Original Research

Consequences of family-supportive supervisor behaviour: A meta-analytic review

Yuxiang Luan, Guolong Zhao, Nan Wang

Received: 07 Apr. 2024; Accepted: 06 June 2025; Published: 31 July 2025

Copyright: © 2025. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose: Significant academic focus has been placed on family-supportive supervisor behaviour (FSSB), yet findings remain inconsistent, challenging field advancement. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of FSSB and its outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach: Using Hunter-Schmidt random-effect meta-analysis, we examined 17 FSSB outcomes based on 158 correlations from 70 independent studies (N = 37 086).

Findings/results: The FSSB positively correlated with family-work enrichment (ρ = 0.34), job satisfaction (ρ = 0.46), leader-member exchange (ρ = 0.69), organisational citizenship behaviour (ρ = 0.15), organisational commitment (ρ = 0.43), perceived health (ρ = 0.15), prosocial motivation (ρ = 0.21), satisfaction with work-family balance (ρ = 0.39), task performance (ρ = 0.23), work engagement (ρ = 0.44), and work-family enrichment (ρ = 0.45). Conversely, FSSB negatively correlated with burnout (ρ = 0.33), family-work conflict (ρ = 0.14), turnover intention (ρ = 0.35), and work-family conflict (ρ = 0.30). Gender and research design moderated several relationships.

Practical implications: Promoting FSSB in organisations can enhance work-family balance and job outcomes, particularly relevant in the remote work era. Training leaders in FSSB may significantly improve employee well-being, performance, and organisational success.

Originality/value: This study addresses the inconsistencies in the existing FSSB literature. It comprehensively delineates the true score correlations between FSSB and its 17 varied outcomes, highlighting several moderating variables that influence this relationship.

Keywords: family-supportive supervisor behaviour; work-family outcomes; work outcomes; well-being outcomes; meta-analysis.

Introduction

The rise of remote work, significantly influenced by rapid technological advancements and further accelerated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, marks a notable shift in the global workforce (Arunprasad et al., 2022; Chambel et al., 2023). In the early 21st century, the concept of working from home was limited to a few job roles. However, the evolution of digital communication technologies has enabled a broader range of occupations to adopt this model (Cartwright, 2003). This transition is evident not only in tech giants such as Twitter, Facebook and Google, but also in traditionally hands-on sectors such as manufacturing, where remote work is now surprisingly feasible for certain roles (Yang et al., 2022). This shift has blurred the lines between work and personal spaces (Gillet et al., 2022; Oakman et al., 2020), presenting new challenges in maintaining a healthy work-life balance.

With the increasing trend of remote work and its impact on balancing work and family life, family-supportive supervisor behaviour (FSSB), which examines the diverse methods supervisors can use to help their employees manage work–family balance such as emotional and instrumental support (Hammer et al., 2011), has seen a notable surge in interest. Theoretically, FSSB is grounded in several well-established frameworks. Social exchange theory (SET) (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) posits that employees tend to reciprocate favourable treatment from their supervisors, such as family-supportive behaviours, with positive attitudes and behaviours at work. Conservation of resources theory (CORT) (Hobfoll, 1989) further suggests that FSSB acts as a valuable job resource that helps employees to reduce strain and preserve energy in the face of work–family demands. In addition, self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci et al., 2017) highlights that FSSB may foster intrinsic motivation by supporting employees’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Together, these theories explain why FSSB can lead to enhanced well-being, performance and work–family outcomes.

Yet, even with the expanding body of research on FSSB, certain unresolved challenges continue to obstruct a full understanding of this field. Firstly, the existing literature on the relationship between FSSB and its outcomes presents mixed findings. For instance, while Kossek et al. (2018) identified a positive correlation between FSSB and family-work conflict, contrasting findings have been reported in other studies such as those by Hammer et al. (2013) and Wayne et al. (2019). Several qualitative studies have synthesised the current evidence on the relationship between FSSB and its outcomes (Andrade, 2022; Crain & Stevens, 2018; Sargent et al., 2022; Straub, 2012). However, these qualitative studies could not address the inconsistent findings in FSSB literature (e.g. Hammer et al., 2013; Kossek et al., 2018; Wayne et al., 2019). For instance, Crain and Stevens (2018) identified that while FSSB is generally associated with positive outcomes such as job satisfaction and work–family enrichment, its relationship with other outcomes such as work–family conflict and burnout is less consistent. Some studies, such as Kossek et al. (2018), reported that FSSB can increase family-work conflict because of heightened role expectations, while others, including Hammer et al. (2013), found a negative relationship, suggesting that FSSB can alleviate conflict by providing support. These conflicting findings are likely because of variations in study design, measurement tools and the inclusion of moderating factors such as gender and organisational culture, which have yet to be systematically addressed in the literature. Therefore, the first objective of this research is to make a quantitative review of FSSB and its outcomes using a meta-analytical approach (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015).

Secondly, existing meta-analyses suggest that variables such as gender (Curran & Hill, 2019; Frankenbach et al., 2022), age (Buhler et al., 2021; Emslander & Scherer, 2022) and research design (Lyubykh et al., 2022; Hetrick et al., 2023), might act as moderators. In the FSSB literature, these factors may potentially influence the relationship between FSSB and its outcomes. For example, the differing family roles of males and females might affect how FSSB relates to its outcomes. Therefore, the second objective of this study is to explore these potential moderators, including age, gender and research design in the relationship between FSSB and its outcomes.

