Type A/B Personality, Work-Family and Family-Work Conflict: The Moderating Effects of Emotional

Intelligence

Professor Thomas Garavan,

Visiting Research Professor,
National College of Ireland,
Dublin, Ireland.
email: [email protected]

Dr. Shalini Srivastava,

Professor (OB & HR),
Jaipuria Institute of Management,
Noida, India.
email: [email protected]

Poornima Madan,
Assistant Professor (OB & HR),
Amity University,
Noida, India.
email: [email protected].

Dr. Fergal O’Brien,

Senior Lecturer,
University of Limerick,
Limerick, Ireland.
email: [email protected]

Dr Gerri Matthews-Smith
Associate Professor
Edinburgh Napier University
Edinburgh, Scotland
Email: g.matthews-smith @napier.ac.uk
Type A and B Personality, Work-Family and Family-Work Conflict: The Moderating

Effects of Emotional Intelligence

ABSTRACT

Many employees experience work-family conflict (WFC) and family-work conflict (FWC),

multidimensional states of resource depletion. In this paper, we conceptualize Type A and B

personality as resource depletion and resource gain scenarios that have implications for perceptions

of WFC and FWC. We draw on conservation of resources (COR) theory to examine the resource loss

and gain resulting respectively from Type A and B personality and the resource-generating role of

ability-based emotional intelligence (EI) on multiple dimensions of WFC and FWC. Utilizing a sample

of 305 managers for 15 ICT organizations in India, we uncover a fine-grained pattern of results

indicating that Type A personality represents resource loss while Type B personality represents

resource gain in the context of time, strain and behavior based WFC and FWC. We also found that

ability-based EI performed restorative and additive resource functions as a moderator in the context

of these relationships. The key outcome of the study is that ability-based EI performs an important

role in the context of different types of WFC and FWC because it generates resources to address

these conflicts.

Keywords: Type A and B Personality. Work-Family Conflict. Family-Work Conflict, Emotional

Intelligence. Conservation of Resources

 INTRODUCTION

Work-family conflict (WFC), common amongst many working adults across the globe, is

defined as “a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains

are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhouse & Beutell, 1985, p.77). Since 1985 many

papers and meta-analysis (Allen et al., 2000; Michel & Hargis, 2008; Greenhaus & Allen, 2011) have

increased our knowledge and understanding around these concepts. Two schools of thought have

emerged, one to the effect that work responsibilities impact on family (WFC) and the other that

family responsibilities impact on work (FWC).

Over a period of 30+ years, considerable research has been devoted to understanding the

antecedents of work-family conflict (Nohe et al., 2015; Rubenstein et al., 2020). Initial studies

focused on a variety of antecedents including human capital, dispositional (Allen, 2012),

demographic and ability characteristics (Biggart et al., 2010) and contextual (Shockley & Allen, 2013;

Kossek et al., 2010) factors. An overemphasis on the investigation of contextual variables such as

organisational supports is unwise because many organisations do not provide these types of work

arrangements or supports so employees have to rely on their personal resources to cope with WFC

(Mansour & Tremblay, 2018). This highlights the issue of personality and while traits have received

considerable attention in the wider organisational behaviour literature, they remain less

comprehensively investigated in the context of work-family conflict (Wille et al., 2013; Bruck & Allen,

2003). There is support for the view that dispositional variables are stronger determinants of how

employees deal with WFC and FWC than contextual factors (Allen, 2012). Andreassi and Thompson

(2007), for example, found that personality traits explained more variance in both WFC and FWC

than did contextual variables.

Where scholars have investigated the impact of personality on WFC the emphasis has

remained primarily on the influence of the Big Five traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to

Change, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) rather than other conceptualisations of personality

(Wille et al., 2013; Bruck & Allen, 2003). Although evidence indicates that these traditional

personality traits explain the experience of WFC (Watson & Clarke, 1992; Michel et al., 2011; Wayne

et al., 2004), the Big Five Personality Traits are not specific to WFC and therefore other

conceptualisations of personality might be theoretically more relevant. Interestingly, less attention

has been paid to another conceptualisation of personality, i.e., Type A and Type B behaviour (Bruck

& Allen, 2003). This is problematic for the field because without investigation of Type A and Type B

personality we have an incomplete picture of the relationship between personality and WFC which

has the potential to hinder the advancement of knowledge in this area.

Initial conceptualisations of WFC and FWC highlighted its bi-directional nature, in that work

can create conflict with family and family can create conflict with work (Frone et al., 1992; Allen et

al., 2000). However, what is interesting is the focus on WFC in the literature with significantly less

investigation of FWC (Wayne et al., 2017; Powell et al., 2018). Consistent with Netemeyer et al.

(1996) we conceptualise WFC and FWC as distinct but related types of inter-role conflict. These

concepts emphasise that family and work domains are incompatible (Allen & Martin, 2017) and that

the demands of one role make performance of the other role difficult or challenging (Mansour &

Tremblay, 2016). This has led to an imbalance in study findings with both Aryee et al. (2005) and Lu

et al. (2009) proposing that both WFC and FWC are independent of one another and the presence

of one does not indicate the presence or absence of the other. Consequently, they advocated the

concurrent investigation of both forms of conflict in order to understand the phenomenon more

holistically.

An additional gap in the literature is the tendency to aggregate the different types of WFC

and FWC and pay less attention to the predictors of time, strain and behavioural WFC and WFC.

There is general acceptance of the categorisation of conflict proposed by Netemeyer et al. (1996)

and Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), namely time, strain and behaviour conflict. Time-based conflict

focuses on the amount of time devoted to work or family and interference with work or family
related responsibilities. Strain-based conflict highlights the occurrence of stress in one domain that

interferes with the other domain whereas behaviour-based conflict highlights the occurrence of

behaviour in one domain that interferes with the other domain (Carlson et al., 2000). These

dimensions have not gained significant traction in the literature which is unexpected given that the

concept of WFC generally was proposed as multidimensional (Carlson et al., 2000; Clark et al., 2019).

A third significant gap concerns the investigation of moderators of personality WFC/FWC links.

We propose that ability-based EI is an important moderator in understanding the impact of Type A

and Type B personality on WFC and FWC (Davies et al., 1998; MacCann et al., 2020). EI was originally

conceptualized by Salovey and Mayer (1990) as the ability to control one’s own and other ones’

emotions, distinguish between them, and to use it to lead one’s actions and thinking. Mayer and

Salovey (1997, p.23) developed this idea further and highlighted EI as a set of abilities that includes:

“the ability to perceive accurately, appraise and express emotions; the ability to access and generate

feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge;

the ability to reflectively regulate emotions in ways that promote emotional and intellectual

growth”.

Ability-based EI incorporates important resources that help explain how individuals

experience both WFC and FWC. For example, Lenaghan et al. (2007) found that higher levels of EI

proved to be a valuable resource in explaining perceptions of WFC. Research also emphasises the

role of EI as an important resource to help managers deal with stress (Kappagoda, 2014; Akintayo,

2010). Theory and empirical research highlights a link between ability-based EI and resource

conservation (Park et al., 2014; Tao & Kwon, 2019). Conflict between work and home is

fundamentally about the management of a finite set of resources with resources expended in one

domain making it difficult to cope in another (Halbesleben et al., 2009). From the perspective of

HRD, ability based EI can be developed with strong evidence from recent literatures (Geßler et al.,

2020) and in particular meta-analyses (Hodzic et al., 2017; Mattingly & Kraiger, 2018) highlighting
that training and development interventions can enhance ability-based EI. This suggests that HRD

has a central role in providing employees with important personal resources to cope with WFC and

FWC.

Taking inspiration from those studies which argue that the characteristics of individuals are

important in how they respond to WFC and FWC our guiding research questions are: (a) What is the

impact of Type A and Type B personality on perceptions of time, strain and behavioural WFC and

FWC? (b) To what extent does EI act as a moderator of these relationships? Building on COR theory

principles (Hobfoll, 1989; 2011) we propose that employees must address or combat resource loss

arising from WFC and FWC through their personality traits and emotional intelligence. We

characterise Type A personality as resource loss or depletion so the availability of high levels of

ability-based EI represents resource generation or investment and will diminish the positive

relationship between Type A and time, strain and behavioural WFC and FWC. We characterise Type

B personality as resource gain so the availability of an additional resource, ability-based EI creates a

resource caravan, which is beneficial in the experience of time, strain and behavioural WFC/FWC.

These conceptualisations of Type A and B correspond with two important principles of COR theory

that of resource loss and resource gain which we explain in detail in the theory development section

of the paper.

