Article

The Role of Personality in Influencing Global Business Review

21(3) 1–14
Work–Family Balance Experience: © 2018 IMI
SAGE Publications

A Study of Indian Journalists sagepub.in/home.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0972150918779157
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/gbr

Abha Bhalla1
Lakhwinder Singh Kang2

Abstract
While an increasing body of research has investigated the situational factors affecting balancing of
work and family roles, there is still scarcity of research on the relationship between personal factors
and work -family balance (WFB). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to estimate the effect of big
five personality traits (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and
neuroticism) on the four dimensions of WFB i.e. work-to-family conflict [WFC], family-to-work conflict
[FWC], work-to-family facilitation [WFF] and family-to-work facilitation [FWF] among Indian journalists.
From the perspective of WFB, journalists are regarded as an interesting group that has rarely been
examined by the scholars. The study validated the ‘fourfold WFB scale and ‘big five personality’ scale
in the Indian context. Further, results revealed that big five personality variables emerged as significant
predictor set for all the four dimensions of WFB. Unexpectedly, conscientiousness did not reduce WFC,
given the unpredictable nature of journalism that pressurizes even a conscientious journalist to sacrifice
his family life and work lousy hours. Openness behaved like a double-edged sword that escalate both
conflict and facilitation experiences. However, extraversion did not increase facilitation experience
for journalists. These findings suggest media organizations to conduct personality test for recruiting
suitable candidates, whose personality traits make them best suited to the stressors of journalism
profession. Moreover, knowledge of employees’ personality traits may increase the effectiveness of
organizational interventions that aims to enhance employees’ WFB.

Keywords
Personality, big five, work–family balance, conflict, facilitation, gender, journalists, India

1
Senior Research Scholar, Department of Commerce, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India.
2
Professor, Department of Commerce, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India.

Corresponding author:
Abha Bhalla, Senior Research Scholar, Department of Commerce, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar 143001, Punjab, India.
E-mail: abha_bhalla53@yahoo.co.in
2 Global Business Review 21(3)

Introduction
Over the last two decades, India has gone through remarkable changes that need to delve into the
balancing of work and family roles (Bhargava & Baral, 2009; Kang & Sandhu, 2012; Mishra, 2015).
Unprecedented technological advancements, service intensive globalization, trend towards long working
hours, rising employment of mothers, increasing percentage of dual earner and single-parent households
have indeed challenged employees to achieve equilibrium between their work and family roles. For the
occupation like journalism, attaining work–family balance is far more challenging (MacDonald, Saliba,
Hodgins, & Ovington, 2016).
The nature of journalism induces its employees to work at unpredictable hours, travel in all weathers,
miss festivals and holidays, meet daily deadlines, witness disasters and face immediate audience negative
feedback and so on, which altogether makes their job unfriendly to family life (Monteiro, Marques Pinto,
& Roberto, 2016; Reinardy, 2009). In addition, Fedler (2004) asserted that sleep deprivation, irregular
meals, rapid changes in technology, frequent travelling, irregular working hours, exposure to traumatizing
events and lots of stress are the intrinsic characteristics of the journalism profession, which affect
attainment of desired work–family balance for journalists. Given that India score high on the cultural
dimension of collectivism (i.e., people have a high preference for belonging to a larger social framework
that includes family, relatives, neighbours and work groups), thus striking a balance between work and
family roles has become an important concern for Indian journalists. The Associated Chambers of
Commerce and Industry of India (2007) survey also revealed that stress has intensified in recent times
among top- and middle-level positions in electronic and print media sector due to blurring boundary
between their work–home domains. Although little research exists at the global level that addressed
journalists’ work–family balance issues (Monteiro et al., 2016; Reinardy, 2009), however, such studies
are rare to find in the Indian context.
Further, work–family research in the Indian context focuses largely on the environmental sources
(i.e., job-related and family-related factors) of work–family conflict (WFC) and work–family facilitation
(WFF)—the two psychological aspects that together compose work–family balance (Aryee, Srinivas, &
Tan, 2005; Bhargava & Baral, 2009; Mishra, 2015). Therefore, it is important to look beyond environ-
mental factors and explore other resources that may be associated with work–family balance. Andreassi
and Thompson (2007) found that personality traits explain much variance in WFC and WFF than
environmental variables. In the Indian context, Bharathi and Mala (2016) observed that the personal
factors impact perception of women employees’ work–life balance experience more than the profes-
sional factors. However, perusal of existing literature substantiates that the relationship between person-
ality and work–family balance is still at the infancy stage. Against this backdrop, this study extends prior
research by testing personal resources (i.e., personality traits) in relation to complete work–family
balance. At the present time, when India led the world in terms of newspaper circulation with nearly
330 million copies in daily circulation (The World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
Report, 2011), thus there remains a need to address ‘work–family balance’ concern of journalists. Recently,
Monteiro et al.’s (2016) meta-analytic study on the stressors of print media journalists highlighted that
attaining desired ‘work–family balance’ is the major occupational stressor for journalists that adversely
impact their well-being and they urge for further research on the individual differences (personality, gender)
in the journalists’ work–family experience. Therefore, the present study is an effort in this direction.
The remainder of this article is laid out as follows. The second section reports the related literature
and theoretical foundation for the study. The third section details the methodology used in this article,
while the fourth section deals with analysis and results of the study. The fifth section discusses the
findings and also provides implications for practice. The sixth section concludes the article and brings
out the directions for future research.
Bhalla and Kang 3