In line with these objectives, the following research questions guide our study:

RQ1: What is the overall relationship between FSSB and its key outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction, work–family conflict, burnout)?

RQ2: How do demographic variables (such as gender and age) and research design factors (e.g. cross-sectional vs. longitudinal studies) moderate the relationship between FSSB and its outcomes, and what are the boundary conditions under which FSSB’s effects on work–family conflict, job satisfaction and burnout vary?

By doing so, our study aims to not only contribute theoretically to the FSSB literature but also provide practical implications. Firstly, understanding the precise relationship between FSSB and its outcomes is crucial in the context of FSSB literature. For instance, while Kossek et al. (2018) found that FSSB may increase family-work conflict because of heightened role expectations, Hammer et al. (2013) reported that FSSB can alleviate work–family conflict through support mechanisms. Similarly, findings regarding FSSB’s effect on job satisfaction and burnout vary, with some studies reporting strong positive relationships (e.g. Wayne et al., 2019), while others found neutral or weaker effects (Crain & Stevens, 2018). These conflicting findings highlight the need to investigate potential moderators, such as gender and research design, to better understand the boundary conditions influencing FSSB’s outcomes.

Secondly, by detecting some potential moderators between FSSB and its outcomes, our studies could enhance our understanding of the boundary conditions between FSSB and its outcomes, helping to understand the inconsistent findings among the primary studies (e.g. Hammer et al., 2013; Kossek et al., 2018; Wayne et al., 2019). In particular, the literature presents mixed results regarding the relationship between FSSB and key outcomes such as work–family conflict, job satisfaction and burnout. For instance, while some studies (e.g. Kossek et al., 2018) found that FSSB increases family-work conflict because of heightened role expectations, others (e.g. Hammer et al., 2013) reported that FSSB alleviates work–family conflict by providing support. Similarly, the impact of FSSB on job satisfaction is generally positive but has shown variability depending on moderating factors such as gender and organisational culture. These inconsistencies are likely driven by differences in research design, measurement tools and the inclusion of demographic and contextual moderators, which our study aims to address through meta-analysis and meta-regression. Finally, our research holds practical significance for FSSB implementation. By providing robust evidence for the validity of FSSB, our findings can guide organisations in understanding the impact of FSSB on various outcomes. This insight could inform management strategies aimed at enhancing supervisor-support, ultimately benefiting employees and the organisation.

During our literature review, we identified 17 variables as FSSB outcomes. To visually represent our research model, Figure 1 illustrates the relationships and potential moderating factors under investigation.

FIGURE 1: Research model.

Literature review

The literature on FSSB has expanded over the years, exploring its various dimensions and the outcomes associated with its implementation in the workplace. This section provides an overview of the conceptualisation and measurement of FSSB, followed by an examination of its impact on both work- and family-related outcomes. The review also covers the theoretical frameworks underpinning FSSB, highlighting how different research designs and moderators can influence the strength and direction of these effects. We begin by discussing the foundational measurement of FSSB, which is crucial for understanding its role in organisational settings.

Family-supportive supervisor behaviour

The most widely used measurement of FSSB was developed by Hammer et al. (2009). Family-supportive supervisor behaviour is conceptualised as ‘behaviours exhibited by supervisors that are supportive of families’ (Hammer et al., 2009, p. 838). Hammer et al. (2009) conceptualised FSSB as a multidimensional construct comprising four subdimensions: emotional support, instrumental support, role-modelling behaviours and creative work–family management.

Emotional support reflects individuals’ perceptions that they are being cared for, role-modelling behaviour refers to the supervisor’s behaviour that integrates work and family by modelling job behaviour, instrumental support entails supervisor-support as he or she responds to employee needs in terms of day-to-day management transactions and creative work–family management reflects the managerial-initiated actions to restructure work to facilitate employee effectiveness on and off the job (Hammer et al., 2007, 2009, 2013). Early studies have demonstrated that FSSB is distinguishable from general organisation-supportive behaviours (Matthews et al., 2014) and supervisor-support behaviours (Hammer et al., 2009). Furthermore, research has indicated that FSSB exhibits a stronger association with work–family conflict compared to general supervisor-support and organisation support (Kossek et al., 2011). To facilitate easier measurement of FSSB, Hammer et al. (2009) developed a 14-item scale. In addition, Hammer et al. (2013) created a shorter version of the scale consisting of only four items, allowing for a more convenient assessment of FSSB by researchers.

Our meta-analysis significantly differs from existing studies on FSSB in several ways. Unlike Li et al. (2023), our analysis includes additional variables such as prosocial motivation and turnover intention. Moreover, while Li et al. (2023), Guo et al. (2024) and Hao et al. (2025) emphasise mediating mechanisms in the relationship between FSSB and employee outcomes, our study shifts the focus to the role of moderating variables. This distinction allows us to offer novel insights, which we present in our findings.

Based on our review, we have classified FSSB into three categories: outcomes related to work and family, work-related outcomes and health-related outcomes. To ensure the accuracy of our evaluations, we follow the methodology employed in early meta-analyses (Lyubykh et al., 2022; Park et al., 2020), wherein we include variables that have been supported by at least three primary studies (k > 3). The definitions of the constructs examined in this study can be found in Table 1. In addition, given that the relationships between FSSB and these variables have been previously explored in primary studies, we choose not to propose specific hypotheses. Instead, we present an overarching research question concerning their associations after the literature review.