We test our model (Figure 1) using a sample of 305 managers in 15 Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) firms in India using a two-stage data collection process to

minimize common method bias. This is an important context in which to conduct our study because

India, as a highly collectivist society has experienced remarkable changes in the context of work and

the need to balance work and family roles (Mishra, 2015; Kang & Sandhu, 2012). There is an

increased percentage of dual earners, single-parent households and growing employment of

mothers with the result that employees in Indian organisations are challenged to achieve some form
of equilibrium between work and family domains. We suggest that high levels of collectivism will

potentially elevate the extent to which WFC and FWC issues are experienced (Jain & Nair, 2017).

[Figure 1 Here]

Our work offers a number of important insights for research on WFC and FWC. First, while

previous research has identified personality traits to be important in perceptions of WFC and FWC,

few studies reveal that Type A and Type B personality are strong determinants of perceptions of

time, strain and behavior based WFC and FWC. Moreover, by highlighting the distinct value of Type

A and Type B personality as resource loss and gain scenarios in the context of time, strain and

behavioral WFC and FWC we engage with the multidimensional nature of WFC and underscore

concerns about collapsing the construct. Indeed, such an approach may potentially have missed

important insights concerning the differential impacts of Type A and B personality on perceptions

of the different types of WGC and FWC.

Second, our findings further address calls to explain whether ability-based EI matters in the

context of WFC and FWC (Aboobaker & Edward, 2019). Given the prevalence of WFC issues found

in the modern workforce (Williams et al., 2016) it is important to understand the role of personal

resources in mitigating or reducing both WFC and FWC. The potential role of ability-based EI has

important practice implications for HRD interventions. EI is an important construct within the wider

HRD literatures (Miao et al., 2020) and given the meta-analytic evidence on the value of training for

the development of competencies in EI (Mattingly & Kraiger, 2018) HRD practitioners can contribute

to ensuring that employees possess the personal resources required to minimise WFC and FWC. We

extend understanding of EI as a personal resource in two significant ways. First, we conceptualize

ability-based EI following COR theory as an important personal resource that can be used to address

the resource loss resulting from WFC and FWC. Second, we conceptualize the combination of Type

B and high levels of EI as a resource caravan concept as proposed by Hobfoll (2011). Resource

caravans signify that resources move together through the enrichment of initial resources and this
leads to the generation of additional resources. We hope that these insights offer guidance to HRD

practitioners to develop appropriate interventions as a way of helping employees cope with time,

strain and behavior based WFC and FWC.

Our paper is structured as follows. We first present our theory and the study hypotheses.

Then, we describe the study methodology and the data analysis. Finally, we present the study

findings and the final section of the paper discusses the research and practice implications, and

future research questions.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

The starting point of our research model is Type A and Type B personality as stable

personality traits (Friedman & Rosenman, 1959; Friedman, 1974) which represent potential states

of resource depletion/loss and gain (Hobfoll et al., 2018). As pointed out in the introduction,

research on personality is dominated by the Big Five and while there were some studies in the early

1980’s on Type A and Type B personality, this stream of personality and WFC research largely dried

up. This perhaps occurred because of concerns about the psychometric properties of the

measurement instrument (Ray & Bozek, 1980; Boyd & Begley, 1987), however researchers such as

Furnham (1990) argued that the measure had good psychometric properties. Other researchers

have highlighted that certain approaches achieve dominance and as a result the literature becomes

imbalanced (Garavan et al., 2019). In this study, we used a measure of Type A-B personality (Dhar

& Jain, 2001) developed specifically for the Indian context. There is a tradition of using Western

developed measures in an Eastern context however this is widely criticized (Gelfland et al., 2017)

and researchers have highlighted the need to develop measures that better fit the context (Aycan,

2005). The Dhar and Jain (2001) measure of Type A-B personality is widely used in India and its

psychometric properties are considered effective (Madan & Srivastava, 2017). We argue that it is a

more valid measure of Type A-B personality given the cultural context of our study and we believe

that it has effective application to other Asian contexts with strong collectivist cultures.
 Type A is defined by Rosenman, (1977). an action-emotion complex characterized by

impatience, sense of time urgency, competitiveness, striving for achievement, aggressiveness,

hyper alertness, restlessness, explosive speech, and abruptness of gesture. In contrast, Type B

individuals are more relaxed, less competitive, easy-going and less achievement-oriented (Day et

al., 2005). Friedman and Rosenman (1974), for example, found that Type A individuals were more

focused on accomplishing results to the best of their abilities within tight timelines. Zyzanski and

Jenkins (1970) similarly identified Type A individuals as those who are enormously competitive,

determined for triumph, assertive, swift, keen, restless, hyper attentive, have uneasiness of facial

muscles and experience the time urgency and challenge of responsibility. Glass (1977) found that

individuals with Type A personality craved for influence and recognition, have few sources of

indulgence other than job-related ones, showed compulsiveness about accomplishing things, were

effortlessly provoked to anger by people and things and considered that one can deal with and

overcome any barrier with sufficient effort. The majority of studies to date have investigated Type

A personality and most of these are relatively dated. Burke et al. (1979) for example identified a

positive association between Type A and WFC whereas Bruck and Allen (2003) found that Type A

was correlated with overall WFC but not its distinct dimensions. Burke (1988) also found a

significant relationship between Type A personality and WFC amongst married police officers while

Carlson (1999) found a relationship between Type A personality and behavior-based conflict but it

was in the opposite direction to that hypothesized - Type A individuals experience less behavior-

based conflict. Moreover, Carlson et al. (1999) also found that Type A was correlated with overall

WFC but not to its specific dimensions.

Research on the impact of Type B personality is largely absent from the literature. Type B

individuals are more hassle-free, laid-back, contented and easygoing (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1984).

Rosenman (1991) proposed that Type A-B personality encompasses three components: (1)

competitive spirit, (2) edginess and overstated time urgency and (3) increased amount of rage and
unfriendliness. Glass (1977) also found that the Type B personality individuals were less likely to

experience time urgency, were calmer and more composed, more relaxed. They did not get irritated

easily and did not believe in fighting competitively but rather they adapted to situations and worked

within them. There is some evidence from other areas of work psychology such as role ambiguity

and psychological strain that Type B personality individuals were better able to cope with these

work conditions (Keenan & McBain, 1979). Type B individuals were less likely to travel more, work

extra hours every week and to be more strong-minded and unwavering (Carver et al., 1976;

Matthews & Brunson, 1979).

Conservation of Resources, Type A-B and WFC: Resource Loss and Resource Gain

We link Type A-B personality to WFC and FWC through the lens of COR theory and its two

principles concerning how resources are allocated (Halbesleben et al., 2014). The resource loss

principle emphasises that the loss of resources is more significant than is resource gain and has a

disproportionate impact in terms of its degree and speed (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Type A personality

represents a resource loss scenario in that it makes it difficult for managers to contend with work-

family conflicts. A foundational prediction of our paper is that managers who are categorised as

Type A will experience stronger perceptions of WFC and FWC and there will be a positive

relationship between Type A personality and time, strain and behavioral WFC and FWC conflict.

The resource investment principle proposes that individuals must invest in resource

generating activities. COR theory gives particular emphasis to the resources that are generated

(Hobfoll, 1989; Halbesleben et al., 2014). We predict that Type B personality traits are particularly

conducive to WFC and FWC because managers with these traits are more composed, experience

less time urgency, are more relaxed and less competitive and are better able to adapt to the role

demands of work and family. Type B personality is seen as a prototypical personal attribute category

of resources (Hobfoll, 1989) because when employees possess the traits associated with Type B they
are better able to cope with competing demands and will be less likely to experience WFC and FWC

time, strain or behavioral conflict.

We also propose that managers with Type A personality are more likely to perceive greater

levels of FWC than is the case for WFC. We make this prediction based on the argument that

managers with Type A personality will prioritise work over family because of their need to achieve

and that they take their work more seriously than is the case for Type B personalities (Bruck & Allen,

2003). Managers with Type A personality are more likely to devote scarce resources to address WFC

because of their compulsiveness to get work accomplished and their competitive nature. In contrast

Type B personality managers will achieve a better balance and will engage in less work activities

within a limited time and report less time, strain and behavioural WFC and FWC. Thus, we formulate

the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1(a): Type A personality will be positively associated with time, strain and
behavioural WFC and FWC
Hypothesis 1(b): Type B personality will be negatively associated with time, strain and
behavioural WFC and FWC
Hypothesis 1(c): The effects of Type A personality will be greater for perceptions of FWC than
for WFC whereas the effects of Type B will be same for both perceptions of WFC and FWC.

