Dual Career Couple

Purbudi Wahyuni, Pribadi Widyatmojo

Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Yogyakarta

Keywords: Career, Employee, Family Life

Abstract: This study examined the relationship between a couple of career and family life. The double role of female

worker gots complex problems, that produces organization and the female worker challenges, because of the

role function of the woman (Parasuraman dan Greenhaus, 1992). The balance of workplace support and

family support composes job satisfaction, family satisfaction, and declining job stress. That spouses realize

that supporting each other is capable of success achieved in the workplace. This phenomenon enhances this

research, especially about why employees have a readiness to support their peers in the workplace, and the

influences on well-being on the dual-career couple. Population research is all dual career-couples or a

married couple of employees in Private Hospital because these dual career-couples need to build their

characteristics of Hospital employees. The number of this research respondent is 186 employees. This is a

lifestyle for many women, as the larger female worker opportunity dan, the larger female education

opportunity. The analysis result shows that intergroup knowledge does not influence well-being in the

workplace, and intergroup knowledge influence positive and significant toward peer support. The influence

of intergroup knowledge toward well-being is negative and not significant.

1 INTRODUCTION

Many couples act as dual-career-couple, which

means determine both husband and wife are working

outside. This dual-career-couple grows up since the

number of female workers growing up. This is a

lifestyle for many women, as the larger female

worker opportunity dan, the larger female education

opportunity.

Female workers were asked to be professional

workers and asked to be committed as couples of

life, so that, the female workers are capable of

actualizing themselves, which was indicated by their

achievement in the workplace and family well-

being.

The double role of female worker gots complex

problems, that produces organization and the female

worker challenges, because of the role function of

the woman (Parasuraman dan Greenhaus, 1992).

The influences of interaction and accumulated

problems in the family and workplace, have to be

resolved to prevent from serious job stress and

career. Casio (2003) stated that one of many ways of

reducing job stress is that the female workers have to

manage their time as flexible as possible without

sacrificing their commitment to the workplace and

family. Sekaran (1985) stated that the success of the

double role management depends on social support.

Greenhaus dan Parasuraman (1992) identified that

social support reduced stressor on the strategic

human resources, in different domains of work and

family. Family support, especially husband support

or wife support, called spouse support, meanwhile

workplace support called the organization to

support.

The balance of workplace support and family

support composes job satisfaction, family

satisfaction, and declining job stress. This research is

done by Wahyuni (2010) to find out that spouses

realize of supporting each other is capable of success

achieved in the workplace. Organization support is

workplace support that comes from the

superintendent or supervisor directly, peer support,

and co-worker support. Superintendent support has a

significant influence on well-being, which means

the fitness of job satisfaction and family satisfaction.

Higgin and Duxbury (1992) stated that well-being

consists of job satisfaction and, family satisfaction

which are components of which is a component of

work-life quality measurement.

412

Wahyuni, P. and Widyatmojo, P.

Dual Career Couple.

DOI: 10.5220/0009959104120423

In Proceedings of the International Conference of Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management (ICBEEM 2019), pages 412-423

ISBN: 978-989-758-471-8

The result of Holzbach (1978), Cobb's (1976,

1980) research, and Wahyuni (2009) research, stated

that organizational support is simply peered support,

which is the friend's capability of making

coordination to switch with each other in case of

unplanned special family urgent. This support is

capable of improving work motivation, what more

helping to solve the work problems. That support

produces job satisfaction. The next Wahyuni (2010)

research found that spouse support did not determine

job satisfaction in the workplace, but it determined

the family decisions. Meanwhile, the organizational

support (that comes from the superintendent,

coworker, and subordinate) gives positive signs of

job satisfaction. But does not influence on family

satisfaction. Accordance with the goodness of fit

that social support, especially spouse support and

organizational support variables, have a significant

influence on well-being that comes from family

satisfaction and job satisfaction. But, the social

support variable is indicating a moderating variable

of the influence of the stressor and well-being

variable, but as an independent variable, it has a

direct impact on the well-being variable.

Peer support in the workplace is measured by the

perception of the context of social workplace

support. The context refers to the social support

theory as a way of comprehending a friend's support

from each other in the workplace. Albrecht and

Adelman (1987), stated that a friend's support came

from mutually dynamic interactions, enhanced

attitude, beliefs, emotion, and positive behaviors.

The first research about peer support from

workplace friend is conducted by Balk (1969) that

stated that the more complex work, the more needs

of peer support.

House (1981, 1985) stated that peer support is a

facility or a way to ease the job implementation or

task support, and enhance the cooperative readiness,

and willingness to advice and guidance in to solve

the problem. Keup (2004), Graen and Uhl-Bien

(1995), Jacob (1970), Kram dan Isabella (1985),

Glesspen (1997), Mc. Evoy and Buller (1987),

Sherony and Green (2002) stated that the higher the

relationship between workplace friend, the higher

peer support needed psychologically and

physiologically what more in career development.

Wahyuni research (2009) stated that intergroup

knowledge and information sharing are antecedents

of peer support psychologically and not

physiologically are moderated by; work

environment, and interaction tenure resulted from

improvement capability expectation each other.

Meanwhile, Inman (2001) stated that diversity

did not influence job satisfaction if the diversity is

not completed with the close relationship between

workplace friend, and positively influenced toward

job satisfaction, especially concerning job

satisfaction on compensation and promotion.

Randolph dan Blencoe (1983) stated that the higher

the knowledge capability level of a peer, the more

positive peer support toward job satisfaction and

teamwork and personally. Huselid (1995) found that

the high-involvement strategy of autonomy has

influenced work environment change without higher

management initiation. The strategy influenced job

satisfaction, and then it influences positively on a

commitment to work and organization performance.