Theoretical foundations

The study of FSSB is grounded in several key theories, each offering a unique perspective on its effects. Social exchange theory is the core framework, explaining how FSSB fosters positive outcomes through reciprocal exchanges between supervisors and employees. According to SET (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), when supervisors offer support, employees are likely to reciprocate with positive behaviours, such as increased effort and job satisfaction. However, SET mainly focuses on internal organisational exchanges and does not fully account for the effects of FSSB across work and family boundaries.

This gap could be addressed by CORT (Hobfoll, 1989) and the Work-Home Resources (WH-R) Model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012), which view FSSB as a resource that helps employees manage the stress of balancing work and family demands. Conservation of resources theory highlights how resources, such as emotional and instrumental support from supervisors, protect employees from stress and burnout, while the WH-R Model explains how work resources can spill over to positively affect family life. Together, these theories show how FSSB extends beyond the workplace to influence employees’ home domain.

Self-determination theory further enhances our understanding by focusing on work motivation (Deci et al., 2017). Self-determination theory asserts that FSSB satisfies employees’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, which boosts their intrinsic motivation. Unlike SET, which centres on external exchanges, SDT emphasises the internal psychological processes that drive engagement and satisfaction.

Finally, the Ability, Opportunity and Motivation (AOM) Theory (Appelbaum et al., 2000) extends the motivation framework by incorporating the roles of ability and opportunity alongside motivation. Ability, Opportunity and Motivation theory explains how FSSB not only enhances motivation but also improves employees’ ability and opportunity to succeed by providing support and resources. This theory integrates multiple factors that influence employees’ performance and development, offering a comprehensive view of FSSB’s impact.

In summary, while SET focuses on reciprocal relationships within the organisation, CORT and WH-R Model explain how FSSB serves as a resource that helps employees manage the interaction between work and family life. Self-determination theory and AOM Theory add depth by emphasising motivation, psychological needs and the broader context of ability and opportunity. Together, these theories offer a multifaceted understanding of how FSSB influences employee well-being, performance and overall work-life balance.

Work-family outcomes

Family-work and work–family conflict

Early studies have demonstrated a negative association between FSSB and both family-work conflict (Wayne et al., 2019) and work–family conflict (Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012). This relationship can be understood through two primary explanations. Firstly, leaders practising FSSB proactively enhance employees’ ability to handle non-work demands (Crain & Stevens, 2018). Family-supportive supervisor behaviour provides significant emotional and instrumental support, helping employees mitigate conflicts between work and family.

Secondly, the WH-R model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012) offers a theoretical framework to explain these associations. According to the WH-R model, conflict arises when the demands in one domain deplete personal resources in the other domain. Conversely, increasing resources, whether personal or contextual, can alleviate conflicts. Family-supportive supervisor behaviour, with its provision of emotional and instrumental support to employees (Hammer et al., 2009), functions as a form of contextual resource (Rofcanin et al., 2017). It can help attenuate the negative effects of work demands, such as job pressure and workload, by replenishing employees’ resources and ultimately reducing work–family and family-work conflicts.

Family-work and work–family enrichment

Initially, FSSB from leaders offers time, attention and energy, buffering the negative impact of work demands (such as job pressure) and fostering positive feelings at home (Wayne et al., 2019). Furthermore, FSSB often leads to flexible job arrangements for employees (Hammer et al., 2009), which is essential for both family-work and work–family enrichment (Chen et al., 2018). Lastly, supervisory support can cultivate a sense of being valued (Hammer et al., 2009), enhancing a positive mood that may spill over from family life to work (Chen et al., 2018). Together, FSSB may positively relate to family-work and work–family enrichment.

Satisfaction with work–family balance

Firstly, effectively managing both work and family roles aids employees in achieving a balance between these areas (Choi et al., 2018; Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007), leading to greater satisfaction in both work and family life.

Family-supportive supervisor behaviour plays a pivotal role in assisting employees to harmonise their work and family roles. For instance, FSSB includes a creative work–family management process, which provides managerial-initiated actions to facilitate employee effectiveness on and off the job (Hammer et al., 2009), helping employees to better balance work–family roles. Secondly, the emotional support from FSSB often leads to a positive affect among employees (Hammer et al., 2009), contributing to their satisfaction with work–family balance. Thirdly, previous research has established a positive correlation between FSSB and satisfaction with work–family balance (Las Heras et al., 2015; Rofcanin et al., 2019).

Work outcomes

Task performance and organisational citizenship behaviour

Job performance includes two dimensions, namely, task performance and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) (Motowidlo, 2003). Family-supportive supervisor behaviour was found to be positively associated with both task performance (Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012) and OCB (Hammer et al., 2016). Firstly, organisational support literature suggests that providing support to employees can enhance their job performance (Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). Family-supportive supervisor behaviour, including emotional and instrumental support (Hammer et al., 2009), may lead to improved job performance, encompassing task performance and OCB. Secondly, SET (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) provides a theoretical understanding of the FSSB-performance linkage. Drawing on SET, there is a social exchange relation between leaders and employees (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In line with SET (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) and the principles of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960; Settoon et al., 1996), positive social exchange behaviours from leaders, such as FSSB, may inspire positive reciprocal behaviours in their followers, such as increased effort in job performance.