The Restorative and Additive Potential of Emotional Intelligence as a Boundary Condition

We link the depleting experience of Type A personality and the investment experience of

Type B personality to time, strain and behavioural WFC and FWC through the restorative and

additive potential of ability-based EI. This type of intelligence, consistent with Wong and Law (2002),

is premised on the ability to accurately sense one’s own in addition to the emotions of others, to

constructively regulate these emotions and respond in a way that leads to desirable behaviour (Guy

& Lee, 2015). Davies et al. (1998) proposed a four-dimensional definition of EI including (a) appraisal

and expression of emotion in one self, (b) appraisal and recognition of emotions in others, (c)

regulation of emotion in one’s self and (d) use of emotions to facilitate performance.
 We utilise the investment principle of COR to argue that the influence of an additional

resource can temper the impacts of Type A personality and elevate the value of Type B personality

on the relationship between Type A and B personality and time, strain and behavioural WFC and

FWC respectively. Ability-based EI is another example within COR theory of a prototypical personal

resource (Hobfoll, 1989) in the work domain because of its potential to help managers cope with

time, resource and behavioural WFC/FWC. In other words, while WFC/FWC may be inevitable

because of Type A personality, high levels of ability-based EI potentially provide managers with a

resource that performs restorative functions and enables them to manage WFC better. In the case

of Type B personality, ability-based EI performs an additive role in that it will provide an additional

resource to manage WFC.

Ability-based EI influences outcomes such as work contentment and on-the-job

performance (Sy et al., 2006), the performance of other roles (Wong & Law, 2002), conflict

resolution (Jordan & Troth, 2004) and interpersonal relationships (Saklofske et al., 2003).

Emotionally intelligent managers are better able to manage their emotions effectively, develop

stronger relationships with others and ensure positive outcomes such as wellbeing and hopefulness

(Koydemir et al., 2013). Schutte et al. (2002) found that high levels of EI were associated with

reduced gloominess, improved hopefulness and enhanced self-worth. Where managers with high

levels of ability-based EI encountered difficult circumstances, they were able to maintain a positive

relationship and self-worth. Carmeli (2003), in a study of senior managers, discovered that WFC and

ability-based EI predicted career commitment and senior managers with high EI experienced less

harmful effects of WFC on job dedication. Akintayo (2010) established that Nigerian workers with

high levels of ability-based EI were better able to handle their work-family role conflicts. Similarly,

Kappagoda (2014) found that Type B personality teachers experienced less WFC and FWC. We

propose that, based on these findings and COR theory, managers with high levels of EI will be better

able to counteract the negative aspects of Type A personality on time, strain and behavioural based
EI. They will perceive less of the three categories of WFC and FWC than will employees with lower

levels of ability-based EI.

Consistent with the resource caravan principle of COR theory, ability-based EI will confer

greater benefits for managers with Type B personality. Therefore, Type B personality combined with

high levels of ability-based EI will act as co-travellers and they will have particularly beneficial effects

on perceptions of WFC and FWC with the consequence that the moderating role of EI will be more

significant for Type B managers. Through the utilisation of emotions, managers will be better able

to make choices and decisions when time, strain and behavioural WFC emerges. Therefore, based

on these arguments we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2(a): Emotional intelligence will moderate the relationship between Type A
personality and time, strain and behavioural WFC and FWC such that managers with higher
levels of EI will perceive less WFC and FWC
Hypothesis 2(b): Emotional intelligence will moderate the relationship between Type B
personality and time strain and behavioural WFC and FWC such that managers with higher
levels of emotional intelligence will perceive less of each.
Hypothesis 2(c): The moderating impact of emotional intelligence on the relationship between
Type A and Type B personality and time, strain and behavioural WFC and FWC will be more
significant for Type B compared to Type A personality.

The Relative Value of Ability-Based EI on the Type A-B and both WFC and FWC

We highlighted earlier that WFC is conceptualised as bi-directional: work to family and family

to work (Netemeyer et al., 1996). Scholars argue the importance of this distinction (Mansour &

Tremblay, 2018) so we propose that this distinction is important in understanding the moderating

role of ability-based EI as a personal resource on the relationship between Type A and B personality

and time, strain and behaviour WFC and FWC. Managers with Type A personality potentially operate

in a loss-of-resources spiral (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Consistent with COR theory they will use their

limited personal resources gained through EI to focus on having less time, strain and behaviour

based FWC. They will prioritise time, strain and behaviour based WFC conflict because the work

domain provides them with a sense of achievement and self-confidence (Burke & Weir, 1980). When
they experience work-family interference, they will utilise ability-based EI to address the work issues

and ensure less of the three categorises of WFC. Higher levels of ability-based EI act as buffering

resource to better cope with time, strain and behaviour based WFC. In contrast, Type B personality

managers gain significant resource investment on top of the value of their personality traits and

achieve a gain-of-resources spiral (Hobfoll, 1989). Following this line of reasoning Type B personality

acts as a personal resource that begets another resource, ability-based EI which leads to a gain of

resources. Therefore, managers with Type B personality in combination with higher levels of EI are

better able to devote resources to time, strain and behaviour based WFC and FWC. This arises

because they are better able to regulate their behavioural and emotional reactions in both

situations (Lee, 2017). Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:

H3(a). Emotional intelligence as a moderator will be more valuable to managers with Type A
personality and overall WFC compared to overall FWC.
H3(b). Emotional intelligence as a moderator will be equally valuable to managers with Type B
personality and both WFC and FWC.

METHOD

Sample

Data were collected from fifteen Information and Communication Technology (ICT) firms in

the Delhi-NCR region of India. We study managers in these firms because they are more likely to

experience higher levels of stress due to the need to complete competitive and challenging work

tasks. Study participants held a variety of positions including managers in financial, marketing,

information technology, accounting and administrative jobs.

Survey invitations were sent to 360 managers. These managers were selected within each

firm utilizing a convenience sample strategy. However, to avoid problems that may arise from

convenience sampling, we sought a larger variation in the sample. We ensured that the sample

included all the demographic categories of the population (age, income, gender). The data were

collected during different days, times and from different location. Complete data were obtained
from 305 study respondents (response rate = 83.71%). The demographic information on the sample

was as follows: 58% of respondents categorized themselves as males and the remaining were

females. Thirty-four percent of study respondents were ages 21-30; 29% were aged between 31-40;

14% were aged between 41-50; 22% were aged between 51-60 and 1% were over 60 years of age.

The human capital information of the sample was as follows: 49% of study respondents had a degree

level graduate qualification; 46% had a post-graduate qualification and 5% had a diploma level

qualification. In terms of work experience 40% had between 1-5 years; 30% between 6-10; 16%

between 11-15; 13% had between 16-20; and 1% had more than 20 years.

Procedure

We sent study participation invitations to 21 firms via email and 17 agreed to a formal

meeting and, of those, 15 firms agreed to participate in the study. In order to collect the data, the

authors made a prior appointment with a representative from each firm. These representatives

were briefed about the purpose of the research, and assured that the study was strictly adhering to

confidentiality requirement and informed consent. We agreed with each firm the precise dates and

times for survey administration. The first author administered the survey within each firm and all

surveys were completed using the English language. Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), we collected

the data from study participants in two stages to minimize common method bias. In the first phase,

we collected human capital and demographic data and data on the predictor variable - Type A and

B personality. Thirty days later, we collected data on the moderating variable (EI) and the dependent

variable - perceptions of WFC and FWC. To link the responses from both time periods each

questionnaire was given an identification code.

Measures

All perceptual measures were assessed using Likert type scales with 1= strongly disagree and

5 = strongly agree. All of the scales for the study constructs were selected from the wider literature

and we then validated each scale to ensure that it was a good fit within the Indian cultural context.
Table 1 presents the reliabilities and convergent validity analysis for each construct included in the

study.

[Table 1 Here]

Emotional Intelligence. We used the self-report WLEIS scale developed by Wong and Law (2002).

This scale includes 16-items and has four subscales corresponding to the four components of EI as

proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997). The Coefficient Alpha for EI was 0.80.

