project

Social norms in the salesforce: justice and relationalism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cristian Chelariu on 16 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

EJM
45,11/12 A study of work-family conflict,
family-work conflict and the
contingent effect of self-efficacy
1660
of retail salespeople in a
transitional economy
Cristian Chelariu
Sawyer School of Business, Suffolk University, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA, and
Rodney Stump
Towson University, Towson, Maryland, USA

European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 45 No. 11/12, 2011
pp. 1660-1679
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090561111167333
Abstract
Purpose – The present study aims to contribute to the growing cross-national body of
literature on work-family conflict (WFC) and family-work conflict (FWC) issues by examining
the interrelationship of these constructs with other variables in the context of a transitional
economy.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using self-report questionnaires distributed
to retail salespeople in Hungary. Hypothesis tests were conducted using structural equation
modeling.
Findings – The results revealed that WFC is strongly related to job stress, while FWC is not, and
that job stress fully mediates the effect of WFC on turnover intentions. It was also found that
self-efficacy, as a moderator, heightened the positive effect of WFC on job stress, but attenuated the
effect of FWC.
Research limitations/implications – Future research could examine both the deleterious and
beneficial effects of role identity spillover and include additional psychological work outcomes beyond
turnover intentions. Assessing the impact of collective efficacy in addition to individual self-efficacy is
also warranted in future studies conducted in transitional economies, especially those with
collectivistic cultures.
Social implications – The authors’ evidence that WFC is more strongly related to job stress than
FWC underscores the need for retailers to implement progressive policies to create supportive work
environments, which can reduce WFC and FWC. The finding of the contingent effect of self-efficacy
also has important implications for recruiting and training practices of retailers operating in
transitional economies.
Originality/value – This study is among the first to compile the multiple theoretical rationales for
the moderating effect of self-efficacy and empirical evidence that it operates in opposite ways relative
to WFC and FWC.
Keywords Family-work conflict, Work-family conflict, Job stress, Self-efficacy, Retail salespeople,
Transition economy, Family, Employment, Conflict, Hungary, Role conflict
Paper type Research paper
The authors are shown in alphabetical order.
Introduction A study of
Family and work have long been regarded as the most important domains of life of work-family
most adults (Andrews and Withey, 1976). However, the role expectations of these two
domains are not always compatible, which creates conflicts between work and family conflict
life (Netemeyer et al., 1996). This, in turn can have detrimental effects on both sides. On
the work side, various studies have related work-family conflict (WFC) and
family-work conflict (FWC) to job dissatisfaction, job burnout, and turnover (Burke, 1661
1998; Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus et al., 1987; Pleck et al., 1980). On the personal side,
conflict between work and family has been associated with reduced marital and life
satisfaction (Bedieian et al., 1998; Kopelman et al., 1983). These issues are particularly
salient for retail salespeople working and living in transitional economies, such as the
former communist countries that are undergoing sometimes painful reform processes,
and significant social changes. These countries serve as the context for an emerging
literature documenting the effects that economic transition has on individuals in their
family (Ahmed and Emigh, 2005) as well as work environments (Svejnar and Gora,
1992).
From a family perspective, high female labor participation and dual income families
are common in Central and Eastern European countries; both are powerful predictors
of inter-domain conflict. The elimination of socialist housing and residence regulations
has encouraged families to move into separate residences (Winterbottom and Struyk,
1996), resulting in more nuclear living arrangements. Central and Eastern European
transition economies have also seen increasing numbers of female-headed families as a
result of increased divorce rates (Ahmed and Emigh, 2005), among other reasons. In
today’s globalizing context, families in these countries often experience conflicts
between more traditional cultural norms, vestiges of behavioral patterns from the
Communist era, and new customs brought about by the opening of their countries to
the flows of people, information, and pop culture, as well as new products, companies
and business practices. The flow of Western products has resulted in increased
materialistic pressures (Belk and Ger, 1996), which coupled with declining real wages,
has contributed to increasing polarization of income and the growing rates of poverty
(Bandzak, 1994). This has resulted in increased frustration, as people often resort to
holding multiple jobs, working longer hours, and/or taking positions that are taxing or
dangerous. The demise of the socialist welfare state brought a sharp decline in the level
and extent of social benefits and assistance (Szalai, 1999). Moreover, the use of family
friendly policies is still quite low in the transitional economies of Central and Eastern
Europe (Netemeyer et al., 2004). Countries in transition have also recorded increased
rates of alcoholism, suicide, and a drop in fertility rates (WHO, 2004).
From a work perspective, salespeople employed in what have formerly been
state-run firms have experienced extreme uncertainty due to changes in the leadership
and in the strategic direction of the firms as part of the privatization process. Without a
prior concept of a modern sales force, they have had to learn a new role – and unlearn
an outmoded set of behaviors. The influx of new products on the market implies
greater need for advocacy selling and in general, greater selling effort even for common
consumer goods. On the macro-economic level, the transition has resulted in a shift to
buyer’s markets, thereby increasing the level of competition and greater emphasis on
selling. Political changes, such as accession into the European Union, have brought
more competition from foreign retail chains and greater uncertainty for employees.
EJM Employees, who once were guaranteed lifetime employment, now have to deal with the
45,11/12 ubiquitous threat of job loss (Kumssa and Jones, 1999). Such changes in the work area
imply significant role stress for the employees (Singh et al., 1994) which is an important
correlate of WFC and FWC (Bacharach et al., 1991; Bedieian et al., 1998; Greenhaus
et al., 1987). Decreasing job security can result in increased workplace competition,
where there is a heightened desire to win or outperform peers in order to grow or retain
1662 the job.
This begs the question of whether and how salespeople are able to cope with this
conflict. One factor that is particularly relevant in such environments is the
self-efficacy of the employee. This is considered an important personal aspect because
strong self-efficacy has long been associated with high levels of sales performance
(Barling and Beattie, 1983).
The contribution offered by this paper is twofold. First, we explore the impact of
work-family conflict (WFC) and family-work conflict (FWC) on job stress and turnover
in the context of an advanced transition economy. Cross-cultural issues in WFC/FWC
research have elicited considerable interest among researchers recently and
increasingly the context has been transitional economies. More specifically, we
explore the mediating role of job stress between WFC and turnover intentions, and
between FWC and turnover intentions. Second, we analyze the moderating effect of the
salesperson self-efficacy. While variables like WFC, FWC, job stress, and turnover
intentions have been explored before (e.g. Netemeyer et al., 2004), to our knowledge,
little work has been focused on personal factors which may moderate these
relationships, and in particular, self-efficacy.
In the following section, we introduce the main constructs and our conceptual model
that incorporates the mediating effect of job stress and moderating effect of
self-efficacy. The hypotheses are followed by the methodology section, and the
discussion of the results. Implications and directions for future research are offered in
the final section of the paper.

