Examining the Impact of Red Tape on Work-Family Conflict: The Mediating Role of Perceived Boundary Control and the Buffering Role of Family-Supportive Supervisors

Examining the Impact of Red Tape on Work-Family Conflict: The Mediating Role of Perceived Boundary Control and the Buffering Role of Family-Supportive Supervisors | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Examining the Impact of Red Tape on Work-Family Conflict: The Mediating Role of Perceived Boundary Control and the Buffering Role of Family-Supportive Supervisors Rui Jiang, Linghang Meng, Bangcheng Liu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6120245/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Previous research has focused on the adverse effects of red tape on public organizations’ management and performance, but has largely overlooked its impact on employees’ roles within the family domain. Drawing upon the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, we conducted two studies to investigate how high job demands (i.e., red tape) may be positively related to work-family conflict by blurring the boundaries between work and non-work domains. The study further measures whether job resources (i.e., family-supportive supervisors and perceived organizational support) mitigate the decline in perceived boundary control caused by high job demand, in response to the buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model. Study 1 conducted a preliminary validation in a prefecture-level city in China (N=265). To circumvent the limitations associated with the research setting and the specificity of job resource types, Study 2 tested the robustness of the findings by expanding the scope to a national level and incorporating additional types of job resources (N=324). Results reveal that red tape has a spillover effect in work scene, which will blur the boundary between work and non-work domains, reduce perceived boundary control, and lead to work-family conflict. Importantly, the buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model was contradicted by evidence showing that job resources (i.e., family-supportive supervisors and perceived organizational support) exacerbated the negative effects of high job demands (i.e., red tape). The implications of these findings for theory and practice are explored. Humanities/Health humanities Social science/Psychology Social science/Sociology JD-R model Perceived boundary control Work-family conflict Red tape Family-Supportive Supervisors Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 1. Introduction Conflict between work and family life has increasingly attracted attention in recent years, as heavy work demands and the need for structural transformation have emerged (Ganster, Rosen, and Fisher 2018). Work-family conflict has been defined as ‘a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible so that participation in one role is made more difficult by the participation in another role’ (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985, , p.77). Previous studies have revealed that elevated levels of work-family conflict can lead to detrimental effects on both work and family interface (Ilies et al. 2007, Braun, Ferreira, and Sydow 2013, Tayfur and Arslan 2013). While much attention has been paid to the negative consequences and ameliorative measures of work-family conflict (Daniel, Gentina, and Mesmer-Magnus 2022, Kirrane and Buckley 2004), less focus has been placed on the role of red tape—bureaucratic rules and procedures that create compliance burdens without adding value for stakeholders (Bozeman 2000, 1993, Liu, Yang, and Yu 2015)—as a potential contributor to work-family conflict. Excessively intricate and burdensome regulatory systems, overloaded with dysfunctional rules, give rise to red tape (Bozeman 2000, Bozeman and Feeney 2011, Campbell, Pandey, and Arnesen 2023). The accompanying red tape has proved to be a significant nuisance for employees (Muylaert, Decramer, and Audenaert 2023), negatively affecting job satisfaction (Steijn and Van der Voet 2019), organizational commitment (Widyanti 2020), and performance (George et al. 2021), while positively correlating with emotional exhaustion (Muylaert, Decramer, and Audenaert 2022) and turnover (Jiang et al. 2023). To date, many researchers have primarily concentrated on the adverse effects of red tape on employees' work scenarios, disregarding the implications of the augmented workload caused by red tape may exacerbate work-family conflict. Anchored in the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, Demerouti et al. 2001), this study conceptualizes red tape as a job demand and proposes a sophisticated theoretical framework to elucidate the relationship between red tape and work-family conflict. The work spillover effect resulting from red tape has the potential to impact employees' functionality and roles within the family domain, consequently increasing the probability of work-family conflict (Simães et al. 2021). To elucidate this intricate relationship, this study investigates the potential mediating roles of perceived boundary control, drawing upon the theoretical frameworks of boundary theory and conservation of resources (COR) theory (Kossek and Lautsch 2012). The buffering hypothesis within the JD-R model posits that abundant job resources, such as strong supervisory support and positive feedback, can mitigate the negative impact of high job demands, thereby sustaining employees' work engagement and psychological well-being (Bao et al. 2022). When it comes to cushioning work-family conflicts caused by red tape, training supervisors to be more family-supportive (Cohen and Wills 1985) has great potential because leaders are able to provide employees with the three key elements that buffer stressors: information, support, and respect (Nicklin, Shockley, and Dodd 2022, Liu, Hu, and Cheng 2015). Leadership within the public sector is frequently depicted as facing unique constraints stemming from rigid bureaucratic frameworks and protocols (Hesmert, Hattke, and Vogel 2022). The interrelationship between red tape, a derivative of bureaucracy, and leadership (less mention of family-supportive leadership) has attracted wide attention (Vogel, Vogel, and Reuber 2022). When exploring the spread of red tape across the work interface to the home interface, the interaction between red tape and family-supportive leadership cannot be ignored. This study examines how cumbersome rules and procedures in bureaucracy blur the boundary between work and family in the public sector, resulting in work-family conflict, and whether family supportive supervisors as job resource can effectively mitigate the negative effects of red tape. Anchored in the buffering hypothesis of the JD-R model, we pay particular attention to the interaction between job demand and job resource. We conducted two studies using ordinary least squares (OLS) method to validate our hypotheses. Study 1 was conducted in early November 2022, with data collected from a group of frontline bureaucrats in a prefecture-level city in the Yangtze River Delta region of China. Study 2, conducted as a robustness test in March 2024, expanded the data collection nationwide and examined the role of perceived organizational support to avoid the specificity of family-supportive supervision as a unique job resource. The contribution of this study focuses on the following two aspects. Firstly, while researchers widely acknowledge that red tape—characterized by redundant administrative rules, regulations, and procedures (Pandey 2023)—serves as a bureaucratic pathology detrimental to public sector employees' work motivation and affective commitment (Lagios et al. 2023, Muylaert, Decramer, and Audenaert 2022), there is limited research on whether red tape extends from the workplace to the non-workplace. By examining whether red tape contributes to work-family conflict through the reduction of perceived boundary control, our aim is to deepen the understanding of the complex negative consequences of red tape and to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the interaction between work and non-work interfaces. Secondly, we specifically respond to the third hypothesis of the JD-R model (Bakker et al. 2011), the buffering hypothesis: job resources not only enhance employees' motivation and work engagement but also serve as crucial buffers against the adverse effects of high demand levels. The remainder of the paper reviews the relevant theoretical framework and establishes the hypothesis, introduces the methods and results, and closes by providing conclusions and implications for theoretical and practical research. 2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development 2.1. Theoretical background In this study, we use the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory and the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model to analyze the impact of red tape and family-supportive supervisor behavior on work-family conflict. 2.1.2 . The Conservation of Resources Theory The COR theory, developed by Hobfoll (1989), seeks to understand how individuals experience stress due to the regulatory relationship between environmental demands and the availability of resources. It suggests that individuals strive to acquire, protect, and build resources to cope with job stressors and adapt to their environment. According to COR, ‘The model's basic tenet is that people strive to retain, protect, and build resources and that what is threatening to them is the potential or actual loss of these valued resources’ (Hobfoll 1989, , p. 516). COR explains about the source of psychological stress. According to COR, ‘…a reaction to the environment in which there is (a) the threat of a net loss of resources, (b) the net loss of resources, or (c) a lack of resource gain following the investment of resources’ (Hobfoll 1989, , p. 516). In simple words, this perception of resource (e.g., objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies) threat can trigger a stress response and result in heightened levels of stress for the individual. Since then, Hobfoll (2001) further developed and comprehensively elaborated COR theory, mainly in the combination of organizational reality, including examples and empirical evidence in organizational settings, and paying more attention to individual actions in the context of work (Westman et al. 2004). The evolution of COR theory has made it has garnered extensive utilization within the domain of organizational behavior, and the COR theory has been widely used as a research basis in the fields of burnout (Neveu 2007, Hobfoll and Freedy 2018, Barboza-Wilkes, Le, and Resh 2023), work-family interface (Dishon-Berkovits 2013, Grandey and Cropanzano 1999, Reiche et al. 2021) and workplace intervention (Leger et al. 2022, Khan, Elahi, and Abid 2021). Overall, the COR theory provides a valuable framework for studying how individuals manage resources, cope with stressors, and adapt to their environment. 2.1.2 . The Job Demands–Resources Model The JD-R model is proposed by Demerouti et al. (2001) on the basis of the COR theory, which was first to divide working conditions into job demands and job resources that are differentially related to job burnout (Bakker, Xanthopoulou, and Demerouti 2023). Bakker and Demerouti (2007) further extended the JD-R model, which is described as ‘a heuristic model that specifies how employee well-being may be reproduced by two specific sets of working conditions’ (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, p. 275), and a detailed conceptualization of job demands and job resources: Job demands refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs. (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, p. 312) Job resources refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or: (a) functional in achieving work goals, (b) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, (c) stimulate personal growth, learning, and development. (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, p. 312) Workload, emotional demands, work-family distractions, and role ambiguity are job demands and have been shown to be positively correlated with negative effects such as stress or exhaustion if the employee's adaptive capacity is exceeded (Crawford, LePine, and Rich 2010, Bakker and Demerouti 2017, Mazzetti et al. 2023, Bakker, Van Emmerik, and Van Riet 2008). Nevertheless, supervisor or colleague support, autonomy, team cohesion, career opportunities, and tangible or intangible rewards are the ‘positive factors’ in the work are classified as work resources (Van den Broeck et al. 2008, Nguyen and Tuan 2022, Fernet et al. 2013). In addition, according to the buffering hypothesis in JD-R model, job resources can buffer the negative effects of job demands on employee well-being and performance (Bakker and Demerouti 2018, Chen and Chi-Kin Lee 2022, Tadić, Bakker, and Oerlemans 2015). When employees have access to sufficient resources, it can help them cope with high job demands, reduce the likelihood of experiencing strain or burnout, and enhance their overall well-being. 2.2. Red Tape and Work-family conflict Red tape, one of the few indigenous concepts in the public administration, is referred to as ‘rules, regulations, and procedures that remain in force and entail a compliance burden, but do not advance the legitimate purposes the rules were intended to serve’ (Bozeman 2000). Under bureaucracy, public officials need to deal with increasingly complex bureaucratic procedures and administrative regulations, resulting in increased administrative burdens and problems such as inefficiency and administrative delays, which is also one of the problems that the new public management reform is expected to solve (Burton and Van den Broek 2009, Homburg 2008, Ahmad et al. 2020). Due to its negative nature and tendency to occur under bureaucracy, red tape has attracted significant attention from public management scholars (Coursey and Pandey 2007, Ahmad et al. 2021). Meanwhile, as the JD-R model evolves, scholars have begun utilizing it to comprehensively analyze the adverse effects of red tape. Idris, Dollard, and Winefield (2011), based on grounded theory, found that red tape could be a representative variable for the new job demand in the JD-R model. Prior to this, although some scholars found red tape would lead to work pressure and hinder organizational performance, it was not incorporated into the JD-R framework for research (Wallace et al. 2009). Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, and Varone (2013) applied the dividing criteria of job resources and job demands in the JD-R model and argued that red tape may be considered as the core job demand factor that damages the job happiness of public employees. Additionally, according to the JD-R model, red tape as a key job demand has been proved to be positively correlated with resigned satisfaction (Quratulain and Khan 2015), turnover intention(Jiang et al. 2023, Muylaert, Decramer, and Audenaert 2022), employee attitudinal, behavioral, and performance outcomes (Borst et al. 2019, Cooke, Brant, and Woods 2019). By extension, red tape is also highly likely to lead to work-family conflict. According to COR theory, individuals strive to acquire, protect, and build resources to cope with stressors, and the potential or actual loss of resources can cause stress to individuals (Hobfoll 1989). Red tape, classified as a job demand in the JD-R model, increases workload and becomes a part of work stress (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001, Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, and Varone 2013). Prolonged time and energy invested in rules, regulations and procedures that entail a compliance burden which are part of the red tape may leave individuals with fewer resources (such as time, energy, and attention) to fulfil their family responsibilities (Steijn and Van der Voet 2019, Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, and Varone 2013). Therefore, in the process of balancing work and family roles, red tape causes excessive resource consumption in the work scene, which will erode the resources that should be left for the family (Sadiq 2022, Tayfur and Arslan 2013). According to COR theory, individuals' who face red tape of the work scene unable to simultaneously perform their work-related and family-related responsibilities, triggering work-family conflicts. Therefore, based on the JD-R model and the COR theory, it is hypothesized: H1: Red tape is positively related to work-family conflicts. 2.3. The mediating role of perceived boundary control Research on the boundaries of the work-family sphere began with the boundary work proposed by Nippert-Eng (1996), which interprets boundaries as the actions that individuals use to define work and home. Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate (2000) focused on the process, antecedents and consequences of the transformation of everyday roles in places such as home and work, and filled in the boundary theory. Clark (2000) proposed a boundary theory based on work-family balance. In the work-family interface, individuals delimit the boundaries between work and home domains with psychological, physical, and behavioral boundaries, and indicate that individuals’ cross boundaries between work and home domains daily. Previous research has found that a sense of high boundary control is associated with favorable personal and organizational outcomes, similar to reduced work stress and drowsiness (Allen, Cho, and Meier 2014, Spieler et al. 2017).According to COR theory, the things or conditions that an individual has that help to achieve the goal are called resources, including material resources and psychological resources (Hobfoll 1989). Perceived boundary control is a psychological explanation of the individual's perceived self-control boundary ability, which is different from the individual attitude and behavior, and is a psychological resource of the individual (Kossek et al. 2012). Border control allows individuals the freedom to weaken or strengthen their work-family boundaries, those with a high degree of control are better able to manage work-family relationships and achieve work-family balance, whereas the reverse can lead to work-family conflict (Kinnunen et al. 2016, Shi et al. 2023). Red tape, which often manifests as highly formalized and restrictive, excessive or meaningless paperwork, and rules, procedures, and regulations that lead to inefficiency, is presented as a job demand in the JD-R model (Bozeman 1993, 2000, Bozeman and Feeney 2011) . Due to the increased workload caused by red tape, it often causes stress and nervous mental state (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001, Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, and Varone 2013), and individuals cannot effectively change roles when they switch from work field to family field, which hinders the effective recovery of resources to a large extent. According to the COR theory, when individuals invest a lot of resources and fail to recover effectively, psychological pressure will be generated (Hobfoll 2001, Hobfoll and Freedy 2018). Therefore, individuals essentially suffer from the dilemma of resource recovery, which disrupts the order of work-family life and makes employees more likely to lose the sense of boundary control over work and family. Therefore, it can be argued that if red tape weakens the sense of control over work-family boundaries, then this resource-consuming experience may lead to work-family conflict. Hence, the following hypothesis was investigated: H2: Perceived boundary control mediates the relationship between red tape and work-family conflicts. 2.4. The role of family supportive supervisor behavior According to the division of job demands and job resources in the JD-R model, the support of supervisors and colleagues, like the team atmosphere, are considered as work resources at the organizational level, which can play a motivating role and bring positive effects (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). Boundary theory suggests that the permeability of boundaries between work demands and the home domain is influenced by a combination of personal and situational factors (Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep 2009, Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate 2000). In addition, the boundary theory (Clark 2000) emphasizes that individuals' management of work-family boundaries is influenced by situational factors, with direct supervisors being particularly relevant(Park, Fritz, and Jex 2011). As an organization-level factor, family-supportive managers provide positive family support and care to employees in the work environment, and therefore have an impact on employees' sense of control over work-family boundaries. Some scholars have found that there is a significant correlation between supervisor support and boundary control (Thomas and Ganster 1995, Thompson and Prottas 2006). Family-supportive supervisor, a concept first proposed by Thomas and Ganster (1995), encourage employees to do well in their non-work lives beyond their work, helping to facilitate the management of work and non-work responsibilities (Hammer et al. 2008). Previous research has also confirmed that family support managers can serve as a critical job resource, enabling employees to better manage their family and workplace responsibilities, thereby helping to control the work-family boundary (Hammer et al. 2008, Crain and Stevens 2018, Capitano, McAlpine, and Greenhaus 2019). The buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model points out that the interaction between work demands and work resources is also important for the development of work stress and work motivation, and more specifically, work resources can buffer the negative impact of work demands (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, Ong and Johnson 2023). According to this hypothesis, when employees have sufficient resources such as social support, autonomy, and learning opportunities, they are better equipped to cope with work pressures, reduce fatigue and psychological strain, and maintain high levels of work engagement and satisfaction. The buffering hypothesis emphasizes the importance of organizations providing resources and support to promote employee well-being and enhance organizational performance. In retrospect, the buffering hypothesis also agrees with Kahn and Byosiere (1992) that buffering variables (job resources) can reduce the tendency of organizational attributes to produce specific stressors, modify the perception and cognition caused by these stressors, and mitigate the consequences caused by job demands. It has been mentioned before that red tape is regarded as a job demand, which is not conducive to personal work-family boundary management and will reduce the perceived boundary control. Meanwhile, the impact of red tape will vary depending on the availability of individuals and other resources. Applied here, according to the buffering hypothesis within the JD-R model, family-supportive supervisor behavior is conceptualized as a job resource that acts as a buffer, which can replenish energy depleted by excessive job demands and thereby minimizing the negative impact of red tape on perceived boundary control. Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis: H3a: family-supportive supervisor behavior negatively moderates the relationship between red tape and perceived boundary control such that stronger family-supportive supervisor behavior tends to weaken this relationship. However, some empirical studies have provided inconsistent results for the buffering hypothesis of the JD-R model (Glazer and Amren 2018, Mathieu, Eschleman, and Cheng 2019). The latest advancements in the JD-R model have integrated the challenge-hindrance-stressor framework, distinguishing between challenge and hindrance demands (Dawson, O'Brien, and Beehr 2016). Consequently, red tape can be seen as a hindrance stressor, representing “unmanageable factors that unnecessarily thwart personal goals” (Wright and Davis 2003, Steijn and Van der Voet 2019). According to the person-environment fit theory, when job demands such as heavy workload and time pressure exceed an individual's coping capabilities, the provision of support, albeit present, may inadequately mitigate the resulting negative impact (Edwards, Caplan, and Harrison 1998). Furthermore, based on social information processing theory, organizational or managerial support may be perceived as an unexpected resource, potentially exacerbating employees' focus on stressors (Beehr, Bowling, and Bennett 2010). Thus, we present competing hypotheses about the moderating effects of family-supportive supervisor behavior, depending on whether the resource effect of family-supportive supervisor behavior or the hindrance effect of red tape are more influential. H3b: family-supportive supervisor behavior negatively moderates the relationship between red tape and perceived boundary control such that stronger family-supportive supervisor behavior tends to stregthen this relationship. According to the above discussion, we proposed the analytical framework of this study depicted in Figure 1. 3. Data and methodology 3.1. Overview of studies and Participants To effectively test our hypothesis, two studies were conducted. Ethical clearance was obtained from relevant university ethics committees. In study 1, we collected data on frontline bureaucrats in seven districts and counties located under the jurisdiction of important central cities in China's Yangtze River Delta cluster. With permission and help from the administrative department, we administered an anonymous survey in early November 2022. Over 400 surveys were distributed, and in return, a total of 265 completed survey were received (a response rate of 66%). Overall, the participants were 40 per cent male and 60 per cent female. In terms of marital status, 82.6 per cent of the participants were married. Table 1 reports mean, standard deviation, and the correlation between the variables of Study 1. Table 1. Means, Standard Deviation, and correlation matrix of Study 1. Variable Mean SD Gender Age MS Edu FSS RT PBC Gender 1.600 0.491 Age 2.604 1.170 -.416 ** MS 1.826 0.379 -.191 ** .527 ** Edu 1.804 0.499 0.115 -.361 ** -.196 ** FSS 4.518 0.615 -0.001 -0.026 -0.039 -0.004 RT 3.465 1.159 -0.036 -0.078 0.070 -0.025 -0.052 PBC 3.976 0.746 -0.031 0.077 0.019 -.171 ** .364 ** -.180 ** WFC 3.008 1.090 -0.020 -0.040 0.104 0.022 -.137 * .319 ** -.252 ** Note. *p < .05, **p < .01. In Study 2, the robustness test of study 1 was established by expanding the scope of study to nationwide and using survey-based field data of front-line bureaucrats, which was conducted in March 2024. In addition, to further test the buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model and avoid an idiosyncratic result of family-supportive supervisor behavior as the job resource, our validation of hypothesis 3 was replicated in study 2 using another job resource commonly found in the JD-R literature: Perceived organizational support. Over 500 surveys were distributed, and in return, a total of 324 completed survey were received (a response rate of 64%). Overall, the participants were 37 per cent male and 63 per cent female. In terms of marital status, 69.4 per cent of the participants were married. Table 2 reports mean, standard deviation, and the correlation between the variables of Study 2. Table 2. Means, Standard Deviation, and correlation matrix of Study 2. Variable Mean SD Gender Age MS Edu FSS RT PBC WFC Gender 1.627 0.484 Age 2.191 1.011 -.138* MS 1.694 0.461 -0.069 .597** Edu 2.052 0.600 0.090 -.477** -.326** FSS 3.571 0.827 0.078 0.025 0.023 -0.025 RT 3.361 0.961 -0.086 -0.043 -0.037 0.007 -.185** PBC 3.616 0.793 -0.004 .159** 0.040 -.110* .434** -.188** WFC 3.007 0.903 -.164** 0.098 .175** -0.100 -.239** .376** -.368** POS 3.130 0.493 -0.001 0.048 -0.006 .142* .530** -0.008 .417** 0.061 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01. 3.2. Measures All variables in this paper are measured using a 5-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). All the measures adopted are listed in Appendix Table A1. The scales used in this study were all sourced from English literature. To adapt to the measurement in the Chinese context, the members of the research team carried out back-to-back translations and revisions to make them more suitable for use in the Chinese context during the investigation. 3.2.1. Red tape We adopted three items from Jacobsen and Jakobsen (2018) to measure red tape. The sample items are: ‘Rules and procedures make work processes in the organization more troublesome than they need to be’ and ‘Existing rules make it difficult to fulfill the actual purpose of my work’. 3.2.2. Perceived boundary control We adopted four items from Kossek et al. (2012) to measure perceived boundary control. The sample items are: ‘I control whether I am able to keep my work and personal life separate’ and ‘I control whether I have clear boundaries between my work and personal life’. 3.2.3. Work-family conflict Following Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996), we used five items to measure work-family conflict. The sample items are: ‘The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life’ and ‘The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities’. 3.2.4. Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior We used Hammer et al. (2013)’s four-item family supportive supervisor behavior scale. A sample item is: ‘Your supervisor makes you feel comfortable talking to him/her about your conflicts between work and non-work’. 3.2.5. Perceived organizational support We used eight items from Hekman et al. (2009) to measure perceived organizational support. The sample items are: ‘My organization appreciates any extra effort from me’ and ‘My organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work’. 3.2.6. Control variables The study also included four control variables. Participants were asked to report their gender, age (with five subsections: ‘1: no more than 30 years old ’, ‘ 2:31-39 years old ’, ‘3:40-49 years old ’, ‘ 4:50-59 years old ’, ‘5:60 years old and over ’), and marital status (‘1: unmarried ’, ‘2: married’). Another measure of Education level reflecting the Chinese Education system is used with values ‘1: Short-cycle Courses and below’, ‘2: Normal Courses ’, ‘3: Graduates and above ’. 3.3. Confirmatory factor analysis In this paper, Mplus 8.0 was used for confirmatory factor analysis to analyze the convergence validity of multiple variables. We used the overall model's chi-square, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the root means square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)to assess model fit, which was shown in Table A2 and Table A3. By comparison, it is found that the 4-factor model in Study 1 ( ) and Study 2 ( ) can fit the data better than any alternative model. In contrast, the results of one-factor test led to inadequate fit in both study 1 and study 2. Therefore, given these results, all four variables will be used for subsequent analysis. 4. Results 4.1. Study 1 From the correlation matrix in Table 1, the correlation between variables is consistent with the hypothesis of this paper. Red tape was positively associated with work-family conflict (r = 0.319, p <0.01) and negatively associated with perceived boundary control (r = -0.180, p < 0.01). Perceived boundary control was negatively correlated with work-family conflict (r = -0.252, p < 0.01). Additionally, the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and red tape is not statistically significant. After standardizing the variables, the stepwise regression method is used to test the hypotheses proposed in the theoretical section (Table 3). Table 3. Moderated mediation results from Study 1. DV: PBC DV:WFC (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Gender -0.005 -0.021 -0.026 -0.050 -0.023 -0.027 (-0.07) (-0.32) (-0.43) (-0.74) (-0.35) (-0.43) Age 0.032 -0.009 0.009 -0.151* -0.084 -0.086 (0.39) (-0.11) (0.12) (-1.85) (-1.06) (-1.11) MS -0.031 -0.002 0.011 0.175** 0.128* 0.128* (-0.43) (-0.03) (0.16) (2.43) (1.84) (1.87) Edu -0.166** -0.177*** -0.173*** 0.008 0.027 -0.009 (-2.53) (-2.74) (-2.88) (0.12) (0.43) (-0.14) RT -0.185*** -0.092 0.303*** 0.266*** (-3.03) (-1.31) (5.10) (4.48) PBC -0.202*** (-3.41) FSS 0.361*** (6.44) FSS*RT -0.153* (-1.83) Constant -0.000 -0.000 -0.008 0.000 -0.000 -0.000 (-0.00) (-0.00) (-0.14) (0.00) (-0.00) (-0.00) Obs 265 265 265 265 265 265 R-squared 0.030 0.064 0.199 0.025 0.114 0.153 Note: t-statistics in parentheses, *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Table 3 displayed the coefficient of red tape is significantly positive in model 5 ( =0.303, p < .01) and model 6 ( =0.266, p < .01), which supports Hypothesis 1: Red tape in the work scene can spread across the work field to the family field, resulting in work-family conflicts. When exploring the mediating role of the perceived boundary control, we follow the three steps that the mediating effect should be satisfied as proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2008): first, the independent variable is significantly correlated with the dependent variable (which has been verified in Model 5), second, after controlling for the effect of the independent variable, the mediator variable also needs to be significantly correlated with the dependent variable, finally, through the bootstrap test, the indirect effect from the independent variable to the dependent variable should be significant. Model 6 shows that under the premise of controlling red tape, the perceived boundary control has a significantly negative impact on work-family conflict ( =-0.202, p < 0.01). Thus, perceived boundary control partially mediates the relationship between red tape and work-family conflict. Applying bootstrapping procedure (Preacher and Hayes 2008), the indirect effect of red tape on work-family conflict through perceived boundary control are shown in Table 4. The results show that the indirect effect is 0.0374 with a bootstrapped 95% confidence interval not containing 0 (0.0068-0.0733), suggesting that the indirect effect is significant at a 0.05 level. Altogether, hypothesis 2 is supported. Table 4. Indirect effect of RT on WFC through PBC from Study 1. Effect SE LLCI ULCI 0.0374 0.0168 0.0068 0.0733 Note: Bootstrap sample size=1000, LLCI = lower level of the 95% confidence interval, ULCI = upper level of 95% confidence interval, Next, the moderation hypothesis (H3a and H3b) was examined by incorporating the interaction terms between family-supportive supervisor behavior and red tape into Model 3. The results show that the interaction terms between family-supportive supervisor behavior and red tape was significantly negative with perceived boundary control ( =-0.161, p < .1). The R2 value increased by 0.199 with an F-value = 9.143, p < .01. To further determine the characteristics of the moderation effect, the interaction model diagram and marginal effect diagram were drawn, as shown in Figure 2 and 3. Figure 2 indicates that when family-supportive supervisor behavior is high, the negative impact of red tape on perceived boundary control is more pronounced. This suggests that managerial support for employees' family needs does not alleviate the decline in employees' sense of control over work-family boundaries caused by red tape, a finding further corroborated by the marginal effects illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3 reveals a clear pattern: individuals experiencing high work demands (red tape) exhibit a diminished sense of control over work-family boundaries, particularly when they also receive high levels of family supportive supervision. This demonstrates that family-supportive supervisor behavior does not have a buffering effect in this context, thus supporting hypothesis H3b. 4.2. Study 2 To further validate the robustness of study 1 and the interaction of job resources and job demands, Study 2 extends the study area to the national level and extends job demands beyond family-supportive supervisor behaviors to perceived organizational support. Table 2 shows the correlation matrix of study 2 and preliminarily validates the research hypothesis. Moderated mediation results from Study 2 are shown in Table 5 and Table 6. The results in model 5 and 6 show a significant positive relationship between red tape and work-family conflicts ( =0.371, p < .01, =0.311, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 1. Model 3 demonstrates a significant positive correlation between red tape and perceived boundary control, while Model 6 shows a significant negative correlation between boundary control and work-family conflict. Combining these results with the significant indirect effects through bootstrap testing shown in Table 6, it is evident that perceived boundary control mediates the relationship between red tape and work-family conflict, thereby confirming Hypothesis 2. Table 5. Moderated mediation results from Study 2. DV: PBC DV:WFC (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Gender 0.021 0.004 -0.029 -0.154*** -0.120** -0.118** (0.37) (0.07) (-0.59) (-2.81) (-2.34) (-2.47) Age 0.191** 0.181** 0.182*** -0.058 -0.038 0.021 (2.57) (2.47) (2.75) (-0.79) (-0.57) (0.32) MS -0.089 -0.092 -0.093 0.181*** 0.187*** 0.157*** (-1.29) (-1.36) (-1.52) (2.67) (2.98) (2.66) Edu -0.050 -0.052 -0.047 -0.055 -0.049 -0.066 (-0.79) (-0.85) (-0.84) (-0.89) (-0.86) (-1.23) RT -0.183*** -0.108** 0.371*** 0.311*** (-3.36) (-2.17) (7.33) (6.44) PBC -0.327*** (-6.69) FSS 0.396*** (7.89) FSS*RT -0.112*** (-2.77) Constant -0.000 -0.000 -0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 (-0.00) (-0.00) (-0.42) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Obs 324 324 324 324 324 324 R-squared 0.032 0.065 0.246 0.057 0.193 0.293 Note: t-statistics in parentheses, *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Table 6. Indirect effect of RT on WFC through PBC from Study 2. Effect SE LLCI ULCI 0.060 0.021 0.022 0.103 Note: Bootstrap sample size=1000, LLCI = lower level of the 95% confidence interval, ULCI = upper level of 95% confidence interval, In accordance with Hypothesis 3, the study investigated the moderating influence of family-supportive supervisor behavior, revealing a significant interaction between red tape and family-supportive supervisor behavior on perceived boundary control in model 3 ( =-0.112, p < .01). To further understand the moderating effect of family-supportive supervisor behavior, the interaction model diagram and marginal effect diagram were drawn in Figure 4 and 5. The simple slope test in Figure 4 confirmed that the negative relationship between red tape and perceived boundary control is significantly exacerbated under conditions of high family-supportive supervisory behavior, supporting Hypothesis 3b. Further validation of H3b is provided by the marginal effects depicted in Figure 5, showing that as levels of family-supportive supervisor behavior increase, the magnitude of perceived boundary control decline due to red tape also increases. Based on the moderation results from Study 1 and Study 2, we did not find evidence supporting the third hypothesis of the JD-R model: the buffering hypothesis. Specifically, family-supportive supervisor behavior as a job resource did not mitigate the negative impact of high job demands (i.e., red tape) on perceived boundary control. One consideration is whether the failure of "buffering" effect by family-supportive supervisory behavior represents a specific outcome of the job resource under discussion. To test this, we replicated our analysis of H3 using another common job resource in JD-R literature, perceived organizational support. Similar to our findings with family-supportive supervisor behavior, perceived organizational support also did not support the buffering hypothesis, failing to alleviate the adverse effects of red tape. See Figures 6 and 7 for details. 5. Discussion This study examines the negative effects of red tape as high job demand may cause not limited to work scenarios, and focuses on responding to the buffering hypothesis of the JD-R model, which posits that job resources can mitigate the adverse outcomes of job demands. Study 1 conducted a preliminary validation in a prefecture-level city in China. To circumvent the limitations associated with the research setting and the specificity of job resource types, Study 2 tested the robustness of the findings by expanding the scope to a national level and incorporating additional types of job resources. We found that red tape reduces perceived boundary control, leading to work-family conflict. Furthermore, there is no evidence in this study to support the buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model. The results demonstrate strong robustness across two studies and make multiple contributions to theory and practice. 5.1. Theoretical implications From the theoretical level, the research results expand the academic research on the negative consequences of red tape, as previous literature mainly explored the negative results of red tape in the work scene, such as turnover intention, job satisfaction and burnout (Uluturk, Yilmaz Altuntas, and Isik 2023). This study supported the possibility that red tape may have a spillover effect in the work scene, thus spreading to the family interface and causing work-family conflict. In addition, this article also focuses on how red tape can cause work-family conflict. Under this question, our study adds to the literature about perceived boundary control. Previous studies have not analyzed the relationship between red tape and perceived boundary control. These results prove that the negative relationship between red tape and work-family conflict is partly mediated by perceived boundary control. Red tape increases the complexity and tediousness of work, requiring employees to devote more time and energy into procedural tasks, which makes it challenging for them to effectively manage and balance their time and energy between work and family. In addition, red tape often requires employees to report to superiors, approve or wait for decisions, which limits employees' autonomy and freedom at work, leading to their inability to freely organize their working time, and thus affecting the participation and adjustment of family life. Thus, red tape has a negative impact on employees' perceived boundary control between work and home. The second theoretical contribution of this paper is to provide relevant evidence for the invalidity of the buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model. Previous studies using the JD-R model often focused on the impact of job resources and job demands on attitudes and behaviors, but paid little attention to the buffering hypothesis. According to the buffering hypothesis, job resources enhance motivation and engagement while also buffering against the adverse effects of high job demands by enabling effective stress management and preventing exhaustion (Bakker and Demerouti 2017, 2007). However, previous empirical studies have provided mixed results on the buffering hypothesis of the JD-R model (Geng et al. 2023, Yunus, Whitfield, and Sayed Mostafa 2023). Although some studies have demonstrated a substantial buffering effect of job resources on the adverse outcomes of job demands (Putwain and von der Embse 2019, Krick, Felfe, and Klebe 2023), other studies have observed no buffering effect (Mathieu, Eschleman, and Cheng 2019) or even found that job resources can aggravate these adverse relationships (Tucker, Jimmieson, and Bordia 2018, Xu and Payne 2020). In addition, it is noteworthy that there have been increasing calls to integrate personal resources into the JD-R model, such as PSM and psychological capital, for buffering job demands (Jensen and Holten 2023, Sharma and Tiwari 2023, Demerouti and Bakker 2022). Given the ongoing debate about the buffering hypothesis, there is a need for more empirical evidence to address these controversies. Study 1 and 2 of this paper provide evidence for the opposite of the buffering hypothesis that neither family-supportive supervisor behavior nor perceived organizational support as a job resource can mitigate the damaging effects of red tape on perceived boundary control. Our results can be explained from the following aspects. First of all, due to the expansion of the research scope from a prefecture-level city in China to the entire country, there is an urgent need for cross-cultural comparative studies, as cultural influences affect various aspects of human behavior and cognition (Glazer and Beehr 2005). In the Chinese context, characterized by a high collectivist culture, employees might perceive such supports (i.e., family-supportive supervisor behavior or perceived organizational support) as the implicit expectation or pressure rather than genuine care (Beehr and Glazer 2001). This interpretation leads them to engage in emotional labor and social mon itoring, which amplifies the negative consequences of red tape and reduces the intended positive organizational outcomes (Glazer and Amren 2018). Secondly, person-environment fit theory and norm of reciprocity provide a similar explanatory framework. Reverse buffering effects may emerge when organizational or supervisory support amplifies focus on stressors (Beehr, Bowling, and Bennett 2010). The norm of reciprocity suggests that employees who perceive support often feel compelled to reciprocate with increased commitment, emotional investment, and behaviors aligned with organizational goals (Eisenberger et al. 2001). Furthermore, the person-environment fit theory posits that excessive support can be counterproductive, causing additional stress by exceeding the individual's needs (Edwards, Caplan, and Harrison 1998). Overall, organizational support is typically expected to alleviate stress, but it may not always be successful. Thirdly, source congruence theory posits that if the stressor originates from superiors, their support becomes ineffective and may exacerbate rather than alleviate stress. Consequently, the perceived reduction in boundary control caused by organizational red tape cannot be mitigated by supervisory or organizational support (Mayo et al. 2012, Beehr et al. 2003). In addition, some scholars have made other efforts to provide inspiration for this paper (Tucker, Jimmieson, and Bordia 2018). Mathieu, Eschleman, and Cheng (2019) through a meta-analysis that reverse buffering and forward buffering exist together, and further consideration of contextual factors is needed. Some scholars explore three-way interaction relationships by introducing factors such as supervisor emotion management(Tucker, Jimmieson, and Bordia 2018), conscientiousness (Bao et al. 2022) and job self-efficacy (Xu and Payne 2020) to find the boundary conditions for the buffering hypothesis. Some scholars try to explain from the perspective of matching hypothesis (De Jonge and Dormann 2006, Jonge, Gevers, and Dollard 2014) that the buffering effect of job resources depends largely on the correspondence between specific types of job demands and job resources (Bova, De Jonge, and Guglielmi 2015, Van Den Tooren and De Jonge 2008), but this view is contrary to COR theory. In addition, the third contribution of this paper is to provide an important, general implication for the public administration literature. This research responds to the plea made by (Bauwens, Decramer, and Audenaert 2021, Felin, Foss, and Ployhart 2015) to foster the integration of psychological perspectives in the realm of public administration literature and to enhance comprehension of macrolevel phenomena by delving into their microlevel underpinnings. This study applies the JD-R model in the field of human resource management and organizational behavior to the study of public administration, and analyzes how to alleviate the negative effects of unavoidable red tape in the bureaucratic system from the perspective of psychology, which also provides ideas for public sector human resource management literature. Therefore, this study responds to calls made by Kaufmann and Tummers (2017) to use organizational psychology concepts to enhance the understanding of red tape. Based on the JD-R model, we confirm that red tape serves as a job demand, and further can be categorized as a hindrance stressor incorporating the challenge-hindrance-stressor framework, which can impair employees' work-life balance. Our findings also echo Pandey (2021)’s view that red tape can be combined with other theoretical perspectives with the rise of the behavioral science approach. 