Meanwhile, Rahab (2010), in the literature review,

revealed that the readiness to share knowledge and

experience with each other between peers in the

workplace influenced the improvement of

organizational capability. This information sharing

between peers in the workplace needed the positive

opportunity of critics, ideas, comment expression by

the teamwork member. It means every member of

the teamwork has the same opportunity to express

all problems, difficulties, ideas to improve the

organization's productivity and job satisfaction.

Many types of researches show that there are

debates about behavior that produces peer support in

the workplace, what more dual-career couple toward

well-being that produces job satisfaction and family

satisfaction. Those research observe employees in

the individualism philosophy country. Schaubroeck

and Lam (2002) stated that there are workplace peer

support in the collectivism philosophy country and

those peer support in the individualism philosophy

country. People from individualism countries before

the individual need fulfillment, so that little bit has

paid attention to their peers in the workplace, then in

the collectivism country. Vice versa, people in the

collectivism country pay more attention to their

peers in the workplace.

This phenomenon enhances this research,

especially about why employees have a readiness to

support their peers in the workplace, and the

influences on well-being on the dual-career couple.

People in the collectivism country, including

Indonesia, married, are an important status of social

life. But this status has consequences of rising

interest conflict; the wife and husband married that

they both work outside. Thereby, the next question

is that if peer support is capable of mediating job

and family satisfaction.

Dual Career Couple

413

2 THEORY

This research is analyzing the peer support variable,

a mediator variable between intergroup knowledge

and information sharing variable toward well-being

that producing job satisfaction in the workplace, and

family satisfaction as a double career couple. Every

married and working outside a couple, are eager to

balance job satisfaction and family satisfaction.

Organization success needs its employees to work

well, and thereby the employees should support the

organization's success optimal. The two interests

(job satisfaction and family satisfaction) are

mutually exclusive to each other sometimes, and the

question is if the two interest is mediated by peer

support, intergroup knowledge, and information

sharing. What more, employees who work in the

organization facing the community directly, such as

employees working in a hospital.

2.1 Intergroup Knowledge and

Information Sharing Influence and

Peer Support

Bacharach et al. (2005) Schaubroeck & Lam (2002),

Ibarra (1997), Thomas (1993), Fried & Tiegs

(1993), Baum, (1991), Kirmeyer (1987), Love

(1981), Cob (1980), O'Reilly III (1977), Blau

(1977), Thomas, Balk (1969) found that Supportive

Relationships such as Intergroup knowledge and

information sharing influence positive and

significant toward peer support, though in the

heterogeneous teamwork. Goldberg (1981) and

Borkenau dan Ostendorf (1988) stated that

intergroup knowledge and various information

strongly determined peer support. There is no

different support between American and

Afroamerican peer support in the workplace.

Someone or some people get high peer support as

long as they are well known as high capability and

education though they are heterogenous teamwork.

Kloeppel (2006) mood and motivation a positive

correlation on peer support, let alone there is

positive information between peer in the workplace

from confidence speaker or peer in the workplace. In

contrast, negative information adds workload.

Wahyuni (2009), in her qualitative research, found

that intergroup knowledge and information sharing

as an antecedent of peer support psychologically and

in psychologists moderated by the work

environment and tenure of interaction with each

other with an expectation of capability and

knowledge improvement. Make (1994), Crary

(1987), DeNisi et al. (1983), Blau (1977) interaction

tenure and collaboration intensity influenced

positively and significant toward peer support.

DeNisi, Randolph, dan Blencoe (1983) stated that

the higher knowledge, the higher peer support, and

influence positively toward job satisfaction

individually or teamwork. Rahab (2010) concluded

that the willingness to share experience and

knowledge between peers in the workplace

influenced the improvement of organizational

capability. He stated that information sharing

between peers by the opportunity of sharing

information, idea, critics, and comments. Thereby,

hypotheses 1a and 1b are formulated as follows.

Hypothesis 1a: intergroup knowledge influence

positively toward peer support.

Hypothesis 1b: information sharing influenced

positively toward peer support.

2.2 Intergroup Knowlegde,

Information Sharing, and

Well-being

Bruning & Seers (2004), Miller (2005), Lepine &

Dyne (2001), Huselid (1995) stated that cognitive

ability /knowledge influenced positively and

significant toward peer support, to help the

peer./altruism, and empathy. Peer support mediates

the influence of Cognitive ability/knowledge and

work experience toward job satisfaction. Holzbach

1978), Cobb (1976, 1980), Wahyuni (2009) stated

that high support relations between the smart peer

and willingness to share information in

heterogeneous ethnic influenced job satisfaction and

commitment. Organizational support, especially

peers support, influenced directly on well-being

without any moderation.

Lilius (2006), Kim (2003), Mc.Cormick (2001),

Bacharach et al. (2000) Ibarra, (1997), Thomas

(1993), Fried & Tiegs (1993). Podsakoff et al.

(2000). Jackson & William (1985), Harkins &

Jackson (1985), DeNisi et al. (1983), Latane (1981)

stated that peer cohesiveness produces peer

significance. Peer support mediates both career

support, peer significance, and increasing self-

confidence and professionalism and increasing peer

health. Therefore, hypothesis 2a and 2b are

formulated as follows:

Hypothesis 2a: intergroup knowledge influence

positively toward well-being.

Hypothesis 2b: information sharing influence

positively toward well-being

Hypothesis 3: Peer Support mediates the Influence

of Intergroup knowledge and Information sharing

on Well-Being

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

414

Social Support is assisting the employee stress

because of the dual-career couple ( Parasuraman et

al., 1992). The research found that there is a

negative relationship between social and well-being,

in which the couple support reduce stress in the

workplace and family stress. Social support is a

moderating variable on the relationship between

stressors and well-being (Suchet dan Barling; 1986).