Review of Literature
To understand the linkage between personality traits and work–family balance experience, the present
study draws upon Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources (COR) theory that posits ‘individual seek
to acquire and protect resources and stress occurs when there is a threat, actual loss or lack of an expected
gain in the resources’. Resources are broadly divided into two categories—contextual and personal that
enhance individual’s general resistance to stress (Hobfoll, 2002). Contextual resources are located
outside the self and can be found in the social context of an individual (e.g., job characteristics, decision-
making power and social support), while personal resources are proximate to the self and remain fairly
stable over time (e.g., personality traits) (Hobfoll, 2002). The role of personal resources has been recently
getting attention in the work–family literature (Blanch & Aluja, 2009; Boyar & Mosley, 2007; Braunstein-
Bercovitz, Frish-Burstein, & Benjamin, 2012). Using insights from COR theory, Ten Brummelhuis and
Bakker (2012) argued that individuals with more of personal resources optimally utilize their contextual
resources and are more likely to experience WFF and less likely to experience WFC.
Work–family conflict is described as the process of resource depletion, whereby participation in one
domain drains most of the resources (which are not replenished at the same rate) that impedes perfor-
mance of the other domain. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined WFC as ‘an inter role conflict where
work and family roles are incompatible and seen as competing for an individual’s resources’. It implies
bidirectional nature, such that WFC arises when resources spent at work interfere with family perfor-
mance and family-to-work conflict (FWC) occurs when resources spent at family interfere with work
performance. On the other hand, WFF is described as the process of resource accumulation, whereby
participation in one domain replenishes the resource reservoir that subsequently facilitates the perfor-
mance of the other domain. Greenhaus and Powell (2006) defined WFF as ‘an extent to which resources
gained in one role improves the quality of life, namely performance or affect, in the other role’. It also
implies bidirectional nature, such that WFF occurs when resources generated at work improve family
performance and family-to-work facilitation (FWF) occurs when resources generated at family improve
work performance.
Research studies like those by Grzywacz and Marks (2000), Frone (2003), Aryee et al. (2005) and
Lu, Siu, Spector and Shi (2009) suggested that all the four dimensions (WFC, FWC, WFF and FWF) are
independent and the presence of one dimension does not indicate the presence or absence of another
dimension. However, they advocate concurrent examination of all the four dimensions in order to
understand work–family balance holistically.
Till the recent past, research has overwhelmingly identified work- and family-related demands and
resources as the major antecedents of fourfold work–family balance. Relatively, very few studies
examined other factors like personality traits as the core antecedents and that too of WFC than facilitation
(Allen et al., 2012; Bruck & Allen, 2003; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). However,
studies in this context measured personality with different traits, which limits the generalizability of the
findings. Extant research advocates that the big five (encompassing traits of neuroticism, extraversion,
openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness) is the most promising taxonomy to
represent personality as it organizes myriad of personality-related adjectives into the common framework.
Neuroticism describes ‘emotional instability and uneven-temperedness that includes feeling anxious,
nervous, sad, and tense’ (John & Srivastava, 1999). Extraversion implies ‘an energetic approach toward
the social and material world and include characteristics such as sociability, activity, assertiveness, and
positive emotionality’ (John & Srivastava, 1999). Openness to experience describes ‘the breadth, depth,
originality, and complexity of an individual’s mental and experiential life’ (John & Srivastava, 1999).
It includes characteristics of intelligence, unconventionality, imagination, experimentation, curiosity,
4 Global Business Review 21(3)