Work-family Conflict/Family-Work Conflict. We used the self-report perceptual measure of WFC

developed by Carlson et al. (2000). This 18-item scale consists of 6 sub-scales tapping both the

direction and dimensions with respect to work interference with family (time, strain and behavior)

and family interference with work (time, strain and behavior). The time-based subscale measures a

manager’s perceptions of the extent to which they experience time-based work-family interference

or family-work interference (e.g., “I feel I don’t have enough time to fulfill my responsibilities at

home due to the time I have to spend on my career”). The strain-based subscale measures the

extent to which a manager perceives that he/she experiences strain-based work-family or family-

work interference (e.g., “When I get home from work, I am often too frazzled to participate in

family”). The behavior-based subscale measures the extent a manager perceives that he/she

experiences behavior-based work-family or family- interference (e.g., “Behavior that is effective and

necessary for me at home would be counterproductive at work”). When analyzing the data, we

used the subscales to achieve a more granular understanding of the impact of our predictor on

different dimensions of WFC and FWC. The Coefficient Alphas for the three subscales were 0.70,

0.72 and 0.84 for time, strain and behavior based respectively. The Coefficient Alphas for WFC and

FWC were 0.72 and 0.76 respectively.

Type A and Type B Personality. We used the self-report scale developed by Dhar and Jain (2001)

which has been previously used in the Indian context (Jain & Pasricha, 2017). The scale consists of

two parts; ‘A’ consisting of 17 items and part ‘B’ consisting of 16 items. Type-A Personality are
measured for tenseness, impatience, restlessness, achievement orientation, domineering and work

alcoholic. Type-B Personality are measured as complacent, easy going, nonassertive, relaxed and

patience. Sample items include, “I have always lived the life of deadlines” and “I prefer to complete

the tasks at hand slowly”. Cronbach Alpha for the two subscales were 0.89 for Type A and 0.78 for

Type B. Scores for parts A and B were calculated for each individual respondent and where

respondents scored higher on part A then we coded that respondent as having Type A personality

and where the respondent scored higher on part B the respondent was coded as having a Type B

personality. We did not encounter any respondents who achieved the same score for part A and B.

Having gone through this procedure we found that 165 respondents were categorized as Type A

and 140 as Type B for the purposes of the analysis. A similar approach was taken to identifying Type

A and B in Bruck & Allen (2003) and Lee et al. (1990).

Control Variables. We also collected control data as follows: gender age marital status, organization

position and tenure, and organization. These variables are typically included in studies of WFC and

FWC (Blanch & Aluja, 2009).

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Zero order correlations between variables are presented in Table 2. Prior to analyzing our

hypothesized model, we sought to establish the convergent and discriminant validity of our

measures by running a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). In this model, each

item loaded on its appropriate factor. The measurement fit of the model was acceptable (χ2=382.12;

p=0.000, GFI=0.92, CFI=0.95, TLI=0.93, RMSEA=0.062 and SRMR=0.082). In this model all the factor

loadings were significant (p<.05), all standardized factor loadings were larger than 0.70 and

correlation coefficients among all latent variables were substantially smaller than 1.0. We compared

the structural model with an alternative measurement model where all factors were considered as

a single latent variable. The results indicated that the hypothesized model (χ2=348; p≤0.01;
GFI=0.90, CFI=0.92, TLI=0.91, RMSEA=0.7 and SRMR=0.04) was a significantly better fit than the

alternative model (χ2=394; p=.0000; GFI=0.88, CFI=0.89, TLI=0.90, RMSEA=0.8 and SRMR=0.06) thus

supporting our hypothesized model.

Table 1 reveals that in terms of the results of our factor analysis, the Average Variance Extracted

(AVE) was greater than 0.50 and the valued of the Cronbach Alphas and construct validity were

acceptable to proceed with the analysis of the data. In order to ascertain whether the scale items

measured the theoretical constructs, we tested the construct validity. We found that the

convergent validity was significant with item loadings of 0.70 indicating that about one-half of the

item variance (the squared loading) can be attributed to the construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)

suggesting that in order to assess discriminant validity it is necessary to compare the variance shared

between constructs with the AVE for each individual construct. We found in each case that the

values for discriminant validity were greater that the correlational values (Table 2). Therefore, our

results support the validity and reliability of the constructs used in this study. We also assessed the

issue of common method variance (CMV) (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We used Harman’s single factor

test and found that the first factor accounted for 39.2 percent of the total variance extracted thus

indicating that CMV was not an issue. CMC is an issue where one general factor accounts for more

than 50% of the variance.

We investigated multicollinearity by generating values of tolerance and Variance Inflation

Factor (VIF). The computed values of tolerances were greater than 0.1, and VIFs were less than the

cut-off of the value of 5 (Hair et al., 2011).

[Table 2 Here]

Hypotheses Testing

We used moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses. The analyses were

conducted using SPSS and the relevant outputs are contained in Tables 3-5. Hypothesis 1(a)

proposed that Type A personality was positively associated with managers’ perceptions of time,
strain and behavior- based WFC and FWC. We found that Type A personality (see Table 3) was

positively related to managers’ perceptions of time (β=0.57; p≤0.01), strain (β=0.60; p≤0.01) and

behavior (β=0.31; p≤0.01) based WFC and between Type A personality (see Table 4) and time

(β=0.60, p≤0.01), strain (β=0.46, p≤0.01) and behavior (β=0.49, p≤0.01) based FWC. We therefore

found support for Hypothesis 1(a). Hypothesis 1(b) proposed that Type B personality was negatively

associated with time, strain, and behavior based WFC and FWC. We found that Type B personality

(see Table 3) was negatively related to time (β=-0.11; p≤0.05), strain (β=-0.22; p≤0.01) and behavior

(β=-0.23; p≤0.01) based WFC and it was also related to time (β=-0.26; p≤0.01) strain β=-0.05; p≤0.01)

and behavior (β=-0.45; p≤0.01) based FWC (see Table 4). We therefore established support for

Hypothesis 1(b). Hypothesis 1(c) proposed that the effects of Type A personality will be greater for

perceptions of FWC than WFC, whereas the effects of Type B will be equal for both perceptions of

WFC than FWC. Contrary to our hypotheses (see Table 5), we found that Type A personality was

more positively related to perceptions of WFC (β=0.69; p≤0.01) than FWC (β=0.41; p≤0.01) and in

the case of Type B personality it was more negatively related to FWC (β=-0.36; p≤0.01) than WFC

(β=-0.16; p≤0.01). Thus, Hypothesis 1(c) is not supported.

In order to test the moderating effects of ability-based EI, we first entered the demographic

variables in Step 1 followed by predictor variables in Step 2. In Step 3, we entered ability-based EI

into the regression model followed in Step 4 by the interaction between predictor variables and

moderating variables.

Hypothesis 2(a) and Hypothesis 2(b) proposed that EI would moderate the relationship

between Type A and Type B personality and time, strain and behaviour based WFC and FWC. Tables

3 and 4 present the results of the moderation analysis along with Figures 2(a) and 2(b), which

present the moderation slopes. We found that EI moderated the relationships between Type A and

Type B personality and time, strain and behaviour based WFC (see Table 3) and FWC (see Table 4).

The Type A β coefficients for time, strain and behaviour based WFC were .36 (p≤0.01), .28 (p≤0.01)
and -.09 (ns) respectively, and in all cases were lower than the unmoderated regression. The Type

B β coefficients for time, strain and behaviour based WFC were -.21 (p≤0.01), -.45 (p≤0.01) and -.53

(p≤0.01), and in all cases were lower than the unmoderated regression. Similarly, the FWC

equivalents were .30 (p≤0.01), .28 (p≤0.01) and -.29 (p≤0.01) for Type A, and -.43 (p≤0.01), -.25

(p≤0.01) and -.44 (p≤0.01) for Type B. These results support Hypothesis 2(a) and Hypothesis 2(b).

Hypothesis 2(c) proposed that the moderating effects of overall EI would be greater for Type

B compared to Type A personality for time, strain and behaviour based WFC and FWC. When we

compared the interaction results, we found that the moderating effect of EI was greater for Type B

than for Type A personality. For Type A, the betas reduced from .57 to .36, .60 to .28 and .31 to -.09

for time, strain and behaviour based WFC respectively, with equivalent reductions for FWC of .60 to

.30, .46 to .28 and .49 to .29. For Type B the changes were -.11 to -.21, -.22 to -.45 and -.23 to -.53,

for time, strain and behaviour based WFC respectively, with equivalent changes for FWC of -.26 to -

.43, -.05 to -.25 and -.25 to -.44.

Hypothesis 3(a) proposed that EI as a moderator would be more significant to managers with

Type A personality in the context of the relationship between Type A personality and WFC compared

to FWC. Table 5 presents the results of the moderation analysis along with Figure 3, which presents

the moderation slopes.