The mediating role of job stress

WFC occurs when work requirements interfere with family responsibilities,
expectations, and demands. Conversely, FWC occurs when family responsibilities
interfere with work requirements and expectations, which can be conceived as both
organizational expectations and individual self-expectations (Netemeyer et al., 1996).
While initially work-family conflict was viewed as a one-dimensional construct,
researchers since recognized that WFC and FWC are clearly separable dimensions that
operate differently and are relatively independent of each other (de Luis Carnicer et al.,
2004). The two constructs are distinct forms of inter-role conflict, where role pressures
associated with membership in a certain group conflicts with pressures derived from
membership in another group (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985).
Most of the studies so far on WFC and FWC have considered conceptual
antecedents, such as role ambiguity, role stress, supervisor support, peer cohesion and
role conflict, and/or family domain antecedents, such as single parents, dual-career
couple, working women and parental demands (Cooke and Rousseau, 1984; Bacharach
et al., 1991; Adams et al., 1996; Bedieian et al., 1998; Beutell and Wittig-Berman, 1999;
de Luis Carnicer et al., 2004). The consequences attributed to WFC and FWC include
job stress, and various psychological outcomes, such as turnover intentions. Next, we
review previous conceptualizations and findings favoring a direct relationship between A study of
WFC/FWC and turnover intentions, and then pose our argument for the mediating role work-family
of job stress.
While there is empirical evidence that WFC and FWC are positively (and directly) conflict
related to consequences, such as intentions to leave the organization and search for
another job (e.g. Burke, 1998), other studies are emerging that appear to contradict this.
For example, Boyar et al. (2005) studied the impact of WFC and FWC on nonattendance 1663
behaviors, such as absences, leaving early, and tardiness, but found only one
significant relationship, i.e. between WFC and leaving early. Such inconsistent
findings are typically thought to signal the presence of various mediators and/or
moderators. For example, Singh et al. (1994) showed that burnout is a partial mediator
of the effect of role stress on job outcomes and a stronger predictor of job outcomes
compared to role stressors.
Job stress is defined as “the existence of tension and pressures growing out of job
requirements, including possible outcomes in terms of feelings or physical symptoms
(House and Rizzo, 1972, p. 481). Moorehead (2003) has refined this definition to pose job
stress as an adaptive response to some stimulus that places excessive psychological
and/or physical demands on an individual. Left unchecked, job stress can lead to
psychological work outcomes such emotional exhaustion or burnout, reduced
organizational commitment, and increased propensity to leave/turnover intentions
(Boles et al., 1997; Lee and Ashforth, 1996; Maslach and Jackson, 1981; Sager, 1994;
Singh et al., 1994; Taylor et al., 1984).
WFC and FWC have been studied extensively as antecedents of job stress and
burnout (Bedieian et al., 1998; Frone et al., 1992; Bacharach et al., 1991; Singh et al.,
1994; Netemeyer et al., 2004). As work-role requirements cause an inability to meet
family responsibilities, the individual will experience dissatisfaction and stress (Burke,
1998; Cooke and Rousseau, 1984; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000; Frone et al., 1996). Prior
research also indicates that WFC is more strongly related to job stress than FWC
(Frone et al., 1992; Judge et al., 1994; Maslach and Jackson, 1981).
Therefore, based on the existing evidence, we propose the following series of
hypotheses, which are depicted in Figure 1:
H1. Job stress will fully mediate the relationship between WFC and FWC
relative to turnover intentions. Specifically

Figure 1.
Conceptual model
EJM H1a. WFC will positively impact job stress.
45,11/12 H1b. FWC will positively impact job stress.
H1c. Job stress will positively impact turnover intentions.
H1d. WFC and FWC will have no significant direct effect on turnover
1664 intentions when the indirect paths through job stress are included in the
model.

The moderating role of self-efficacy

Salesperson self-efficacy refers to judgments about the individual’s capability to
organize and execute courses of action required to achieve designated levels of sales
performance (Bandura, 1978). Self-efficacy is not concerned with the skills one has, but
with the judgment of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses (Bandura,
1986). From a cultural standpoint, self-efficacy is often seen as being congruent with
traditional Western values such as mastery, self-reliance, and achievement. However,
this personal trait may be less important in collectivistic cultures (Gecas, 1989).
Self-efficacy is domain specific. As such, it is a more general construct than
expectancy, which involves success at specific sales tasks, but a narrower construct
than self-esteem, which refers to success in all life’s domains (Sujan et al., 1994). Strong
self-efficacy beliefs have been consistently associated with task performance or high
levels of sales performance in general (Barling and Beattie, 1983). Sujan et al. (1994)
found that performance orientation motivates both “working hard” and “working
smart” more so for high self-efficacious salespeople than for those who are less
self-efficacious.
Several theoretical perspectives suggest the moderating role of self-efficacy. The
first is perceptual control theory (Powers, 1991, p. 152), which posits that human action
“is driven by the difference, or error”. In our case, a disturbance on the work side will
alter the work – family balance of an individual and move him or her to action in order
to control the imbalance. Such movement or action is apt to be more pronounced with a
self-efficacious individual than one who is low on this trait.
Paralleling this in part is social cognitive theory, which takes a broader perspective,
namely that human behavior is motivated not just by a reactive discrepancy reduction
system or the “hindsight of shortfalls” posited by the control theory, but also by a
proactive discrepancy production system, or the “foresight of goals” (Bandura and
Locke, 2003). In our case, the individual salesperson might not only react to an
increased workload brought on by external factors that disturb his or her work-family
balance. Social cognitive theory also embraces situations where the salesperson
actively and continuously self-establishes more ambitious work goals that might lead
to work-family conflict – while seeking higher work performance. In particular, this
active goal setting behavior is a characteristic of individuals with higher self-efficacy
(Bandura and Cervone, 1983). Self-efficacy is often associated with trait
competitiveness and “Type A” personalities (Wang and Netemeyer, 2002; Friedman
and Rosenman, 1974; Taylor et al., 1984). As such, a self-efficacious person will set high
goals with an accompanying high level of commitment because of high-level
achievement needs. Hence, such individuals may be more susceptible to the effects of
WFC.
 Attribution theory provides still another theoretical perspective for expecting a A study of
moderating role for self-efficacy (Graham, 1991). Because of their perceived internal work-family
locus of control, a self-efficacious person will tend to exhibit internal attributions for
both successes and failures (Weiner, 1986). Because they are confident in their own conflict
abilities, self-efficacious salespeople will tend to attribute successes to stable factors
such as ability, and attribute failures to unstable but controllable factors such as lack
of effort. 1665
Work-family conflict is interpreted by the self-efficacious salesperson as a failure to
maintain a boundary between work and family. Further, the self-efficacious
salesperson assumes that work demands are not being met because of his or her
lack of sufficient effort, and not because of external factors or lack of ability. Because
the self-efficacious employee attributes the failure to self, he or she will experience
increased job stress.
H2. Self-efficacy will moderate (exacerbate) the positive relationship between
work-family conflict and job stress.
In the case of FWC, where failure attributed to the family side impacts the work
domain, self-efficacious salespeople will believe that they possess slack resources that
will enable them to cope with the additional pressures at work. Because of the
salesperson’s confidence in his or her, own abilities, this will lower the salesperson’s
job stress, when compared to low self-efficacy salespeople. Hence, we propose:
H3. Self-efficacy will moderate (attenuate) the positive relationship between
family-work conflict and job stress.