Organisational commitment

Scholars found that FSSB is positively related to organisational commitment (Choi et al., 2018; Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012). Firstly, according to SET (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), positive social exchange is related to trust and commitment. In essence, a positive social exchange relationship between a leader and their follower is characterised by a robust foundation of trust and commitment. Family-supportive supervisor behaviour may initiate positive social exchange relationships, potentially enhancing commitment levels. Secondly, FSSB provides emotional support to their followers (Hammer et al., 2013), which may strengthen the affective connections between supervisors and their followers, thereby bolstering affective commitment.

Job satisfaction

Family-supportive supervisor behaviour is found to be positively related to job satisfaction (Hammer et al., 2013; Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012). Initially, job satisfaction arises from the interplay between the employee and their work environment (Locke, 1970). Family-supportive supervisor behaviour typically offers emotional support to employees (Hammer et al., 2009), contributing to positive feelings in both work and family life. Furthermore, FSSB tends to reduce conflicts between work and family (Hammer et al., 2009), which may lead to increased job satisfaction.

Turnover intention

Firstly, work–family conflict has been identified as a significant predictor of turnover intention (Amstad et al., 2011). Family-supportive supervisor behaviour can effectively mitigate work–family conflict, which in turn may lead to a decrease in turnover intention. Secondly, FSSB has been positively associated with organisational commitment (Choi et al., 2018; Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012), and organisational commitment is known to be a crucial deterrent to turnover (Cohen, 1993). Lastly, earlier studies have reported a negative relationship between FSSB and turnover intention (Huffman & Olson, 2017; Kossek et al., 2018).

Intrinsic motivation

Self-determination theory suggests that employees are intrinsically motivated when fulfilling their basic psychological needs (i.e. autonomy, competence and relatedness) (Deci et al., 2017; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Firstly, FSSB offers emotional support to followers (Hammer et al., 2009), addressing the need for relatedness. Secondly, FSSB enhances work autonomy, for instance, through more flexible work arrangements, thus meeting the need for autonomy. As per SDT (Deci et al., 2017), the fulfilment of these basic psychological needs is likely to increase intrinsic motivation.

Prosocial motivation

Family-supportive supervisor behaviour has been found to be positively related to prosocial motivation (Bosch et al., 2018; Idrovo & Bosch, 2019). Firstly, employees who perceive FSSB are more inclined to engage in reciprocal behaviours, albeit indirectly (Molm et al., 2007). For example, they may extend help to their colleagues as a form of reciprocation for the assistance received from their supervisors. Secondly, FSSB has a positive relationship with OCB (Hammer et al., 2016), which reflects individuals’ prosocial motivation towards the organisation to some extent (Lazauskaite-Zabielske et al., 2015).

Work engagement

Work engagement, a crucial motivational factor, has been found to have a positive relationship with FSSB (Chambel et al., 2023; Chang et al., 2022). This association can be understood through the lens of the job demands and resources (JD-R) model, which suggests that job resources contribute to increased engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, 2017). Job resources refer to any physical, psychological, social or organisational aspects of a job that help employees to achieve work goals, reduce job demands and stimulate personal growth (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Family-supportive supervisor behaviour, as a form of social and organisational support, provides employees with emotional, instrumental and role-modelling resources, thereby enhancing their ability to manage both work-related and non-work-related responsibilities. This increased support from supervisors helps employees feel more capable and motivated, which in turn leads to higher levels of work engagement (Crain & Stevens, 2018).

Leader–member exchange

Firstly, leader-member exchange (LMX) reflects the quality of social exchange relationships between leaders and their followers (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Drawing on a perspective of SET (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), FSSB includes multiple practices (e.g. emotional and instrumental support) (Hammer et al., 2009), which may help leaders to gain trust and commitment from their followers, increasing LMX. Secondly, early studies found that LMX is positively related to FSSB (Matthews & Toumbeva, 2015; Yin et al., 2021).

Health and well-being outcomes

Burnout

Firstly, burnout includes emotional exhaustion (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Family-supportive supervisor behaviour will provide emotional support (Hammer et al., 2009), which may decrease emotional exhaustion. Secondly, the JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, 2017) suggested that job resources will buffer the negative effects of job demands, decreasing burnout. As a kind of job resource, FSSB may decrease burnout. Finally, an early study found that FSSB is negatively linked to burnout (Yragui et al., 2017).

Life satisfaction

Firstly, when employees receive FSSB from their leaders, it can contribute to their satisfaction with the current state of affairs. Previous research has shown a positive relationship between FSSB and job satisfaction (Hammer et al., 2013; Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012) as well as satisfaction with work–family balance (Las Heras et al., 2015; Rofcanin et al., 2019). We anticipate that the positive effects of FSSB will extend beyond the work domain and spill over into employees’ overall life satisfaction. Secondly, work–family conflicts have been found to negatively impact life satisfaction (Goh et al., 2015). Family-supportive supervisor behaviour has the potential to serve as a buffer against work–family conflicts (Hammer et al., 2013; Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012), thus potentially increasing life satisfaction. By providing substantial support, FSSB helps employees to manage the conflicts between their work and family domains, leading to reduced work–family conflicts and, in turn, enhanced life satisfaction.

Perceived health

Firstly, FSSB has been found to be positively linked to a series of health outcomes, such as higher sleep duration (Crain et al., 2014) and lower perceived stress (Hammer et al., 2013). This evidence may indicate the positive link between FSSB and health. Secondly, social support literature found that social support is negatively related to poor health (Schwarzer & Leppin, 1989). We expect that FSSB may play a similar role such as social support. Finally, early studies confirmed the positive relationship between FSSB and perceived health (Hammer et al., 2011; Kossek et al., 2018).