5.2. Practical implications Our findings provide additional evidence for efforts by public organizations to eliminate red tape by identifying the negative side of red tape that is not mitigated by family-supportive supervisor behavior and perceived organizational support. Red tape has been proven to be a subjective perception, depending on one's cognition, cultural background, and environmental influences (Bozeman 2000). Therefore, it is crucial for managers and policymakers to have a detailed understanding and interpretation of policies and regulations (Kaufmann, Borry, and DeHart-Davis 2019). Meanwhile, allowing employees to participate in decision-making and goal-setting, and fostering an atmosphere of self-expression among them, has also been proven to reduce bureaucratic formalities and their negative impacts (Lagios et al. 2023). Furthermore, public sector managers must not disregard the potential spill-over of dysfunctional organizational rules from the workplace, resulting in conflicts between work and family spheres. This issue warrants attention, as the imbalance between work and family not only impacts workplace efficiency but also poses a threat to the organization's long-term development (Molina 2021). In addition, this study not only shows the direct impact of red tape and work-family boundary control, but also displayed a feasible alternative model with the position swap between family-supportive supervisor behavior and red tape (see Table A4-A5 for moderated mediation results, see Figure A1-A2 for a visualization of these interaction effects). Family-supportive supervisor behavior can reduce work-family conflict by promoting employees' perceived boundary control, but this promotion effect is greatly reduced due to the existence of red tape. Red tape counteracts the positive effects of supervisors, as organizational rules, regulations and procedures become a "substitute for leadership (Kerr and Jermier 1978), which is consistent with the findings of Vogel, Vogel, and Reuber (2022). This further illustrates the negative nature of red tape, and provides positive confirmation for the practice of reducing burdens at the grassroots level in China. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the interaction between red tape and leadership in bureaucracies, not just transformational leadership and authentic leadership types (Campbell 2017, Moynihan 2012, Van der Voet 2016, Vogel, Vogel, and Reuber 2022). 5.3. Limitations As with other studies, this paper has some limitations that provide potential directions for future research, as well as ideas for future research that may respond to or question this study. Firstly, according to the extant studies, this research is subject to the limitations of cross-sectional survey research. Therefore, we call for future studies to overcome this barrier in examining the impact of elaborate rituals and red tape on work-family conflict. This can be achieved by conducting longitudinal research, taking advantage of the favorable opportunity window provided by relieving burden at the grassroots level in China. Such research would not only provide a more comprehensive validation of the research questions in this paper but also further verify whether the policies about relieving burden at the grassroots level in the Chinese context effectively reduce the challenges posed by elaborate rituals and red tape in grassroots governance. Another limitation of this study is that the variables of red tape and family-supportive supervisor behavior, although organizational-level factors, are measured based on the perception of government employees. While this measurement approach has been supported in previous research, it is limited by the inherent subjectivity of perception measures, which cannot provide a fully objective assessment. Therefore, future research can adopt more objective measurement methods. Finally, the research scenario of this paper is limited to the grassroots government in China, and cross-cultural comparison can also be considered in future research. After all, as a common problem under the bureaucratic system, red tape is also a governance problem that needs to be solved urgently in other countries. 6. Conclusion Bureaucracy exists widely in many countries and organizations, and its pathological product, red tape, has been paid more and more attention by public administration scholars. While it is true that not all public organizations face bureaucratic hurdles, it is widely recognized that red tape continues to be a common and persistent challenge within the public sector, especially when contrasted with the private sector (Pandey and Kingsley 2000, Chen et al. 2023). Through research and analysis, public administration scholars seek to understand the causes of red tape and its impact on administrative effectiveness and public services. This study shows that red tape not only causes negative effects in the work context, but also has spillover effects, which can blur the boundary between work and family, reduce employees' perceived boundary control, and further cause work-family conflicts. Subsequently, following an exploration of the issues caused by red tape, this study aims to identify strategies to mitigate this undesirable effect. Drawing upon the JD-R model in the fields of human resource management and organizational behavior, we find that supportive supervisor behaviors and perceived organizational support as job resources exacerbate the negative impact of red tape on perceived boundary control. Our findings confirm the significant challenges public sectors encounter in alleviating the negative effects of red tape, alongside challenging the buffering hypothesis proposed by the JD-R model. Future research could delve into effective strategies to mitigate the adverse effects of red tape in public sector contexts and the boundary conditions under which the buffering hypothesis of the JD-R model applies. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Data Availability Data available on request from the authors. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Contributions Author 1 contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study, oversaw the data collection process, and led the drafting and revision of the manuscript. Author 2 was responsible for the data analysis and interpretation, as well as drafting sections related to methodology and results. Author 3 assisted in the literature review, contributed to the discussion section, and provided critical feedback on the manuscript drafts. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Ethical approval Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee on Human Subjects Ethics Sub-Committee of XXX University (Since the submission needs to be anonymous, the university has also done anonymous processing). The study was carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations and complied with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all participants regarding the nature of the study, confidentiality of their data, and their right to withdraw at any time. References Ahmad, A. B., T. Straatmann, K. Mueller, and B. Liu. 2021. "Employees’ Change Support in the Public Sector—A Multi-Time Field Study Examining the Formation of Intentions and Behaviors." Public Administration Review 81 (2):231-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13275. Ahmad, Ahmad Bayiz, Atif Saleem Butt, Dingxiang Chen, and Bangcheng Liu. 2020. "A mediated model of the effect of organizational culture on the intentions to engage in change-supportive behaviors: insights from the theory of planned behavior." Journal of Management & Organization 29 (2):345-365. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.41. Allen, Tammy D., Eunae Cho, and Laurenz L. Meier. 2014. "Work–Family Boundary Dynamics." Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1 (1):99-121. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091330. Ashforth, Blake, Glen Kreiner, and Mel Fugate. 2000. "All in A Day's Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions." Academy of Management Review 25:472-491. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.3363315. Bakker, Arnold B, and Evangelia Demerouti. 2007. "The job demands‐resources model: State of the art." Journal of managerial psychology 22 (3):309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115. ———. 2017. "Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward." Journal of occupational health psychology 22 (3):273. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056. ———. 2018. "Multiple levels in job demands-resources theory: Implications for employee well-being and performance." In Handbook of well-being . Noba Scholar. Bakker, Arnold B, Hetty Van Emmerik, and Pim Van Riet. 2008. "How job demands, resources, and burnout predict objective performance: A constructive replication." Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 21 (3):309-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800801958637. Bakker, Arnold B, Despoina Xanthopoulou, and Evangelia Demerouti. 2023. "How does chronic burnout affect dealing with weekly job demands? A test of central propositions in JD‐R and COR‐theories." Applied Psychology 72 (1):389-410. Bakker, Arnold B., Lieke L. ten Brummelhuis, Jelle T. Prins, and Frank M. M. A. van der Heijden. 2011. "Applying the job demands–resources model to the work–home interface: A study among medical residents and their partners." Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (1):170-180. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.004. Bao, Haixu, Cong Liu, Jie Ma, Jiawei Feng, and Huiyuan He. 2022. "When job resources function as a stress buffer: A resource allocation perspective of the job demands-resources model." Personality and Individual Differences 192:111591. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111591. Barboza-Wilkes, Cynthia J, Thai V Le, and William G Resh. 2023. "Deconstructing burnout at the intersections of race, gender, and generation in local government." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 33 (1):186-201. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac018. Bauwens, Robin, Adelien Decramer, and Mieke Audenaert. 2021. "Challenged by Great Expectations? Examining Cross-Level Moderations and Curvilinearity in the Public Sector Job Demands–Resources Model." Review of Public Personnel Administration 41 (2):319-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x19884102. Beehr, Terry A., Nathan A. Bowling, and Misty M. Bennett. 2010. "Occupational stress and failures of social support: When helping hurts." Journal of occupational health psychology 15 (1):45-59. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018234. Beehr, Terry A., Suzanne J. Farmer, Sharon Glazer, David M. Gudanowski, and Vandana Naig Nair. 2003. "The enigma of social support and occupational stress: Source congruence and gender role effects." Journal of occupational health psychology 8 (3):220-231. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.3.220. Beehr, Terry A., and Sharon Glazer. 2001. "A cultural perspective of social support in relation to occupational stress." In Exploring Theoretical Mechanisms and Perspectives , edited by Pamela L. Perrewe and Daniel C. Ganster, 97-142. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Borst, Rick T., Peter M. Kruyen, Christiaan J. Lako, and Michiel S. de Vries. 2019. "The Attitudinal, Behavioral, and Performance Outcomes of Work Engagement: A Comparative Meta-Analysis Across the Public, Semipublic, and Private Sector." Review of Public Personnel Administration 40 (4):613-640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19840399. Bova, Nicoletta, Jan De Jonge, and Dina Guglielmi. 2015. "The Demand-Induced Strain Compensation Questionnaire: A Cross-national Validation Study." Stress and Health 31 (3):236-244. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2550. Bozeman, Barry. 1993. "A theory of government “red tape”." Journal of public administration research and theory 3 (3):273-304. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037171. ———. 2000. Bureaucracy and red tape . Vol. 14: Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ. Bozeman, Barry, and Mary K Feeney. 2011. Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research : ME Sharpe. Braun, Timo, Aristides I. Ferreira, and Jörg Sydow. 2013. "Citizenship behavior and effectiveness in temporary organizations." International Journal of Project Management 31 (6):862-876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.003. Burton, Judith, and Diane Van den Broek. 2009. "Accountable and countable: Information management systems and the bureaucratization of social work." British journal of social work 39 (7):1326-1342. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn027. Campbell, J. W. 2017. "Red tape and transformational leadership: an organizational echelons perspective." Journal of Organizational Change Management 30 (1):76-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-01-2016-0004. Campbell, Jesse W, Sanjay K Pandey, and Lars Arnesen. 2023. "The ontology, origin, and impact of divisive public sector rules: A meta‐narrative review of the red tape and administrative burden literatures." Public Administration Review 83 (2):296-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13527. Capitano, Johnna, Kristie L. McAlpine, and Jeffrey H. Greenhaus. 2019. "Organizational Influences on Work–Home Boundary Permeability: A Multidimensional Perspective." In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management , edited by M. Ronald Buckley, Anthony R. Wheeler, John E. Baur and Jonathon R. B. Halbesleben, 133-172. Emerald Publishing Limited. Chen, D., Y. Zhang, A. B. Ahmad, and B. Liu. 2023. "How to Fuel Public Employees’ Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Two-Wave Moderated Mediation Study." Review of Public Personnel Administration 43 (1):185-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X211052675. Chen, Junjun, and John Chi-Kin Lee. 2022. "Teacher resilience matters: a buffering and boosting effect between job driving factors and their well-being and job performance." Teachers and Teaching 28 (7):890-907. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2022.2116574. Clark, Sue Campbell. 2000. "Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Balance." Human Relations 53 (6):747-770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536001. Cohen, S., and T. A. Wills. 1985. "Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis." Psychol Bull 98 (2):310-357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310. Cooke, Donna K., Katarina K. Brant, and Juanita M. Woods. 2019. "The Role of Public Service Motivation in Employee Work Engagement: A Test of the Job Demands-Resources Model." International Journal of Public Administration 42 (9):765-775. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1517265. Coursey, David H, and Sanjay K Pandey. 2007. "Content domain, measurement, and validity of the red tape concept: A second-order confirmatory factor analysis." The American Review of Public Administration 37 (3):342-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731506290269. Crain, Tori L, and Shalyn C Stevens. 2018. "Family‐supportive supervisor behaviors: A review and recommendations for research and practice." Journal of Organizational Behavior 39 (7):869-888. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2320. Crawford, Eean R, Jeffery A LePine, and Bruce Louis Rich. 2010. "Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test." Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (5):834. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364. Daniel, Carole, Elodie Gentina, and Jessica Mesmer-Magnus. 2022. "Mindfulness buffers the deleterious effects of workaholism for work-family conflict." Social Science & Medicine 306:115118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115118. Dawson, K. M., K. E. O'Brien, and T. A. Beehr. 2016. "The role of hindrance stressors in the job demand?control?support model of occupational stress: A proposed theory revision." Journal of Organizational Behavior 37:397-415. De Jonge, J., and C. Dormann. 2006. "Stressors, resources, and strain at work: A longitudinal test of the triple-match principle." Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (6):1359-1374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1359. Demerouti, Evangelia, Arnold B Bakker, Friedhelm Nachreiner, and Wilmar B Schaufeli. 2001. "The job demands-resources model of burnout." Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (3):499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499. Demerouti, Evangelia, and Arnold B. Bakker. 2022. "Job demands-resources theory in times of crises: New propositions." Organizational Psychology Review 13 (3):209-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221135022. Dishon-Berkovits, Miriam. 2013. "Burnout: Contributing and Protecting Factors Within the Work–Family Interface." Journal of Career Development 41 (6):467-486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845313512181. Edwards, Jeffrey R, Robert D Caplan, and R Van Harrison. 1998. "Person-environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research." Theories of organizational stress 28:28-67. Eisenberger, Robert, Stephen Armeli, Barbara Rexwinkel, Patrick D. Lynch, and Linda Rhoades. 2001. "Reciprocation of perceived organizational support." Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (1):42-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42. Felin, Teppo, Nicolai J. Foss, and Robert E. Ployhart. 2015. "The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory." Academy of Management Annals 9 (1):575-632. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2015.1007651. Fernet, Claude, Stéphanie Austin, Sarah-Geneviève Trépanier, and Marc Dussault. 2013. "How do job characteristics contribute to burnout? Exploring the distinct mediating roles of perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness." European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 22 (2):123-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.632161. Ganster, Daniel C., Christopher C. Rosen, and Gwenith G. Fisher. 2018. "Long Working Hours and Well-being: What We Know, What We Do Not Know, and What We Need to Know." Journal of Business and Psychology 33 (1):25-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9478-1. Geng, Zizhen, Yanfen Wang, Youqing Fan, and Chunxia Shan. 2023. "Motivation and hindrance: the mixed blessing of paradoxical leader behaviour for workplace creativity in China." Asia Pacific Business Review 29 (1):206-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2022.2134965. George, Bert, Sanjay K Pandey, Bram Steijn, Adelien Decramer, and Mieke Audenaert. 2021. "Red Tape, organizational performance, and employee outcomes: Meta‐analysis, meta‐regression, and research agenda." Public Administration Review 81 (4):638-651. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13327. Giauque, D., S. Anderfuhren-Biget, and F. Varone. 2013. "Stress Perception in Public Organisations: Expanding the Job Demands-Job Resources Model by Including Public Service Motivation." Review of Public Personnel Administration 33 (1):58-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12443264. Glazer, S., and M. Amren. 2018. "Culture's implications on support as a moderator of the job stressor-outcome relationship." International Journal of Stress Management 25:7-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000087. Glazer, Sharon, and Terry A. Beehr. 2005. "Consistency of implications of three role stressors across four countries." Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 (5):467-487. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/job.326. Grandey, Alicia A., and Russell Cropanzano. 1999. "The Conservation of Resources Model Applied to Work–Family Conflict and Strain." Journal of Vocational Behavior 54 (2):350-370. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1666. Greenhaus, Jeffrey H, and Nicholas J Beutell. 1985. "Sources of conflict between work and family roles." Academy of management review 10 (1):76-88. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4277352. Hammer, Leslie B, Ellen Ernst Kossek, Todd Bodner, and Tori Crain. 2013. "Measurement development and validation of the family supportive supervisor behavior short-form (FSSB-SF)." Journal of occupational health psychology 18 (3):285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032612. Hammer, Leslie B., Ellen Ernst Kossek, Nanette L. Yragui, Todd E. Bodner, and Ginger C. Hanson. 2008. "Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Family Supportive Supervisor Behaviors (FSSB)." Journal of Management 35 (4):837-856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308328510. Hekman, David R., Gregory A. Bigley, H. Kevin Steensma, and James Hereford. 2009. "COMBINED EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL IDENTIFICATION ON THE RECIPROCITY DYNAMIC FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES." Academy of Management Journal 52:506-526. Hesmert, Laura, Fabian Hattke, and Rick Vogel. 2022. "The a priori of public leadership: Social attributions to public and private leaders in different performance contexts." Public Administration 100 (4):876-899. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12780. Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. "Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress." Am Psychol 44 (3):513-524. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513. Hobfoll, Stevan E. 2001. "The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory." Applied Psychology 50 (3):337-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062. Hobfoll, Stevan E, and John Freedy. 2018. "Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout." In Professional burnout , 115-129. CRC Press. Homburg, Vincent MF. 2008. "Red tape and reforms: Trajectories of technological and managerial reforms in public administration." Intl Journal of Public Administration 31 (7):749-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701690817. Idris, Mohd Awang, Maureen F. Dollard, and Anthony H. Winefield. 2011. "Job Characteristics: What Can We Learn From the East?" International Journal of Management Studies 18 (1):135-154. https://doi.org/10.32890/ijms. Ilies, Remus, Kelly M Schwind, David T Wagner, Michael D Johnson, D Scott DeRue, and Daniel R Ilgen. 2007. "When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect on work-family conflict and social behaviors at home." Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (5):1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1368. Jacobsen, Christian Bøtcher, and Mads Leth Jakobsen. 2018. "Perceived organizational red tape and organizational performance in public services." Public Administration Review 78 (1):24-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12817. Jensen, Ulrich Thy, and Ann-Louise Holten. 2023. "Buffer and booster? Testing PSM’s role in job demands-resources theory." Public Management Review :1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2248128. Jiang, Zhou, Alexander Newman, Gary Schwarz, and Huong Le. 2023. "Perceived Red Tape and Precursors of Turnover: the Roles of Work Engagement and Career Adaptability." Journal of Business and Psychology 38 (2):437-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09834-y. Jonge, J., Josette Gevers, and Maureen Dollard. 2014. "Managing Employee Creativity and Health in Nursing Homes: The Moderating Role of Matching Job Resources and Matching Occupational Rewards." International Journal of Stress Management 21:361-383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038149. Kahn, RL, and P Byosiere. 1992. "Stress in organizations. Teoksessa: Dunnette MD & Hough LM (toim): Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology 3." In.: Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Kaufmann, Wesley, Erin L. Borry, and Leisha DeHart-Davis. 2019. "More than Pathological Formalization: Understanding Organizational Structure and Red Tape." Public Administration Review 79 (2):236-245. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12958. Kaufmann, Wesley, and Lars Tummers. 2017. "The negative effect of red tape on procedural satisfaction." Public Management Review 19 (9):1311-1327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210907. Kerr, S., and J. M. Jermier. 1978. "Substitutes for leadership ? their meaning and measurement." Organizational behavior and human performance 22 (3):375-403. Khan, Muhammad Safdar, Natasha Saman Elahi, and Ghulam Abid. 2021. "Workplace incivility and job satisfaction: Mediation of subjective well-being and moderation of forgiveness climate in health care sector." European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 11 (4):1107-1119. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11040082. Kinnunen, Ulla, Johanna Rantanen, Jessica de Bloom, Saija Mauno, Taru Feldt, and Kalevi Korpela. 2016. "The role of work–nonwork boundary management in work stress recovery." International Journal of Stress Management 23 (2):99. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039730. Kirrane, Melrona, and Finian Buckley. 2004. "The influence of support relationships on work‐family conflict: differentiating emotional from instrumental support." Equal Opportunities International 23 (1/2):78-96. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610150410787800. Kossek, Ellen Ernst, and Brenda A. Lautsch. 2012. "Work–family boundary management styles in organizations: A cross-level model." Organizational Psychology Review 2 (2):152-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611436264. Kossek, Ellen Ernst, Marian N Ruderman, Phillip W Braddy, and Kelly M Hannum. 2012. "Work–nonwork boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach." Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (1):112-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003. Kreiner, Glen E, Elaine C Hollensbe, and Mathew L Sheep. 2009. "Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics." Academy of Management Journal 52 (4):704-730. Krick, Annika, Jörg Felfe, and Laura Klebe. 2023. "Can Mindfulness Buffer Against Negative Effects of Job Demands for Military and Police Personnel?" Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 65 (5). Lagios, Constantin, Nathan Nguyen, Florence Stinglhamber, and Gaëtane Caesens. 2023. "Dysfunctional rules in organizations: The mediating role of organizational dehumanization in the relationship between red tape and employees’ outcomes." European Management Journal 41 (5):802-813. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.06.002. Leger, Kate A, Soomi Lee, Kelly D Chandler, and David M Almeida. 2022. "Effects of a workplace intervention on daily stressor reactivity." Journal of occupational health psychology 27 (1):152. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000297. Liu, B., W. Hu, and Y. C. Cheng. 2015. "From the west to the east: Validating servant leadership in the Chinese public sector." Public Personnel Management 44 (1):25-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014555995. Liu, B., K. Yang, and W. Yu. 2015. "Work-Related Stressors and Health-Related Outcomes in Public Service: Examining the Role of Public Service Motivation." American Review of Public Administration 45 (6):653-673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014524298. Maslach, Christina, Wilmar B Schaufeli, and Michael P Leiter. 2001. "Job burnout." Annual review of psychology 52 (1):397-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397. Mathieu, Michael, Kevin J. Eschleman, and Danqiao Cheng. 2019. "Meta-analytic and multiwave comparison of emotional support and instrumental support in the workplace." Journal of occupational health psychology 24 (3):387-409. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000135. Mayo, Margarita, Juan I. Sanchez, Juan C. Pastor, and Alfredo Rodriguez. 2012. "Supervisor and coworker support: a source congruence approach to buffering role conflict and physical stressors." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23 (18):3872-3889. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.676930. Mazzetti, Greta, Enrique Robledo, Michela Vignoli, Gabriela Topa, Dina Guglielmi, and Wilmar B Schaufeli. 2023. "Work engagement: A meta-analysis using the job demands-resources model." Psychological Reports 126 (3):1069-1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211051988. Molina, José Alberto. 2021. "The Work–Family Conflict: Evidence from the Recent Decade and Lines of Future Research." Journal of Family and Economic Issues 42 (1):4-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-020-09700-0. Moynihan, Donald P. 2012. "A theory of culture‐switching: Leadership and red‐tape during hurricane Katrina." Public Administration 90 (4):851-868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02017.x. Muylaert, Jolien, Adelien Decramer, and Mieke Audenaert. 2022. "How Leader’s Red Tape Interacts With Employees’ Red Tape From the Lens of the Job Demands-Resources Model." Review of Public Personnel Administration 43 (3):430-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221087420. ———. 2023. "Linking red tape originating from digital tools to affective commitment: the mediating roles of role ambiguity and work engagement." Public Management Review 25 (12):2402-2427. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2291797. Netemeyer, Richard G, James S Boles, and Robert McMurrian. 1996. "Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales." Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (4):400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400. Neveu, Jean‐Pierre. 2007. "Jailed resources: Conservation of resources theory as applied to burnout among prison guards." Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 28 (1):21-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.393. Nguyen, Nhung Thi Hong, and Luu Trong Tuan. 2022. "Creating reasonable workload to enhance public employee job satisfaction: The role of supervisor support, co-worker support, and tangible job resources." Public Performance & Management Review 45 (1):131-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2021.2018717. Nicklin, Jessica M., Kristen M. Shockley, and Hope Dodd. 2022. "Self-compassion: Implications for work-family conflict and balance." Journal of Vocational Behavior 138:103785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103785. Nippert-Eng, Christena. 1996. "Calendars and keys: The classification of “home” and “work”." Sociological Forum 11 (3):563-582. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02408393. Ong, Wei Jee, and Michael D Johnson. 2023. "Toward a configural theory of job demands and resources." Academy of Management Journal 66 (1):195-221. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.0493. Pandey, S. K., and G. A. Kingsley. 2000. "Examining red tape in public and private organizations: alternative explanations from a social psychological model." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (4):779-800. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024291. Pandey, Sanjay K. 2021. "The psychological process view of bureaucratic red tape." In Research handbook on HRM in the public sector , 260-275. Edward Elgar Publishing. ———. 2023. "Elevating subjective individual experience in public policy and public administration: Reflections on red tape, administrative burden, and sludge." Public Administration Review 83 (5):1072-1082. Park, YoungAh, Charlotte Fritz, and Steve M Jex. 2011. "Relationships between work-home segmentation and psychological detachment from work: the role of communication technology use at home." Journal of occupational health psychology 16 (4):457. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023594. Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes. 2008. "The SAGE Sourcebook of Advanced Data Analysis Methods for Communication Research." In. Thousand Oaks Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Putwain, David W., and Nathaniel P. von der Embse. 2019. "Teacher self-efficacy moderates the relations between imposed pressure from imposed curriculum changes and teacher stress." Educational Psychology 39 (1):51-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1500681. Quratulain, Samina, and Abdul Karim Khan. 2015. "Red tape, resigned satisfaction, public service motivation, and negative employee attitudes and behaviors: Testing a model of moderated mediation." Review of Public Personnel Administration 35 (4):307-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13511646. Reiche, B. Sebastian, Mihaela Dimitrova, Mina Westman, Shoshi Chen, Olivier Wurtz, Mila Lazarova, and Margaret A. Shaffer. 2021. "Expatriate work role engagement and the work–family interface: A conditional crossover and spillover perspective." Human Relations 76 (3):452-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211046816. Sadiq, Misbah. 2022. "Policing in pandemic: Is perception of workload causing work–family conflict, job dissatisfaction and job stress?" Journal of Public Affairs 22 (2):e2486. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2486. Sharma, Indu, and Vivek Tiwari. 2023. "Modeling the impact of techno‐stress and burnout on employees’ work‐life balance and turnover intention: A job demands‐resources theory perspective." Global Business and Organizational Excellence 43 (1):121-134. Shi, Yanwei, Dan Li, Zhiqing E. Zhou, Hui Zhang, Zhuang She, and Xi Yuan. 2023. "How Work&ndash,Nonwork Conflict Affects Remote Workers&rsquo, General Health in China: A Self-Regulation Theory Perspective." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021337. Simães, Clara, Jéssica Rodrigues, Arminda Manuela Gonçalves, Susana Faria, and António Rui Gomes. 2021. "Work–family conflicts, cognitive appraisal, and burnout: Testing the mediation effect with structural equation modelling." British Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (4):1349-1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12420. Spieler, Ines, Susanne Scheibe, Christian Stamov-Roßnagel, and Arvid Kappas. 2017. "Help or hindrance? Day-level relationships between flextime use, work–nonwork boundaries, and affective well-being." Journal of Applied Psychology 102 (1):67. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000153. Steijn, Bram, and Joris Van der Voet. 2019. "Relational job characteristics and job satisfaction of public sector employees: When prosocial motivation and red tape collide." Public Administration 97 (1):64-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12352. Tadić, Maja, Arnold B Bakker, and Wido GM Oerlemans. 2015. "Challenge versus hindrance job demands and well‐being: A diary study on the moderating role of job resources." Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 88 (4):702-725. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12094. Tayfur, Ozge, and Mahmut Arslan. 2013. "The role of lack of reciprocity, supervisory support, workload and work–family conflict on exhaustion: Evidence from physicians." Psychology, Health & Medicine 18 (5):564-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2012.756535. Thomas, Linda Thiede, and Daniel C. Ganster. 1995. "Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective." Journal of Applied Psychology 80 (1):6-15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6. Thompson, Cynthia A., and David J. Prottas. 2006. "Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being." Journal of occupational health psychology 11 (1):100-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.100. Tucker, Michelle K., Nerina L. Jimmieson, and Prashant Bordia. 2018. "Supervisor support as a double-edged sword: Supervisor emotion management accounts for the buffering and reverse-buffering effects of supervisor support." International Journal of Stress Management 25 (1):14-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000046. Uluturk, Bulent, Elgiz Yilmaz Altuntas, and Tuba Isik. 2023. "Impact of Ethical Leadership on Job Satisfaction and Work-Related Burnout among Turkish Street-Level Bureaucrats: The Roles of Public Service Motivation, Perceived Organizational Support, and Red Tape." Public Performance & Management Review 46 (6):1502-1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2256705. Van den Broeck, Anja, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Hans De Witte, and Willy Lens. 2008. "Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction." Work & stress 22 (3):277-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393672. Van Den Tooren, Marieke, and Jan De Jonge. 2008. "Managing job stress in nursing: what kind of resources do we need?" Journal of Advanced Nursing 63 (1):75-84. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04657.x. Van der Voet, Joris. 2016. "Change leadership and public sector organizational change: Examining the interactions of transformational leadership style and red tape." The American Review of Public Administration 46 (6):660-682. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740155747. Vogel, Rick, Dominik Vogel, and Artur Reuber. 2022. "Finding a mission in bureaucracies: How authentic leadership and red tape interact." Public Administration . https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12895. Wallace, J Craig, Bryan D Edwards, Todd Arnold, M Lance Frazier, and David M Finch. 2009. "Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support." Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (1):254. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/a0013090. Westman, Mina, Stevan E. Hobfoll, Shoshi Chen, Oranit B. Davidson, and Shavit Laski. 2004. "Organizational stress through the lens of conservation of resources (COR) theory." In Exploring Interpersonal Dynamics , edited by Pamela L. Perrewe and Daniel C. Ganster, 167-220. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Widyanti, Rahmi. 2020. "What Role Perceived Red Tape, Job Goal Clarity, and Leader-Member Exchange Can Play in Organizational Commitment? An Empirical Study of Indonesian Pharmaceutical Sector." Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.5530/srp.2020.1.71. Wright, B. E., and B. S. Davis. 2003. "Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the work environment." American Review of Public Administration 33:70-90. Xu, Xiaohong, and Stephanie C. Payne. 2020. "When do job resources buffer the effect of job demands?" International Journal of Stress Management 27 (3):226-240. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000146. Yunus, Suhaer, Keith Whitfield, and Ahmed Mohammed Sayed Mostafa. 2023. "High‐performance HR practices, job demands and employee well‐being: The moderating role of managerial support." Stress and Health 39 (5):1106-1123. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendices.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 17 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 14 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 02 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Apr, 2025 Editor invited by journal 01 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 18 Mar, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 18 Mar, 2025 First submitted to journal 27 Feb, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6120245","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":451194231,"identity":"3470c2be-7b40-4b91-8376-12ee1ecc1aac","order_by":0,"name":"Rui Jiang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanghai Jiao Tong University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rui","middleName":"","lastName":"Jiang","suffix":""},{"id":451194232,"identity":"05e70861-36d3-48c9-94e9-d87ae8d09e77","order_by":1,"name":"Linghang Meng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanghai Jiao Tong University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Linghang","middleName":"","lastName":"Meng","suffix":""},{"id":451194234,"identity":"0e3e803f-27b2-480a-b2f9-53b114c72592","order_by":2,"name":"Bangcheng Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanghai Jiao Tong University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bangcheng","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-02-27 10:53:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6120245/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6120245/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07013-5","type":"published","date":"2026-04-02T15:59:30+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":81960424,"identity":"bb87d772-a4fb-481f-89af-c7a0783267c8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 10:41:55","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":53417,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe analytical framework of this study\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6120245/v1/19fda6cf46c5a253705f8d40.png"},{"id":81960582,"identity":"5f8d97ba-d3e9-4444-87dc-dc711b136233","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 10:49:55","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":11205,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eModeration effect of family-supportive supervisor behavior from Study 1.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6120245/v1/9d102573dae4d95f39f95c4b.png"},{"id":81960429,"identity":"f3390e6b-7b5b-49e0-9972-1f4864becf3a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 10:41:55","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":73280,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMarginal effects of RT on PBC over FSS from Study 1.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6120245/v1/4dbbcaa25f40be3f3a79ea49.png"},{"id":81960581,"identity":"8d178139-f933-43b3-a69a-a11d42fdbdf5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 10:49:55","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":10722,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eModeration effect of family-supportive supervisor behavior from Study 2.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6120245/v1/27e43abd3fadae52c657b5b9.png"},{"id":81960430,"identity":"e36d122e-b469-48a9-a61d-12afab70bb69","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 10:41:55","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":73012,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMarginal effects of RT on PBC over FSS from Study 2.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6120245/v1/6cf61f870343132472dcda5a.png"},{"id":81960428,"identity":"8cd2c4e3-75f9-4349-8243-ec87d9c10867","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 10:41:55","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":11532,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eModeration effect of Perceived organizational support from Study 2.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6120245/v1/49fc6055af2eaba54f000459.png"},{"id":81960431,"identity":"55d51c98-4cf3-4fff-bd46-77987d3a970c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 10:41:55","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":69578,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMarginal effects of RT on PBC over POS from Study 2.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6120245/v1/3e9fb5b9ceb745acd2f34bbb.png"},{"id":106343499,"identity":"37ed43ca-ff70-4512-840b-10acd04fbf4d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-07 16:06:00","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1381028,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6120245/v1/4889315a-affc-4037-9a2e-ea630fcfa9d8.pdf"},{"id":81960425,"identity":"769d6064-0c7b-4c90-a584-154f5346f094","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 10:41:55","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":115902,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendices.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6120245/v1/1a40e07c5df145adcca57425.