Methodology
Data collection
The data were collected using a self-report questionnaire targeted at retail salespeople
in Hungary. Retail salespeople are an important, yet often overlooked category,
because they have an important role in creating and maintaining a relationship with
the consumer, with whom they are in direct contact (Darden and Babin, 1994). We used
the translation and back-translation method to ensure linguistic equivalence (Singh,
1995). The survey took place in the summer of 2003 in several important commercial
areas of Budapest using the drop-off method. The questionnaires were distributed by
business students from a local university and were collected later by the research team.
A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed with an accompanying cover letter
stating that the study was a joint project between a North American University and the
local university. The cover letter also informed the potential respondents of the study’s
purpose: to obtain salespeople’s perspective on their jobs, approach to selling, and
other organizational factors that affect retail salespeople in a transition economy. No
monetary incentives were used. The data collection yielded 185 completed
questionnaires, representing a 74 percent response rate.

Sample demographics
A majority of respondents were female (75 percent), with ages ranging from 19 to 67.
Of the respondents, 22 percent were married; 47 percent had not finished high school,
29 percent had a high school education, and 24 percent of salespeople had college
degrees.
EJM Measures
45,11/12 Work-family conflict and family-work conflict were measured with four items each
using the scale from Netemeyer et al. (1996). For self-efficacy, we used four items
adapted from Sujan et al. (1994). Job stress was measured with four items developed by
House and Rizzo (1972) and turnover was measured with three items from the
Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1983). Table I
1666 presents the construct correlations corrected for measurement error (F), means and
standard deviations, as well as internal consistency indicators. Construct reliabilities,
measured with Chronbach’s alpha exceed the 0.7 threshold recommended by Nunnally
(1978), while values for composite reliability vary between 0.77 and 0.93. The variance
extracted estimates, assessing the amount of variance captured by a construct relative
to random measurement error, is greater than (or very close to) the required 0.5 for
every construct in the model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Data analysis and results

A two-step approach to the structural analysis was performed as recommended by
Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In the first step, all items were subjected to a
confirmatory factor analysis measurement model using LISREL 8.30 (Joreskog and
Sorbom, 1995). The use of this procedure is useful in this study for two reasons. First, it
is useful in ensuring the measurement qualities of the constructs. Second, and
consistent with the previous discussion concerning the need to ensure construct
equivalence, the results provide support for the cross-cultural construct equivalence of
the English measures translated into Hungarian. Each item loading on the respective
pre-specified factors indicates similarity to previous tests of the scales (Singh, 1995).
To assess discriminant validity, we use the procedure based on the average
variance extracted, as recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). As Table I shows,
the square root of the average variance extracted for each construct is greater than the
absolute value of its standardized correlations with the other constructs in the model
for all cases, with only one exception (0.68 versus 0.70).
Results of the measurement model are in Table II. All items loaded on their
pre-specified factors or indications of high correlation in error variances. The measurement
model had a good fit to the data as evidenced by various goodness-of-fit indicators.
The second step involved the specification of the structural paths and the test of a
series of nested structural models (see Table III). We first tested the mediation effect,