In the context of social support, people individually

receive good brotherhood in their professionalism

and family life, manifestation in peer support, and

organizational support formally. Informal support

receives from spouse, family, friend, and society.

There are many concepts of social support, such as

by Kahn and Antonucci (1980) defined social

support as an interpersonal transaction that involved

affection, affirmation, and assistance support.

House (1981) proposed that social support as

interpersonal transactions involved in four kinds of

support, such as; emotional, instrumental

informational and judgmental, or evaluative.

DeNisi, Randolph, and Blencoe (1983) stated

that the higher knowledge peer has more positive

peer support, enhance job satisfaction individually

and teamwork. Huselid (1995) found that the high-

involvement strategy resulted in autonomy and

freedom of decision making to respond to

environmental change, without higher management

permission. This strategy has an influence on job

satisfaction, in turn, produced positive commitment

and organizational performance.

Cohen dan Will (1985) proposed four kinds of

organizational support. First, appreciation support.

This support is proposed by giving people that they

are significance individually toward the organization

and their family. This support produces a positive

contribution to their own toward. Second,

informational support. This informational support

helps people define, realize, and problem-solving

capability. Thus information support is indicated by

the information available about the steps of stressor

minimizing. Third, brotherhood support. This

brotherhood support minimizes stress by affiliates

people in social relationship contracts, or by

minimizes the frailness. The third support,

manifested by social activity, pleasure, or recreation.

The fourth is instrumental support that produced in

the availability of the organization facility to reduce

the stress.

Organizational support is supported form the

workplace, comes from a supervisor, peer support,

and co-worker support. A coworker is a close friend

in the workplace, that eager to help each other and

motivate each other (Wahyuni, 2009).

Peer support variable is measured by their

perception of social support each other in the

workplace social, by social support theory and

social exchange theory. Albrecht dan Adelman

(1987) stated that social support theory functions as

a way of comprehending support between friends in

the workplace in the organization. The support

obtained if there are mutually dynamic interactions

among people or employees in the workplace as a

result of positive attitude

, beliefs, emotion, and

behavior. On the other hand, Klein et al. (2004)

stated that social exchange theory explaining the

people's or employee's way of need fulfillment

through profit maximization and cost minimization

in the social relationship.

Balk (1969) stated that people or employe get

more complex of peer support. Latane et al. (1979)

founded a negative conclusion that team

performance decreased by increasing teamwork

members. The conclusion denied by their following

research (Latane, 1981; Wills 1981), with their

statement that teamwork cooperation as a result of

social impact theory. This theory explains that peer

support enhances social conditions absolutely ( e.g.,

people join in a social group to get special status).

House (1981, 1985) expressed that peer support

is a way to production facilities of work or task

support, and functions as the willingness to join

together, to advice, a guide to solve the problem.

Keup (2004), Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), Jacob

(1970), Kram and Isabella (1985), Glesspen (1997),

Mc. Evoy and Buller (1987), Sherony and Green

(2002) stated that the higher the relationship among

peers, the higher peer support psychologically and in

psychologically enhanced career development.

Wahyuni (2009) stated that intergroup knowledge

and information sharing are peer support

antecedents psychologically and psychologically,

which is moderated by the work environment and

their interaction tenure. Their interaction tenure

especially accompanied by their capability and

knowledge teamwork improvement expectation.

The last interaction produces job satisfaction and

family satisfaction.

Inman (2001) stated that teamwork diversity did

not influence job satisfaction, but influenced the

team cohesiveness, which in turn produced the job

satisfaction, especially job satisfaction on

compensation and promotion. Wahyuni (2009)

founded that team diversity did not moderate peer

support. Bruning and Seers (2004) stated that team

diversity in the organization influenced job

satisfaction negatively, so do Miller (2005).

Dual Career Couple

415

Schaubroeck and Lam (2002) stated that

collectivism communities' behavior tended to work

cooperative voluntarily. In contrast, the

individualism community prefers to work

individually. Thereby, this qualitative and

quantitative research contributes to the

comprehension of peer support and social

enforcement process to manage them.

Task characteristic enhances peer support,

especially the willingness to help each other, such as

social power theory complemented with expectancy

theory. The theory explained that teamwork

members consistently supported each other in

achieving the organization's goals, that producing

job satisfaction in the workplace.

Social support is the information of value and

willingness to cooperate in the workplace. Social

support and cohesiveness are foundations of

interpersonal relationship that produces trust,

openness, and organizational outcome such as job

satisfaction and organizational performance

(Goldhaber et al. ,1978); Hellriegel dan Slocum

(1974); Schnake (1983). Trust and openness

function as control of right and wrong (O’Reilly and

Roberts, 1974).

Egdof's (1996) research treats the antecedent

variable is the personal capability to communicate,

and interpersonal communication that moderated by

temporary income and half benefit influences peer

support. The conclusion expresses that the higher

interpersonal communication and the higher

temporary income influences peer support

significantly.

In the case of organizational downsizing, peer

support relieves the people or employee's tension by

information sharing to get the new job. This

phenomenon is founded by Egdof (1996) and

Randell (1998). Egdof (1996) and Randell (1998)

explained that peer support base on interpersonal

communication and cohesiveness because of the

emotion similarity toward peer existence in the

workplace.

Peer attribution (locus of causality,

controllability, and stability) based on attribution

theory, explained that peer support willingness based

on three factors, including; (1) behavioral

characteristic, which means the willingness to

cooperate in the teamwork that producing peer

support, and outcome, (2) organization condition

enforcing every people or employee cooperate each

other (Smith et al., 1983), (3) responsible behavior

to help each other called altruism (Weiner, 1980a;

1986b; 1986, 1995).

