Work–family conflict (WFC) and family–work conflict (FWC) are psychosocial risk factors associated with burnout among social workers. This study examined these relationships among 425 social workers in public social assistance institutions in the North-West Region of Romania. Although WFC/FWC is associated with burnout, evidence regarding the multidimensional structure of the conflict (time-, strain-, and behavior-based dimensions) and the relative contribution of each direction of the conflict is limited, particularly in social work. A six-dimensional model based on Carlson et al.’s framework was validated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) subsequently tested the structural associations between WFC, FWC, and burnout. Time-based conflict emerged as the strongest indicator of WFC, while strain-based conflict was the strongest indicator of FWC (based on the ordering of the standardized loadings; the differences between loadings were significant at p < 0.05). The dimensions were analyzed as indicators of the latent factors WFC and FWC; the association with burnout was tested at the level of WFC and FWC, rather than at the level of each individual dimension; a specific influence of the behavioral dimension on burnout was not tested. Both WFC and FWC were significantly and positively associated with burnout; and the WFC–burnout association was statistically stronger than the FWC–burnout association, although the difference was small. These findings suggest that prevention efforts should consider both directions of conflict; the differentiated interventions implied by the dimensional profile remain hypothetical and require empirical testing.

Public and private organizations increasingly operate under conditions of technological change, external demands, institutional constraints, and growing expectations for responsiveness, placing renewed attention on the discretion available to managers and on how that discretion is translated into organizational responses. This study examines whether managerial behavior under such conditions can be explained through partly shared response mechanisms rather than sector membership alone. An integrative contextual model was tested using survey data from 238 managers (153 from Romanian police organizations and 85 from industrial companies) in North-West Romania. Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and path analysis identified seven constructs and a differentiated empirical model. Managerial autonomy was positively associated with adaptive–reflective managerial practices and decision legitimacy and relational trust. External and technological pressures were associated with greater legitimacy and trust and greater resistance to change, but not with adaptive–reflective practices. Adaptive–reflective practices were associated with lower resistance and stronger stakeholder orientation, whereas legitimacy and trust did not reduce resistance. Public–private differences were selective, with significant differences in autonomy, adaptive–reflective practices, external pressures, and stakeholder orientation, but not in legitimacy and trust, organizational constraints, or resistance. The findings shift attention from broad sector differences toward the managerial response mechanisms associated with discretion and external pressures and highlight the potential relevance of responsible managerial autonomy for adaptation under institutional constraints.