Construct name 1 2 3 4 5

1. Work-family conflict 1.00

2. Family – work conflict 0.34 1.00
3. Self-efficacy 0.08 20.15 1.00
4. Job stress 0.70 0.43 20.07 1.00
5. Turnover intentions 0.36 0.10 20.05 0.37 1.00
Mean 3.37 1.95 5.67 2.85 4.03
Standard deviation 1.92 1.26 1.30 1.62 1.96
Table I. Cronbach’s alpha 0.90 0.86 0.93 0.80 0.87
Disattenuated Composite reliability 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.78 0.84
correlations (F), means, AVE 0.66 0.67 0.78 0.47 0.65
and standard deviations Square-Root of AVE 0.81 0.82 0.89 0.68 0.80
 A study of
Standardized loading t-value
work-family
Work family conflict (Scale: 1 ¼ Strongly disagree to conflict
7 ¼ Strongly agree)
1. The demands of my work interfere with my
home and family life 0.73 10.66
2. Because of my job, I can’t involve myself as 1667
much as I would like in maintaining close
relations with my family or spouse/partner 0.82 12.53
3. Things I want to do at home do not get done
because of the demands my job puts on me 0.88 13.98
4. I often have to miss important family activities
because of my job 0.81 12.34
Family work conflict (Scale: 1 ¼ Strongly disagree to
7 ¼ Strongly agree) 0
1. The demands of my family or spouse/partner
interfere with work-related activities 0.74 10.94
2. I sometimes have to miss work so that family
responsibilities are met 0.82 12.56
3. Things I want to do at work don’t get done
because of the demands of my family or spouse/
partner 0.90 14.59
4. My home life interferes with my responsibilities
at work such as getting to work on time,
accomplishing daily tasks, and working
overtime 0.8 12.07
Self efficacy (Scale: 1 ¼ Strongly disagree to
7 ¼ Strongly agree)
1. It’s easy for me to make my customers
understand me 0.84 13.26
2. I am confident of my ability to sell 0.91 15.29
3. I feel I have the capabilities to successfully
perform well in my job 0.90 14.92
4. I am good at selling 0.87 14.17
Job stress (Scale: 1 ¼ Strongly disagree to
7 ¼ Strongly agree)
1. I feel fidgety or nervous because of my job 0.68 9.15
2. If I had a different job, my health would
probably improve 0.65 8.63
3. I often “take my job home with me” in the sense
that I think about it when doing other things 0.78 10.86
4. I sometimes feel weak all over 0.62 8.22
Turnover intentions (scale: 1 ¼ Strongly disagree to
7 ¼ Strongly agree)
1. I often think about quitting my present line of
work 0.88 12.93
2. I am constantly searching for a better alternative 0.77 10.88
3. I frequently think I would like to change my job
situation 0.76 10.70 Table II.
Confirmatory factor
Note: Goodness-of-fit indicators: x 2 (142) ¼ 241.73 CFI ¼ 0.94 RMSEA ¼ 0.064 analysis
EJM
t-
45,11/12 Linkages in the model Hypothesized sign Parameter Estimate value

Unmediated model (direct effects only)

Work 2 family conflict ! turnover
intentions þ g 2,1 0.14 1.43
1668 Family 2 work conflict ! turnover
intentions þ g 2,2 2 0.05 2 0.50
Included as control
Self efficacy ! job stress variable g 1,3 2 0.02 2 0.21
Job stress ! turnover intentions þ b2; 1 0.29 2.94
Mediated model (direct and indirect effects)
Work 2 family conflict ! job stress H1a: þ g 1,1 0.59 5.53
Family 2 work conflict ! job stress H1b: þ g 1,2 0.14 1.56
Work 2 family conflict ! turnover H1d: 0
intentions (non 2 significant) g 2,1 0.07 0.55
Family 2 work conflict v turnover H1d: 0
intentions (non 2 significant) g 2,2 2 0.06 2 0.66
Included as control
Self efficacy ! job stress variable g 1,3 2 0.09 2 1.11
Job stress ! turnover intentions H1c: þ b2; 1 0.33 2.40
Reduced mediated model (indirect effects
only)
Work 2 family conflict ! job stress þ g 1,1 0.59 5.59
Family 2 work conflict ! job stress þ g 1,2 0.13 1.49
Included as control
Self efficacy ! job stress variable g 1,3 2 0.09 2 1.14
Job stress ! turnover intentions þ b2; 1 0.36 3.60
Table III.
Structural model results. Notes: Unmediated model: structural model diagnostics: x 2 (145) ¼ 262.62; CFI ¼ 0.91;
Testing the mediating RMSEA ¼ 0.073; Mediated model: structural model diagnostics: x 2 (143) ¼ 219.63; CFI ¼ 0.94;
effect of job stress RMSEA ¼ 0.059; Reduced mediated model: structural model diagnostics: x 2 (145) ¼ 219.42;
(H1a-d ) CFI ¼ 0.95; RMSEA ¼ 0.058

by comparing two models: the first served as a baseline and omitted paths from WFC
and FWC to job stress (i.e. only the direct effects of WFC and FWC on turnover
intentions were estimated), whereas the second model included both the direct and
indirect (mediated by job stress) effects of WFC and FWC. For control purposes, we
included self-efficacy in mediation tests.

Results for the mediator effect of job stress

H1 proposed that job stress will fully mediate the relationship between WFC and FWC
respectively and turnover intentions. To test this relationship, we ran the unmediated
model, followed by the mediated version, and compared the changes in the significance
levels for the direct paths from WFC and FWC to turnover intentions (Baron and
Kenny, 1989; see also Boles and Babin, 1996 for a similar approach in a sales
management setting). The results of the two models are presented in Table III.
For the WFC – turnover intentions link, the path coefficient changes from a positive
and marginally significant 0.14 ðt ¼ 1:43; p , 0.10) to a non-significant 0.07 ðt ¼ 0:55Þ
in the unmediated versus mediated versions of the model. The path between job stress
and turnover intentions is also significant in both versions: unmediated 0.29 ðt ¼ 2:94;
p , 0.01) versus mediated 0.33 ðt ¼ 2:40; p , 0.01). In the mediated version, the path A study of
between WFC and job stress is highly significant 0.59 ðt ¼ 5:53;p , 0.01). Thus, we work-family
conclude that H1 is supported relative to job stress fully mediating the relationship
between WFC and turnover intentions. conflict
The FWC – turnover intentions path was non-significant in the unmediated 2 0.05
ðt ¼ 20:50Þ and the mediated model 2 0.06 ðt ¼ 20:66Þ: Also, the path between FWC
and job stress was found to be positive, but marginally significant 0.14 ðt ¼ 1:56; 1669
p , 0.10). Thus, H1 is not fully supported relative to FWC, although there is some
evidence of an indirect positive effect of FWC on turnover intentions in this sample.
Given the results that confirmed full mediation from the second run with regard to
WFC, a reduced model that eliminated the non-significant direct paths from WFC and
FWC to turnover intentions was subsequently run. This reduced model became the
basis for the specification of relationships in our test of the moderating effect of
self-efficacy.

Results for the moderator effect of self-efficacy

To test for moderator effects, we followed Ping’s (1996) procedure. Parameters
estimated in the measurement model were used to calculate values for the indicator
loadings and error variances of the interaction latent variables and then these values
were fixed as constants in the alternate structural model containing the interaction
variables (Ping, 1996). Path coefficients and their corresponding t-values are presented
in Table IV. The model shows reasonable fit and the results generally support our
hypotheses.
H2 was supported, given the positive and significant coefficient for the
self-efficacy *WFC interaction term 0.27 ðt ¼ 2:20; p , 0.05). As hypothesized, self
-efficacy exacerbates the positive impact of job stress on turnover intentions.
Similarly, H3 was supported given the negative and significant coefficient for the
self-efficacy *FWC interaction term -0.30 ðt ¼ 22:48Þ: As hypothesized, self-efficacy
attenuates the positive impact of job stress on turnover intentions.