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Examining the Impact of Red Tape on Work-Family Conflict: The Mediating Role of Perceived Boundary Control and the Buffering Role of Family-Supportive Supervisors","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction ","content":"\u003cp\u003eConflict between work and family life has increasingly attracted attention in recent years, as heavy work demands and the need for structural transformation have emerged (Ganster, Rosen, and Fisher 2018). Work-family conflict has been defined as \u0026lsquo;a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible so that participation in one role is made more difficult by the participation in another role\u0026rsquo; (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985, , p.77). Previous studies have revealed that elevated levels of work-family conflict can lead to detrimental effects on both work and family interface (Ilies et al. 2007, Braun, Ferreira, and Sydow 2013, Tayfur and Arslan 2013). While much attention has been paid to the negative consequences and ameliorative measures of work-family conflict (Daniel, Gentina, and Mesmer-Magnus 2022, Kirrane and Buckley 2004), less focus has been placed on the role of red tape\u0026mdash;bureaucratic rules and procedures that create compliance burdens without adding value for stakeholders (Bozeman 2000, 1993, Liu, Yang, and Yu 2015)\u0026mdash;as a potential contributor to work-family conflict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExcessively intricate and burdensome regulatory systems, overloaded with dysfunctional rules, give rise to red tape (Bozeman 2000, Bozeman and Feeney 2011, Campbell, Pandey, and Arnesen 2023). The accompanying red tape has proved to be a significant nuisance for employees (Muylaert, Decramer, and Audenaert 2023), negatively affecting job satisfaction (Steijn and Van der Voet 2019), organizational commitment (Widyanti 2020), and performance (George et al. 2021), while positively correlating with emotional exhaustion (Muylaert, Decramer, and Audenaert 2022) and turnover (Jiang et al. 2023). To date, many researchers have primarily concentrated on the adverse effects of red tape on employees\u0026apos; work scenarios, disregarding the implications of the augmented workload caused by red tape may exacerbate work-family conflict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnchored in the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, Demerouti et al. 2001), this study conceptualizes red tape as a job demand and proposes a sophisticated theoretical framework to elucidate the relationship between red tape and work-family conflict. The work spillover effect resulting from red tape has the potential to impact employees\u0026apos; functionality and roles within the family domain, consequently increasing the probability of work-family conflict (Sim\u0026atilde;es et al. 2021). To elucidate this intricate relationship, this study investigates the potential mediating roles of perceived boundary control, drawing upon the theoretical frameworks of boundary theory and conservation of resources (COR) theory (Kossek and Lautsch 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe buffering hypothesis within the JD-R model posits that abundant job resources, such as strong supervisory support and positive feedback, can mitigate the negative impact of high job demands, thereby sustaining employees\u0026apos; work engagement and psychological well-being (Bao et al. 2022). When it comes to cushioning work-family conflicts caused by red tape, training supervisors to be more family-supportive (Cohen and Wills 1985) has great potential because leaders are able to provide employees with the three key elements that buffer stressors: information, support, and respect (Nicklin, Shockley, and Dodd 2022, Liu, Hu, and Cheng 2015). Leadership within the public sector is frequently depicted as facing unique constraints stemming from rigid bureaucratic frameworks and protocols (Hesmert, Hattke, and Vogel 2022). The interrelationship between red tape, a derivative of bureaucracy, and leadership (less mention of family-supportive leadership) has attracted wide attention (Vogel, Vogel, and Reuber 2022). When exploring the spread of red tape across the work interface to the home interface, the interaction between red tape and family-supportive leadership cannot be ignored.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study examines how cumbersome rules and procedures in bureaucracy blur the boundary between work and family in the public sector, resulting in work-family conflict, and whether family supportive supervisors as job resource can effectively mitigate the negative effects of red tape. Anchored in the buffering hypothesis of the JD-R model, we pay particular attention to the interaction between job demand and job resource. We conducted two studies using ordinary least squares (OLS) method to validate our hypotheses. Study 1 was conducted in early November 2022, with data collected from a group of frontline bureaucrats in a prefecture-level city in the Yangtze River Delta region of China. Study 2, conducted as a robustness test in March 2024, expanded the data collection nationwide and examined the role of perceived organizational support to avoid the specificity of family-supportive supervision as a unique job resource.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe contribution of this study focuses on the following two aspects. Firstly, while researchers widely acknowledge that red tape\u0026mdash;characterized by redundant administrative rules, regulations, and procedures (Pandey 2023)\u0026mdash;serves as a bureaucratic pathology detrimental to public sector employees\u0026apos; work motivation and affective commitment (Lagios et al. 2023, Muylaert, Decramer, and Audenaert 2022), there is limited research on whether red tape extends from the workplace to the non-workplace. By examining whether red tape contributes to work-family conflict through the reduction of perceived boundary control, our aim is to deepen the understanding of the complex negative consequences of red tape and to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the interaction between work and non-work interfaces. Secondly, we specifically respond to the third hypothesis of the JD-R model (Bakker et al. 2011), the buffering hypothesis: job resources not only enhance employees\u0026apos; motivation and work engagement but also serve as crucial buffers against the adverse effects of high demand levels. The remainder of the paper reviews the relevant theoretical framework and establishes the hypothesis, introduces the methods and results, and closes by providing conclusions and implications for theoretical and practical research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development ","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTheoretical background\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we use the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory and the Job Demands\u0026ndash;Resources (JD-R) model to analyze the impact of red tape and family-supportive supervisor behavior on work-family conflict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.1.2\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;The Conservation of Resources Theory\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe COR theory, developed by\u0026nbsp;Hobfoll (1989), seeks to understand how individuals experience stress due to the regulatory relationship between environmental demands and the availability of resources. It suggests that individuals strive to acquire, protect, and build resources to cope with job stressors and adapt to their environment. According to COR, \u0026lsquo;The model\u0026apos;s basic tenet is that people strive to retain, protect, and build resources and that what is threatening to them is the potential or actual loss of these valued resources\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;(Hobfoll 1989, , p. 516). COR explains about the source of psychological stress. According to COR, \u0026lsquo;\u0026hellip;a reaction to the environment in which there is (a) the threat of a net loss of resources, (b) the net loss of resources, or (c) a lack of resource gain following the investment of resources\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;(Hobfoll 1989, , p. 516). In simple words, this perception of resource (e.g., objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies) threat can trigger a stress response and result in heightened levels of stress for the individual.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince then, Hobfoll (2001) further developed and comprehensively elaborated COR theory, mainly in the combination of organizational reality, including examples and empirical evidence in organizational settings, and paying more attention to individual actions in the context of work (Westman et al. 2004). The evolution of COR theory has made it has garnered extensive utilization within the domain of organizational behavior, and the COR theory has been widely used as a research basis in the fields of burnout (Neveu 2007, Hobfoll and Freedy 2018, Barboza-Wilkes, Le, and Resh 2023), work-family interface (Dishon-Berkovits 2013, Grandey and Cropanzano 1999, Reiche et al. 2021) and workplace intervention (Leger et al. 2022, Khan, Elahi, and Abid 2021). Overall, the COR theory provides a valuable framework for studying how individuals manage resources, cope with stressors, and adapt to their environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.1.2\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;The Job Demands\u0026ndash;Resources Model\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;The JD-R model is proposed by Demerouti et al. (2001) on the basis of the COR theory, which was first to divide working conditions into job demands and job resources that are differentially related to job burnout (Bakker, Xanthopoulou, and Demerouti 2023).\u0026nbsp;Bakker and Demerouti (2007) further extended the JD-R model, which is described as \u0026lsquo;a heuristic model that specifies how employee well-being may be reproduced by two specific sets of working conditions\u0026rsquo; (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, p. 275), and a detailed conceptualization of job demands and job resources:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp; Job demands refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs. (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, p. 312)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJob resources refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or: (a) functional in achieving work goals, (b) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, (c) stimulate personal growth, learning, and development. (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, p. 312)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkload, emotional demands, work-family distractions, and role ambiguity are job demands and have been shown to be positively correlated with negative effects such as stress or exhaustion if the employee\u0026apos;s adaptive capacity is exceeded (Crawford, LePine, and Rich 2010, Bakker and Demerouti 2017, Mazzetti et al. 2023, Bakker, Van Emmerik, and Van Riet 2008). Nevertheless, supervisor or colleague support, autonomy, team cohesion, career opportunities, and tangible or intangible rewards are the \u0026lsquo;positive factors\u0026rsquo; in the work are classified as work resources (Van den Broeck et al. 2008, Nguyen and Tuan 2022, Fernet et al. 2013). In addition, according to the buffering hypothesis in JD-R model, job resources can buffer the negative effects of job demands on employee well-being and performance\u0026nbsp;(Bakker and Demerouti 2018, Chen and Chi-Kin Lee 2022, Tadić, Bakker, and Oerlemans 2015).\u0026nbsp;When employees have access to sufficient resources, it can help them cope with high job demands, reduce the likelihood of experiencing strain or burnout, and enhance their overall well-being.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRed Tape and Work-family conflict\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRed tape, one of the few indigenous concepts in the public administration, is referred to as \u0026lsquo;rules, regulations, and procedures that remain in force and entail a compliance burden, but do not advance the legitimate purposes the rules were intended to serve\u0026rsquo; (Bozeman 2000). Under bureaucracy, public officials need to deal with increasingly complex bureaucratic procedures and administrative regulations, resulting in increased administrative burdens and problems such as inefficiency and administrative delays, which is also one of the problems that the new public management reform is expected to solve (Burton and Van den Broek 2009, Homburg 2008, Ahmad et al. 2020). Due to its negative nature and tendency to occur under bureaucracy, red tape has attracted significant attention from public management scholars (Coursey and Pandey 2007, Ahmad et al. 2021). Meanwhile, as the JD-R model evolves, scholars have begun utilizing it to comprehensively analyze the adverse effects of red tape.\u0026nbsp;Idris, Dollard, and Winefield (2011), based on grounded theory, found that red tape could be a representative variable for the new job demand in the JD-R model. Prior to this, although some scholars found red tape would lead to work pressure and hinder organizational performance, it was not incorporated into the JD-R framework for research (Wallace et al. 2009).\u0026nbsp;Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, and Varone (2013)\u0026nbsp;applied the dividing criteria of job resources and job demands in the JD-R model and argued that red tape may be considered as the core job demand factor that damages the job happiness of public employees. Additionally, according to the JD-R model, red tape as a key job demand has been proved to be positively correlated with resigned satisfaction\u0026nbsp;(Quratulain and Khan 2015), turnover intention(Jiang et al. 2023, Muylaert, Decramer, and Audenaert 2022), employee attitudinal, behavioral, and performance outcomes\u0026nbsp;(Borst et al. 2019, Cooke, Brant, and Woods 2019). By extension, red tape is also highly likely to lead to work-family conflict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to COR theory, individuals strive to acquire, protect, and build resources to cope with stressors, and the potential or actual loss of resources can cause stress to individuals (Hobfoll 1989). Red tape, classified as a job demand in the JD-R model, increases workload and becomes a part of work stress (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001, Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, and Varone 2013). Prolonged time and energy invested in rules, regulations and procedures that entail a compliance burden which are part of the red tape may leave individuals with fewer resources (such as time, energy, and attention) to fulfil their family responsibilities (Steijn and Van der Voet 2019, Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, and Varone 2013). Therefore, in the process of balancing work and family roles, red tape causes excessive resource consumption in the work scene, which will erode the resources that should be left for the family (Sadiq 2022, Tayfur and Arslan 2013). According to COR theory, individuals\u0026apos; who face red tape of the work scene unable to simultaneously perform their work-related and family-related responsibilities, triggering work-family conflicts. Therefore, based on the JD-R model and the COR theory, it is hypothesized:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH1: Red tape is positively related to work-family conflicts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe mediating role of perceived boundary control\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch on the boundaries of the work-family sphere began with the boundary work proposed by Nippert-Eng (1996), which interprets boundaries as the actions that individuals use to define work and home. Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate (2000) focused on the process, antecedents and consequences of the transformation of everyday roles in places such as home and work, and filled in the boundary theory. Clark (2000) proposed a boundary theory based on work-family balance. In the work-family interface, individuals delimit the boundaries between work and home domains with psychological, physical, and behavioral boundaries, and indicate that individuals\u0026rsquo; cross boundaries between work and home domains daily. Previous research has found that a sense of high boundary control is associated with favorable personal and organizational outcomes, similar to reduced work stress and drowsiness (Allen, Cho, and Meier 2014, Spieler et al. 2017).According to COR theory, the things or conditions that an individual has that help to achieve the goal are called resources, including material resources and psychological resources (Hobfoll 1989). Perceived boundary control is a psychological explanation of the individual\u0026apos;s perceived self-control boundary ability, which is different from the individual attitude and behavior, and is a psychological resource of the individual (Kossek et al. 2012). Border control allows individuals the freedom to weaken or strengthen their work-family boundaries, those with a high degree of control are better able to manage work-family relationships and achieve work-family balance, whereas the reverse can lead to work-family conflict (Kinnunen et al. 2016, Shi et al. 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRed tape, which often manifests as highly formalized and restrictive, excessive or meaningless paperwork, and rules, procedures, and regulations that lead to inefficiency, is presented as a job demand in the JD-R model (Bozeman 1993, 2000, Bozeman and Feeney 2011) . Due to the increased workload caused by red tape, it often causes stress and nervous mental state (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001, Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, and Varone 2013), and individuals cannot effectively change roles when they switch from work field to family field, which hinders the effective recovery of resources to a large extent. According to the COR theory, when individuals invest a lot of resources and fail to recover effectively, psychological pressure will be generated (Hobfoll 2001, Hobfoll and Freedy 2018). Therefore, individuals essentially suffer from the dilemma of resource recovery, which disrupts the order of work-family life and makes employees more likely to lose the sense of boundary control over work and family. Therefore, it can be argued that if red tape weakens the sense of control over work-family boundaries, then this resource-consuming experience may lead to work-family conflict. Hence, the following hypothesis was investigated:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH2: Perceived boundary control mediates the relationship between red tape and work-family conflicts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.4.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe role of family supportive supervisor behavior\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the division of job demands and job resources in the JD-R model, the support of supervisors and colleagues, like the team atmosphere, are considered as work resources at the organizational level, which can play a motivating role and bring positive effects (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). Boundary theory suggests that the permeability of boundaries between work demands and the home domain is influenced by a combination of personal and situational factors (Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep 2009, Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate 2000). In addition, the boundary theory (Clark 2000) emphasizes that individuals\u0026apos; management of work-family boundaries is influenced by situational factors, with direct supervisors being particularly relevant(Park, Fritz, and Jex 2011). As an organization-level factor, family-supportive managers provide positive family support and care to employees in the work environment, and therefore have an impact on employees\u0026apos; sense of control over work-family boundaries. Some scholars have found that there is a significant correlation between supervisor support and boundary control (Thomas and Ganster 1995, Thompson and Prottas 2006). Family-supportive supervisor, a concept first proposed by\u0026nbsp;Thomas and Ganster (1995), encourage employees to do well in their non-work lives beyond their work, helping to facilitate the management of work and non-work responsibilities (Hammer et al. 2008). Previous research has also confirmed that family support managers can serve as a critical job resource, enabling employees to better manage their family and workplace responsibilities, thereby helping to control the work-family boundary\u0026nbsp;(Hammer et al. 2008, Crain and Stevens 2018, Capitano, McAlpine, and Greenhaus 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model points out that the interaction between work demands and work resources is also important for the development of work stress and work motivation, and more specifically, work resources can buffer the negative impact of work demands (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, Ong and Johnson 2023). According to this hypothesis, when employees have sufficient resources such as social support, autonomy, and learning opportunities, they are better equipped to cope with work pressures, reduce fatigue and psychological strain, and maintain high levels of work engagement and satisfaction. The buffering hypothesis emphasizes the importance of organizations providing resources and support to promote employee well-being and enhance organizational performance. In retrospect, the buffering hypothesis also agrees with Kahn and Byosiere (1992) that buffering variables (job resources) can reduce the tendency of organizational attributes to produce specific stressors, modify the perception and cognition caused by these stressors, and mitigate the consequences caused by job demands.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt has been mentioned before that red tape is regarded as a job demand, which is not conducive to personal work-family boundary management and will reduce the perceived boundary control. Meanwhile, the impact of red tape will vary depending on the availability of individuals and other resources. Applied here, according to the buffering hypothesis within the JD-R model, family-supportive supervisor behavior is conceptualized as a job resource that acts as a buffer, which can replenish energy depleted by excessive job demands and thereby minimizing the negative impact of red tape on perceived boundary control. Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH3a: family-supportive supervisor behavior negatively moderates the relationship between red tape and perceived boundary control such that stronger family-supportive supervisor behavior tends to weaken this relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, some empirical studies have provided inconsistent results for the buffering hypothesis of the JD-R model (Glazer and Amren 2018, Mathieu, Eschleman, and Cheng 2019). The latest advancements in the JD-R model have integrated the challenge-hindrance-stressor framework, distinguishing between challenge and hindrance demands (Dawson, O\u0026apos;Brien, and Beehr 2016). Consequently, red tape can be seen as a hindrance stressor, representing \u0026ldquo;unmanageable factors that unnecessarily thwart personal goals\u0026rdquo; (Wright and Davis 2003, Steijn and Van der Voet 2019). According to the person-environment fit theory, when job demands such as heavy workload and time pressure exceed an individual\u0026apos;s coping capabilities, the provision of support, albeit present, may inadequately mitigate the resulting negative impact (Edwards, Caplan, and Harrison 1998). Furthermore, based on social information processing theory, organizational or managerial support may be perceived as an unexpected resource, potentially exacerbating employees\u0026apos; focus on stressors (Beehr, Bowling, and Bennett 2010). Thus, we present competing hypotheses about the moderating effects of family-supportive supervisor behavior, depending on whether the resource effect of family-supportive supervisor behavior or the hindrance effect of red tape are more influential.