creativity and originality (McCrae & John, 1992). Agreeableness describes ‘a prosocial and communal
orientation towards others and include characteristics such as altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, and
modesty’ (John & Srivastava, 1999). Conscientiousness describes ‘socially prescribed impulse control
that facilitates task- and goal-directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification,
following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tasks’ (John & Srivastava, 1999).
It includes characteristics such as achievement orientation, orderliness, efficiency, responsibility,
thoroughness and hardworkingness (McCrae & John, 1992).
Grzywacz and Marks (2000) using a subsample of 1,986 employed adults from the National Survey
of Midlife Development (USA), examined the influence of two personality traits (out of big five)—
extraversion and neuroticism on WFC as well as facilitation bidirectional dimensions. Results revealed
that high level of extraversion was associated with less conflict and more facilitation dimensions. On the
other hand, high level of neuroticism was found associated with more conflict, but unrelated to facilitation
dimensions.
The other study undertaken by Wayne, Musisca and Fleeson (2004) among a sample of 2,130 US
employees investigated the impact of all the big five personality traits on the bidirectional dimensions of
work–family conflict (WFC and FWC) and facilitation (WFF and FWF). It was found that the big five
traits overall were shown to have significant predictive power in regard to conflict dimensions and
facilitation dimensions. Specifically, extraversion was found related to greater facilitation, but not to
conflict dimensions. Neuroticism was found related to greater conflict, but not strongly to facilitation
dimensions. Conscientiousness was found related to less conflict dimensions, and simultaneously, it was
found to increase FWF (but not WFF). Agreeableness was found related to high FWF and low WFC,
presuming that agreeable employees perceive more family support and have an easy access to workplace
resources. Openness to experience was found to increase WFF only, believing that open individuals
more often employ effective coping strategies at work domain, which enables them to acquire huge
workplace resources to successfully deal with family issues.
It has been observed from the review that only two studies empirically examined the role of big five
personality traits in influencing WFC as well as WFF. Moreover, studies on this linkage has been
predominantly conducted in the highly individualist society, that is, USA, which makes their findings not
reliably generalized to India, a highly collectivist nation (Hofstede, 2015). Previous research has very
well shown that societal or national culture has a key role to play in shaping the work–family balance
experience and personality traits, with gender role socialization as the root cause of cultural differences
(Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Powell, Francesco, & Ling, 2009; Schmitt, Realo, Voracek,
& Allik, 2008). Although India is the fastest developing economy (The World Bank, 2017), among
Indians, traditional gender ideology is deeply internalized as gender egalitarianism is still low (McKinsey
& Company, 2015), while USA is the gender egalitarian society as men and women inhabitants bestow
social roles that are more similar (Munn & Chaudhuri, 2016; Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault, 2017).
Therefore, the present research aims to examine the role of big five personality traits in influencing WFC
and WFF in the Indian context.
The proposed model is presented in Figure 1. Based on the COR theory and past literature,
we hypothesized that negative personality trait of neuroticism make individuals more prone to WFC and
less WFF, while positive trait-based variables (extraversion, openness agreeableness and conscientious-
ness) appear to protect individuals from WFC and bring high WFF.
The big five personality traits—neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), openness to experience (O),
agreeableness (A) and conscientiousness(C) are the independent variables, while the four work–family
balance dimensions—WFC, FWC, WFF and FWF are the dependent variables.
Bhalla and Kang 5

Figure 1. Proposed Model

Source: Prepared by the authors.

Research Methodology

Sample and Data Collection

The sampling frame included full-time journalists working for the top 10 daily newspaper organizations
in the state of Punjab, India (Indian Readership Survey, 2011) and holding positions as Editor, Deputy
Editor, Senior/ Assistant/ Sub Editor, Bureau Chief, Special Correspondent, Principal Correspondent,
Senior Correspondent, Staff Reporter, Photojournalist or Stringer. Punjab Press Media directory (for the
year 2013–2014) provided the names and contact details of 439 professionals fulfilling the aforementioned
inclusion criteria.
The job of a journalist is primarily a field one; thus, web-based questionnaire was used to seek infor-
mation from the respondents. To ensure randomness, every second person from the list of 439 journalists
was identified and an e-mail requesting participation in the survey by filling the web-based form was
sent to the chosen 220 journalists. After 2 weeks of the initial mailing, the response rate was found very
poor. Thereafter, follow-up calls were made to remind the respondents to fill up the questionnaire, but
even after repeated calls, only 54 journalists completed the questionnaire. Further, it was decided to meet
the remaining 166 respondents personally, following the daily morning and evening office meetings.
The personal request approach helped in getting 160 questionnaires filled, thus leading to a total of
214 questionnaires. After screening, 212 questionnaires were found complete and usable for analysis.
Of 212 journalists, 166 were men and 46 were women; 172 were married, and of those, 115 had at least
a child. Respondents’ mean age was 36.8 years and their mean tenure in the profession was 10.5 years.