In this study, we aim to evaluate the relationship between FSSB and its outcomes, answering the following research question:

RQ1: Do the above-mentioned variables (e.g. OCB and job satisfaction) correlate with FSSB, and if so, how large are their true score correlations?

Moderators

Research design

The methodological blueprint adopted by primary studies may systematically shape both the magnitude and even the direction of FSSB–outcome associations for at least three reasons. Firstly, cross-sectional designs collect predictor and criterion data from the same source at a single point in time, inflating covariation through common-method bias and consistency motifs (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This inflation may be particularly salient in the FSSB domain, where employees simultaneously rate their supervisors’ support and their own work–family experiences. Secondly, designs that introduce temporal or source separation – most notably time-lagged panels and multi-source reports – attenuate these artefactual correlations and permit a more rigorous test of temporal precedence. Reflecting these points, recent meta-analyses consistently identify research design as a powerful methodological moderator in organisational behaviour (OB) research (Li et al., 2021; Lyubykh et al., 2022). We, therefore, test research design as a methodological moderator of all focal FSSB–outcome relationships to refine the precision and validity of aggregated estimates.

Gender

Social role theory posits that culturally prescribed norms channel women towards communal, family-oriented responsibilities and men towards agentic, work-focused roles (Eagly & Wood, 2012). These normative expectations place greater caregiving demands on women, resulting in higher baseline levels of work–family conflict (Gutek et al., 1991; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2007). In this context, FSSB functions as an externally provided resource that directly alleviates strains arising from competing role obligations. Consequently, social role theory predicts that women may derive stronger benefits from FSSB – manifested in lower work–family conflict, enhanced well-being and improved job attitudes – because the support helps reconcile incongruent role demands. A recent meta-analysis confirms that gender plays a broad moderating role across employees’ demographic characteristics, psychological traits, and behavioral patterns (Wang et al., 2023). Based on this theoretical and empirical reasoning, we include gender as a boundary condition.

Age

Age-related shifts in role demands and motivation suggest that employees at different life stages may derive differential value from FSSB. Firstly, lifespan research shows that motivational priorities change with age (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004). Because FSSB offers a mix of developmental and flexibility-oriented resources, employees’ responses to it are likely to vary according to these age-linked motives. Secondly, a differentiated leadership approach, tailored to the distinct needs of younger versus older followers, may optimise well-being and performance (Rosing & Jungmann, 2015). Hence, older employees may receive more from targeted support (e.g. FSSB). Thirdly, early findings document a modest but reliable association between age and work–family conflict (Allen & Finkelstein, 2014; Matthews et al., 2010). Considering the role of FSSB on work–family conflict, age may influence the relationship between FSSB and its outcomes. Taken together, these considerations underscore age as a theoretically grounded boundary condition.

Explorative RQ2: Do (1) research design, (2) gender and (3) age moderate the relationship between FSSB and its outcomes?

Method

Building upon recent meta-analyses (Lin et al., 2022; Lyubykh et al., 2022; Park et al., 2020; Speer et al., 2021), this study adopts the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methodology (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015) to assess the true score correlations of interest. This psychometric approach corrects for sampling error and measurement unreliability, providing unbiased population-level correlation estimates for OB or HR (human resource) research. Furthermore, this study uses meta-regression to explore potential moderating effects and conducts publication bias analyses to confirm the reliability of the findings. The inclusion criteria for studies encompass the period from January 2000 to December 2022, as the concept of FSSB was introduced in 2006 (Hammer et al., 2007), making it unlikely to find FSSB studies before 2000.

Primary study search

The keywords are determined according to the early qualitative review of FSSB (Crain & Stevens, 2018) and scale-developed articles of FSSB (Hammer et al., 2009, 2013). We used the following keywords: family-supportive supervisor behaviours, family-support behaviours and FSSB. We searched these keywords in the titles, abstracts and keywords sections of articles. This study utilises multiple databases to locate potential primary studies.

Firstly, for published studies, we searched on the Web of Science and PsycINFO. Secondly, for unpublished studies, we searched on the ProQuest database, which allowed us to find unpublished dissertations (e.g. Master’s and PhD’s dissertations). Finally, we manually searched the references list of a qualitative review of FSSB (Crain & Stevens, 2018). Web of Science and PsycINFO together index nearly all peer-reviewed OB or HR and work–family outlets, ProQuest captures grey literature to curb publication bias and reference-chaining from seminal reviews fills any remaining gaps – yielding near-exhaustive coverage with minimal redundancy.

Inclusion criteria

The articles were retained only if they (1) used employed-adult samples; (2) assessed FSSB with a validated scale or adaptation; (2) reported zero-order Pearson correlations (or convertible statistics) between FSSB and at least one outcome and (4) provided independent data – when multiple reports overlapped, we kept the study with the largest sample or most complete information. We excluded (1) theoretical articles, reviews, meta-analyses or scale articles lacking outcomes; (2) studies centred on organisational or coworker support rather than supervisor FSSB; (3) experimental or intervention designs without pre-intervention correlations; (4) duplicate reports of the same dataset and (5) non-English publications.

