Purpose – This paper aims to explore generational effects on work-family conflict and synergy Design/methodology/approach – The design is cross-sectional and investigates large US national probability samples. Multiple regressions and ANOVAs were used in the analyses. Findings – Generational differences in work-family conflict and synergy were found. Mental health and job pressure were the strongest predictors of work-family conflict for each group. Matures were significantly more satisfied than baby boomers and generation Xers. Research limitations/implications – All measures were self-reports collected at one point in time. Thus, common method variance may be an issue and causal inferences cannot be made. Life stage and family stage differed for the generational groups and this should be explored in subsequent research. Practical implications – Managers and human resource professionals need to consider generational differences in work-family program design and monitor patterns of program usage for each group. Generation X members are particularly concerned about work/life balance. Originality/value – This is the first paper to investigate generational issues affecting work-family conflict and synergy. The findings are particularly relevant to managers and human resource professionals.

Predictors of work family conflict and different types of satisfaction were investigated among 177 married, employed MBA and public administration students. Job involvement was signifitcantly related to work-to-family conflict but no support was found for paths to family-to-work conflict. Family involvement predicted family satisfaction whereas the number of children was negatively related to family satisfaction. Similarly, job involvement predicted job and career satisfaction. Salary predicted both job and career satisfaction as well. Sex was directly related to life satisfaction, with men reporting significantly higher satisfaction than women. Family, job, and career satisfaction each accounted for significant, unique variation in life satisfaction. Implications of these findings and suggestions for additional research were discussed.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of work schedules on work‐family conflict and synergy using the job demands‐resources (JD‐R) and conservation of resources models. The impact of resources including supervisor support, work schedule control and satisfaction, as well as the moderating effects of work schedules on conflict (synergy) and domain satisfaction are examined.Design/methodology/approach: This quantitative study examined responses from organizationally‐employed respondents (n=2,810) from the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce using MANOVA and multiple regressions.Findings: Work schedules were significantly related to work‐interfering with family (WIF) and work‐family synergy (W‐FS) but not for family interfering with work (FIW). Perceived supervisory support was significantly related to employee work schedule control and work schedule satisfaction. Perceived control of work schedule and work schedule satisfaction were significantly related to work‐family conflict and synergy. Work schedules moderated the relationship between work‐family conflict (synergy) and domain satisfaction.Research limitations/implications: Although based on a national probability sample, this study may suffer from common method variance since all measures were from the same self‐report questionnaire.Practical implications: The results do suggest that solutions like increased schedule flexibility for all workers may not be efficacious in reducing work‐family conflict or increasing work‐family synergy. Employee control over work schedule, employee satisfaction with work schedule, and supervisor support need to be considered as well.Originality/value: This study examined the impact of work schedules on work‐family conflict and synergy. It is noteworthy since very little research has been conducted on work schedules and synergy. The results also broaden evidence for the JD‐R and conservation of resources models.