Measures

Work–Family Balance
This was measured with Grzywacz and Marks (2000) 16-item work–family interface scale with four
items representing each dimension of work–family balance. Participants were asked to indicate the
frequency with which they felt in a particular way during the past 3 months using a five-point response
scale where options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all the time).
6 Global Business Review 21(3)

Personality (Big Five)

Donnellan, Oswald, Baird and Lucas’s (2006) 20-item Mini-International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)
scale was used, with four items measuring each of the big five personality traits. After a pilot study, three
items—‘I am the life of the party’, ‘I seldom feel blue’ and ‘I have a vivid imagination’—were rephrased
for better understanding of the participants. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree).
Control Variables
Controls were established for demographic variables (gender, age, marital status, parental status and
experience). Some study variables were categorical and dummy-coded for statistical analysis such as
Gender: Women = 0, Men = 1; Marital Status: Single = 0, Married = 1; Parental Status: Non-Parent = 0,
Parent = 1.
Analysis
The dimensionality, reliability and validity of work–family balance scale as well as personality scale
were examined with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by employing maximum likelihood estimation
method using Analysis of Moment Structure software (AMOS ver. 21). The ratio of chi-square (χ2) to the
degrees of freedom (df), represented by CMIN/DF value, is below 3.0, and other fit indices such as
goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI) with value greater than or equal to 0.90, root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with value less than or equal to 0.08 and root mean
residuals (RMR) with value less than 0.10 are some of the relevant indexes which indicate an acceptable
model fit and thus assess uni-dimensionality of the constructs (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).
The construct is said to achieve satisfactory internal consistency when the composite reliability
estimate is greater than 0.7 (Hair et al., 2010). Convergent validity is confirmed by obtaining the average
variance extracted (AVE) greater than 0.50 for every construct in the scale or having factor loadings
greater than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). Discriminant validity is established when AVE estimate for each
construct should be greater than the shared variance between the constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Table 1 shows the results of CFA for work–family balance scale. Results supported the four dimensionality
of the work–family balance scale in the Indian journalistic context, with satisfactory reliability and
validity values for each of the four dimensions.
Similarly, Table 2 presents the results of CFA for personality scale. Indices supported the five
dimensionality of the personality scale and it was found that the five dimensions are reliable and valid in
the Indian context.
Table 3 reports the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among study variables. Out of
20 correlations between big five personality variables and four dimensions of work–family balance,
16 (80%) were found significant (p < 0.05) and in the expected direction. Since correlation tells only
about the strength and direction of the association, further hierarchical regression analysis was performed
to examine the predicting effects of personality variables on four dimensions of work–family balance.
For this purpose, control variables were entered in step 1, followed by big five personality traits in
step 2.
Regression results shown in Table 4 reveal that among all the control variables entered in step 1,
experience was found to have a negative impact on FWC ( β = −0.352, p < 0.01), such that journalists
with long work experience carry less negativity from family to work. Also, parental status was found to
have a positive impact on FWC ( [ = 0.367, p < 0.01) and negative impact on FWF ( [ = −0.212, p < 0.05),
such that having a child induces the experience of FWC and minimizes FWF. This is in alignment with
Monteiro et al. (2016) assertion that states journalists normally worry about their children’s development,
Bhalla and Kang 7

Table 1. Results of CFA for Work–Family Balance Scale

Factor Composite
Items Loadings Reliability AVE MSV ASV
1. Work-to-family conflict 0.852 0.590 0.296 0.150
Your job makes you feel too tired to do the things that need 0.709
attention at home
Stress at work makes you irritable at home 0.790
Job worries or problems distract you when you are at home 0.739
Your job reduces the effort you can give to activities at home 0.829
2. Family-to-work conflict 0.869 0.625 0.296 0.181
Personal or family worries and problems distract you when 0.890
you are at work
Stress at home makes you irritable at work 0.688
Activities and chores at home prevent you from getting the 0.734
amount of sleep you need to do your job well
Responsibilities at home reduce the effort you can devote to 0.835
your job
3. Work-to-family facilitation 0.859 0.605 0.343 0.162
Having a good day on your job makes you a better companion 0.782
when you get home
The things you do at work help you deal with personal and 0.689
practical issues at home
The things you do at work make you a more interesting 0.842
person at home
The skills you use on your job are useful for things you have 0.790
to do at home
4. Family-to-work facilitation 0.824 0.542 0.343 0.201
The love and respect you get at home make you feel confident 0.653
about yourself at work
Your home life helps you relax and feel ready for the next 0.703
day’s work
Talking with someone at home helps you deal with problems 0.853
at work
Providing for what is needed at home makes you work harder 0.722
at your workplace
Chi-square = 213.662, df = 98, CMIN/DF = 2.180, GFI = 0.911, CFI = 0.952, RMR = 0.049, RMSEA = 0.075
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Notes: AVE: average variance extracted; MSV: maximum square shared variance; ASV: average square shared variance;
GFI: goodness-of-fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; RMR: root mean residuals; RMSEA: root mean square error of
approximation.