Coding process

Before the coding process, the two authors engaged in discussions to determine the necessary information for coding. Independently, both the authors coded the following information: author names, construct names, publication year, correlations, reliabilities, sample sizes, gender distribution (% female), average age and research design. Subsequently, the two authors cross-checked the coding information, particularly for correlations and sample sizes, to ensure coding consistency. Specially, this study followed a structured selection process aligned with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines: initial database searches identified 271 records (246 published, 25 unpublished), which were reduced to 260 after removing non-English articles. During screening, 180 records were excluded for lacking relevant effect sizes, leaving 80 full-text articles for eligibility assessment. After full-text review, 10 articles were excluded for reporting fewer than three correlations (k < 3), resulting in 70 studies (64 published, 6 unpublished) being included in the meta-analysis, yielding 158 effect-size relations from a total sample of 37 086 participants. To visually illustrate the search, inclusion, and coding process, a PRISMA flowchart is provided in Figure 2. We follow PRISMA guidelines to ensure that our study identification, screening and inclusion procedures are reported with maximum transparency and replicability.

FIGURE 2: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flowchart.

Publication bias analysis

Publication bias can undermine the reliability of meta-analytic findings. To address this concern, we employed two advanced methods to identify potential publication bias. Firstly, we utilised the trim-and-fill method, which detects and adjusts for potential meta-analysis. Secondly, we employed Eggers’ regression method. Rodgers and Pustejovsky (2021) demonstrated the effectiveness of these two methods in reducing Type I error rates in a research method article.

The publication bias analysis was conducted using the metafor package (Viechtbauer, 2010) in R. The outcomes of the publication bias analysis are presented in Table 2.

Meta-analytical procedures

To evaluate the true scores correlations of interest, we used Hunter-Schmidt’s random-effect meta-analysis method (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). In particular, the reliabilities (i.e. Cronbach’s α) are employed to correct measuring errors. The summary of reliabilities is presented in Table 3. Each correlation of interest was corrected individually. This analysis is conducted utilising the psychmeta (Dahlke & Wiernik, 2019) package in R. The results of the meta-analysis are presented in Table 4.

Finally, we used a meta-regression methodology to detect the roles of potential moderators. Following early meta-analysis (Lee et al., 2019), the research design is coded as a dummy variable. In particular, the time-lagged study is coded as ‘1’, whereas the cross-temporal study is coded as ‘0’. Age and gender are coded as continuous variables (Wang et al., 2023). For age, the mean age of the sample is applied. For gender, the proportion of females (% female) is used. Utilising the random-effect model, three moderators were input into the meta-regression model. The results of the meta-regression are shown in Table 5.

Ethical considerations

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects. This research synthesises only publicly available aggregate statistics and contains no identifiable individual information, complying with ethical exemption standards.

Results

Publication bias

The results presented in Table 2 indicate that there is no serious publication bias. Upon employing the trim-and-fill method, several correlations required imputation to account for missing data. These include organisational commitment, family-work conflict, job satisfaction, LMX, prosocial motivation, work engagement and work–family enrichment. However, the inclusion of these ‘missing correlations’ did not result in substantial changes to the correlations of interest. For instance, in the case of organisational commitment, the addition of one correlation only led to a slight decrease of 0.019 in the correlation coefficient, indicating a minimal impact of publication bias. Furthermore, using Eggers’ regression method, a majority of p-values were found to be greater than 0.050, further supporting the conclusion that publication bias is not significant.

Meta-analytic results

The findings presented in Table 4 reveal significant relationships between FSSB and various outcomes. Notably, significant correlations were observed between FSSB and burnout (ρ = –0.33), family-work conflict (ρ = –0.14), family-work enrichment (ρ = 0.34), job satisfaction (ρ = 0.46), LMX (ρ = 0.69), OCB (ρ = 0.15), organisational commitment (ρ = 0.43), perceived health (ρ = 0.15), prosocial motivation (ρ = 0.21), satisfaction with work–family balance (ρ = 0.39), task performance (ρ = 0.23), turnover intention (ρ = –0.35), work engagement (ρ = 0.40), work–family conflict (ρ = –0.30) and work–family enrichment (ρ = 0.45). However, we found that FSSB exhibited insignificant relationships with intrinsic motivation and life satisfaction, as indicated by the 95% confidence intervals that encompassed zero. Taken together, we assessed the true score correlations of interest, answering research question 1.

Moderation analysis

The findings of the moderation analysis are detailed in Table 5. Initially, it was discovered that the research design significantly affects the associations with satisfaction regarding work–family balance, turnover intention and job satisfaction. In certain scenarios, the research design either intensifies these correlations (as seen in the case of work–family balance satisfaction) or reduces them (notably in studies on turnover intention and job satisfaction). In addition, gender emerged as a moderator in the link between FSSB and turnover intention, with a trend of stronger correlations in samples with a higher proportion of female participants. Lastly, age did not exhibit a notable impact on the examined relationships. These findings address the research question 2.

Discussion

Theoretical implications

Through the application of meta-analysis techniques, we have assessed various correlations of interest, thereby enhancing our understanding of FSSB. It is important to acknowledge that the magnitudes of these correlations exhibit considerable variation. For example, the correlation (ρ) between family-work conflict and FSSB is –0.14, whereas the correlation between job satisfaction and FSSB is 0.45. To establish a standardised framework for interpreting the magnitudes of these correlations, scholars have provided valuable guidance (Funder & Ozer, 2019; Gignac & Szodorai, 2016). According to this guidance, correlations of 0.05 are classified as very small effects, around 0.10 are considered small effects, 0.20 represents medium-sized effects and 0.30 indicates large effects. Applying this framework allows for a more nuanced understanding of the correlation magnitudes in our study.