Blau (1977) expressed that peers, information,

and task sharing increased cohesiveness and trust

that increased a sense of helping each other. Crary

(1987), and. Make (1994) founded that interaction

tenure an intensity influenced peer to peer

cohesiveness and performance (Baum, 1991).

Bacharach et al. (2000) stated that peer

cohesiveness enforces people's significance in the

teamwork, and produces dual-career couple

improvement (Ibarra, 1997). Thomas (1993) stated

that brotherhood and peer support improves self-

confidence and professionalism. Pendaat Fried &

Tiegs (1993) stated that peer cohesiveness reduced

stress and improved employee's health take

carelessly. Podsakoff et al

. (2000) expressed that

peer support improved individual and organizational

performance.

Walz and Niehoff (1996) stated that peer support

39% enforced job satisfaction on customer service

efficiency, operation efficiency, with high quality.

The social relationship is trust, taking care of

each other through information and knowledge

sharing (Uzzi, 1996).

Schaubroeck and Lam (2002) compared

Hongkong Bank in the collectivist society with USA

Teller in the individualism society found that

similarity of personality and peer communication

influenced peer support. Burnett's research (2005)

found that personality influenced on peer support,

and found that peer support increased outcome.

Therefore, Bacharach et al. (2005); Baum

(1991); Thomas, (1993); Fried and Tiegs (1993);

Walz and Niehoff (1996); Uzzi (1996); Blau (1977);

Ibarra (1997); Schaubroeck and Lam (2002); and

Burnett (2005) stated that peer support increased

peer cohesiveness, and peer support did not come

from demography similarity, instead of peer

interpersonal relationship and high information

sharing, trust. People or member interaction

improved decision making, promotion.

Well-being is reflected in job satisfaction,

indicated by individual stress. Parasuraman et al.

(1992) stated that work-family domains, job

satisfaction, and family satisfaction were well-being

indicators. Higgins and Duxbury (1992) stated that

job satisfaction is a measurement component of

work-life, and family satisfaction is a measurement

component of family life. Wahyuni (2010) found

that spouse support did not influence job

satisfaction; on the other side, organizational

support influenced job satisfaction positive and

significant. Spouse support influenced family

satisfaction positively, and organizational support

did not influence family satisfaction. Based on the

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

416

goodness of fit conclusion that spouse support and

organizational support influence well-being

significantly. Social support variable does not

moderate the relation between stressor and well-

being; therefore, the hypothesis formulated as

follows:

Hypothesis 4: Peer support mediates the

influence of intergroup knowledge and information

sharing toward job satisfaction and family

satisfaction.

We strongly encourage authors to use this

document for the preparation of the camera-ready.

Please follow the instructions closely to make the

volume look as uniform as possible (Moore and

Lopes, 1999).

Please remember that all the papers must be in

English and without orthographic errors.

Do not add any text to the headers (do not set

running heads) and footers, not even page numbers,

because the text will be added electronically.

For the best viewing experience, the used font

must be Times New Roman, on a Macintosh use the

font named times, except on special occasions, such

as program code (Section 2.3.7).

3 RESEARCHED METHOD

This research uses quantitative design. This research

aim is figuring out the effect of intergroup

knowledge and information sharing toward well-

being (including job satisfaction and family

satisfaction) that is mediated by peer support,

especially for dual-career couples. This research set

is a survey of data collecting techniques, with

married employees individually analysis, to get high

generalization.

Population research is all dual career-couples or

a married couple of employees of Hospital because

these dual career-couples need to build their

characteristics of Hospital employees. The number

of this research respondent is 186 employees.

Collected questionnaire responses are 173 or about

93% response rate 93,01%, and it is good response

rate of survey research in accordance to Hester &

Dickerson (1984) statement that at least five times

items of questionnaire statement, and Sekaran

(2000) statement that at least 10 times research

variables.

3.1 Validity and Reliability

Validity testing is conducted by confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA) with the Nilai loading factor at least

0,50. These loading factors more than 0,5, which

means the instrument of measurement is valid.

Reliability testing conducted by Cronbach’s Alpha.

The research instruments are reliable since the

Cronbach’s Alpha minimum 0,60. The item of

intergroup knowledge and information sharing

loading factor more than 0,5 that mean all item are

valid.

The reliability examination of peer support that

counted from, flexibility, communication, and

cooperative indicators. This examination shows that

these indicators are 0,848. Flexibility indicator

0,848, and communication indicator 0,881.

Cooperative indicator 0,905. Cronbach's alpha more

than 0,6, which means the variables are reliable.

Job satisfaction and family satisfaction CFA analysis

shows that all questionnaire items loading factor

more than 0,5; thereby, all questionnaire items of job

satisfaction and family satisfaction are valid.

Cronbach's alpha reliability of job satisfaction 0,842

and the reliability of family satisfaction 0,822. This

means all questionnaire items of job satisfaction and

family satisfaction are reliable.

3.2 Analysis of Multiple Regression

This multiple regression analysis is conducted by

SPSS version 16.0 for windows.

3.3 Intergroup Knowledge and

Information Sharing Influence

toward Peer Support Analysis

The result of intergroup knowledge and information

sharing toward peer support influence analysis

shown in the 4.5. The result shows that intergroup

knowledge influence positive and significant toward

peer support (β = 0,288; p<0,05). The contribution

of intergroup knowledge determining peer support is

28,80%. The influence of information sharing

toward peer support is significant (β = 0,988;

p<0,05). The contribution of information sharing

determining peer support is 98,80%.