while carrying out professional duties. This may be because of limited family time for communication
and elongated physical separation with children. The other control variable, gender, accounted for
significant variation in FWC ([ = −0.366, p < 0.05) and FWF ([ = 0.192, p < 0.05). This corroborates
with findings of earlier Indian studies (Bhatnagar & Rajadhyaksha, 2001; Rajadhyaksha & Velgach,
2009; Ramadoss & Rajadhyaksha, 2012) that states household demands are more important for women
than for men and intrude more into their paid work roles (FWC). However, Indian men are likely to
perceive more support and appreciation from their families to carry paid work roles (FWF) than women.
8 Global Business Review 21(3)

Table 2. Results of CFA for Personality Scale

Factor Composite
Items Loadings Reliability AVE MSV ASV
1. Extraversion 0.844 0.577 0.194 0.108
I feel comfortable in social gatherings 0.851
I have good number of social contacts 0.753
I prefer to be alone/at background (R) 0.712
I participate actively in public discussions 0.723
2. Agreeableness 0.791 0.564 0.022 0.007
I sympathize with others feelings/emotions 0.892
I see myself as critical (R)* 0.532
I am not really interested in others’ problems (R) 0.731
I am easy to satisfy 0.605
3. Conscientiousness 0.797 0.578 0.157 0.082
I tend to get my work done right away 0.963
Generally, I leave my desk with pending tasks (R) 0.599
I usually prepare to-do tasks list/calendar 0.671
I forget to put things back at their place (R)* 0.487
4. Openness to experience 0.866 0.623 0.118 0.046
I feel I have vibrant imagination 0.874
I am not interested in abstract ideas (R) 0.753
I have difficulty in understanding abstract ideas (R) 0.609
I see myself as creative 0.892
5. Neuroticism 0.886 0.662 0.194 0.095
I see myself relaxed most of the time (R) 0.761
I often have mood swings 0.792
I get upset easily/irritated soon 0.813
I see myself as calm and emotionally stable (R) 0.880
Chi-square = 481.483, df = 124, CMIN/DF = 3.883, GFI = 0.899, CFI = 0.931, RMR = 0.062, RMSEA = 0.072
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Notes: 1. R stands for reverse coded items; items marked with * were deleted from the final analysis.
2. AVE: average variance extracted; MSV: maximum square shared variance; ASV: average square shared variance;
GFI: goodness-of-fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; RMR: root mean residuals; RMSEA: root mean square error
of approximation.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables

S. No. Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Neuroticism 2.86 0.88              
2 Agreeableness 3.54 0.64 –0.117            
3 Conscientiousness 3.68 0.67 –0.360** 0.064          
4 Openness to Experience 3.48 0.73 –0.025** 0.064 0.215**        
5 Extraversion 3.66 0.73 –0.403** 0.002 0.301** 0.233**      
6 Family-to-work conflict 2.33 0.80 0.291** –0.328** –0.291** 0.049 –0.278**    
7 Work-to-family 3.58 0.83 –0.082 0.209** 0.234** 0.297** 0.134* –0.197**  
facilitation
8 Family-to-work 4.01 0.71 –0.028 0.253** 0.330** 0.180** 0.150* –0.404** 0.498**
facilitation
9 Work-to-family conflict 3.19 0.68 0.364** –0.156* –0.254** –0.126 –0.318** 0.482** –0.281** –0.174*
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Note: **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
Bhalla and Kang 9

Table 4. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Model I Model II Model III Model IV

Work-to-family Family-to-work Work-to-family Family-to-work
Independent Conflict Conflict Facilitation Facilitation
Variables Step I Step II Step I Step II Step I Step II Step I Step II
Marital status 0.042 0.091 0.031 0.079 −0.059 −0.099 0.015 −0.037
Parental status 0.089 0.036 0.387** 0.329** 0.102 0.17 −0.222* −0.151
Age −0.08 −0.077 −0.017 −0.04 −0.12 −0.095 0.088 0.112
Experience −0.057 −0.02 −0.276* −0.205* 0.188 0.142 0.153 0.103
Gender −0.119 −0.012 −0.366** −0.237** 0.115 0.058 0.192** 0.13
Neuroticism 0.251** 0.159* −0.128 −0.027
Extraversion −0.259* −0.124* 0.024 0.038
Openness 0.064 0.041 0.201** 0.227**
Agreeableness −0.206* −0.218** 0.206** 0.164*
Conscientiousness −0.073 −0.159* 0.150* 0.166*
R2 0.025 0.168 0.228 0.37 0.04 0.158 0.079 0.193
Change in R2 0.012 0.143 0.117 0.142 0.012 0.118 0.032 0.114
F statistic 1.038 4.046** 12.147** 11.822** 1.696 3.783** 3.544** 4.796**
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Notes: 1. **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
2. Values in table are standardized beta coefficients (b).