Firstly, when examining work–family outcomes, FSSB demonstrates different correlation strengths. Specifically, FSSB exhibits a small correlation with family-work conflict (ρ = –0.14). However, FSSB displays larger correlations with family-work enrichment (ρ = 0.34), satisfaction with work–family balance (ρ = 0.39), work–family conflict (ρ = –0.30) and work–family enrichment (ρ = 0.45). An interesting observation is that the correlation between FSSB and work–family conflict (ρ = –0.30) is about double the strength of its correlation with family-work conflict (ρ = –0.14). Our findings align with and extend Guo et al.’s (2024) meta-analytic results (ρ = –0.23 vs. –0.09 for work–family vs. family-work conflict, respectively), while revealing even more pronounced differential effects. This consistency across studies strengthens the evidence that FSSB interventions may be particularly valuable for addressing work-derived interference, potentially because supervisors have more direct control over work-related stressors (e.g. scheduling flexibility, workload adjustments) than family-domain issues. This pattern suggests that FSSB might be more effective in mitigating issues stemming from work affecting family life, rather than the reverse.

Secondly, turning to performance outcomes, FSSB demonstrates varying correlation strengths. Specifically, FSSB exhibits a small correlation with OCB (ρ = 0.15), while displaying a medium correlation with task performance (ρ = 0.23). When comparing these magnitudes of correlations with certain leadership style constructs, they might be considered relatively small.

For instance, based on meta-analysis methodology, Hoch et al. (2018) discovered large correlations between OCB and transformational leadership (ρ = 0.52), servant leadership (ρ = 0.40), authentic leadership (ρ = 0.33) and ethical leadership (ρ = 0.29). This comparison suggests that while FSSB positively correlates with performance outcomes, its impact may be less pronounced than that of other leadership styles (e.g. transformational leadership and servant leadership). In addition, the comparatively modest correlations between FSSB and performance outcomes (OCB: ρ = 0.15; task performance: ρ = 0.23) appear particularly noteworthy when contrasted with LMX relationships (OCB: ρ = 0.35; task performance: ρ = 0.30; Rockstuhl et al., 2012). This discrepancy may reflect fundamental differences in construct proximity to performance outcomes. While LMX represents a direct supervisor-subordinate relationship quality that immediately affects work behaviours, FSSB operates as a more distal variable that primarily influences performance through intermediate mechanisms such as reduced work–family conflict.

Thirdly, moving on to attitude outcomes, FSSB exhibits noteworthy correlations. Specifically, FSSB demonstrates large correlations with job satisfaction (ρ = 0.46), organisational commitment (ρ = 0.43) and turnover intention (ρ = –0.35). These findings highlight the robust and consistent predictive power of FSSB in relation to job attitudes. In addition, we discovered a strong relationship between FSSB and work engagement (ρ = 0.44), suggesting that FSSB serves as a potent driver of motivation.

Fourthly, a highly substantial correlation was observed between LMX and FSSB (ρ = 0.69). Intriguingly, earlier meta-analyses have reported similar correlations. Hoch et al. (2018) found that LMX exhibited very large correlations with transformational leadership (ρ = 0.71), servant leadership (ρ = 0.65) and ethical leadership (ρ = 0.71). This suggests that FSSB may play a comparable role to these three leadership styles in fostering positive LMX.

Fifthly, in the context of health and well-being outcomes, FSSB demonstrates notable correlations. Specifically, there is a negative correlation between FSSB and burnout (ρ = –0.33), indicating that higher levels of FSSB are associated with lower levels of employee burnout. Conversely, FSSB shows a positive correlation with perceived health (ρ = 0.15), suggesting that increased FSSB is linked to better-perceived health among employees. These findings underscore the important role of FSSB in influencing employees’ health and well-being, highlighting its importance in not only enhancing job-related outcomes but also in promoting overall employee health and reducing burnout.

Lastly, it is worth observing that FSSB does not exhibit a significant relationship with intrinsic motivation and life satisfaction. One possible explanation for this finding is the limited number of studies available on their relationship (k = 3). When the number of studies is small, it can result in a larger variance, leading to broader confidence intervals that may encompass zero. Thus, the lack of significance in this case could be attributed to the limited pool of studies available for analysis.

Moderation effects

Firstly, our findings indicate that the relationship of interest is influenced by the research design. Our findings align with the prediction by Podsakoff et al. (2003). However, a notable portion of the FSSB literature we reviewed still relies on cross-sectional designs. Detailed information about these research designs is provided in the Online Appendix 1. The prevalence of cross-sectional designs is a concern, as they typically offer lower confidence in establishing causal relationships. To address this limitation, future studies should prioritise time-lagged designs over cross-sectional ones.

Secondly, age does not significantly moderate the situation. The impact of age on employees is multifaceted and intricate. For example, previous meta-analyses have shown an inverted-U-shaped correlation between age and performance (Sturman, 2003). Similarly, in the context of FSSB and its outcomes, age’s influence might also be nuanced and complex. For instance, young individuals newly entering the workforce and those who have been working for a longer period might require different kinds of support, leading to varied effects of FSSB implementation.

Lastly, gender moderates the relationship between FSSB and turnover intention. Specifically, β = 0.003 > 0, indicating that the correlations between FSSB and turnover intention tend to increase as the proportion of females increases. This finding is intriguing and suggests that FSSB may exert different influences on females and males, possibly because of the distinct family roles they assume.

