Excess and Defect: How Job-Family Responsibilities Congruence Effect the Employee Procrastination Behavior

Figures & data

Figure 1 The four different scenarios of (in) congruence in job-family responsibilities.

Figure 2 Conceptual model.

Table 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results

Model	χ2	df	χ2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Four-factor model	817.58	293	2.79	0.92	0.91	0.07	0.04
Three-factor model	1428.59	296	4.83	0.82	0.80	0.11	0.08
Two-factor model	2356.59	298	7.91	0.67	0.64	0.15	0.11
One-factor model	3318.87	299	11.10	0.52	0.48	0.18	0.15

Notes: The four-factor model includes JR, FR, EE, and EPB. The three-factor model includes JR + FR, EE, and EPB. The three-factor model includes JR + FR, and EE + EPB. The two-factor model includes JR + FR, and EE + EPB. The one-factor model includes JR + FR+EE+EPB.

Abbreviations: JR, job responsibility; FR, family responsibility; EE, emotional exhaustion; EPB, employee procrastination behavior.

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations for the Variables

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.Age	31.54	9.45
2.Gender	1.57	0.50	0.04
3.Education	5.00	3.11	−0.25**	0.04
4.Tenure	5.00	2.57	0.82**	0.03	−0.24**
5.JR	3.93	0.69	0.11	−0.01	−0.12*	0.11*	0.86
6.FR	4.05	0.82	0.08	−0.02	−0.10	0.08	0.39**	0.81
7.EE	2.82	1.10	−0.39**	0.02	0.28**	−0.41**	−0.37**	−0.30**	0.81
8.EPB	2.83	0.92	−0.29**	0.04	0.08	−0.31**	−0.39**	−0.22**	0.52**	0.93

Notes: Sample size= 323. The Square root of AVE on the diagonal. Reliability coefficients appear on the diagonal in bold; **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

Abbreviations: JR, job responsibility; FR, family responsibility; EE, emotional exhaustion; EPB, employee procrastination behavior.

Table 3 Polynomial Regressions of EPB on Responsibilities (in)congruence

Variable	Statistic	Model 1	Model 2	Model3
Constant		3.43***	3.48***	3.64***
Gender		−0.01	−0.01	−0.01
Age		0.09	0.08	0.05
Education		−0.01	−0.04	−0.05
Tenure		−0.19*	−0.15*	−0.13*
JR	b1		−0.49***	−0.46***
FR	b2		−0.08	−0.15*
JR^2	b3			−0.23**
JR×FR	b4			0.22**
FR^2	b5			−0.07
RR^2		0.10	0.23	0.26
ΔR^2		0.10***	0.13***	0.03*

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

Abbreviations: JR, job responsibility; FR, family responsibility; EPB, employee procrastination behavior.

Table 4 Response Surface Coefficient Test

Estimated Parameters	Statistic	EPB
Congruence line (JR=FR)
Slope	a1 (= b1+b2)	−0.41***
Curvature	a2 (=b3+b4+b5)	−0.10
Incongruence line (JR = -FR)
Slope	a3 (= b1-b2)	−0.25*
Curvature	a4 (= b3-b4+b5)	−0.45**

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

Abbreviations: JR, job responsibility; FR, family responsibility; EPB, employee procrastination behavior.

Figure 3 (In)congruence effect of job-family responsibilities on EPB.

Table 5 Supplemental Analysis Results from Tests of Indirect Effect of Responsibilities on EPB

Variable	Responsibilities (Block Variable) to EE	EE to EPB	Indirect Effect of Responsibilities (Block Variable) to EBP
	“α” Path	“β” Path	“αβ”
Unstandardized Results	0.57***	0.35***	0.20***
Bias-Corrected Bootstrapped CI for Indirect Effect			[0.14, 0.27]

Notes: Sample size=323. Bootstrap n= 10,000; ***p < 0.001.

Abbreviations: EE, emotional exhaustion; EPB, employee procrastination behavior.

Table 6 Results of mediating effect test

Variables	First Half Path Coefficient	Second Half Path Coefficient	Mediation Effect	Conditional Indirect Effect (95% Bootstrapped CI)
High JR & High FR on EBP via EE	−3.09***	0.33***	−1.02	[−1.43, −0.70]
Low JR & Low FR on EBP via EE	−0.62***	0.33***	−0.20	[−0.29, −0.14]
High JR & Low FR on EBP via EE	−2.27***	0.33***	−0.75	[−1.11, −0.49]
Low JR & High FR on EBP via EE	−1.44***	0.33***	−0.47	[−0.75, −0.27]

Notes: Conditional indirect effects were established by checking the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the deviation of the indirect effects corrected by using 1000 bootstrap samples for the conditional values of JR and FR (ie, high value = 5, low value = 1); ***p < 0.001.

Abbreviations: JR, job responsibility; FR, family responsibility; EE, emotional exhaustion; EPB, employee procrastination behavior.