Family Supportive Supervisor Training and Workplace Assessment Tool (FSST)

This study will evaluate the effectiveness of FSST 2.0 (family supportive supervisor training plus support for use of family and sick leaves) using a randomized control trial design. We expect the intervention will increase supervisors' family supportive and leave supportive behaviors, which in turn will increase employees' leave use and decrease employees' work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion, depressive symptoms, and turnover intentions. This study will enroll a minimum 200 groups of managers and their employees. Managers in the intervention condition will complete pre- and 2 post-intervention Workplace Assessments, 2 online training modules, 1 webinar where managers can review intervention content and ask questions and share reactions on the materials. Managers in the control group and employees in both groups will complete pre- and 2 post-intervention Workplace Assessments. The post-intervention Workplace Assessment will be completed 3 and 6 months after the intervention. The total duration of the study is 9 months as the wait list control group will be offered the intervention and 2nd follow up survey after the 6-month trial.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Psychosocial Deprivation; Work-Related Stress; Life-work Imbalance
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: Family Supportive Supervisor Training 2.0

Detailed Description

This study will evaluate the effectiveness of FSST 2.0 (family supportive supervisor training plus support for use of family and sick leaves) using a randomized control trial design.

• Phase of the Trial Based on the NIH's definition, the current study is a Phase III clinical trial, which usually involves several hundred or more human subjects, for the purpose of evaluating an experimental intervention in comparison with a standard or controlled intervention or comparing two or more existing treatments.
• Type of trial - a randomized-control trial

• Randomization strategy

  • Randomization method The current study employs a cluster randomization strategy to assign organizations to either Condition A (intervention group) or Condition B (control group) for a few key reasons. First, although only the supervisors will receive the training, the effectiveness of the training will be assessed at the employee' level, thereby needing a nested data structure. Second, cluster randomization is effective in reducing contamination (Puffer et al., 2005). Third, when the intervention is offered at a group level, cluster randomization increases the external validity of the results (Donner & Klar, 2000). Within each organization, we will use a balanced group randomization strategy such that there will be an equal number of workgroups/teams/departments in the intervention or control condition. In the event that there is an odd number of such units, a slight imbalance (i.e., groups per condition) will be off by one group, which has minimal impact on statistical power to detect intervention effects.
  • Unit of randomization - organization
  • Allocation ratio - the same number of teams (one supervisor and at least 6 employees) will be recruited in both organization
  • Timing of randomization - before the baseline assessment
  • The statistician of the study will generate and implement the randomization schema.
• Specification of the number of study groups/arms - 2
• Duration of the study intervention - 6 months
• Follow-up period - 3 and 5 months after the intervention
• Name and brief description of study intervention FSST 2.0 is a workplace intervention package designed to increase supervisors' family and leave supportive behaviors and leave supportive behaviors. The package includes Workplace Assessment tool, 2 30-45-minute online training modules (family-supportive supervisor training and supervisors' leave supportive behavior training), a webinar, behavior training, and organizational reports.
• Control group The current trial employs a wait-list control group, "whereby participants will receive the usual care and will later receive the intervention in addition to the usual care" (Kinser & Robins, 2013, p.2).

One or more organization will be randomly assigned to receive the intervention and the other organization(s) will serve as a wait-list control group.

Mangers in the intervention group will be asked to:

1. Complete a baseline online survey.
2. Take the Family Supportive Supervisor Training online (FSST) - http://wlhmodule1.s3-website.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/
3. Take the Supervisor Support for Leave Use module training online - http://wlhmodule2.s3-website.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/
4. Track their behaviors for two weeks
5. Participate in a webinar with the opportunity to ask Q & A and make comments.

7. Complete up to 2 post-training surveys. 8. Focus groups may also be conducted to get feedback on the training after the study is over.