Discussion
The current study sheds new light on the empirical relationships between WFC, FWC,
job stress, and turnover intentions and the moderating role of self-efficacy in the

Linkages in the model Hypothesized sign Parameter Estimate t-value

Exogenous variables ! endogenous variables

Main effects
Work 2 family conflict ! job stress þ g 1,1 0.50 4.60
Family 2 work conflict ! job stress þ g 1,2 0.19 2.06
Self efficacy ! job stress g 1,3 2 0.04 2 0.53
Interaction effects
Self efficacy x WFC ! job stress H2: þ g 1,4 0.27 2.20
Self efficacy x FWC ! job stress H3: 2 g1,5 2 0.30 2 2.48 Table IV.
Between endogenous variables Structural model results.
Job stress ! turnover intentions þ b2; 1 0.34 3.41 Testing the moderating
effect of self efficacy (H2
2
Note: Structural model diagnostics: x (175) ¼ 288.04; CFI ¼ 0.93; RMSEA ¼ 0.065 and H3)
EJM context of a transitional economy. The changing economic and social environment in
45,11/12 transitional economies has increased the responsibilities and expectations at work
while in many cases increasing family-related pressures. Because of the fast changing
work environment, the assumption that workers can isolate their family life from their
career efforts is no longer seen as being accurate (Jackson et al., 1985).
We have been able to show that job stress is a mediator between WFC and turnover
1670 intentions. Importantly, previous studies that did not include job stress in the model
might have misrepresented the relationship between WFC and turnover intentions.
Our results show that WFC is strongly and positively related to Job Stress, while
FWC is not. These results confirm earlier findings that have shown that WFC is more
strongly correlated than FWC with a several psychological variables including job
stress or burnout (O’Driscoll et al., 1992; Frone et al., 1992; Judge et al., 1994; Maslach
and Jackson, 1981) and job satisfaction (Kossek and Ozeki, 1998).
The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between WFC/FWC and
job stress was another important finding from this study. As expected, we found that
self-efficacy heightened the positive effect of WFC on job stress, whereas the opposite
is the case with regard to FWC. This suggests that being a self-efficacious salesperson
is both a bane and a boon. On one hand it embodies a pronounced lack of a coping
mechanism for dealing with one form of conflict, WFC, which empirically was the
stronger antecedent of job stress, Yet the opposite was found relative to FWC, which
parallels previous findings in the literature, such as experiments where self-efficacy
beliefs were artificially increased by false normative comparisons which showed that
higher self-efficacy beliefs were associated with heightened perseverant motivation in
problem solving (Jacobs et al., 1984). Our results suggest that the role of self-efficacy is
more complex than previously thought and perhaps belies the recent observation by
Bandura and Locke (2003, p. 92), who noted:
Resilient belief that one has what it takes to succeed provides the necessary staying power in
the face of repeated failures, setbacks and skeptical or even critical social reactions that are
inherently discouraging. Those beset by self-doubts become the early quitters rather than the
successful survivors.

Managerial implications
The findings from the present study also gives rise to several managerial implications,
pertaining primarily to the reduction of WFC and FWC and to the desirability of
promoting self-efficacious beliefs among the sales force. As noted earlier, these
findings have increased importance, given the extent that global retail chains are
expanding into transitional and emergent economies and hiring local personnel for
their sales forces.
First, is our finding that WFC is more strongly related to job stress than FWC,
which underscores the need to create a supportive and effective work environment. It
has also been brought forward by other studies that providing supportive work
environment reduces the negative effects associated with WFC, job stress and related
variables and (Babin and Boles, 1996; Etzion, 1984; Kemery et al., 1987; Schwab et al.,
1986).
Progressive retail managers can create family-friendly policies, which can reduce
WFC and FWC. Such policies could include the ability to choose starting and leaving
times at work, the ability to coordinate vacation times, the freedom to contact family
members while at work, or access to child care. They could also include the flexibility A study of
to take time off during a family emergency, or to work part time at certain times in the work-family
career (de Luis Carnicer et al., 2004). Presently, in Central and Eastern Europe,
managers have discretion to award such advantages to some employees and not to conflict
others, leaving room for arbitrariness and nepotism, and inflating the managers’
reward power (Luthans et al., 1998). Formalizing these policies and consistently
applying them, combined with their relative novelty of such policies in Central and 1671
Eastern European countries, could make the pioneering company unique, elicit positive
PR and word of mouth, and evoke tremendous loyalty from the part of the employees.
A second important set of managerial implications refers to self-efficacy.
Self-efficacious individuals display abounding self-confidence and a habit of
perseverance (Lee and Gillen, 1989) and consider difficult tasks as challenging
rather than threatening. All these characteristics are associated with long-term high
performance. However, our results suggest that this factor indirectly can both increase
turnover intentions and reduce this, depending upon the source of conflict anteceding
job stress. This poses an obvious dilemma.
The extant literature depicts self-efficacy in two manners. Some researchers
consider self-efficacy to be a belief, while others have presented it as a personality trait,
i.e. a stable cognition that people hold and carry with them, thus reflecting the
expectation that they possess the ability to successfully perform tasks in a variety of
achievement situations (Sherer et al., 1982; Eden and Zuk, 1995; Riggs et al., 1994;
Tipton and Worthington, 1984). To the extent that self-efficacy is a stable trait, the
challenge becomes one of identifying, hiring, and keeping employees possessing
desirable levels of this trait that are consistent with the conflict engendered by the
workplace.
If self-efficacy is construed as a belief, it becomes the responsibility of the manager
to control it through training, the way sales duties are structured and/or the workplace
environment. Previous research (e.g. Bandura, 1982) has identified four key
possibilities to increase one’s self-efficacy: authentic mastery experiences (self
confidence as a result of reaching one’s goal), vicarious experiences (from seeing others
perform successfully), verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal (by reducing
employees’ perceptions of fatigue, aches, pains and enhancing positive moods). Many
of these methods fall under the purview of sales managers. At the organizational level,
several organizational variables were found to influence the development of workers’
self-efficacy. Positive effects were registered for job autonomy (Wang and Netemeyer,
2002), flexibility (Kohn and Schooler, 1978), complexity (Spenner and Otto, 1985), and
negative relationships for routinization (Staples et al., 1984). Hence, matching
self-efficacy levels to the levels of WFC and FWC will be necessary to control job stress
and ultimately turnover intentions.
The self-efficacy of an employee should be considered in relation with the work
environment context and not in isolation. Even a highly self-efficacious person, if not
guided effectively in times of above-average work demands and expectations, could
succumb to high job stress leading to high turnover intentions. By effectively handling,
directing and motivating such a person, astutely structuring duties, and offering a
congenial work environment a manager may reduce his/her propensity to leave,
It is also important to understand that self-efficacy could also have a negative side.
The same dedication that enables an employee to face temporary setbacks and persist
EJM in the face of difficulties, could lead to negative outcomes. People high in self-efficacy
45,11/12 are at higher risk of escalating commitment, persisting in a doomed strategy, and
interpreting continuous negative results as challenges to be overcome.