The goodness of fit or contribution of intergroup

knowledge and information sharing determining

peer support is 57,30% ( R

= 0,573; p = 0,000) and

simultaneously influences positive and significant

toward peer support. Intergroup knowledge and

information sharing that consists of diligent behavior

have a significant positive influence on peer support

(F = 48.942; p = 0,000). Intergroup knowledge and

information sharing consist of work flexibility that

has a significant positive influence on peer support

as (F = 173.887; p = 0,000). Intergroup knowledge

Dual Career Couple

417

and information sharing consists of communication

has a positive and significant influence on peer

support as (F = 94.329; p = 0,000). Intergroup

knowledge and information sharing consists of

cooperative, has a significant positive influence on

peer support as (F = 25.992; p = 0,000). Thereby,

hypothesis 1 is supported.

3.4 Intergroup Knowledge and

Information Sharing Influence

toward Well-being Analysis

The result of intergroup knowledge and information

sharing influence toward well-being shown in table

4.5. The analysis result shows that intergroup

knowledge does not influence well-being in the

workplace with (β = -0,086; p >0,05), thereby

hypothesis 2a is not supported. Information sharing

information does not influence well-being in the

workplace with (β = 0,178; p > 0,05), thereby

hypothesis 2b is not supported.

3.5 Intergroup Knowledge and

Information Sharing Influence

toward Well-being Analysis

Mediated by Peer Support

Table 4.6. Shows details of the influence of

intergroup knowledge toward well-being. The

influence of intergroup knowledge toward well-

being is negative and not significant (β=-0,086; p =

0,103). The influence of information sharing toward

well-being is positive by not significant with

(β=0,178; p= 0,173). Thereby, the influence of peer

support toward well-being is positive but not

significant, with (β=0,034; p = 0,643). The influence

of intergroup knowledge, information sharing, and

peer support toward well-being are positive but not

significant, with (R

= 0,021; p = 0,245).

The analysis of intergroup knowledge and

information sharing influence toward well-being that

mediated by peer support, shows in table 4.6, that

although intergroup knowledge and information

sharing variables influence positive toward peer

support, the regression coefficient is not significant.

Thereby, a causal relationship between peer support

and well-being is not significant. It means peer

support does not mediate the influence of intergroup

knowledge and information sharing toward well-

being, or hypothesis 3 is not supported.

Variable

Sig

Constanta 8.425 8.423 0,00

Intergroup

knowledge

interaction

toward peer

support

0,288 3.654 0,00

Sharing

Informasi

Interaction

toward peer

support

0,988 8.717 0,00

Intergroup

knowledge

Interaction

and

Information

Sharing

toward peer

support

109.8

0,573

0,00

Intergroup

knowledge

interaction

and

information

Sharing

toward

diligent

behavior

(Y1)

48.942 0,00

Intergroup

knowledge

and

Information

Sharing

toward

Flexibility

(Y2)

173.887 0,00

Constanta 8.425 8.423 0,00

Intergroup

knowledge

interaction

toward peer

support

0,288 3.654 0,00

Intergroup

knowledge

interaction

and

information

Sharing

toward

diligent

behavior

(Y1)

48.942 0,00

Intergroup

knowledge

173.887 0,00

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

418

and

Information

Sharing

toward

Flexibility

(Y2)

Intergroup

knowledge

interaction

and

information

Sharing

toward

Communica

tion (Y3)

94.329 0,00

Intergroup

knowledge a

piece of

information

sharing

Interaction

toward

Cooperative

(Y4)

25.992 0,00

Intergroup

knowledge

interaction

toward

Well-Being

-0,086

-1,110

0,26

Information

Sharing

Interaction

toward

Well-Being

0,178

1,367

0,17

Peer support

Interaksi

toward

Well-Being

0,034 0,464 0,64

Intergroup

knowledge

interaction

and

Information

sharing and

peer support

toward

Well-Being

1.398 0,021 0,24

4 DISCUSSION

The descriptive statistics show that response average

of intergroup knowledge variable (X1) is 4,09, and

average response of information sharing variable

(X2) is 4,01, and response average of peer support

variable (Y) is 4,19; that indicates the organization is

compact and has nice communication climate in

order to improve knowledge and increase peer

support in the teamwork. This condition indicates

that organization members comprehend the

importance of cooperative climate in achieving

organizational goals. It means they support each

other in the workplace.

The average response of job satisfaction (Z1) is

3,65, which means the employees have moderate job

satisfaction in the workplace. The average response

of the family satisfaction variable (Z2) is 3,77,

which means the employees have a moderate family

satisfaction level. The average response of the well-

being variable (Z) is 3,96, which means the

employees have moderate job satisfaction and

moderate family satisfaction. Most of the employees

are young workers with 25 up to 34-year-old, and

diploma education level, and low work experience

less than a 10-year level. Robbin & Judge (2007)

stated that this kind of young employees tends to

resign to find out the better opportunity of work, that

produces a high turnover. It means that employees

with low work experiences tend to have low job

satisfaction, vice versa employees with high work

experiences because the high tenure tends to have

high job satisfaction.

The result of Multiple regression analysis

indicates the same result with Bacharach et al.

(2005), Schaubroeck & Lam (2002), Ibarra (1997),

Thomas (1993), Fried & Tiegs (1993), Baum,

(1991), Kirmeyer (1987), Love (1981), Cob (1980),

O'Reilly III (1977), Blau (1977), Thomas & Balk

(1969) finding that supportive relationships

including intergroup knowledge and information

sharing influence positive significant toward peer

support, though in heterogenous teamwork,

especially on decision making quality. This research

found that intergroup knowledge and information

sharing influence positive significant toward peer

support.

This research shows different conclusions with

Walz dan Niehoff (1996), Inman's (2001) research,

that stated the closer brotherhood of employees the

lower job satisfaction, especially in career,

promotion, and compensation. Greenhaus and

Parasuraman (1992), Higgin and Duxbury (1992),

Wahyuni (2010) find out that family support

influence career development in the workplace.