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH3b: family-supportive supervisor behavior negatively moderates the relationship between red tape and perceived boundary control such that stronger family-supportive supervisor behavior tends to stregthen this relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; According to the above discussion, we proposed the analytical framework of this study depicted in Figure 1.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Data and methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.1. Overview of studies and Participants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo effectively test our hypothesis, two studies were conducted. Ethical clearance was obtained from relevant university ethics committees. In study 1, we collected data on frontline bureaucrats in seven districts and counties located under the jurisdiction of important central cities in China\u0026apos;s Yangtze River Delta cluster. With permission and help from the administrative department, we administered an anonymous survey in early November 2022. Over 400 surveys were distributed, and in return, a total of 265 completed survey were received (a response rate of 66%). Overall, the participants were 40 per cent male and 60 per cent female. In terms of marital status, 82.6 per cent of the participants were married. Table 1 reports mean, standard deviation, and the correlation between the variables of Study 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1. Means, Standard Deviation, and correlation matrix of Study 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"628\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEdu\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFSS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePBC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.600\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.491\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.604\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.170\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.416\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.826\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.379\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.191\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.527\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEdu\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.804\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.499\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.361\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.196\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFSS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.518\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.615\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.026\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.465\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.159\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.078\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.070\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePBC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.976\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.746\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.077\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.171\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.364\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.180\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWFC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.040\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.137\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.319\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.252\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. *p \u0026lt; .05, **p \u0026lt; .01.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Study 2, the robustness test of study 1 was established by expanding the scope of study to nationwide and using survey-based field data of front-line bureaucrats, which\u0026nbsp;was conducted in March 2024. In addition, to further test the buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model and avoid an idiosyncratic result of family-supportive supervisor behavior as the job resource, our validation of hypothesis 3 was replicated in study 2 using another job resource commonly found in the JD-R literature: Perceived organizational support. Over 500 surveys were distributed, and in return, a total of 324 completed survey were received (a response rate of 64%). Overall, the participants were 37 per cent male and 63 per cent female. In terms of marital status, 69.4 per cent of the participants were married. Table 2 reports mean, standard deviation, and the correlation between the variables of Study 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2. Means, Standard Deviation, and correlation matrix of Study 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"655\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEdu\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFSS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePBC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWFC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.627\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.484\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.191\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.138*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.694\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.461\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.069\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.597**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEdu\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.600\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.477**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.326**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFSS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.571\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.827\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.078\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.361\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.961\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.086\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.043\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.037\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.185**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePBC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.616\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.793\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.159**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.040\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.110*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.434**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.188**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWFC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.903\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.164**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.098\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.175**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.239**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.376**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.368**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePOS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.130\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.493\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.142*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.530**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.417**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. *p \u0026lt; .05, **p \u0026lt; .01.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeasures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll variables in this paper are measured using a 5-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). All the measures adopted are listed in Appendix Table A1. The scales used in this study were all sourced from English literature. To adapt to the measurement in the Chinese context, the members of the research team carried out back-to-back translations and revisions to make them more suitable for use in the Chinese context during the investigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eRed tape\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe adopted three items from Jacobsen and Jakobsen (2018) to measure red tape. The sample items are: \u0026lsquo;Rules and procedures make work processes in the organization more troublesome than they need to be\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;Existing rules make it difficult to fulfill the actual purpose of my work\u0026rsquo;.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived boundary control\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe adopted four items from Kossek et al. (2012) to measure perceived boundary control. The sample items are: \u0026lsquo;I control whether I am able to keep my work and personal life separate\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;I control whether I have clear boundaries between my work and personal life\u0026rsquo;.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eWork-family conflict\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996), we used five items to measure work-family conflict. The sample items are: \u0026lsquo;The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.4.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eFamily Supportive Supervisor Behavior\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe used Hammer et al. (2013)\u0026rsquo;s four-item family supportive supervisor behavior scale. A sample item is: \u0026lsquo;Your supervisor makes you feel comfortable talking to him/her about your conflicts between work and non-work\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.5.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived organizational support\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe used eight items from Hekman et al. (2009) to measure perceived organizational support. The sample items are: \u0026lsquo;My organization appreciates any extra effort from me\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;My organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.6.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eControl variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study also included four control variables. Participants were asked to report their gender, age (with five subsections: \u0026lsquo;1: no more than 30 years old \u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo; 2:31-39 years old \u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;3:40-49 years old \u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo; 4:50-59 years old \u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;5:60 years old and over \u0026rsquo;), and marital status (\u0026lsquo;1: unmarried \u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;2: married\u0026rsquo;). Another measure of Education level reflecting the Chinese Education system is used with values \u0026lsquo;1: Short-cycle Courses and below\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;2: Normal Courses \u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;3: Graduates and above \u0026rsquo;.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this paper, Mplus 8.0 was used for confirmatory factor analysis to analyze the convergence validity of multiple variables. We used the overall model\u0026apos;s chi-square, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the root means square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)to assess model fit, which was shown in Table A2 and Table A3. By comparison, it is found that the 4-factor model in Study 1 ( ) and Study 2 ( ) can fit the data better than any alternative model. In contrast, the results of one-factor test led to inadequate fit in both study 1 and study 2. Therefore, given these results, all four variables will be used for subsequent analysis.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e4.1. Study 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the correlation matrix in Table 1, the correlation between variables is consistent with the hypothesis of this paper. Red tape was positively associated with work-family conflict (r = 0.319, p \u0026lt;0.01) and negatively associated with perceived boundary control (r = -0.180, p \u0026lt; 0.01). Perceived boundary control was negatively correlated with work-family conflict (r = -0.252, p \u0026lt; 0.01). Additionally, the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and red tape is not statistically significant. After standardizing the variables, the stepwise regression method is used to test the hypotheses proposed in the theoretical section (Table 3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Moderated mediation results from Study 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"600\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5659%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDV: PBC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 3.7833%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.4604%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDV:WFC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.026\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.050\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.027\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.07)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.32)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.43)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.74)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.35)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.43)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.151*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.084\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.086\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.39)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.11)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.12)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-1.85)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-1.06)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-1.11)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.175**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.128*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.128*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.43)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.03)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.16)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2.43)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.84)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.87)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEdu\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.166**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.177***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.173***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.027\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-2.53)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-2.74)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-2.88)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.12)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.43)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.14)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.185***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.303***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.266***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-3.03)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-1.31)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(5.10)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(4.48)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePBC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.202***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-3.41)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFSS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.361***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(6.44)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFSS*RT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.153*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-1.83)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.14)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR-squared\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.2509%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.064\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.199\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.8334%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1666%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.114\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4198%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.153\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: t-statistics in parentheses, *** p\u0026lt;0.01, ** p\u0026lt;0.05, * p\u0026lt;0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;3 displayed\u0026nbsp;the coefficient of red tape is significantly positive in model 5 (\u0026nbsp;=0.303, p \u0026lt; .01) and model 6 (\u0026nbsp;=0.266, p \u0026lt; .01), which supports Hypothesis 1: Red tape in the work scene can spread across the work field to the family field, resulting in work-family conflicts.\u0026nbsp;When exploring the mediating role of the perceived boundary control, we follow the three steps that the mediating effect should be satisfied as proposed by\u0026nbsp;Preacher and Hayes (2008): first, the independent variable is significantly correlated with the dependent variable (which has been verified in Model 5), second, after controlling for the effect of the independent variable, the mediator variable also needs to be significantly correlated with the dependent variable, finally, through the bootstrap test, the indirect effect from the independent variable to the dependent variable should be significant. Model 6 shows that under the premise of controlling red tape, the perceived boundary control has a significantly negative impact on work-family conflict (\u0026nbsp;=-0.202, p \u0026lt;\u0026nbsp;0.01). Thus, perceived boundary control partially mediates the relationship between red tape and work-family conflict.\u0026nbsp;Applying bootstrapping procedure\u0026nbsp;(Preacher and Hayes 2008), the indirect effect of red tape on work-family conflict through perceived boundary control are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;4. The results show that the indirect effect is 0.0374 with a bootstrapped 95% confidence interval not containing 0 (0.0068-0.0733), suggesting that the indirect effect is significant at a 0.05 level. Altogether, hypothesis 2 is supported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;4. Indirect effect of RT on WFC through PBC\u0026nbsp;from Study 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"270\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eULCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0374\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0168\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0068\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0733\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote:\u0026nbsp;Bootstrap sample size=1000, LLCI = lower level of the 95% confidence interval, ULCI = upper level of 95% confidence interval,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNext, the moderation hypothesis (H3a and H3b) was examined by incorporating the interaction terms between family-supportive supervisor behavior and red tape into Model 3. The results show that the interaction terms between family-supportive supervisor behavior and red tape was significantly negative with perceived boundary control ( =-0.161, p \u0026lt; .1). The R2 value increased by 0.199 with an F-value\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.143, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01. To further determine the characteristics of the moderation effect, the interaction model diagram and marginal effect diagram were drawn, as shown in Figure 2 and 3. Figure 2 indicates that when family-supportive supervisor behavior is high, the negative impact of red tape on perceived boundary control is more pronounced. This suggests that managerial support for employees\u0026apos; family needs does not alleviate the decline in employees\u0026apos; sense of control over work-family boundaries caused by red tape, a finding further corroborated by the marginal effects illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3 reveals a clear pattern: individuals experiencing high work demands (red tape) exhibit a diminished sense of control over work-family boundaries, particularly when they also receive high levels of family supportive supervision. This demonstrates that family-supportive supervisor behavior does not have a buffering effect in this context, thus supporting hypothesis H3b.