[Table 3 Here]

[Table 4 Here]

[Table 5 Here]

[Figure 2(a), 2(b) and 3 here]

The results reveal that the moderating effects of EI for Type A were β=-0.69; p≤0.01 v β=-

0.32; p≤0.01 for WFC compared to β=0.41; p≤0.01 v β=-0.12; p≤0.05 for FWC. Therefore, we found

support for Hypothesis 3(a). Hypothesis 3(b) proposed that EI as a moderator will be equally

valuable for managers with Type B personality in the context of the relationship between Type B
personality and both WFC and FWC. We found that EI was a more significant moderator for Type B

personality WFC relationship (β=-0.16; p≤0.01 v -.36; p≤0.01) compared to Type B FWC relationship

(β=-0.36; p≤0.01 v β=-0.49; p≤0.01). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 (b) is not supported.

DISCUSSION

This research was inspired by two important contemporary developments: the recognition

that work-family conflict issues are an important concern for organizations across the globe and

growing academic and practitioner interest in ability based EI an important resource in the

workplace. Adopting a multi-dimensional view of work-family conflict, we utilized COR’s resource

allocation principles to predict the impact of Type A and Type B personality on time, strain and

behavior based WFC and FWC and to propose that ability-based EI would act as an important

restorative and additive resource in the context of the focal relationships investigated.

We utilized COR theory to propose Type A and Type B personality and ability based EI as

resource loss and resource investment scenarios and gathered data from over 300 managers

working in ICT in India. We found that Type A personality represents a resource loss scenario

whereas Type B represents a resource investment. Our results reveal that Type A personality is

positively related to manager perceptions of time, strain and behavior based WFC/FWC, which

contrasts with the findings for Type B personality, where we found that it was negatively associated

with time, strain and behavior based WFC and FWC. Taken together, these results indicate strong

support for our COR theory informed hypotheses and indicate the predictive ability of both types of

personality to explain perceptions of time, strain and behavioral based WFC and FWC. Moreover,

we found support for the predictions about the restorative and additive resource value of ability-

based EI in moderating the relationships between Type A-B personality and time, strain and

behavioral based WFC and FWC. We noted some important nuances in terms of this moderating

role. For example, ability-based EI played an equally important moderating role for the relationship

between both Type A and B personality and time, strain and behavioral based WFC. In the case of
FWC, Type B personality ability-based EI played a very significant additive moderating role in the

link with FWC compared to WFC. We note that these results were generated in a unique cultural

context - India where the challenges of striking a balance between work and family roles are

challenging in a collectivist society. In addition, we focused on managers working in ICT so there is

a need to be cautiously aware of the importance of that context when it comes to future research

directions.

Theoretical Contribution

Work-Family Conflict. While scholars have emphasized the need to study the antecedents of WFC

and FWC, researchers have focused primarily on the investigation of WFC (Aboobaker & Edward,

2019; Andreassi & Thompson, 2007) rather than FWC (Mansour & Tremblay, 2016), they have

adopted an aggregation approach to WFC/FWC resulting in limited investigation of the time, strain

and behavioral components. Furthermore, they have concentrated more on contextual rather than

dispositional antecedents (Shockley & Allen, 2013; Kossek et al., 2010). In our study, we probed

WFC and FWC and the three dimensions of time, strain and behavioural based conflict and as a

result we identified important effects that would have been missed by focusing on an aggregated

approach to WFC. We uncovered for example that Type A personality is particularly relevant in

explaining strain based WFC and time-based FWC and that Type B personality was particularly

relevant in explaining perceptions of behaviour based FWC but of less value in explaining strain

based FWC. We hope that these study findings encourage more work on these empirically

neglected dimensions of WFC and FWC.

Personality. We sought to expand the investigation of personality as an antecedent of time,

strain and behavior-based WFC and FWC by moving beyond the focus on the Big Five. Our results

emphasize the importance of considering other personality constructs when investigating WFC and

FWC. We specifically responded to the contradictory findings on the role of Type A personality in

explaining WFC (Bruck & Allen, 2003; Carlson, 1999) and the dearth of research on Type B
personality and WFC. Thus although prior work has suggested that Type A and Type B personality is

effective in explaining WFC our results suggest it has value in explaining both WFC and FWC. Overall,

our results broaden understandings of the role of personality traits in influencing perceptions of

WFC (Burke et al., 1979; Bruck & Allen, 2003; Blanch & Aluja, 2009). The selection of Type A and B

personality is interesting in the context of COR theory because each personality type represents a

different resource scenario. Therefore, our results contribute to the literature on the role of

dispositional variables such as personality in explaining WFC and FWC personality therefore scholars

can increase understanding of these different personality constructs in future research by

incorporating both the Big Five and Type A-B in the same study.

Ability-based Emotional Intelligence. Our findings on the moderating role of ability-based

EI suggest that scholars should embrace EI as a potential restorative and additive concept in the

context of the modern workplace to address WFC and FWC issues. To date, EI research in the

context of WFC and FWC is nascent suggesting that there is significant potential for theory testing

studies that address its role in the context of dispositional characteristics and WFC/FWC. When

scholars have studied ability-based EI, they have primarily investigated it as a predictor or mediator

rather than a boundary condition. Our research suggests significant benefits of ability-based EI for

both Type A and B personality and that it has important restorative and additive functions. We also

found that ability-based EI has value in a non-Western context (Bhalla & Kang, 2018; Bhararti &

Mala, 2016) and provided support for its generalizability as a personal resource available to

managers in the context of WFC and FWC.

Conservation of Resources. We utilized COR to explain both the direct impacts of Type A

and B personality and ability-based EI on WFC and FWC, therefore our research highlights some

important insights concerning the theoretical lens we used. Halbesleben et al. (2014) and Hobfoll

et al. (2018) have suggested that COR theory has significant explanatory value in clarifying the value

of multiple resources. Specifically, by revealing the links between Type B personality and ability-
based EI we provide some support for the more recently introduced “resource caravans” concept

(Hobfoll et al., 2018). This is defined as a pattern of resources and our findings highlight that ability-

based EI has additive value in the context of both WFC and FWC. Our findings also speak to the

concept of multifinality where the same resource (Type B and/or ability-based EI) can achieve

multiple forms of WFC and FWC. Our findings also speak to another important concept within COR

theory specifically the notion that where individuals experience resource loss as in the case of Type

A personality they can cope with it via substitution (Hobfoll, 1989). Therefore, in the context of our

study findings ability-based EI constitutes a substitution strategy where it can alleviate the negative

impacts of Type A on both WFC and FW.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The study findings should be considered in the light of a number of limitations. First, our

study context in terms of the country, sector and category of employee raises issues concerning the

generalizability of our study findings. We particularly encourage extension to additional

populations. Future research should investigate the focal relationships in Western context and with

different categories of employees. Indian society is highly collectivist (Jain & Nair, 2016) which may

have influenced perceptions of work-family conflict. In addition, there is scope to investigate

categories of employees such as working mothers, lower status employees, minorities, females and

employees from lower socio-economic categories. These categories of employees may not have

the resources of EI to deal with WFC/FWC in the same way as higher status employees have (Thoits,

1992). It would also be useful to investigate the impacts of employee characteristics that we did not

collect in this study such as number of dependents, the marital status of the respondent, the number

of children and whether the respondent was a single parent or not. Managers have potentially

more flexibility than lower skilled, lower wage employees who typically will have tighter work

regimes. In these situations, these categories of employees may have less EI resources and may have

to draw of other resource categories to alleviate WFC and FWC. We also conducted our study in
the ICT sector where there are distinct cultural norms and work-family policies. It is possible that

the relationships investigated will operate differently in organizations with different cultural norms

about work-family issues. It should also be noted that the Covid 19 pandemic is an important new

context in which to conduct research on WFC and FWC (Vaziri et al 2020).

Second, we used a measure of Type A-B personality specifically designed for the Indian

context (Dhar & Jain, 2001). We found that the measure had strong reliability and its use in other

studies has demonstrated similarly strong reliability (Madan & Srivastava, 2017). We argue that our

measure speaks to the need to utilize measures in organisational psychological and behavioral

research (Gelfand et al., 2017) we are conscious that its use may limit the generalizability of our

findings to Western contexts.

Third, our study relies heavily on self-reports so we particularly encourage replication

utilizing data on ability-based EI utilizing multi-source reports and objective reports, and the use of

controlled experiments. We acknowledge that this will prove difficult given the nature of the study

variables. An important issue in the context of COR theory concerns the importance of dyadic

resource crossover (Hobfoll et al., 2018) therefore what is the role of leaders in the context of

moderating the impacts of Type A-B personality in influencing WFC and FWC outcomes? Do leaders

through their own ability-based EI influence the relationships investigated in this study? What is

the role of cultural practices and what role does organisational level EI play in explaining these

relationships?