Organization support consists of peer support, and

direct supervisor support influences well-being,

which consist of job satisfaction and family

satisfaction. Higgin and Duxbury (1992) stated that

well-being consists of job satisfaction and family

satisfaction functions as a component of family life

quality. Organizational support, especially peers,

support, influences well-being.

Dual Career Couple

419

Lilius (2006), Kim (2003), Mc.Cormick (2001),

Bacharach et al. (2000) Ibarra, (1997), Thomas

(1993), Fried & Tiegs (1993). Podsakoff et al.

(2000). Jackson & William (1985) Harkins &

Jackson (1985), DeNisi et al. (1983), Latane (1981)

stated that the closeness of an employee's

brotherhood relationship increases the brotherhood

significance in the workplace. This employee

closeness increases their career success, self-

confidence, and increase trust in the workplace, and

professionalism. This employee closeness reduces

stress in the workplace and supports each other in

the workplace so that they improve individual and

teamwork performance. Weiner (1980a.b, 1986,

1995), Smith et al. (1983). Stated that peer

attribution (locus of causality, controllability, and

stability) based on attribution theory, generally

explains the employee's willingness to support each

other and to cooperate that improve organization

outcome.

This research found that peer support influences

positive significant toward well-being, neither job

satisfaction nor family satisfaction. Although this

research supports the prior research, this research

finding conforms with (Robbin & Judge's, 2007)

explanation that employee work experience tends to

increase turnover. Younger and well-experienced

employees tend to resign to find out a better job that

improves job satisfaction. It means that young

employees tend to have a low level of job

satisfaction, vise Versa the old employees tend to be

steady and get a high level of job satisfaction.

The failure to detect the influence of the

mediating effect of peer support, probably because

of the little amount of sample and because of

situational peer support rising in the workplace. This

research found that young employees tend to resign

to find a better opportunity for a career, producing a

high turnover. This condition is enhanced by the

information in the workplace if the employees

receive positive information from trust peer in the

workplace, the employees tend to be glad, vice versa

the employees get stress, and induce low

performance (Kloeppel, 2006).

It is important to check the mediating effect of

peer support toward well-being variable again, to

cope with the career development of the dual-career

couple.

REFERENCES

Ashford, S. J. & Tsui, A. S., 1991. Self-regulation for

managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback

seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2):251-

280.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & McKinney, V.

2000. Boundary management tactics and logics of

action: The case of peer-support providers.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 45:704-736.

Bacharach, S. B. & Bamberger, P. A., 2005. Diversity and

homophily at work: Supportive relations among white

and African-American peers. Academy of

Management Journal, 48(4):619-644.

.Balk, W. L., 1964. Status perceptions of management

“Peer”. Academy of Management Journal, December

1964:431-437.

Baron, Reuben M & David A. Kenny. 1986. The

Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social

Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and

Statistical Consideration. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bartol, K. M., Durham, C. C., & Poon, J. M. L., 2001.

Influence of performance evaluation rating

segmentation on motivation and fairness perceptions.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(6):1106-1119.

Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D., 1976.

Relationship of stress to individually and

organizationally valued states: higher-order needs as a

moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61:41-47.

Beehr, T. A., & McGrath, J. E., 1992. Social support,

occupational stress, and anxiety. anxiety, stress &

coping: An International Journal, 5:7-19.

Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A.,

2000. Work stressor and coworker support as

predictors of individual strain and job performance;

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21:391-405.

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W., 1995.

Effects of rate task performance and interpersonal

factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings,

Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1):168-177.

Bradway, L. K., 2002. Effect of upward influence tactics

on coworker: An equity perspective, Desertasi yang

tidak dipublikasikan.

Brief, A. P.,1980. Peer assessment revisited a brief

comment on Kane & Lawler; Psychology Bulletin,

88(1):78-89.

Burnett, D. D., 2005. A personality trait activation

framework applied to coworker preference, Desertasi

yang tidak dipublikasikan

Chapell, N. L., & Novak, M., 1992. The role of support in

alleviating stress among nursing assistants. The

Gerontologist, 32:351-359.

Cobb, A. T., 1980. Informal influence in the formal

organization: Perceived sources of power among work

unit peers. Academy of Management Journal,

23(1):155-161.

Cumming, A., 1997.The radicalness of employee ideas:

An interactive model of co-worker networks and

problem-solving Styles. Desertasi yang tidak

dipublikasikan.

Creswell, J. W., 1994. Research Design, Qualitative &

Quantitative Approach. SAGE Publications. London.

New Delhi.

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

420

Crook, A. M. S., 2001. Marital quality in a dual-career

couple: Impact of role overload and coping resources.

Dissertation yang tidak dipublikasikan

De Nisi, A. S., Randolph, W. A. & Blencoe, A. G., 1983.

Potential problems with peer ratings’. Academy of

Management Journal, 26(3):457-464.

De Nisi, A. S., & Mitchell, J. L.,1976. An analysis of peer

ratings as predictors and criterion measures and a

proposed new application. Academy of Management

Review, April:369-374.

Doyle, K. O. & Crichton, L. I.,1978. Student, peer, and

self-evaluations of college Instructors; Journal of

Educational Psychology, 70(5): 815-826.

Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B., 1999. Effects and timing

of development peer appraisals in self-managing

workgroups; Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1):58-

74.

Dyson, Faith. 2006. The Relationship Between Optimism

and Work-Family Enrichment and Their Influence on

Psychological Well-Being. Thesis. Drexel University.

Egdorf, K. L., 1996. Communicating with coworkers

during organizational downsizing: A social

construction perspective on sense-making and social

support interactions; Desertasi yang tidak

dipublikasikan.

Farrel, S. K., 2005. Coworker Perceptions of distribution

justice in response to rewarded organizational citizen

behavior: The role of attributions; Desertasi yang tidak

dipublikasikan.