Limitations and directions for future research

The present study (and this criticism can be extended to the whole sales management
1672 literature so far) considers WFC and FWC in a global fashion. However, Greenhaus and
Beutell (1985) have identified three forms of inter-domain conflict. Time-based conflict
occurs when devoting time to one domain consumes time needed to meet the demands
of the other domain. Strain-based conflict happens when dissatisfaction, tension, or
fatigue from one domain makes it difficult to meet the demands of the other domain.
Finally, behavior-based conflict emerges when behaviors developed in one domain are
incompatible with role demands in other domain and the employee is unable to adjust
behavior when crossing the domain boundary. For example, a salesperson used to
exerting a “hard selling” approach on the job might employ similar aggressive
techniques when dealing with family members. Better measures are needed to account
for these various facets of inter-domain conflict and more research is need to
understand if results using global measures of WFC and FWC apply equally to all
three forms.
The present model has studied only the deleterious side of the role identity spillover
and has not considered whether beneficial aspects may also exist. A more complete
model specification could account for the beneficial side of such spillover (Ruthbard,
2001).
Future research might also focus greater attention to the role of demographic
factors, such as gender, education, age, and marital status on WFC and FWC, along
with the consequences that ensue from them[1]. In doing so, a more nuanced
nomological network of variables could be explored to enrich this line of research. For
example, considering potential gender differences, the rational model of work-family
conflict suggests that the time spent in each role has the greatest significance for
inter-domain conflict. However, the results of previous studies seem to contradict this
theory (Kinnunen and Mauno, 1998), since women seem to report interference from
work to family more than men (Frone et al., 1992; Gutek et al., 1991; Duxburry et al.,
1994). Future research that focuses on gender differences might also utilize other
theoretical approaches, such as socio-cultural expectation theory, which indicates that
time spent in the other gender’s domain should have a greater psychological impact on
a person’s perceptions of inter-domain conflict than time spent in his or her own
domain (Gutek et al., 1991), or identity theory, which posits that men and women are
socialized to different value hierarchies when considering work and family self-images
(Frone et al., 1996). Future studies might also analyze a wider array of antecedents of
WFC and FWC including number and age of children, number of shifts, holiday work
and frequency of overtime.
The present study only examined turnover intentions, as an effect of job stress,
whereas future studies could examine other psychological work outcomes. For
example, several studies have shown a significant relationship between job stress and
job satisfaction (e.g. Singh et al., 1994; Lee and Ashforth, 1996). However, Boles et al.
(1997) found no significant relationship between emotional exhaustion and job
satisfaction. More work is needed to clarify this relationship in a sales management
context. Also, other studies could explore the relative importance of various A study of
antecedents of job stress, including supervisor support, co-workers’ support, work work-family
conditions, financial situation of the company, and individual level factors.
In this study, FWC showed no relationship with job stress or turnover intentions. conflict
This suggests the need for a more extensive specification of such models, including the
family equivalent of work related variables such as job stress and turnover intentions.
While variables like family stress, marital dissatisfaction, and maybe divorce 1673
intentions are not directly related to the work setting, and other task and external
factors, such as a country or region’s unemployment rate, availability of other career
opportunities within the present company or overall job mobility and ability to change
professions could impact an individual’s ability to find a new job, and consequently,
his or her turnover intentions. They could nonetheless provide a more complete
nomological network of variables influencing the outcomes of the employees’ role
identity conflict. Future research could also study the moderating effect of self-efficacy
on the job stress – turnover intentions relationship.
The present study only considered individual self-efficacy. However, a study
comparing US and Hong Kong employees found that collective efficacy played the
same role in Hong Kong as individual self efficacy did in US (Schaubroek et al., 2000).
Thus, when doing future research in collectivistic cultures it may be germane to
examine collective efficacy in addition to individual self-efficacy to assess the relative
influence that each presents. Other individual traits to consider using in future studies
conducted in transition economies in lieu of (or in addition to) self-efficacy could
include organization-based self-esteem (Gardner and Pierce, 1998; Hui and Lee, 2000;
Pierce et al., 1989) and entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996).
Finally, the external validity of our results is another important issue that offers
opportunities for future research. Our sample covers only retail salespeople from
Hungary. Clearly, more research is needed to determine whether the effects that we
tested for in the present study can be generalized to other transition economies and in
emerging economies in general.

Note
1. Based on a suggestion by a reviewer, we performed several post hoc analyses to determine
whether there were significant differences on the levels of WFC, FWC and the consequence
variables based on gender, marital status, and age. In some instances we found significant
differences, e.g. WFC relative to gender and marital status, but found no significant
differences with regard to FWC for these same demographic factors. Such results may
suggest potential moderating effects, which could be tested using multi-group structural
equation models.