Finally, our study separated in time the measurement of the predictor and control variables

from the moderator and dependent variables. However, it is important to understand the value of

ability –based EI as a personal resource over time. COR theory for example suggests that continual

reliance on a personal resource may lead to employees perceiving greater levels of WFC and FWC.

Beyond these limitations, we would encourage more research that investigates the relative

predictive power of the Big Five in comparison to Type A and B personality in addition to the
interaction of these dispositional variables with other types of resource moderators (Hyde et al

2020; Wille et al., 2013). We revealed that ability-based EI and the resources it generates can matter

to all types of WFC and FWC but more work is required to identify its relative value to each

dimension of WFC/FWC. In addition, there is major scope to investigate the value of personality in

the context of Covid 19. For example, researchers can explore the following questions: Have levels

of WFC and FWC changed during the pandemic? To what extent have the different categories of

WFC and FWC changed during the pandemic and have some categories assumed greater

importance? Are there differences in the experience of WFC and FWC for employees in extremely

integrated (where there is regular performance of work related to one’s job while at home) or

segmented work and family situations (Allen et al 2014)? Have particular groups such as mothers

and single parents experienced greater WFC and FWC? Have high levels of EI assumed greater

importance as a personal resource in coping with these issues in the context of the pandemic?

These intriguing questions can be explored in the context of Covid 19.

Practical Implications

HRD, learning and development practitioners are increasingly interested in the role of ability-

based EI and the development of interventions and training programs to enhance it. It appears that

EI is good for both individuals and organizations (Brunetto et al., 2012; Lee, 2017). Our study findings

offer guidance to HRD, learning and development professionals.

Of particular significance is that our findings highlight that ability-based EI can function as a

restorative resource to address resource loss situations and as an additive resource to address

resource gain situations. Managers in our study benefited from high levels of ability-based EI and it

suggests that managers and organizations can reap its benefits in managing WFC and FWC.

However, the development of EI through organisational interventions and training activities will

likely require an ongoing investment of resources to assess the needs of managers in this area and

the development of appropriate interventions. EI training interventions can help managers and
employees to be more skilled in utilizing in utilizing EI strategies when they encounter WFC and FWC

issues. These training interventions can include workshops, mentoring supportive coaching and the

development of a positive culture to decrease the perceptions of WFC and FWC. The meta evidence

(Hodzic et al., 2017; Mattingly & Kraiger, 2018) suggest that when designing these programs HRD

practitioners should be focused on helping managers to understand their emotions and to develop

strategies to control their emotions in conflict situations. Our findings also have implications for

the way in which organizations undertake the socialization of managers and the development of EI.

Furthermore, organizations can use socialization and induction processes to make managers aware

of how their personality characteristics are important in terms of how they respond to WFC issues.

These HRD implications are potentially more challenging in the context of the global pandemic. For

example, the delivery of HRD interventions to provide employees with insights of their EI

characteristics is potentially more difficult to undertake in an on-line delivery situation. In addition,

there may be a need for HRD practitioners to develop more customized and individualized solutions

to provide better support to employees with different family situations given that the experiences

of these groups will likely diverge.

Finally, there may be value in HRD professionals focusing on the development of

organisational cultures where WFC and FWC issues are addressed and supported and where EI is

promoted to combat work-family conflicts. While we positioned ability-based EI as a personal

resource that can help address WFC and FWC it will likely be most effective where it is supported

by a culture than encourages the demonstration of EI and supports the individual.

CONCLUSION

In this paper we investigated the relationship between Type A and B personality and both

WFC and FWC and the moderating role of ability-based E in the context of managers working in ICT

in India. From our results remerged a differentiated view of the impacts of Type A and B as resource

loss and gain scenarios respectively. Type A personality is positively related to time, strain and
behavior based WFC and FWC whereas Type B is negatively related to these types of work-family

conflict. Ability based EI performs both restorative and additive functions in the context of both

personality types. We hope that this delineation of the value of Type A and B personality as an