Next, we found that big five personality variables entered in step 2 together explained additional
variance of 14.3 per cent in WFC, 14.2 per cent in FWC, 11.8 per cent in WFF and 11.4 per cent in FWF.
Individually, conscientiousness was found to reduce FWC only, but not WFC. However, it was found
to increase both the dimensions of facilitation. Extraversion was found to reduce both the conflict
dimensions, but not increased both the facilitation dimensions. Agreeableness was found to reduce both
the conflict dimensions and increase both the facilitation dimensions. Neuroticism was found to increase
both the conflict dimensions; however, it was not found to reduce both the facilitation dimensions.
Openness to experience was not found to reduce both the dimensions of conflict, but it was found to
increase both the facilitation dimensions.

Discussion
The work–family balance scale (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) and big five personality scale (Donnellan et al.,
2006) used in the present study were found valid and reliable in the Indian journalistic context. Initial
results revealed that main gender differences are significant in the experience of FWC and FWF, such
that women journalists experience significantly greater FWC and lesser FWF than men journalists.
However, gender differences are found non-significant in the experience of WFC and WFF. These
findings reflect Aryee et al.’s (2005) assertion that ‘traditional and modern gender role expectations exist
together in the Indian society’. In the transitional era of India’s social and economic development,
women are increasingly participating in the masculine jobs and like men, they equally perceive work-
related opportunities (promotion), resources (flexibility, autonomy), rewards (social networks, income)
and troubles (time demands). However, at the same time, traditional gender role socialization is observed
10 Global Business Review 21(3)

deep-rooted in the Indian society (Kalliath, Kalliath, & Singh, 2011; Munn & Chaudhuri, 2016; Ramadoss
& Rajadhayksha, 2012), and as a result, professional women still face family role overload and perceive
less family support than their men counterparts. Gerdes (1995) also observed that women in masculine-
stereotyped careers (like journalism) experience difficulty in balancing career and motherhood roles,
mainly, because of the stressful events at home than at the workplace.
With regard to the big five personality traits as the predictors of work–family balance dimensions,
results showed that conscientiousness did not act as a significant predictor of WFC. However, it was
found that conscientiousness significantly reduced FWC and increased both the facilitation (WFF and
FWF) dimensions. This reflects even highly conscientious journalists work unpredictable and lousy
hours in India and sacrifice their family life. Similarly, Barrick and Mount (1991) observed that although
conscientious ones exhibit improved work performance, but they work beyond scheduled working hours
in order to finish work assignments, which ultimately lessen their family time and involvement. Further,
it was found extraversion reduces both the conflict dimensions (WFC and FWC), but it was not found to
increase both the facilitation dimensions (WFF and FWF) for Indian journalists. This suggests that
social, enthusiastic and gregarious nature of journalists helps them to set up contact with human resources
for flow of future stories at the work domain and attain instrumental support from domestic helpers or
family members at the family domain, which may minimize their time and energy demands and hence
reduce their inter-role conflict. However, at the same time, it was felt that though extraverted journalists
successfully attain instrumental support, they may not experience emotional support or satisfaction from
such support sources in either of their domain, which relates to the affective component of facilitation
(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).
Agreeableness emerged as the significant predictor of both the conflict (WFC and FWC) and
facilitation (WFF and FWF) dimensions for Indian journalists. The findings are consistent with the
conclusions reached in the previous studies that individuals high on such trait exhibit a strong willingness
to share workload and do not perceive conflicts in either of the domain (Bruck & Allen, 2003; Wayne
et al., 2004). In fact, agreeable ones create a positive mood state that facilitates the functioning of both
the domains. This positive affective experience, when transfer from one domain to another, augments the
experience of facilitation.
Additionally, neuroticism was found to increase both the conflict dimensions (WFC and FWC), but it
did not significantly reduce both the facilitation dimensions (WFF and FWF), thus replicated findings of
previous studies (Aryee et al., 2005; Wayne et al., 2004). As journalists with neurotic characteristics are
likely to feel unbearable to work in noisy newsrooms and under pressure, especially in the rush hours
(before the newspaper is sent to the press) (Khan, 2005), it is common for them to carry work-related
activities or worries to the family domain (WFC). On the other hand, when family time was devoted to
meet the work-role activities, it makes difficult for them to fulfil the demands of family role. As a result,
pending domestic issues annoyed them at the work domain, resulting in a greater perception of FWC.
Finally, openness to experience was found to increase both the conflict (WFC and FWC) and facilitation
dimensions (WFF and FWF). Few previous studies (McCrae & Costa, 1987; Rantanen, Pulkkinen, &
Kinnunen, 2005) also believed that openness to experience acts like a ‘double-edge sword’ that has
increased the extent of positive as well as negative experiences encountered by an individual. In an
investigative and social jobs like that of a journalist, which requires spontaneity and creativity, highly
open journalists are assumed to invest more personal resources (time, energy) on job, which increases
their perception that work negatively interferes with family (WFC) and in turn, family strain spills to
work (FWC). On the other hand, such open individuals are able to obtain and utilize more resources from
their environment, which in turn benefits the functioning of another domain (Grzywacz, Almeida, &
McDonald, 2002). This potential explanation specifies that journalists with open characteristics are
assumed to gain much work-related resources in the form of skills, flexibility, power and social
Bhalla and Kang 11