References
Adams, G.A., King, L.A. and King, D.W. (1996), “Relationship between job and family
involvement, family social support and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 411-20.
Ahmed, P. and Emigh, R.J. (2005), “Household composition in post-socialist Eastern Europe”, The
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 9-42.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-23.
EJM Andrews, F. and Withey, S. (1976), Social Indicators of Wellbeing, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
45,11/12 Babin, B.J. and Boles, J.S. (1996), “The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor
support on service provider role stress, performance, and job satisfaction”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P. and Conley, S. (1991), “Work-home conflict among nurses and
engineers: mediating the impact of role stress and satisfaction at work”, Journal of
1674 Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-53.
Bandura, A. (1978), “The self system in reciprocal determinism”, American Psychologist, Vol. 33,
pp. 344-55.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37,
pp. 122-47.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive View,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1983), “Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the
motivational effects of goal systems”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45,
pp. 1017-28.
Bandura, A. and Locke, E.A. (2003), “Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 87-99.
Bandzak, R.A. (1994), “The role of labor in post-socialist Hungary”, Journal of Economic Issues,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 519-33.
Barling, J. and Beattie, R. (1983), “Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 5, pp. 41-51.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1989), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.
Bedieian, A.G., Burke, B.G. and Moffett, R.G. (1998), “Outcomes of work-family conflict among
married male and female professionals”, Journal of Management, Vol. 14, pp. 475-91.
Belk, R. and Ger, G. (1996), “Cross-cultural differences in materialism”, Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 55-78.
Beutell, N. and Wittig-Berman, U. (1999), “Predictors of work-family conflict and satisfaction
with family, job, career and life”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 85, pp. 893-903.
Boles, J.S. and Babin, B.J. (1996), “On the front lines: stress, conflict, and the customer service
provider”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 37, pp. 41-50.
Boles, J.S., Johnston, M. and Hair, J.F. (1997), “Role stress, work-family conflict and emotional
exhaustion: inter-relationships and effects on some work-related consequences”, The
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Boyar, S.L., Maertz, C.P. Jr and Pearson, A.W. (2005), “The effects of work-family conflict and
family-work conflict on nonattendance behaviors”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58,
pp. 919-25.
Burke, R.J. (1998), “Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict”, Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 3, pp. 287-302.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G.D. Jr and Klesh, J.R. (1983), “Assessing the attitudes and
perceptions of organizational members”, in Seashore, S.F., Lawler, E.E., Mirvis, P.H. and
Cammann, C. (Eds), Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and
Practices, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 71-138.
Cooke, R.A. and Rousseau, D.M. (1984), “Stress and strain from family roles and work-roles A study of
expectations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 252-60.
work-family
Darden, W.R. and Babin, B.J. (1994), “Exploring the concept of affective quality: expanding the
concept of retail personality”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 29, pp. 1-14. conflict
de Luis Carnicer, M.P., Perez, M. and Vela Jimenez, M.J. (2004), “Work-family conflict in a
Southern European country: the influence of job-related and non-related factors”, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 5, p. 466. 1675
Duxburry, L., Higgins, C. and Lee, C. (1994), “Work-family conflict. A comparison by gender,
family type, and perceived control”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 15, pp. 449-66.
Eden, D. and Zuk, Y. (1995), “Seasickness as a self-fulfilling prophecy: raising self-efficacy to
boost performance at sea”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 628-35.
Edwards, J.R. and Rothbard, N.P. (2000), “Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the
relationship between work and family constructs”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 25, pp. 178-99.
Etzion, D. (1984), “Moderating effect of social support on the stress-burnout relationship”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 616-22.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48, pp. 39-50.
Friedman, M. and Rosenman, R. (1974), Behavior and Your Heart, Knopf, New York, NY.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Barnes, G.M. (1996), “Work-family conflict, gender and health
related outcomes: a study of employed parents in two community samples”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 57-69.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 77, pp. 65-78.
Gardner, D.G. and Pierce, J.L. (1998), “Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational
context: an empirical examination”, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 48-71.
Gecas, V. (1989), “The social psychology of self-efficacy”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 15,
pp. 291-316.
Graham, S. (1991), “A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts”, Educational
Psychology Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 5-39.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 76-88.
Greenhaus, J., Bedeian, A. and Mossholder, K. (1987), “Work experiences, job performance and
feelings of personal and family well-being”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 200-15.
Gutek, B.A., Searle, S. and Klepa, L. (1991), “Rational versus gender role explanations for
work-family conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 560-8.
House, R.J. and Rizzo, J.R. (1972), “Role conflict and role ambiguity as critical variables in a model
of organizational behaviors”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 7,
pp. 467-505.
Hui, C. and Lee, C. (2000), “Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on
organizational uncertainty: employee response relationships”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 215-32.
EJM Jackson, S.E., Sheldon, Z. and Elizabeth, S. (1985), “Family life disruptions: effects of job induced
structural and emotional interference”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3,
45,11/12 pp. 574-86.
Jacobs, B., Prentice-Dunn, S. and Rogers, R.W. (1984), “Understanding persistence: an interface of
control theory and self efficacy theory”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 5,
pp. 333-47.
1676 Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1995), LISREL 8 Users Reference Guide, SSI, Chicago, IL.
Judge, T.A., Boudreau, J.W. and Bretz, R.D. (1994), “Job and life attitudes of male executives”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 767-82.
Kemery, E.P., Mossholder, K.W. and Bedeian, A.G. (1987), “Role stress, physical
symptomatology, and turnover intentions: a causal analysis of three alternative
specifications”, Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 8, January, pp. 11-23.
Kinnunen, U. and Mauno, S. (1998), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among
employed women and men in Finland”, Human Relations, Vol. 51, pp. 157-77.
Kohn, M.L. and Schooler, C. (1978), “The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work
and intellectual flexibility: a longitudinal assessment”, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 84, pp. 24-52.
Kopelman, R., Greenhaus, J. and Connelly, T. (1983), “A model of work, family, interrole conflict:
a construct validation study”, Organization Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 32,
pp. 198-215.
Kossek, E. and Ozeki, C. (1998), “Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction
relationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources
research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 139-49.
Kumssa, A. and Jones, J.F. (1999), “The social consequences of reform in transitional economies”,
International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 26 Nos 1/2/3, pp. 194-210.
Lee, C. and Gillen, D.J. (1989), “Relationship of type a behavior pattern, self efficacy perceptions
on sales performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, pp. 75-81.
Lee, R.T. and Ashforth, B.E. (1996), “A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the
dimensions of job burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 123-33.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-72.
Luthans, F., Peterson, S.J. and Ibrayeva, E. (1998), “The potential for the ‘dark side’ of leadership
in post-communist countries”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 185-201.
Maslach, C. and Jackson, S.E. (1981), “The measurement of experienced burnout”, Journal of
Occupational Behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 99-113.
Moorehead, G. (2003), Organizational Behavior: Managing People & Organizations, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation of
work-family conflict family-work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81
No. 4, pp. 400-10.
Netemeyer, R.G., Brashear-Alejandro, T. and Boles, J.S. (2004), “A cross-national model of
job-related outcomes of work role and family role variables: a retail sales context”,
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 49.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
O’Driscoll, M., Ilgen, D.R. and Hildreth, K. (1992), “Time devoted to job and off-job activities, A study of
inter-role conflict, and affective experiences”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77,
pp. 272-9.
work-family
Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Dunham, R.B. and Cummings, L.L. (1989), “Organization-based
conflict
self-esteem: construct definition, measurement, and validation”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 622-48.
Ping, R.A. Jr (1996), “Latent variable interaction and quadratic effect estimation: a two-step 1677
technique using structural equation analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 119 No. 1, p. 166.
Pleck, J.H., Staines, G.L. and Lang, L. (1980), “Conflicts between work and family life”, Monthly
Labor Review, Vol. 103, pp. 29-32.
Powers, W.T. (1991), “Comment on Bandura’s ‘human agency’”, American Psychologist, Vol. 46,
pp. 151-3.
Riggs, M.L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R. and Hooker, S. (1994), “Development and
validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 54, pp. 793-802.
Ruthbard, N.P. (2001), “Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family
roles”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 655-86.
Sager, J.K. (1994), “Structural model depicting salespeople’s job stress”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 22, Winter, pp. 74-84.
Schaubroek, J., Lam, S.S.K. and Xie, J.L. (2000), “Collective efficacy versus self efficacy in coping
responses to stressors and control: a cross-cultural study”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 512-25.
Schwab, R.C., Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1986), “Educator burnout: sources and
consequences”, Educational Research Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 14-29.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercadante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B. and Rogers, R.W. (1982),
“The self-efficacy scale: construction and validation”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 51,
pp. 663-71.
Singh, J. (1995), “Measurement issues in cross-national research”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 597-620.
Singh, J., Goolsby, J.R. and Rhoads, G.K. (1994), “Behavioral and psychological consequences of
boundary spanning: burnout for customer service representatives”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31, pp. 558-669.
Spenner, K.I. and Otto, L.B. (1985), “Work and self-concept: selection and socialization in the
early career”, Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, Vol. 5, pp. 197-235.
Staples, C., Schwalbe, M. and Gecas, V. (1984), “Social class, occupational conditions, and
efficacy-based self-esteem”, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 2, pp. 85-109.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B.A. and Kumar, N. (1994), “Learning orientation, working smart and effective
selling”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 39-52.
Svejnar, J. and Gora, M. (1992), “Labor market adjustment in transitional economies: comment”,
The World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 157-73.
Szalai, J. (1999), “Recent trends in poverty in Hungary”, in Atal, Y. (Ed.), Poverty in Transition
and Transition in Poverty: Recent Developments in Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia,
Russia, Mongolia, Berghahn Books, New York, NY, pp. 32-76.
EJM Taylor, M.S., Locke, E.A. and Gist, M.E. (1984), “Type A behavior and faculty research
productivity: what are the mechanisms?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
45,11/12 Processes, Vol. 34, pp. 402-18.
Tipton, R.M. and Worthington, E.L. Jr (1984), “The measurement of generalized self-efficacy:
a study of construct validity”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 48, pp. 545-8.
Wang, G. and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002), “The effects of job autonomy, customer demandingness,
1678 and trait competitiveness on salesperson learning, self-efficacy, and performance”,
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 217-29.
Weiner, B. (1986), An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion, Springer Verlag, New
York, NY.
Winterbottom, C. and Struyk, R.J. (1996), “Housing demand in a transitional market: Moscow”,
Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies, Vol. 8, p. 171.
WHO (1990-2004), World Health Statistics Annuals 1990-2004, World Health Organization,
Geneva.