alternative to the focus on the Big 5 will inspire future research on WFC and FWC in organizations.
 REFERENCES
Aboobaker, N., & Edward, M. (2020). Collective Influence of Work–Family Conflict and Work–Family
Enrichment on Turnover Intention: Exploring the Moderating Effects of Individual
Differences. Global Business Review, 21, 1218-1231.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919857015
Akintayo, D.I. (2010). Work-family role conflict and organizational commitment among industrial
workers in Nigeria. International Journal of Psychology and Counselling, 2, 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244017725794
Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E., Bruck, C.S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-
to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 5, 278-308. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.5.2.278
Allen, T.D. (2012). The work–family interface. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
organizational psychology (1163–1198). New York: Oxford University Press
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928286.013.0034
Allen, T.D., Cho, E., & Meier, L.L. (2014.) WorkFamily Boundary Dynamics. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 99-121.
Allen, T.D., & Martin, A. (2017). The work family interface: A retrospective look at 20 years of
research in JOHP. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22, 259-272.
https://doi:10.1037/ocp0000065
Andreassi, J., & Thompson, C. (2007). Dispositional and situational sources of control: Relative
impact on work-family conflict and positive spillover. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
22, 722-740. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710837697
Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of life: antecedents and outcomes of work-
family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 132-146.
https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.132
Aycan, Z. (2005). The interplay between cultural and institutional/structural contingencies in human
resource management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 16, 1083-1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500143956
Bhalla, A., & Kang, L.S. (2020). The Role of Personality in Influencing Work–Family Balance
Experience: A Study of Indian Journalists. Global Business Review, 21, 1037-1050.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0972150918779157
Bharathi, S.V., & Mala, E.P. (2016). A Study on the Determinants of Work–Life Balance of Women
Employees in Information Technology Companies in India. Global Business Review, 17,
665-683. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0972150916630847
Biggart, L., Corr, P., O’Brien, M., & Cooper, N. (2010). Trait emotional intelligence and work–
family conflict in fathers. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 911-916.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.020
Blanch, A., & Aluja, A. (2009). Work, family and personality: A study of work–family conflict.
Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 520-524.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.004
Boyd, D., & Begley, T. (1987). Assessing the Type A behaviour pattern with the Jenkins Activity
Survey. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 60, 155-161.
Burke, R.J., Weir, T., & DuWors, R.E., Jr. (1979). Type A behavior of administrators and wives' reports
of marital satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 57-65.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.1.57
Burke, R.J., & Weir, T. (1980). Personality, value and behavioral correlates of the Type A
individual. Psychological Reports, 46, 171-181.
https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.1980.46.1.171
Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work–family conflict. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 3, 287-302.
Bruck, C.S., & Allen, T.D. (2003). The relationship between big five personality traits, negative
affectivity, type A behavior, and work–family conflict. Journal of vocational Behavior,
63, 457-472. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00040-4
Brunetto, Y., Teo, S.T., Shacklock, K., & Farr‐Wharton, R. (2012), Emotional intelligence, job
satisfaction, well‐being and engagement: explaining organisational commitment and
turnover intentions in policing. Human Resource Management Journal, 22, 428-441.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2012.00198.x
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-
multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0046016
Carlson, D.S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work–family
conflict. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 55, 236-253.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., & Williams, L.J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a
multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56,
249-276. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior
and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 18, 788-813. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940310511881
Carver, C.S., Coleman, A.E., & Glass, D.C. (1976). The coronary-prone behavior pattern and the
suppression of fatigue on a treadmill test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
33, 460-466. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.33.4.460
Clark, M.A., Early, R.J., Baltes, B.B., & Krenn, D. (2019). Work-Family Behavioral Role Conflict:
Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34,39-53.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249273
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R.D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive
construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.4.989
Day, A.L., Therrien, D.L., & Carroll, S.A. (2005). Predicting psychological health: Assessing the
incremental validity of emotional intelligence beyond personality, Type A behaviour, and
daily hassles. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of
Personality Psychology, 19, 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9282565
Dhar, U., & Jain, M. (2001). Manual for type A/B behavior pattern scale (ABBPS). India: Lucknow
Ankur Psychological Agency.
Furnham, A. (1990). The Type A Behaviour Pattern and the Perception of Self. Personality and
Individual Differences, 11, 841-851. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90194-V
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Friedman, M. (1974). Treating Type A behavior and your heart. Fawceff Crest.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(87)90044-4
Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R.H. (1959). Association of specific overt behavior pattern with blood
and cardiovascular findings: blood cholesterol level, blood clotting time, incidence of arcus
senilis, and clinical coronary artery disease. Journal of the American Medical Association,
169, 1286-1296. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1959.03000290012005
Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Type A behavior and your heart. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77, 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.65
Garavan, T., McCarthy, A., Sheehan, M., Lai, Y., Saunders, M.N.K., Clarke, N., Carbery, R., &
Shanahan, V. (2019). Measuring the organizational impact of training: The need for greater
methodological rigor. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30, 291-309.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21345
Geßler, S., Nezlek, J.B., & Schütz, A. (2020). Training emotional intelligence: Does training in basic
emotional abilities help people to improve higher emotional abilities? The Journal of
Positive Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1738537
Gelfand, M.J., Aycan, Z., Erez, M., & Leung, K. (2017). Cross-cultural industrial organizational
psychology and organizational behavior: A hundred-year journey. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102, 514-529. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000186
Glass, D.C. (1977). Behavior patterns, stress, and coronary disease. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greenhaus, J.H., & Beutell, N.J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 6-88. https://doi.org/10.2307/258214
Guy, M.E., & Lee, H.J. (2015). How Emotional Intelligence Mediates Emotional Labor in Public Service
Jobs. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35, 261-277.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13514095
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing
theory and Practice, 19, 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Halbesleben J.R., Harvey J., & Bolino M.C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view
of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 1452‐1465. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017595
Halbesleben, J.R., Neveu, J.P., Paustian-Underdahl, S.C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the
“COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of
Management, 40, 1334-1364. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206314527130
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44, 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S.E. (1998). The psychology and philosophy of stress, culture, and community. New York.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2010). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health, and
resilience. The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping, 127-147.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 116-122.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02016.x
Hobfoll, S.E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P. (1990). Conservation of social resources: Social
support resource theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 465-478.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265407509105524
Hobfoll, S.E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in
the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103-128.
https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-032117-104640
Hodzic, S., Scharfen, J., Ripoll, P., Holling, H., & Zenasni, F. (2017). How efficient are emotional
intelligence trainings: a meta-analysis. Emotion Review, 10, 138-148.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1754073917708613
Ivancevich, J.M., & Matteson, M.T. (1984). A type AB person-work environment interaction
model for examining occupational stress and consequences. Human Relations, 37,
491-513. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872678403700701
Jain, A.K. (2012). Does emotional intelligence predict impression management? Journal of
Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 16, 11-24.
Jain, S., & Nair, S.K. (2017). Work Support and Family Support as Predictors of Work-to-family
Enrichment and Family-to-work Enrichment. Global Business Review, 18, 1307-
1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150917710332
Jain, K., & Pasricha, D. (2017). Role of color and typography in determining brand personality.
Indian Journal of Marketing, 47, 48-62.
https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom%2F2017%2Fv47%2Fi5%2F114240
Jordan, P.J., & Troth, A.C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional
intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17, 195-218.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15327043hup1702_4
Kang, L.S., & Sandhu, R.S. (2012). Impact of stress on health: A study of bank branch managers in
India. Global Business Review, 13, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/097215091201300207
Kappagoda, U.S. (2014). Emotional intelligence as a predictor of work-family conflict among
school teachers in North Central Province in Sri Lanka. IUP Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 53-68.
Keenan, A., & McBain, G.D.M. (1979). Effects of Type A behaviour, intolerance of ambiguity,
and locus of control on the relationship between role stress and work‐related outcomes.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 277-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8325.1979.tb00462.x
Kossek, E., Lewis, S., & Hammer, L.B. (2010). Work—life initiatives and organizational change:
Overcoming mixed messages to move from the margin to the mainstream. Human
Relations, 63, 3-19. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0018726709352385
Koydemir, S., Şimşek, Ö.F., Schütz, A., & Tipandjan, A. (2013). Differences in how trait emotional
intelligence predicts life satisfaction: The role of affect balance versus social support in
India and Germany. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 51-66.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10902-011-9315-1
Lee, H. J. (2018). How emotional intelligence relates to job satisfaction and burnout in public service
jobs. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84, 729-745.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852316670489
Lee, C., Ashford, S. J., & Bobko, P. (1990). Interactive effects of "Type A" behavior and perceived
control on worker performance, job satisfaction, and somatic complaints. Academy of
Management Journal, 33, 870–881. https://doi.org/10.2307/256296
Lenaghan, J.A., Buda, R., & Eisner, A.B. (2007). An examination of the role of emotional
intelligence in work and family conflict. Journal of Managerial Issues, 76-94.
Lu, J.-F., Siu, O.-L., Spector, P.E., & Shi, K. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of a fourfold
taxonomy of work-family balance in Chinese employed parents. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 14, 182–192. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0014115
MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L.E.R., Double, K.S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. (2020). Emotional
intelligence predicts academic performance: A meta-analysis. Psychology Bulletin,
146, 150‐186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000219
Madan, P., & Srivastava, S. (2017). Assessing the impact of demographic variables on mentoring-
managerial effectiveness relationship: An empirical study of Indian bank managers. Gender
in Management, 32, 369-383. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-03-2016-0036
Mansour, S., & Tremblay, D.G. (2018). Work–family conflict/family–work conflict, job stress,
burnout and intention to leave in the hotel industry in Quebec (Canada): moderating role
of need for family friendly practices as “resource passageways”. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 29, 2399-2430.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1239216
Matthews, K.A., & Brunson, B.I. (1979). Allocation of attention and the Type A coronary-prone
behavior pattern. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2081-2090.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2081
Mattingly, V., & Kraiger, K. (2018). Can emotional intelligence be trained? A meta-analytical
investigation. Human Resource Management Review, 29, 140-155.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.03.002
Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey and D. Sluyter (Eds),
Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications, New
York: Basic Books, 3-34. https://10.12691/education-1-6-8
Mayer, J.D., Roberts, R.D., & Barsade, S.G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional Intelligence.
Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646
Michel, J.S., & Hargis, M.B. (2008). Linking mechanisms of work-family conflict and segmentation.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 509-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.005
Michel, J.S., Clark, M.A., & Jaramillo, D. (2011). The role of the Five Factor Model of personality in
the perceptions of negative and positive forms of work–nonwork spillover: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 191–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.010
Miao, C., Humphrey, R.H., & Qian, S. (2020). The cross‐cultural moderators of the influence of
emotional intelligence on organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive
work behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21385
Mishra, P. (2015). A grounded theory study on family-to-work enrichment: Exploring links with
family resources, community resources, work-role salience and psychological capital.
South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 4, 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJGBR-
07-2014-0052
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–
family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
400-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
Nohe C., Meier L.L., Sonntag K., & Michel A. (2015). The chicken or the egg? a meta-analysis of
panel studies of the relationship between work-family conflict and strain. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 100, 522–536. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038012
Park, H., O’Rourke, E., & O'Brien, K. (2014). Extending conservation of resources theory: The
interaction between emotional labor and interpersonal influence. International Journal of
Stress Management, 21. https://384-405.10.1037/a0038109
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Powell, G.N., Greenhaus, J., Allen, T.D., & Johnson, R.E. (2018). Advancing and Expanding Work-
Life Theory from Multiple Perspectives. The Academy of Management Review, 44, 172-
193. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0310
Ray, J.J., & Bozek, R. (1980). Dissecting the A-B Personality Type. British Journal of Medical
Psychology, 53, 181-186.
Rosenman, R. H. (1977). History and definition of the Type A coronary-prone behaviour pattern. In
Proceedings of the Forum on Coronary-Prone Behaviour (ed. Dembroski, T. M.), 13–17.
DHEW Publication no. (NIH) 78-1451. Washington, D.C.
Rosenman, R.H. (1991). Type A behavior pattern and coronary heart disease: The hostility factor?
Stress Medicine, 7, 245-253. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/smi.2460070407
Rubenstein, A.L., Peltokorpi, V., & Allen, D.G. (2020). Work-home and home-work conflict and
voluntary turnover: A conservation of resources explanation for contrasting moderation
effects of on- and off-the-job embeddedness, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103413
Saklofske, D.H., Austin, E.J., & Minski, P.S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional
intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 707-721.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00056-9
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9,
185-211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Simunek, M., Hollander, S., & McKenley, J. (2002). Characteristic
emotional intelligence and emotional wellbeing. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 769-786.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930143000482
Shockley, K.M., & Allen, T.D. (2013). Episodic work–family conflict, cardiovascular indicators,
and social support: An experience sampling approach. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 18, 262-275. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033137
Sy, T., Tram, S., & O’Hara, L.A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence
to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 461-473.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.003
Tao, C-W., & Kwon, J. (2019). "Exploring restaurant service sabotage behaviors in the U.S.".
Journal of Foodservice Management and Education, 13, 20-27.
Thoits, P.A. (1992). ‘‘Identity Structures and Psychological Well-Being: Gender and Marital Status
Comparisons.’’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 55,236-56.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786794
Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1992). On traits and temperament: general and specific factors of
emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60,
441–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00980.x
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-
family experience: Relationships of the big five to work–family conflict and facilitation.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108-130.
Wayne, J.H., Butts, M.M., Casper, W.J., & Allen, T.D. (2017). In search of balance: A conceptual
and empirical integration of multiple meanings of work–family balance. Personnel
Psychology, 70, 167-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12132
Williams, J.C., Berdahl, J.L., & Vandello, J.A. (2016). Beyond work-life “integration.” Annual
Review of Psychology, 67, 515-539. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-psych-
122414-033710
Wille, B., de Fruyt, F., & Feys, M. (2013). Big Five traits and intrinsic success in the New York career
era: A 15-year longitudinal study on employability and work-family conflict. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 62, 124-156.
Wong, C.S., & Law, K.S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on
performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243-
274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843%2802%2900099-1
Zyzanski, S.J., & Jenkins, C.D., 1970. Basic dimensions within the coronary-prone behavior
pattern. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 22, 781-795. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-
9681(70)90080-9
 FIGURE 1: RESEARCH MODEL

