Does extant work-family research generalize to African Nations? Meta-analytic tests

ABSTRACT

This study explores the question of the generalizability of extant work-family research, most of which has been conducted in Western cultural contexts, to workers in African nations. We conducted a meta-analysis of African research (55 studies, N = 16,162), comparing means for work-family conflict (WFC) and enrichment (WFE) to those same means in Western studies, finding no difference. We also compared the magnitude of the relations between WFC and WFE and their common correlates (e.g., strain, support, and attitudes) in Africa with the West, finding some differences in effect sizes. We speculate these differences could be due to African contexts, specifically the influence of the family system, economic insecurity, and blurring of roles. We conclude with a caution against transporting Western work-family evidence to African workplaces without consideration of sociocultural factors.

KEYWORDS:

• developing cultural contexts
• work-family conflict
• work-family enrichment
• meta-analysis

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The terms the West and the Global North generally represent the economically developed societies of Europe, North America and Australasia. In contrast, The Global South implies less developed countries which are listed in the lower part of international development indexes and some of which are formerly colonised countries affected by international aid agendas. These include many African nations, Mexico, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and others (Global South Studies Centre, 2017). The historical power of this dichotomy has resulted in scholars and other elites of the West not only generating more academic knowledge but also has traditionally meant that the West's knowledge seemingly speaks for (or over) non-Western cultures (Berger, 1997).

2 Following previous research (Schaffer & Riordan, 2003), we rely on nation (Continent) as proxy for cultural difference, although we acknowledge this is an imperfect proxy given cases of large within-country and cross-country cultural variation in Africa as well as cases where countries are quite homogenous. We acknowledge grouping workers’ experiences from all African nations together in this way is potentially problematic (Mokomane, 2018).

3 As a further test, we noted that the means obtained from our supplementary meta-analyses were similar to means reported in Western meta-analyses. The mean we calculated for scores on WFC (m = 2.84) and FWC (m = 2.12) were similar to those reported in Spector et al.'s (2007) cross-national study for Anglo/North American samples: 2.38 for WFC. Similarly Amstad et al.'s (2011) meta-analysis of predominantly North American studies reported a WFC mean of 2.71. These authors also reported a North American mean of 2.12 for FWC, which was identical to the Western mean we meta-analytically calculated of 2.12. Therefore, we had a great deal of confidence in the rigour of the mean values to which we compared our African scores.

4 Oluwafemi’s categorization puts nations into groups according to wealth, development, income inequality, and freedom indices. The Global North or West group tends to be wealthier, is considered to be more democratic and technologically advanced, and the Global South or East group is more likely to include developing countries with younger democracies and frequently a post-colonial history.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jenny M. Hoobler

Jenny M. Hoobler is Professor of Human Resource Management and Doctoral Programs Manager at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. She received her PhD in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management from the University of Kentucky (USA). Her research explores work and family intersections, abusive supervision, and gender and diversity in organizations.

Suzanne Gericke

Suzanne Gericke is a lecturer and doctoral student in Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. She is a registered Industrial Psychologist with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA). Her research explores work and family intersections, abusive supervision, dark personality, and counterproductive work behaviour.

Eileen Koekemoer

Eileen Koekemoer is Associate Professor of Human Resource Management at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. She is a registered Industrial Psychologist with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA). Her areas of research include work-life interaction, career success, and the well-being of employees. She is the mother of three daughters and constantly juggles her own work-life balance between her children and her career as an academic researcher.