Fox, W. M., 1973. Dimensional analysis of the least

preferred co-worker scales. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 57(2):192-194.

Fox, S., 1989. Perceived similarity and accuracy of peer

rating; Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5):781-786.

Glesspen, A. V.,1997. The development of a coworker

relationship that supports or inhibits continuous

learning; Desertasi yang tidak dipublikasikan.

Grandey, A. A., 2003. When “The Show Must Go On”:

Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of

emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery;

Academy of Management Journal, 46(1): 86-96.

Hair, Joseph. Jr; Rolph E. Anderson; Ronald L. Tatham;

and William C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data

Analysis, Fifth Edition, Prentice-Hall.

Haris, M. M., and Schaubroeck, 1988. A meta-analysis of

self- supervisor, self-peers, and peer-supervisor

ratings; Journal of Applied Psychology, 41:43-62.

Hart, J. W., 1999. Achievement motivation and expected

coworker effort on collective task performance;

Desertasi yang tidak dipublikasikan.

Heaney, C. A., Price, R. H. Rafferty, J., 1995. Increasing

coping resources at work: A field experiment to

increase social support, improve work team

functioning, and enhance employee mental health.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16:335-353.

Hester, S. B., dan Kitty, G. D., 1984. Serving dual-career

families: Problem or opportunity? Journal Extension.

http://joe.org/joe/1984july/04.html.

Hicks, J. M.,1967. Comparative validation of attitude

measures by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.

Educational and Psychology Measurement, 27: 985-

995.

Hollander, E. P., 2000. The validity of peer nominations in

predicting a distant performance criterion. Journal of

Applied Psychology,10(6):434-438.

Hollenbeck, J. R., 2000. A structural approach to external

and internal person-team fit. International Association

for Applied Psychology, 49(3):534-549.

Holzbach, R. L., 1978.Rater bias in performance rating:

Supervisor, self, and peer ratings. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 63(5):579-588.

Ibarra, H. 1997. Paving an alternative route: Gender

difference in managerial networks. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 60:91-102.

Inman, J., 2001. Relationships among employees job

satisfaction, satisfaction with coworkers interpersonal

relationship styles; Desertasi yang tidak

dipublikasikan.

Jackson, S. E., et al., 1993. Some differences make a

difference: Individual dissimilarity and group

heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions,

and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5):

675-689.

Kane, J. S. & Lawler III, E. E., 1978. Method of peer

assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3):

555-586.

.------------, 1980. In defense of peer assessment a rebuttal

to brief’s critique. Psychology Bulletin, 88(1):80-81.

Keup, L., Bruning, N. S., & Seers, A., 2004. Members,

leaders, and team: Extending LMX to co-worker

relationships. Quebec, 1-14.

Kim, P. H., 2003. When private beliefs shape collective

reality: The effects of beliefs about co-workers on

group discussion and performance. Management

Science, 49(6): 801-815.

Kirmeyer, S. L. & Lin, T. R., 1987. Social support: Its

relationship to observed communication with peers

and superiors. Academy of Management Journal,

30(1):138-151.

Kloeppel, E., 2006. Workplace disclosure of intimate

partner abuse: An examination of supervisory and

coworker support; Disertasi yang tidak dipublikaskan.

Kohli, A. K.,& Jaworski, B. J., 1994. The influence of co-

worker feedback on salespeople. Journal of Marketing,

58:82-94.

Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D., 2000. The effects of

peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations

of psychological science: Are judges effective

gatekeepers? Journal of Educational Psychology,

85(4):574-586.

Kram, K. E. & Isabella, L. A., 1985. Mentoring

alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career

development. Academy of Management Journal,

28(1):110-132.

Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B., 1998. Social

networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The

role of negative relationships and third parties.

Academy of Management Journal, 41(1):55-67.

LePine, J. A., et al., 1997. Effects of individual differences

in the performance of hierarchical decision-making

Dual Career Couple

421

teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 82(5):803-811.

LePine, J. A., & Dyne, L. V., 2001. Peer responses to low

performers: An attributional model of helping in the

context of groups. Academy of Management Review,

2(1):67-84.

Lilius, J. M., 2006. Being there or being competent? How

co-worker support contributes to unit performance.

Desertasi yang tidak dipublikasikan

Loughry, M. L., 2002. A co-worker is watching:

Performance implications of peer monitoring.

Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6.

Love, K. G., 1981. Comparison of peer assessment

methods: Reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user

reaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4):451-

457.

Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A., 1996. Acceptance of

peer/upward performance appraisal systems: Role of

work context factors and beliefs about managers’

development capability. Human Resource

Management, 35:217-241.

Mayfield, E. C., 1998. Value of peer nominations in

predicting life insurance sales performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 56(4):319-323.

McEvoy, G. M., & Buller, P. F., 1987. User acceptance of

peer appraisal in an industrial setting. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 40(4):785-794.

McCormick, M. D., 2001. Group cohesiveness and

coworker ability as determinants of social loafing and

social compensation. Desertasi tidak dipublikasikan.

Miller, B. K., 2002. Helping disable coworker: An

attribution - based laboratory experiment; Desertasi

yang tidak dipublikasikan.

Miller, C. C., 2006. Peer review in the organizational and

management sciences: Prevalence and effects of

reviewer hostility, bias, and dis census. Academy of

Management Journal, 49(3):425-431.

Miller, K. R., 2005. Supervisor and recipient perceptions

of altruism: is coworker help always helpful?

Desertasi yang tidak dipublikasikan.

Mitchel, K. E., 1997. The Relationship of personality trait

and coworker norm to performance and cheating.

Desertasi yang tidak dipublikasikan.

Morgan, R. B., 1993. Self and co-worker perceptions of

ethics and their relationships to leadership and salary.

Academy of Management Journal, 36(1):200-214.