Contributions to family-supportive supervisor behaviour literature

This study represents the first comprehensive meta-analytic review examining the relationship between FSSB and its outcomes. While some qualitative studies have synthesised the current evidence on the relationship between FSSB and its outcomes (Andrade, 2022; Crain & Stevens, 2018; Sargent et al., 2022; Straub, 2012), they fell short in resolving the inconsistencies found in FSSB research. Our study, by addressing these inconsistencies in primary studies and considering statistical anomalies such as sampling and measurement errors, offers a more definitive and precise understanding of FSSB’s impact. The findings significantly enhance the current body of literature on FSSB, elucidating the extent of its influence on various outcomes.

Our findings reveal a range of correlations between FSSB and its outcomes, encompassing large, medium and small effects. This nuanced understanding allows scholars to precisely grasp the magnitude of FSSB’s influence on various outcomes. In addition, we identify important moderators, such as age and gender, which further contribute to the knowledge base on FSSB. By considering these moderating factors, our study provides valuable insights into the boundary conditions between FSSB and its outcomes.

Finally, we identify several important moderators – such as research design, age and gender – that help clarify the boundary conditions under which FSSB influences employee outcomes, thereby advancing theoretical understanding. For instance, research design significantly moderated the relationships between FSSB and satisfaction with work–family balance, turnover intention and job satisfaction, indicating that temporal framing may shape how employees interpret and respond to supervisor-support. These findings suggest that future theoretical models should consider time-sensitive processes in explaining FSSB’s effects. In addition, although most effects of age and gender were not statistically significant, the marginal effect of gender (% female) on the FSSB–turnover intention link highlights the possibility that women may be more responsive to family-supportive behaviours, consistent with social role theory. By uncovering these nuanced patterns, our study helps to reconcile prior inconsistent findings and refines key frameworks such as SET by identifying when, how and for whom FSSB is most impactful.

Managerial implications

This study has significant implications for managerial practices. The robust associations between FSSB and a range of work–family and job outcomes underscore the importance of implementing interventions to enhance FSSB.

Firstly, our study sheds light on the precise relationship between FSSB and its outcomes, enriching the comprehension of FSSB’s role for both employees and employers. This enhanced understanding extends beyond merely recognising the benefits of FSSB for employees; it also encompasses insights into the magnitude of its effectiveness.

Secondly, given the increasing prevalence of remote work and the need for effective support from supervisors in balancing work and non-work responsibilities, organisations should prioritise the development of FSSB. Human resource management can play a vital role in this process by implementing initiatives aimed at increasing leaders’ FSSB. For example, organisations can design and implement training programmes to enhance leaders’ abilities to provide adequate support to their employees. In addition, performance appraisal systems can incorporate FSSB as an evaluation criterion, reflecting the organisation’s commitment to assisting employees in achieving work-life balance.

Thirdly, by recognising the significance of FSSB and integrating it into managerial practices, organisations can create a supportive work environment that fosters employee well-being, productivity and job satisfaction. These efforts align with the evolving needs of modern work settings and contribute to the overall success and effectiveness of organisations.

Limitations and future directions

It is important to notice that the findings of this study are based on correlational data, which limits our ability to make causal inferences. Although we explore the outcomes of FSSB, it is equally conceivable that these outcomes might also function as antecedents to FSSB. For instance, in our analysis, task performance is viewed as a consequence of FSSB. Nonetheless, it could be that employees who exhibit high task performance are more likely to receive FSSB, as high performers often garner more organisational support. In such scenarios, task performance may be an antecedent to FSSB, not just an outcome. To ascertain a more definitive causal link, future research should utilise experimental methodologies and conduct longitudinal studies.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the limitation that our study only includes publications written in English, potentially excluding studies in other languages. The cultural context can significantly influence work–family dynamics and the outcomes of FSSB.

Therefore, future studies should consider conducting cross-cultural research to explore the potential cultural effects on the relationships between FSSB and its outcomes. By encompassing a broader range of cultural contexts, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the role of FSSB in different cultural settings.

Future research could profitably move in three directions. Firstly, unpack the mediating mechanisms that make FSSB uniquely influential, clarifying how it shapes outcomes beyond what traditional leadership explains. Secondly, pursue theoretical integration – melding insights from SET with CORT, for instance – to generate richer explanatory power. Finally, investigate cultural contingencies; cross-cultural comparisons may reveal how societal values shape when and for whom FSSB is most effective.

Conclusion

Over the past two decades, there has been a notable increase in the number of jobs being performed remotely from home. This shift has brought attention to the crucial role that leaders play in supporting their followers in balancing their work and non-work responsibilities. As a result, the concept of FSSB has garnered significant academic interest. This study aims to provide the first comprehensive quantitative review of FSSB by employing a meta-analysis methodology. Through our meta-analysis, we have uncovered significant relationships between FSSB and various important work–family and work-related outcomes. These findings contribute to the existing body of literature on FSSB and enhance our understanding of its impact. In addition, we have identified several moderating factors, including gender and research design, which influence the strength and direction of these relationships.

Acknowledgements

The authors reported that they received funding from Ningxia Planning Office of Social Science, which may be affected by the research reported in the enclosed publication. The authors have disclosed those interests fully and have implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated university in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.

Y.L., G.Z. and N.W. contributed equally to the conceptualisation, writing and editing of the manuscript, and share first authorship. All authors contributed to the article, discussed the results and approved the final version for submission and publication.

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support. This work was supported by the Ningxia Planning Office of Social Science under grant number 23NXCGL02.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, G.Z. upon reasonable request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. The article does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder or agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References