Employees in the control group and employees in both groups will be asked to:

1. Complete a base line and follow up surveys over the course of 5 months.

The wait list control group will be offered the training after the trial is over.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 1175
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • Indiana
    • West Lafayette, Indiana, United States, 47907
      • Purdue University

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• To be 18 years and older
• To be a supervisor with at least six employees or an employee of a participating supervisor

Exclusion Criteria:

• There is no exclusion criterion.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Prevention
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

4

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Intervention Group - Managers; Mangers in the intervention group will be asked to: Complete an online survey;; Take the Family Supportive Supervisor Training online (FSST);; Take the Supervisor Support for Leave Use module;; Track their behaviors for two weeks;; Participate in a webinar and have the opportunity to ask questions and give comments;; Complete a post-training survey;; 8-10 managers may also participate in the focus group.	Behavioral: Family Supportive Supervisor Training 2.0; FSST 2.0 is a workplace intervention package designed to increase supervisors' family and leave supportive behaviors and leave supportive behaviors. The package includes Workplace Assessment tool, 2 45-60 minute online training modules (family-supportive supervisor training and supervisors' leave supportive behavior training), a webinar, behavior training, and individualized feedback reports.; Other Names: FSST 2.0
No Intervention: Control Group - Managers; Managers in the control group will be asked to: 1. Complete an online survey three times over the course of 5 months.
Experimental: Intervention Group - Employees; Employees in the intervention group will be asked to: 1. Complete an online survey three times over the course of 6 months.	Behavioral: Family Supportive Supervisor Training 2.0; FSST 2.0 is a workplace intervention package designed to increase supervisors' family and leave supportive behaviors and leave supportive behaviors. The package includes Workplace Assessment tool, 2 45-60 minute online training modules (family-supportive supervisor training and supervisors' leave supportive behavior training), a webinar, behavior training, and individualized feedback reports.; Other Names: FSST 2.0
No Intervention: Control Group - Employees; Employees in the control group will be asked to: 1. Complete an online survey three times over the course of 5 months.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Change in Family Supportive Supervisor Behaviors	Family supportive supervisor behavior scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (better outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (worse outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Leave Supportive Supervisor Behaviors	Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (better outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (worse outcome).	5 months after the intervention

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Change in Work-family Conflict	Work family conflict scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (worse outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (better outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Emotional Exhaustion	Emotional exhaustion scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (worse outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (better outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Employee's Leave Use	Number of days of leave used for sick or family leave in the past 6 months. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time. Negative scores = decrease in scores over time. Note: higher scores do not represent better or worse outcomes. They are descriptions of use needed for sick or family leave.	5 months after the intervention
Change in Turnover Intentions	Turnover intentions scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (worse outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (better outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Control Over Work	Control over work scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (better outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (worse outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Boundary Countrol	Boundary control scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (better outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (worse outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Work-life Climate	Work-life climate scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Higher scores = expected to make more family sacrifices. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (worse outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (better outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Work-to-family Positive Spillover	WTF positive spillover scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (better outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (worse outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in General Supervisor Support	General supervisor support scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (better outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (worse outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Supervisor Performance Support	Supervisor performance support scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (better outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (worse outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Job Satisfaction	Job satisfaction scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (better outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (worse outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Job Performance	Job performance scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (better outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (worse outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Organizational Commitment	Organizational commitment item. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (better outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (worse outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Perceived Health	Perceived health item. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Higher scores = better health. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (better outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (worse outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Psychological Distress	Psychological distress scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (worse outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (better outcome).	5 months after the intervention
Change in Perceived Stress	Perceived stress scale. Original scale: Minimum value = 1, Maximum value = 5. Reported numbers represent change in these values over time: Time 3 (5-months post-baseline survey) - Time 1 (baseline survey) scores. Positive scores = increase in scores over time (worse outcome). Negative scores = decrease in scores over time (better outcome).	5 months after the intervention

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Work Life Help
• Collaborators: National Institute on Aging (NIA)
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Ellen E Kossek, Ph.D., Work Life Help LLC

