We are Family: Congruity between Organizational and Family Functioning Constructs
Référence bibliographique 
Brotheridge, Céleste M. et Lee, Raymond T. 2006. «We are Family: Congruity between Organizational and Family Functioning Constructs ». Human Relations, vol. 59, no 1, p. 141-161.
Intentions : « Specifically, the purposes of this research are to: a) determine the extent to which organizational and family functioning constructs are congruent; and b) identify the specific nature of this underlying congruence. » (p. 143)
Questions/Hypothèses : « Proposition 1: Family and work unit environment constructs are positively related to each other. Proposition 2: Family measures of conflict are positively associated with related work unit measures. Proposition 3: Family measures of climate are positively associated with related work unit measures. » (p. 146)
Échantillon/Matériau : « A total of 204 employees completed questionnaires, representing a response rate of approximately 71 percent. Of those responding, approximately 44 percent were male and 56 percent were female, all with an average of 10 years of service in the department. » (pp. 146-147)
Type de traitement des données : Analyse statistique
« The common practice of characterizing organizations as having a family environment assumes that organizational and family functioning constructs are conceptually congruent. To date, this assumption has not been examined in a systematic fashion. This study examined the congruence of organizational and family functioning concepts using the Work Environment Scales and the Beavers Self-Report Family Inventory in a sample of 204 government employees. A canonical correlation analysis found a moderate amount of shared variance between these two sets of data, suggesting that there may be an underlying congruence between work and family constructs. Additionally, specific dimensions of work unit climate and group conflict were predictive of equivalent family functioning dimensions. The implications of these findings for managers and organizational development practitioners are discussed. » (p. 141)