Further reading
Babakus, E., Cravens, D.W., Johnston, M. and Moncrief, W.C. (1999), “The role of emotional
exhaustion in sales force attitude and behavior relationships”, Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 58-71.
Bandura, A. (1995), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 1-26.
Cascio, W. (1991), Costing Human Resource: The Financial Impact of Behavioral Organizations,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Eden, D. (1988), “Pygmalion, goal setting, and expectancy: compatible ways to boost
productivity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 639-52.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1997), “Relation of work-family conflict outcomes: a
four-year longitudinal study of employed parents”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 325-35.
Gist, M.E. (1987), “Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 472-85.
Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992), “Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 183-211.
Greenhaus, J.H., Purohit, Y.S. and Godshalk, V.M. (1998), “The intersection of work-family roles:
individual, interpersonal, and organizational issues”, Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, Vol. 3, pp. 23-44.
Powers, W.T. (1973), Behavior: The Control of Perception, Aldine, Chicago, IL.

About the authors

Cristian Chelariu (PhD, Georgia State University, 2002) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at
Suffolk University in Boston. In his research, Chelariu blends B2B issues with a focus on
emerging economies, including topics such as management of export channels, sales
management, and implementation of market orientation. His research is published in Journal
of Business Research, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Journal of Business Logistics,
and Journal of Consumer Behavior. He is the recipient of Best Paper Awards from the American A study of
Marketing Association and from the Society for Marketing Advances. Cristian Chelariu is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: cchelariu@suffolk.edu work-family
Rodney Stump (PhD, Case Western Reserve University, 1993) is a Professor of Marketing and conflict
the Chair of the Department of Marketing in the College of Business and Economics of Towson
University. He is a Fulbright Scholar alumnus. Dr Stump has published in many top journals,
including Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal
of Macromarketing, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 1679
Journal of Product Innovation and Management, Industrial Marketing Management, Canadian
Journal of Administrative Science, and others; his research has also been presented at a variety of
national and international conferences. Prior to joining academia, Dr Stump was an officer of a
commercial bank with responsibilities in retail marketing, research and development,
accounting, and branch management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

View publication stats