Murphy, K. R., 1982. Relationship between observational

accuracy and accuracy in Evaluating performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3): 320-325.

O'Reilly III, C. A., 1977. Supervisors and peers as

information sources, group supportiveness, and

individual decision-making performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 62(5):632-635.

Pickworth, R., 2005. Employee value congruence with

supervisors and coworkers: A cross-cultural study.

Disertasi tidak dipublikasikan.

Powel, M.G., 1948. Comparisons of self-rating, peer-

rating, and experts ratings of personality adjustment.

Educational and Psychology Measurement, 8:225-247.

Parasurahman, S dan Jeffrey, H. G., 1992. Role stressors,

social support, and well-being among two-career

couples. Journal of Organization Behavior. 13: 339-

356.

Randell, M. L., 1998. Coworker reaction to a partner with

a physical disability. Desertasi yang tidak

dipublikasikan.

Rice, R. W., 1976. Psychometric properties of the esteem

for the least preferred coworker (LPC) Scale.

Academy of Management Review, January: 106-118.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.I., 1970. Role

conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 15:150-163.

Robbin, Stephen P and Timothy A. Judge, 2007.

Organizational Behavior. Pearson International

Edition, Twelfth Editon, Prentice-Hall.

Schaubroeck, J. & Lam, S. S. K., 2002. How similarity to

peers and supervisor influences organizational

advancement in different cultures. Academy of

Management Journal, 45(6):1120- 1136.

Schmidt, F. L., & Johnson, R. H., 1973. Effect of race on

peer ratings in an industrial situation. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 57(3): 237-241.

Schimmack, U., Phanikiran, R., Shigehiro, O., Vivian, D.,

dan Stephen A. M., 2002. Culture, personality, and

subjective well-being: Integrating process models of

life satisfaction. Journal Personality and Social

Psychology, 82(4): 582-593.

Sekaran, Umma. 2000. Research Methods for Business.

Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G., 2002. Coworker

exchange: Relationships between coworkers, LMX,

and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,

87(3):542-548.

Shore, T. H., et al., 1992. Construct validity of self- and

peer evaluations of performance dimensions in an

assessment center. Journal of Applied Psychology,

77(1): 42-54.

Snell, S. A., & Youndt, M. A.,1995. Human resource

management and firm performance: testing a

contingency model of executive controls. Journal of

Management, 21(4), 711-737.

Struthers, C. W., Miller, D. L., Boudens, C. J., & Briggs,

G. L., 2001. Effects of causal attributions on co-

worker interactions: A social motivation perspective;

Journal of Educational Psychology, vol.23 (3):169-

181.

Suci, G. J. & Vallance, T. R.,1955. A Study of The effects

of “likingness” and level of objectivity on peer rating

reliabilities. Educational and Psychology

Measurement, 16:147-152.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy., M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D.,

2004. Moderators of relationships between co-

workers’ organizational citizenship behavior and

fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 89(3): 455-465.

Thorsteinson, T. J., & Balzer, W. K., 1999. Effects of co-

worker information on perceptions and rating of

performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20:

1157-1173.

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

422

Trevino, L. K. & Victor, B. 1992. Peer reporting of

unethical behavior: A social context perspective.

Academy of Management Journal, 35(1):38-64.

Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of

embeddedness for the economic performance of

organizations: The network effect. American

Sociological Review, 61:674-698.

Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S., 2002. The

moderating influence of job performance dimensions

on the convergence of supervisory and peer ratings of

job performance: Un-confounding construct-level

convergence and rating difficulty. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87(2):345-354.

Wahyuni, P., dan Vebriwati. 2009. Analisis pengaruh self-

efficacy terhadap kinerja individu yang dimoderasi

oleh penetapan tujuan (goal-setting). Jurnal

Manajemen, Ekonomika Madani, 1(1): 71-86.

Wahyuni, P., 2009. Dukungan rekan di tempat kerja, Studi

kasus pada taman kanak-kanak “Salman Al-Farisi” di

Yogyakarta, proses publikasi.

_________. 2010. Analisis dual career couple: Pengaruh

work role conflict, family role stressor, dan work

family conflict terhadap well-being bagi pasangan

bekerja dimoderasi social support. Performance, 1 (2):

1-28.

Wahyuni, P. dan Reffi Sangi, 2010. Pengaruh leader

member exchange dan kualitas hubungan terhadap

penilaian kinerja yang dimoderasi oleh durasi. Jurnal

Ekonomi & Bisnis, EKOBIS. 11(2): 219-229.

Wahyuni, P (2011) Anteseden dan konsekuensi dukungan

rekan, JMIB Jurnal Management Inovasi dan Bisnis,

vol.1. no.2:232-263.

Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P., 1996. Organizational

citizen behaviors and their effect on organizational

effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. Academy of

Management Best Papers Proceedings:307-311.

Water, L. K., and Waters, C. W., 2002. Peer nominations

as predictors of short-term sales performance; Journal

of Applied Psychology, vol. 54. no.1: 42-44.

Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J., 1991. Social loafing and

social compensation: The effects of expectations of

co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 61(4): 570-581.

Wohlers, A. J., & London, M., 1989. Rating of managerial

characteristics: evaluation difficulty, co-worker

agreement, and self-awareness. Personnel Psychology,

vol.42: 235- 261.

Yin, R. K., 1994. Case Study Research: Design and

Methods. Volume 5. SAGE Publications. London.

New Delhi.

Yu, H. & Murphy, K. R., 1993. Modesty bias in self-

ratings of performance: A Test of the cultural

relativity hypothesis. Personnel Psychology, 357-363.

Zellar, K. L., & Perrewe, P. L., 2001. Affective

personality and the content of emotional social support

coping in organizations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86(3): 459-467.

Dual Career Couple

423