networking, which positively influence their affective state and improve the functioning of the family
domain. As the cycle continues, improved family performance, positive emotions and mood state
acquired in the family domain enhance the functioning of professional role.
The findings of the study shed light on HRM practices within media organizations in terms of helping
their employees to achieve desired work–family balance. As study highlighted that some personality
factors act defensively to minimize WFC and maximize WFF, while some act like threatening factors;
therefore, media organizations can conduct personality test to recruit suitable candidates, whose
personality traits make them best suited to the stresses of the journalism profession. Or else, management
can arrange training programmes that aim to develop self-awareness, inculcate required personality trait
or coping behaviour among existing employees so as to make them achieve desired work–family balance.
Moreover, knowledge of employees’ personality traits may increase the effectiveness of mentoring, job
sharing and other employee assistance programmes that aims to enhance work–family balance. Further,
the finding that women journalists experience greater FWC and lesser FWF than men journalists suggests
media managers to offer gender-specific policies. For example, schedule flexibility, transportation,
maternity leave, compulsory week off and childcare facilities can be provided to the women journalists,
so that they perceive adequate time and attention are available to meet their family needs. Compounded
to this, there is a need to build supportive and an egalitarian working environment which recognizes the
value of women’s contribution and acknowledges their different caring and family responsibilities.
This will not only reduce their FWC, but also bring gender equality at the workplace. Finally, it is also
significant to mention that media organizations are not only responsible for making employees attain
desired work–family balance, but equally responsible are the educational journalism institutes. They can
take necessary steps that could enable students, especially women to enter the media world better
equipped with pertinent skills, traits and conviction.

Conclusion
The present study contributes significantly by providing empirical evidence that personality differences
directly influence the experience of WFC and WFF. Thus, in future, personality factors are to be given
key consideration while developing theoretical models of work–family balance, which previous
conceptual models have not considered in particular (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Parasuraman,
Greenhaus, & Granrose, 1992; Voydanoff, 2005).
Further, the present study’s research setting is an interesting one from the work–family balance per-
spective, mainly because of the unpredictable nature of the journalism profession. Given that the present
study limits itself to newspaper journalists working in the Punjab state of India, this may require further
research to include a large number of journalists to ensure appropriate generalizability of the findings.
In addition, apart from addressing the direct mechanism between personality and work–family balance,
further research can also address the indirect process through which personality influences work–family
balance. Theoretically, little evidence exists that suggests personality influences the choice of coping
strategies (Lee-Baggley, Preece, & DeLongis, 2005; Penley & Tomaka, 2002), which in turn are related
to the work–family outcomes (Rotondo & Kincaid, 2008). Thus, research that could empirically test the
mediating role of coping in the relationship between personality and work–family balance requires
further attention.
The present study has few limitations that should be considered while interpreting the findings. First,
the scales used in the study were measured using the self-report method. It has been widely argued that
social desirability bias generally creeps in the research, while using self-reported scales. Second,
12 Global Business Review 21(3)

the study sampled full-time newspaper journalists working in the daily newspaper organizations, which
makes the findings of this study to have limited application. Moreover, data were collected from
newspaper journalists from one geographic region (i.e., the Punjab state) of India; therefore, conducting
data from different parts of the country may allow better generalizability of the findings.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve
the quality of the article. Usual disclaimers apply.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of
this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Saboe, K. N., Cho, E., Dumani, S., & Evans, S. (2012). Dispositional variables and
work–family conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 17–26.
Andreassi, J. K., & Thompson, C. A. (2007). Dispositional and situational sources of control: Relative impact on
work–family conflict and positive spillover. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(8), 722–740.
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(1), 132–142.
Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India. (2007). Construction, media, banking among high-stress
sectors. Retrieved from http://www.livemint.com/Politics/kdr0Mu274GKxpHg1DrZgHI/Construction-media-
banking-among-highstress-sectors.html
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
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(3), 665–683.
Bhargava, S., & Baral, R. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of work–family enrichment among Indian
managers. Psychological Studies, 54(3), 213–225.
Bhatnagar, D., & Rajadhyaksha, U. (2001). Attitudes towards work and family roles and their implications for career
growth of women: A report from India. Sex Roles, 45(7–8), 549–565.
Blanch, A., & Aluja, A. (2009). Work, family and personality: A study of work–family conflict. Personality and
Individual Differences, 46(4), 520–524.
Boyar, S. L., & Mosley, D. C. (2007). The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family
satisfaction: The mediating role of work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2),
265–281.
Braunstein-Bercovitz, H., Frish-Burstein, S., & Benjamin, B. A. (2012). The role of personal resources in work–
family conflict: Implications for young mothers’ well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 317–325.
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(3), 457–472.
Costa Jr, P., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures:
Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective
measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–201.
Bhalla and Kang 13

Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB:
Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 124–197.
Fedler, F. (2004). Insiders’ stories: Coping with newsroom stress: An historical perspective. American Journalism,
21(3), 77–106.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds), Handbook of occupational health
psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–
family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(2), 145–167.
Gerdes, E. P. (1995). Women preparing for traditionally male professions: Physical and psychological symptoms
associated with work and home stress. Sex Roles, 32(11), 787–807.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of
Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment.
Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92.
Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. (2002). Work–family spillover and daily reports of work and
family stress in the adult labor force. Family Relations, 51(1), 28–36.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on
the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 5(1), 111–126.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist,
44(3), 513–524.
———. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4),
307–324.
Hofstede. (2015). India on cultural dimensions. Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com/india.html
Indian Readership Survey. (2011). Top ten dailies of Punjab as per Indian Readership Survey Q2 results. Retrieved
from http://www.bestmediainfo.com/2011/10/irs-q2-2011-top-dailies-in-punjab/
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.
In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kalliath, P., Kalliath, T., & Singh, V. (2011). When work intersects family: A qualitative exploration of the
experiences of dual earner couples in India. South Asian Journal of Management, 18(1), 37–51.
Kang, L. S., & Sandhu, R. S. (2012). Impact of stress on health: A study of bank branch managers in India.
Global Business Review, 13(2), 285–296.
Khan, A. Z. (2005). The influence of personality traits on journalists’ work behaviour: An exploratory study
examining a Bangladeshi sample. Asian Journal of Communication, 15(1), 72–84.
Lee-Baggley, D., Preece, M., & DeLongis, A. (2005). Coping with interpersonal stress: Role of big five traits.
Journal of Personality, 73(5), 1141–1180.
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(2), 182–192.
MacDonald, J. B., Saliba, A. J., Hodgins, G., & Ovington, L. A. (2016). Burnout in journalists: A systematic
literature review. Burnout Research, 3(2), 34–44.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and
observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of
Personality, 60(2), 175–215.
14 Global Business Review 21(3)

McKinsey & Company. (2015). The power of parity: Advancing women’s equality in India. Retrieved from http://
www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/employment-and-growth/the-power-of-parity-advancing-womens-
equality-in-india
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(1), 45–67.
Monteiro, S., Marques Pinto, A., & Roberto, M. S. (2016). Job demands, coping, and impacts of occupational
stress among journalists: A systematic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
25(5), 751–772.
Munn, S. L., & Chaudhuri, S. (2016). Work–life balance: A cross-cultural review of dual-earner couples in India and
the United States. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(1), 54–68.
Ollier-Malaterre, A., & Foucreault, A. (2017). Cross-national work-life research: Cultural and structural impacts for
individuals and organizations. Journal of Management, 43(1), 111–136.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well-being among
two career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(4), 339–356.
Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the big five, emotional responses, and coping with acute
stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(7), 1215–1228.
Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Ling, Y. (2009). Toward culture-sensitive theories of the work–family interface.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 597–616.
Rajadhyaksha, U., & Velgach, S. (2009). Gender, gender-role ideology and work–family conflict in India.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting (pp. 1–40), Chicago, IL.
Ramadoss, K., & Rajadhyaksha, U. (2012). Gender differences in commitment to roles, work–family conflict and
social support. Journal of Social Science, 33(2), 227–233.
Rantanen, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Kinnunen, U. (2005). The big five personality dimensions, work–family conflict, and
psychological distress: A longitudinal view. Journal of Individual Differences, 26(3), 155–166.
Reinardy, S. (2009). Beyond satisfaction: Journalists doubt career intentions as organizational support diminishes
and job satisfaction declines. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(3), 126–139.
Rotondo, D. M., & Kincaid, J. F. (2008). Conflict, facilitation, and individual coping styles across the work and
family domains. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 484–506.
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences
in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168–182.
Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work–home interface: The work–
home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7), 545–556.
The World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers Report. (2011). Retrieved from http:// en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Newspaper_circulation
The World Bank. (2017). Global economic prospects report. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.
org/bitstream/handle/10986/26800/9781464810244.pdf
Voydanoff, P. (2005). Toward a conceptualization of perceived work–family fit and balance: A demands and
resources approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 822–836.
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(1),
108–130.