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96. No abstract available.
• Hammer LB, Ernst Kossek E, Bodner T, Crain T. Measurement development and validation of the Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior Short-Form (FSSB-SF). J Occup Health Psychol. 2013 Jul;18(3):285-96. doi: 10.1037/a0032612. Epub 2013 Jun 3.
• Matthews RA, Kath LM, Barnes-Farrell JL. A short, valid, predictive measure of work-family conflict: item selection and scale validation. J Occup Health Psychol. 2010 Jan;15(1):75-90. doi: 10.1037/a0017443.
• Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiripi E, Howes MJ, Normand SL, Manderscheid RW, Walters EE, Zaslavsky AM. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003 Feb;60(2):184-9. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184.
• Barnett, R. C., Brennan, R. T., & Gareis, K. C.. A closer look at the measurement of Burnout. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research.1999; 4(2), 65-78.
• Boroff, K E, & Lewin, D Loyalty, voice, and intent to exit a union firm: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 1997; 51(1), 50-63.
• Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire.1983. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices, (pp. 71-138). New York: Wiley-Interscience
• Carlson, DS, Kacmar, KM, Wayne, JH, & Grzwacz, JG Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface: Development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2006. 68, 131-164. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002
• Griffin, MA, Neal, A, & Parker, SK. A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. 2007; Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347.
• Hobfoll, SE, Vinokur, AD, Pierce, PF, & Lewandowski-Romps, L. The combined stress of family life, work, and war in Air Force men and women: A test of conservation of resources theory. International Journal of Stress Management. 2012; 19(3), 217-237.
• Kossek, EE, Ruderman, MN, Braddy, PW, & Hannum, KM Work-nonwork boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior.2012; 81, 112-128. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003
• Kossek, EE, Colquitt, JA, & Noe, RA. Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance: The effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work-family climates, Academy of Management Journal.2001; 44(1), 29-44.
• Matthews, RA, Pineault, L, & Hong, YH. Normalizing the use of single-item measures. Validation of the single-item compendium for organizational psychology, Journal of Business and Psychology. 2022; Doi:10.1007/s10869-022-09813-3
• Thomas, LT, & Ganster, DC. Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1995; 80(1), 6-15.
• Yoon, J, , Lim, J. Organizational support in the workplace: The case of Korean hospital employees. Human Relations. 1999; 82, 923-945.
• Kossek, E. E., Lawson, K. M., Hammer, L. B., Allen, S., Bodner, T., Perry, M., & Xu, J. (April, 2024). Supervisor support for family/sick leaves intervention: An organizational field experiment. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), Conference, Chicago, IL.
• Kossek, E. E., Lawson, K. M., Hammer, L. B., Bodner, T., Perry, M., Xu, J., & Allen, S. (June, 2024). Leaders and leaves: Validating and evaluating a new measure of paid family supportive supervisor behaviors for family and sick leave. In E. E. Kossek (Chair), Fostering family supportive work scheduling (or not): Links to family and work outcomes. Symposium presented at the Work Family Researchers Network Conference, Montreal, Canada.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): October 27, 2022
• Primary Completion (Actual): May 30, 2023
• Study Completion (Actual): May 30, 2023

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: August 30, 2021
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: October 4, 2021
• First Posted (Actual): October 15, 2021

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): October 8, 2024
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 24, 2024
• Last Verified: September 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: psychosocial intervention; family supportive supervisor behaviors; work-family intervention; supervisor support for family; sick leave; family leave; workplace intervention; work life balance; supervisor training; manager training; work-family conflict; turnover intentions; flexible workplace
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Behavioral Symptoms; Stress, Psychological; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Stress
• Other Study ID Numbers: 2R42AG050347-02A1 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: YES

IPD Plan Description

All de-identified data and referenced resources from a publication will be made available by depositing them at dataverse.org. The dataset will include variables used for the publication with an accompanying codebook containing variables labels and codes in XLSX format. Metadata will be prepared as an XML file, which is compliant with the Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) specification.

The data and metadata from a publication will be made available by the online publication date.

The location of the public-use data and how to access the data, as well as acknowledgments of the repository and funding source, will be identified in any publications and presentations about these data.

• IPD Sharing Time Frame: The data and metadata from a publication will be made available by the online publication date.
• IPD Sharing Access Criteria: The data will be deposited and made available through dataverse.org for easy access to qualified researchers and analysts ( i.e., only those affiliated with a university or similar organization that is listed on the Dataverse website as qualified users). The data will be available for use only for research purposes such as replication and secondary studies. User registration will be required in order to access or download files from dataverse.org.
• IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type: ANALYTIC_CODE

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No