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e4.2. Study 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo further validate the robustness of study 1 and the interaction of job resources and job demands, Study 2 extends the study area to the national level and extends job demands beyond family-supportive supervisor behaviors to perceived organizational support. Table 2 shows the correlation matrix of study 2 and preliminarily validates the research hypothesis. Moderated mediation results from Study 2 are shown in Table 5 and Table 6. The results in model 5 and 6 show a significant positive relationship between red tape and work-family conflicts (\u0026nbsp;=0.371, p \u0026lt; .01,\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;=0.311, p \u0026lt; .01), supporting Hypothesis 1. Model 3 demonstrates a significant positive correlation between red tape and perceived boundary control, while Model 6 shows a significant negative correlation between boundary control and work-family conflict. Combining these results with the significant indirect effects through bootstrap testing shown in Table 6, it is evident that perceived boundary control mediates the relationship between red tape and work-family conflict, thereby confirming Hypothesis 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5. Moderated mediation results from Study 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"585\" style=\"margin-right: calc(16%); width: 84%;\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38.7155%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDV: PBC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 40.37%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDV:WFC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.154***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.120**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.118**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.37)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.07)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.59)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-2.81)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-2.34)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-2.47)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.191**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.181**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.182***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2.57)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2.47)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2.75)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.79)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.57)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.32)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.089\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.093\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.181***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.187***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.157***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-1.29)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-1.36)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-1.52)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2.98)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2.66)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEdu\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.050\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.066\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.79)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.85)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.84)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.89)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.86)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-1.23)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.183***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.108**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.371***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.311***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-3.36)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-2.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(7.33)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(6.44)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePBC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.327***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-6.69)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFSS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.396***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(7.89)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFSS*RT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.112***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-2.77)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.42)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e324\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e324\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e324\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e324\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e324\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e324\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.567%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR-squared\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.0852%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.065\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.057\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5743%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.193\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.8979%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.293\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: t-statistics in parentheses, *** p\u0026lt;0.01, ** p\u0026lt;0.05, * p\u0026lt;0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6. Indirect effect of RT on WFC through PBC from Study 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"270\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eULCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.060\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: Bootstrap sample size=1000, LLCI = lower level of the 95% confidence interval, ULCI = upper level of 95% confidence interval,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn accordance with Hypothesis 3, the study investigated the moderating influence of family-supportive supervisor behavior, revealing a significant interaction between red tape and family-supportive supervisor behavior on perceived boundary control in model 3 ( =-0.112, p \u0026lt; .01). To further understand the moderating effect of family-supportive supervisor behavior, the interaction model diagram and marginal effect diagram were drawn in Figure 4 and 5. The simple slope test in Figure 4 confirmed that the negative relationship between red tape and perceived boundary control is significantly exacerbated under conditions of high family-supportive supervisory behavior, supporting Hypothesis 3b. Further validation of H3b is provided by the marginal effects depicted in Figure 5, showing that as levels of family-supportive supervisor behavior increase, the magnitude of perceived boundary control decline due to red tape also increases.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the moderation results from Study 1 and Study 2, we did not find evidence supporting the third hypothesis of the JD-R model: the buffering hypothesis. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Specifically, family-supportive supervisor behavior as a job resource did not mitigate the negative impact of high job demands (i.e., red tape) on perceived boundary control. One consideration is whether the failure of \u0026quot;buffering\u0026quot; effect by family-supportive supervisory behavior represents a specific outcome of the job resource under discussion. To test this, we replicated our analysis of H3 using another common job resource in JD-R literature, perceived organizational support. Similar to our findings with family-supportive supervisor behavior, perceived organizational support also did not support the buffering hypothesis, failing to alleviate the adverse effects of red tape. See Figures 6 and 7 for details.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion ","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines the negative effects of red tape as high job demand may cause not limited to work scenarios, and focuses on responding to the buffering hypothesis of the JD-R model, which posits that job resources can mitigate the adverse outcomes of job demands. Study 1 conducted a preliminary validation in a prefecture-level city in China. To circumvent the limitations associated with the research setting and the specificity of job resource types, Study 2 tested the robustness of the findings by expanding the scope to a national level and incorporating additional types of job resources. We found that red tape reduces perceived boundary control, leading to work-family conflict. Furthermore, there is no evidence in this study to support the buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model. The results demonstrate strong robustness across two studies and make multiple contributions to theory and practice.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e5.1. Theoretical implications\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the theoretical level, the research results expand the academic research on the negative consequences of red tape, as previous literature mainly explored the negative results of red tape in the work scene, such as turnover intention, job satisfaction and burnout (Uluturk, Yilmaz Altuntas, and Isik 2023). This study supported the possibility that red tape may have a spillover effect in the work scene, thus spreading to the family interface and causing work-family conflict. In addition, this article also focuses on how red tape can cause work-family conflict. Under this question, our study adds to the literature about perceived boundary control. Previous studies have not analyzed the relationship between red tape and perceived boundary control. These results prove that the negative relationship between red tape and work-family conflict is partly mediated by perceived boundary control. Red tape increases the complexity and tediousness of work, requiring employees to devote more time and energy into procedural tasks, which makes it challenging for them to effectively manage and balance their time and energy between work and family. In addition, red tape often requires employees to report to superiors, approve or wait for decisions, which limits employees\u0026apos; autonomy and freedom at work, leading to their inability to freely organize their working time, and thus affecting the participation and adjustment of family life. Thus, red tape has a negative impact on employees\u0026apos; perceived boundary control between work and home.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second theoretical contribution of this paper is to provide relevant evidence for the invalidity of the buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model. Previous studies using the JD-R model often focused on the impact of job resources and job demands on attitudes and behaviors, but paid little attention to the buffering hypothesis. According to the buffering hypothesis, job resources enhance motivation and engagement while also buffering against the adverse effects of high job demands by enabling effective stress management and preventing exhaustion (Bakker and Demerouti 2017, 2007). However, previous empirical studies have provided mixed results on the buffering hypothesis of the JD-R model (Geng et al. 2023, Yunus, Whitfield, and Sayed Mostafa 2023). Although some studies have demonstrated a substantial buffering effect of job resources on the adverse outcomes of job demands (Putwain and von der Embse 2019, Krick, Felfe, and Klebe 2023), other studies have observed no buffering effect (Mathieu, Eschleman, and Cheng 2019) or even found that job resources can aggravate these adverse relationships (Tucker, Jimmieson, and Bordia 2018, Xu and Payne 2020). In addition, it is noteworthy that there have been increasing calls to integrate personal resources into the JD-R model, such as PSM and psychological capital, for buffering job demands (Jensen and Holten 2023, Sharma and Tiwari 2023, Demerouti and Bakker 2022). Given the ongoing debate about the buffering hypothesis, there is a need for more empirical evidence to address these controversies. Study 1 and 2 of this paper provide evidence for the opposite of the buffering hypothesis that neither family-supportive supervisor behavior nor perceived organizational support as a job resource can mitigate the damaging effects of red tape on perceived boundary control. Our results can be explained from the following aspects. First of all, due to the expansion of the research scope from a prefecture-level city in China to the entire country, there is an urgent need for cross-cultural comparative studies, as cultural influences affect various aspects of human behavior and cognition\u0026nbsp;(Glazer and Beehr 2005). In the Chinese context, characterized by a high collectivist culture, employees might perceive such supports (i.e., family-supportive supervisor behavior or perceived organizational support) as the implicit expectation or pressure rather than genuine care (Beehr and Glazer 2001). This interpretation leads them to engage in emotional labor and social mon itoring, which amplifies the negative consequences of red tape and reduces the intended positive organizational outcomes\u0026nbsp;(Glazer and Amren 2018). Secondly, person-environment fit theory and norm of reciprocity provide a similar explanatory framework. Reverse buffering effects may emerge when organizational or supervisory support amplifies focus on stressors (Beehr, Bowling, and Bennett 2010). The norm of reciprocity suggests that employees who perceive support often feel compelled to reciprocate with increased commitment, emotional investment, and behaviors aligned with organizational goals (Eisenberger et al. 2001). Furthermore, the person-environment fit theory posits that excessive support can be counterproductive, causing additional stress by exceeding the individual\u0026apos;s needs (Edwards, Caplan, and Harrison 1998). Overall, organizational support is typically expected to alleviate stress, but it may not always be successful. Thirdly, source congruence theory posits that if the stressor originates from superiors, their support becomes ineffective and may exacerbate rather than alleviate stress. Consequently, the perceived reduction in boundary control caused by organizational red tape cannot be mitigated by supervisory or organizational support (Mayo et al. 2012, Beehr et al. 2003). In addition, some scholars have made other efforts to provide inspiration for this paper (Tucker, Jimmieson, and Bordia 2018).\u0026nbsp;Mathieu, Eschleman, and Cheng (2019)\u0026nbsp;through a meta-analysis that reverse buffering and forward buffering exist together, and further consideration of contextual factors is needed. Some scholars explore three-way interaction relationships by introducing factors such as supervisor emotion management(Tucker, Jimmieson, and Bordia 2018), conscientiousness\u0026nbsp;(Bao et al. 2022)\u0026nbsp;and job self-efficacy\u0026nbsp;(Xu and Payne 2020)\u0026nbsp;to find the boundary conditions for the buffering hypothesis.\u0026nbsp;Some scholars try to explain from the perspective of matching hypothesis\u0026nbsp;(De Jonge and Dormann 2006, Jonge, Gevers, and Dollard 2014)\u0026nbsp;that the buffering effect of job resources depends largely on the correspondence between specific types of job demands and job resources\u0026nbsp;(Bova, De Jonge, and Guglielmi 2015, Van Den Tooren and De Jonge 2008), but this view is contrary to COR theory.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, the third contribution of this paper is to provide an important, general implication for the public administration literature. This research responds to the plea made by (Bauwens, Decramer, and Audenaert 2021, Felin, Foss, and Ployhart 2015) to foster the integration of psychological perspectives in the realm of public administration literature and to enhance comprehension of macrolevel phenomena by delving into their microlevel underpinnings. This study applies the JD-R model in the field of human resource management and organizational behavior to the study of public administration, and analyzes how to alleviate the negative effects of unavoidable red tape in the bureaucratic system from the perspective of psychology, which also provides ideas for public sector human resource management literature. Therefore, this study responds to calls made by Kaufmann and Tummers (2017) to use organizational psychology concepts to enhance the understanding of red tape. Based on the JD-R model, we confirm that red tape serves as a job demand, and further can be categorized as a hindrance stressor incorporating the challenge-hindrance-stressor framework, which can impair employees\u0026apos; work-life balance. Our findings also echo Pandey (2021)\u0026rsquo;s view that red tape can be combined with other theoretical perspectives with the rise of the behavioral science approach.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e5.2. Practical implications\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur findings provide additional evidence for efforts by public organizations to eliminate red tape by identifying the negative side of red tape that is not mitigated by family-supportive supervisor behavior and perceived organizational support. Red tape has been proven to be a subjective perception, depending on one\u0026apos;s cognition, cultural background, and environmental influences (Bozeman 2000). Therefore, it is crucial for managers and policymakers to have a detailed understanding and interpretation of policies and regulations (Kaufmann, Borry, and DeHart-Davis 2019). Meanwhile, allowing employees to participate in decision-making and goal-setting, and fostering an atmosphere of self-expression among them, has also been proven to reduce bureaucratic formalities and their negative impacts (Lagios et al. 2023). Furthermore, public sector managers must not disregard the potential spill-over of dysfunctional organizational rules from the workplace, resulting in conflicts between work and family spheres. This issue warrants attention, as the imbalance between work and family not only impacts workplace efficiency but also poses a threat to the organization\u0026apos;s long-term development (Molina 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, this study not only shows the direct impact of red tape and work-family boundary control, but also displayed a feasible alternative model with the position swap between family-supportive supervisor behavior and red tape (see Table A4-A5 for moderated mediation results, see Figure A1-A2 for a visualization of these interaction effects). Family-supportive supervisor behavior can reduce work-family conflict by promoting employees\u0026apos; perceived boundary control, but this promotion effect is greatly reduced due to the existence of red tape. Red tape counteracts the positive effects of supervisors, as organizational rules, regulations and procedures become a \u0026quot;substitute for leadership (Kerr and Jermier 1978), which is consistent with the findings of Vogel, Vogel, and Reuber (2022). This further illustrates the negative nature of red tape, and provides positive confirmation for the practice of reducing burdens at the grassroots level in China. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the interaction between red tape and leadership in bureaucracies, not just transformational leadership and authentic leadership types (Campbell 2017, Moynihan 2012, Van der Voet 2016, Vogel, Vogel, and Reuber 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e5.3. Limitations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs with other studies, this paper has some limitations that provide potential directions for future research, as well as ideas for future research that may respond to or question this study. Firstly, according to the extant studies, this research is subject to the limitations of cross-sectional survey research. Therefore, we call for future studies to overcome this barrier in examining the impact of elaborate rituals and red tape on work-family conflict. This can be achieved by conducting longitudinal research, taking advantage of the favorable opportunity window provided by relieving burden at the grassroots level in China. Such research would not only provide a more comprehensive validation of the research questions in this paper but also further verify whether the policies about relieving burden at the grassroots level in the Chinese context effectively reduce the challenges posed by elaborate rituals and red tape in grassroots governance. Another limitation of this study is that the variables of red tape and family-supportive supervisor behavior, although organizational-level factors, are measured based on the perception of government employees. While this measurement approach has been supported in previous research, it is limited by the inherent subjectivity of perception measures, which cannot provide a fully objective assessment. Therefore, future research can adopt more objective measurement methods. Finally, the research scenario of this paper is limited to the grassroots government in China, and cross-cultural comparison can also be considered in future research. After all, as a common problem under the bureaucratic system, red tape is also a governance problem that needs to be solved urgently in other countries.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBureaucracy exists widely in many countries and organizations, and its pathological product, red tape, has been paid more and more attention by public administration scholars. While it is true that not all public organizations face bureaucratic hurdles, it is widely recognized that red tape continues to be a common and persistent challenge within the public sector, especially when contrasted with the private sector (Pandey and Kingsley 2000, Chen et al. 2023). Through research and analysis, public administration scholars seek to understand the causes of red tape and its impact on administrative effectiveness and public services. This study shows that red tape not only causes negative effects in the work context, but also has spillover effects, which can blur the boundary between work and family, reduce employees\u0026apos; perceived boundary control, and further cause work-family conflicts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, following an exploration of the issues caused by red tape, this study aims to identify strategies to mitigate this undesirable effect. Drawing upon the JD-R model in the fields of human resource management and organizational behavior, we find that supportive supervisor behaviors and perceived organizational support as job resources exacerbate the negative impact of red tape on perceived boundary control. Our findings confirm the significant challenges public sectors encounter in alleviating the negative effects of red tape, alongside challenging the buffering hypothesis proposed by the JD-R model. Future research could delve into effective strategies to mitigate the adverse effects of red tape in public sector contexts and the boundary conditions under which the buffering hypothesis of the JD-R model applies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData available on request from the authors. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor 1 contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study, oversaw the data collection process, and led the drafting and revision of the manuscript. Author 2 was responsible for the data analysis and interpretation, as well as drafting sections related to methodology and results. Author 3 assisted in the literature review, contributed to the discussion section, and provided critical feedback on the manuscript drafts. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eApproval was granted by the Ethics Committee on Human Subjects Ethics Sub-Committee of XXX University (Since the submission needs to be anonymous, the university has also done anonymous processing). The study was carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations and complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all participants regarding the nature of the study, confidentiality of their data, and their right to withdraw at any time.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmad, A. B., T. Straatmann, K. Mueller, and B. Liu. 2021. \u0026quot;Employees\u0026rsquo; Change Support in the Public Sector\u0026mdash;A Multi-Time Field Study Examining the Formation of Intentions and Behaviors.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Administration Review\u003c/em\u003e 81 (2):231-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13275.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmad, Ahmad Bayiz, Atif Saleem Butt, Dingxiang Chen, and Bangcheng Liu. 2020. \u0026quot;A mediated model of the effect of organizational culture on the intentions to engage in change-supportive behaviors: insights from the theory of planned behavior.