Emotional
Intelligence

Time- based FWC

Type A Personality Strain-based FWC
Behavior-based FWC

Time- based WFC

Type B Personality Strain-based WFC
Behavior-based WFC
 Figure 2 (a): WFC-Types Moderation Slopes
5 5 5

4.5 4.5 4.5

4 4 4

Behavior Based WFC

Time Based WFC

Strain Based WFC

3.5 3.5 3.5

3 3 3

2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1
Low Type A High Type A Low TYPE A High TYPE A Low TYPE A High TYPE A

Low EI Low EI Low EI

High EI High EI High EI

5 5 5

4.5 4.5 4.5

4 4 4

Behavior Based WFC

Time Based WFC

Strain Based WFC

3.5 3.5 3.5

3 3 3

2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1
Low TYPE B High TYPE B Low TYPE B High TYPE B Low TYPE B High TYPE B

Low EI Low EI Low EI

High EI High EI High EI
 Figure 2 (b0: FWC-Types Moderation Slopes
5 5 5

4.5 4.5 4.5

4 4 4

STRAIN BASED FWC

BEHAVIOUR BASED FWC

TIME BASED FWC

3.5 3.5 3.5

3 3 3

2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1
Low Type A High Type A Low Type A High Type A Low Type A High Type A
Low EI Low EI Low EI
High EI High EI High EI

5 5 5

4.5 4.5 4.5

4 4 4
STRAIN BASED FWC

BEHAVIOUR BASED FWC

TIME BASED FWC

3.5 3.5 3.5

3 3 3

2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1
Low Type B High Type B Low Type B High Type B Low Type B High Type B
Low EI Low EI Low EI
High EI High EI High EI
 Figure 3: WFC & FWC Moderation of EI
5 5

4.5 4.5

4 4
FAMILY WORK CONFLICT

FAMILY WORK CONFLICT

3.5 3.5

3 3

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1
Low TYPE B High TYPE B Low TYPE A High TYPE A

Low EI Low EI
High EI High EI

5 5

4.5 4.5

4 4
WORK FAMILY CONFLICT

WORK FAMILY CONFLICT

3.5 3.5

3 3

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1
Low TYPE B High TYPE B Low TYPE A High TYPE A

Low EI Low EI
High EI High EI

37
 Table 1: Reliability and Convergent Validity Analysis
S.No. Item Factor Loading Range Cronbach alpha AVE CR
1 Type A Personality 0.70-0.85 .89 .80 .85
2 Type B Personality 0.76-0.80 .78 .71 .83
3 Emotional Intelligence 0.76-0.81 .80 .72 .82
4 Work-Family Conflict 0.71-0.83 .72 .74 .77
5 Family-Work Conflict 0.74-0.78 .76 .74 .74
6 Time based Work-Family Conflict 0.73-0.80 .70 .71 .70
7 Strain based Work Family Conflict 0.75-0.78 .72 .73 .74
8 Behavior based Work Family Conflict 0.77-0.83 .84 .80 .82
Source: Authors’ Survey

38
 Table 2: Fornell-Larcker Criterion: Descriptive statistics, correlations, and discriminant validity (N=305)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.Gender 1
2.Experience .03 1
3.Type A .05 .19* .89
4.Type B -.00 -.00 -.11* .84
5.EI -.12 -.15* -.25** .17* .84
6.TIME .07 .09 .56** -.11* -.20** .84
7.STRAIN .04 .16* .60** -.21** -.42** -.35** .85
8.BEHAVIOR .03 .23** .30** -.23** -.53** .32** .41** .89
9.WFC .02 .19 .69** -.16* -.42** .74** .69** .72** .87
10.FWC .07 .16* .41** -.37** -.38** .57** .58** .69** .58** .86
Mean 1.42 1.43 3.26 3.24 4.12 3.22 3.26 4.11 3.88 4.24
SD .49 .82 1.02 .48 1.24 .96 .68 .94 .82 .44
Note: Pearson correlations: *p ≤ 0.01 **p ≤ 0.01; Discriminant Validity (Square root of AVE) is shown in bold diagonally

39
 Table 3: Moderated Regression Analysis: Time-Strain-Behavior Based WFC
Criterion: Time-Based WFC Criterion: Strain-Based WFC Criterion: Behavior-Based WFC
Variables Beta Adj R2 F Change Beta Adj R2 F Change Beta Adj R2 F Change
Step1
Control Variables 0.03 1.96 0.04 3.28 0.06 4.79
Gender 0.07 0.02 0.03
Marital Status -0.03 0.05 0.03
Experience -0.02 0.04 0.20**
Age 0.13* 0.18** 0.05
Organization 0.01 0.02
Step 2
Predictor Variable
Type A 0.57** 0.30 133.73 0.60** 0.36 172.94 0.31** 0.10 31.72
Type B -0.11* 0.01 3.94 -0.22** 0.05 14.90 -0.23** 0.04 17.34
Step 3
Moderator
EI -0.20** 0.04 12.56 -0.42** 0.18 65.97 -0.53** 0.28 117.17
Step 4
Interaction
Type A*EI 0.36** 0.13 45.13 0.28** 0.08 25.66 -0.09 0.01 3.02
Type B*EI -0.21** 0.05 14.30 -0.45** 0.20 77.44 -0.53** 0.28 115.64
Note: **p ≤ 0.01; **p ≤ 0.05

40
 Table 4: Moderated Regression Analysis: Time-Strain-Behavior Based FWC
Criterion: Time Based FWC Criterion: Strain Based FWC Criterion: Behavior Based FWC
Beta Adj R2 F Change Beta Adj R2 F Change Beta Adj R2 F Change
Variables
Step1
Control Variables 0.03 3.31 0.03 2.63 0.06 4.79
Gender 0.12 0.02 0.03
Marital Status 0.00 0.11 0.03
Experience 0.00 -0.07 0.20**
Age 0.16* 0.15** 0.05
Organization 0.11 -0.09
Step 2
Predictor Variable
Type A 0.60** 0.37 64.98 0.46** 0.25 43.24 0.49** 0.27 51.72
Type B -0.26** 0.06 21.34 -.05** 0.00 0.60 -0.25** 0.20 77.23
Step 3
Moderator
EI -0.18** 0.22 35.54 -.22** 0.28 55.97 -0.27** 0.38 67.17
Step 4
Interaction
Type A*EI 0.30** 0.43 14.14 0.28** 0.43 45.66 0.29** 0.17 33.02
Type B*EI -0.43** 0.26 5.44 0-.25** 0.20 27.36 -0.44** 0.32 81.36
Note: **p ≤ 0.01; **p ≤ 0.05

41
 Table 5: Moderated Regression Analysis: WFC and FWC
Criterion Variable: WFC Criterion Variable: FWC
Beta ΔR2 F Change Beta ΔR2 F Change
Variables
Step 1
Control Variables 0.05 3.66 0.04 3.07
Gender 0.01 0.06
Marital status 0.05 -0.03
Experience 0.12 0.05
Age 0.13 0.11
Organization 0.02 -0.01
Step 2
Predictor Variable
Type A 0.69** 0.48 278.42 0.41** 0.17 62.38
Type B -0.16* 0.02 8.64 -0.36** 0.13 46.88
Step 3
Moderator
EI -0.43** 0.18 68.07 -0.38** 0.15 52.13
Step 4
Interaction
Type A*EI 0.32** 0.10 33.89 0.12* 0.02 4.28
Type B*EI 0.36** 0.13 47.75 -0.49** 0.24 97.03
Note: **p ≤ 0.01; **p ≤ 0.05

42