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Management \u0026amp; Organization\u003c/em\u003e 29 (2):345-365. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen, Tammy D., Eunae Cho, and Laurenz L. Meier. 2014. \u0026quot;Work\u0026ndash;Family Boundary Dynamics.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e 1 (1):99-121. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091330.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAshforth, Blake, Glen Kreiner, and Mel Fugate. 2000. \u0026quot;All in A Day\u0026apos;s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Academy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e 25:472-491. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.3363315.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakker, Arnold B, and Evangelia Demerouti. 2007. \u0026quot;The job demands‐resources model: State of the art.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of managerial psychology\u003c/em\u003e 22 (3):309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;. 2017. \u0026quot;Job demands\u0026ndash;resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of occupational health psychology\u003c/em\u003e 22 (3):273. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;. 2018. \u0026quot;Multiple levels in job demands-resources theory: Implications for employee well-being and performance.\u0026quot; In \u003cem\u003eHandbook of well-being\u003c/em\u003e. Noba Scholar.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakker, Arnold B, Hetty Van Emmerik, and Pim Van Riet. 2008. \u0026quot;How job demands, resources, and burnout predict objective performance: A constructive replication.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Anxiety, Stress, \u0026amp; Coping\u003c/em\u003e 21 (3):309-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800801958637.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakker, Arnold B, Despoina Xanthopoulou, and Evangelia Demerouti. 2023. \u0026quot;How does chronic burnout affect dealing with weekly job demands? A test of central propositions in JD‐R and COR‐theories.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 72 (1):389-410.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakker, Arnold B., Lieke L. ten Brummelhuis, Jelle T. Prins, and Frank M. M. A. van der Heijden. 2011. \u0026quot;Applying the job demands\u0026ndash;resources model to the work\u0026ndash;home interface: A study among medical residents and their partners.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e 79 (1):170-180. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBao, Haixu, Cong Liu, Jie Ma, Jiawei Feng, and Huiyuan He. 2022. \u0026quot;When job resources function as a stress buffer: A resource allocation perspective of the job demands-resources model.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Personality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e 192:111591. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111591.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarboza-Wilkes, Cynthia J, Thai V Le, and William G Resh. 2023. \u0026quot;Deconstructing burnout at the intersections of race, gender, and generation in local government.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory\u003c/em\u003e 33 (1):186-201. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBauwens, Robin, Adelien Decramer, and Mieke Audenaert. 2021. \u0026quot;Challenged by Great Expectations? Examining Cross-Level Moderations and Curvilinearity in the Public Sector Job Demands\u0026ndash;Resources Model.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Review of Public Personnel Administration\u003c/em\u003e 41 (2):319-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x19884102.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeehr, Terry A., Nathan A. Bowling, and Misty M. Bennett. 2010. \u0026quot;Occupational stress and failures of social support: When helping hurts.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of occupational health psychology\u003c/em\u003e 15 (1):45-59. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018234.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeehr, Terry A., Suzanne J. Farmer, Sharon Glazer, David M. Gudanowski, and Vandana Naig Nair. 2003. \u0026quot;The enigma of social support and occupational stress: Source congruence and gender role effects.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of occupational health psychology\u003c/em\u003e 8 (3):220-231. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.3.220.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeehr, Terry A., and Sharon Glazer. 2001. \u0026quot;A cultural perspective of social support in relation to occupational stress.\u0026quot; In \u003cem\u003eExploring Theoretical Mechanisms and Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, edited by Pamela L. Perrewe and Daniel C. Ganster, 97-142. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorst, Rick T., Peter M. Kruyen, Christiaan J. Lako, and Michiel S. de Vries. 2019. \u0026quot;The Attitudinal, Behavioral, and Performance Outcomes of Work Engagement: A Comparative Meta-Analysis Across the Public, Semipublic, and Private Sector.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Review of Public Personnel Administration\u003c/em\u003e 40 (4):613-640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19840399.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBova, Nicoletta, Jan De Jonge, and Dina Guglielmi. 2015. \u0026quot;The Demand-Induced Strain Compensation Questionnaire: A Cross-national Validation Study.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Stress and Health\u003c/em\u003e 31 (3):236-244. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2550.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBozeman, Barry. 1993. \u0026quot;A theory of government \u0026ldquo;red tape\u0026rdquo;.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of public administration research and theory\u003c/em\u003e 3 (3):273-304. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037171.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;. 2000. \u003cem\u003eBureaucracy and red tape\u003c/em\u003e. Vol. 14: Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBozeman, Barry, and Mary K Feeney. 2011. \u003cem\u003eRules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research\u003c/em\u003e: ME Sharpe.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, Timo, Aristides I. Ferreira, and J\u0026ouml;rg Sydow. 2013. \u0026quot;Citizenship behavior and effectiveness in temporary organizations.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e International Journal of Project Management\u003c/em\u003e 31 (6):862-876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurton, Judith, and Diane Van den Broek. 2009. \u0026quot;Accountable and countable: Information management systems and the bureaucratization of social work.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e British journal of social work\u003c/em\u003e 39 (7):1326-1342. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn027.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, J. W. 2017. \u0026quot;Red tape and transformational leadership: an organizational echelons perspective.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Organizational Change Management\u003c/em\u003e 30 (1):76-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-01-2016-0004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, Jesse W, Sanjay K Pandey, and Lars Arnesen. 2023. \u0026quot;The ontology, origin, and impact of divisive public sector rules: A meta‐narrative review of the red tape and administrative burden literatures.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Administration Review\u003c/em\u003e 83 (2):296-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13527.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCapitano, Johnna, Kristie L. McAlpine, and Jeffrey H. Greenhaus. 2019. \u0026quot;Organizational Influences on Work\u0026ndash;Home Boundary Permeability: A Multidimensional Perspective.\u0026quot; In \u003cem\u003eResearch in Personnel and Human Resources Management\u003c/em\u003e, edited by M. Ronald Buckley, Anthony R. Wheeler, John E. Baur and Jonathon R. B. Halbesleben, 133-172. Emerald Publishing Limited.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, D., Y. Zhang, A. B. Ahmad, and B. Liu. 2023. \u0026quot;How to Fuel Public Employees\u0026rsquo; Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Two-Wave Moderated Mediation Study.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Review of Public Personnel Administration\u003c/em\u003e 43 (1):185-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X211052675.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, Junjun, and John Chi-Kin Lee. 2022. \u0026quot;Teacher resilience matters: a buffering and boosting effect between job driving factors and their well-being and job performance.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Teachers and Teaching\u003c/em\u003e 28 (7):890-907. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2022.2116574.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClark, Sue Campbell. 2000. \u0026quot;Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Balance.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Human Relations\u003c/em\u003e 53 (6):747-770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, S., and T. A. Wills. 1985. \u0026quot;Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Psychol Bull\u003c/em\u003e 98 (2):310-357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooke, Donna K., Katarina K. Brant, and Juanita M. Woods. 2019. \u0026quot;The Role of Public Service Motivation in Employee Work Engagement: A Test of the Job Demands-Resources Model.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e International Journal of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e 42 (9):765-775. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1517265.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoursey, David H, and Sanjay K Pandey. 2007. \u0026quot;Content domain, measurement, and validity of the red tape concept: A second-order confirmatory factor analysis.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e The American Review of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e 37 (3):342-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731506290269.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrain, Tori L, and Shalyn C Stevens. 2018. \u0026quot;Family‐supportive supervisor behaviors: A review and recommendations for research and practice.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e 39 (7):869-888. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2320.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrawford, Eean R, Jeffery A LePine, and Bruce Louis Rich. 2010. \u0026quot;Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 95 (5):834. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaniel, Carole, Elodie Gentina, and Jessica Mesmer-Magnus. 2022. \u0026quot;Mindfulness buffers the deleterious effects of workaholism for work-family conflict.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Social Science \u0026amp; Medicine\u003c/em\u003e 306:115118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115118.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDawson, K. M., K. E. O\u0026apos;Brien, and T. A. Beehr. 2016. \u0026quot;The role of hindrance stressors in the job demand?control?support model of occupational stress: A proposed theory revision.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e 37:397-415.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Jonge, J., and C. Dormann. 2006. \u0026quot;Stressors, resources, and strain at work: A longitudinal test of the triple-match principle.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 91 (6):1359-1374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1359.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDemerouti, Evangelia, Arnold B Bakker, Friedhelm Nachreiner, and Wilmar B Schaufeli. 2001. \u0026quot;The job demands-resources model of burnout.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 86 (3):499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDemerouti, Evangelia, and Arnold B. Bakker. 2022. \u0026quot;Job demands-resources theory in times of crises: New propositions.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Organizational Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e 13 (3):209-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221135022.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDishon-Berkovits, Miriam. 2013. \u0026quot;Burnout: Contributing and Protecting Factors Within the Work\u0026ndash;Family Interface.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Career Development\u003c/em\u003e 41 (6):467-486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845313512181.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEdwards, Jeffrey R, Robert D Caplan, and R Van Harrison. 1998. \u0026quot;Person-environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Theories of organizational stress\u003c/em\u003e 28:28-67.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEisenberger, Robert, Stephen Armeli, Barbara Rexwinkel, Patrick D. Lynch, and Linda Rhoades. 2001. \u0026quot;Reciprocation of perceived organizational support.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 86 (1):42-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFelin, Teppo, Nicolai J. Foss, and Robert E. Ployhart. 2015. \u0026quot;The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Academy of Management Annals\u003c/em\u003e 9 (1):575-632. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2015.1007651.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFernet, Claude, St\u0026eacute;phanie Austin, Sarah-Genevi\u0026egrave;ve Tr\u0026eacute;panier, and Marc Dussault. 2013. \u0026quot;How do job characteristics contribute to burnout? Exploring the distinct mediating roles of perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 22 (2):123-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.632161.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGanster, Daniel C., Christopher C. Rosen, and Gwenith G. Fisher. 2018. \u0026quot;Long Working Hours and Well-being: What We Know, What We Do Not Know, and What We Need to Know.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Business and Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 33 (1):25-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9478-1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeng, Zizhen, Yanfen Wang, Youqing Fan, and Chunxia Shan. 2023. \u0026quot;Motivation and hindrance: the mixed blessing of paradoxical leader behaviour for workplace creativity in China.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Asia Pacific Business Review\u003c/em\u003e 29 (1):206-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2022.2134965.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeorge, Bert, Sanjay K Pandey, Bram Steijn, Adelien Decramer, and Mieke Audenaert. 2021. \u0026quot;Red Tape, organizational performance, and employee outcomes: Meta‐analysis, meta‐regression, and research agenda.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Administration Review\u003c/em\u003e 81 (4):638-651. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13327.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiauque, D., S. Anderfuhren-Biget, and F. Varone. 2013. \u0026quot;Stress Perception in Public Organisations: Expanding the Job Demands-Job Resources Model by Including Public Service Motivation.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Review of Public Personnel Administration\u003c/em\u003e 33 (1):58-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12443264.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlazer, S., and M. Amren. 2018. \u0026quot;Culture\u0026apos;s implications on support as a moderator of the job stressor-outcome relationship.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e International Journal of Stress Management\u003c/em\u003e 25:7-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000087.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlazer, Sharon, and Terry A. Beehr. 2005. \u0026quot;Consistency of implications of three role stressors across four countries.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e 26 (5):467-487. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/job.326.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrandey, Alicia A., and Russell Cropanzano. 1999. \u0026quot;The Conservation of Resources Model Applied to Work\u0026ndash;Family Conflict and Strain.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e 54 (2):350-370. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1666.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenhaus, Jeffrey H, and Nicholas J Beutell. 1985. \u0026quot;Sources of conflict between work and family roles.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Academy of management review\u003c/em\u003e 10 (1):76-88. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4277352.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHammer, Leslie B, Ellen Ernst Kossek, Todd Bodner, and Tori Crain. 2013. \u0026quot;Measurement development and validation of the family supportive supervisor behavior short-form (FSSB-SF).\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of occupational health psychology\u003c/em\u003e 18 (3):285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032612.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHammer, Leslie B., Ellen Ernst Kossek, Nanette L. Yragui, Todd E. Bodner, and Ginger C. Hanson. 2008. \u0026quot;Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Family Supportive Supervisor Behaviors (FSSB).\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Management\u003c/em\u003e 35 (4):837-856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308328510.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHekman, David R., Gregory A. Bigley, H. Kevin Steensma, and James Hereford. 2009. \u0026quot;COMBINED EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL IDENTIFICATION ON THE RECIPROCITY DYNAMIC FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Academy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e 52:506-526.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHesmert, Laura, Fabian Hattke, and Rick Vogel. 2022. \u0026quot;The a priori of public leadership: Social attributions to public and private leaders in different performance contexts.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e 100 (4):876-899. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12780.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHobfoll, S. E. 1989. \u0026quot;Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Am Psychol\u003c/em\u003e 44 (3):513-524. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHobfoll, Stevan E. 2001. \u0026quot;The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 50 (3):337-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHobfoll, Stevan E, and John Freedy. 2018. \u0026quot;Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout.\u0026quot; In \u003cem\u003eProfessional burnout\u003c/em\u003e, 115-129. CRC Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHomburg, Vincent MF. 2008. \u0026quot;Red tape and reforms: Trajectories of technological and managerial reforms in public administration.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Intl Journal of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e 31 (7):749-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701690817.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdris, Mohd Awang, Maureen F. Dollard, and Anthony H. Winefield. 2011. \u0026quot;Job Characteristics: What Can We Learn From the East?\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e International Journal of Management Studies\u003c/em\u003e 18 (1):135-154. https://doi.org/10.32890/ijms.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIlies, Remus, Kelly M Schwind, David T Wagner, Michael D Johnson, D Scott DeRue, and Daniel R Ilgen. 2007. \u0026quot;When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect on work-family conflict and social behaviors at home.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 92 (5):1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1368.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJacobsen, Christian B\u0026oslash;tcher, and Mads Leth Jakobsen. 2018. \u0026quot;Perceived organizational red tape and organizational performance in public services.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Administration Review\u003c/em\u003e 78 (1):24-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12817.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJensen, Ulrich Thy, and Ann-Louise Holten. 2023. \u0026quot;Buffer and booster? Testing PSM\u0026rsquo;s role in job demands-resources theory.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Management Review\u003c/em\u003e:1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2248128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJiang, Zhou, Alexander Newman, Gary Schwarz, and Huong Le. 2023. \u0026quot;Perceived Red Tape and Precursors of Turnover: the Roles of Work Engagement and Career Adaptability.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Business and Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 38 (2):437-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09834-y.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJonge, J., Josette Gevers, and Maureen Dollard. 2014. \u0026quot;Managing Employee Creativity and Health in Nursing Homes: The Moderating Role of Matching Job Resources and Matching Occupational Rewards.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e International Journal of Stress Management\u003c/em\u003e 21:361-383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038149.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKahn, RL, and P Byosiere. 1992. \u0026quot;Stress in organizations. Teoksessa: Dunnette MD \u0026amp; Hough LM (toim): Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology 3.\u0026quot; In.: Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaufmann, Wesley, Erin L. Borry, and Leisha DeHart-Davis. 2019. \u0026quot;More than Pathological Formalization: Understanding Organizational Structure and Red Tape.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Administration Review\u003c/em\u003e 79 (2):236-245. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12958.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaufmann, Wesley, and Lars Tummers. 2017. \u0026quot;The negative effect of red tape on procedural satisfaction.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Management Review\u003c/em\u003e 19 (9):1311-1327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210907.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKerr, S., and J. M. Jermier. 1978. \u0026quot;Substitutes for leadership ? their meaning and measurement.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Organizational behavior and human performance\u003c/em\u003e 22 (3):375-403.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhan, Muhammad Safdar, Natasha Saman Elahi, and Ghulam Abid. 2021. \u0026quot;Workplace incivility and job satisfaction: Mediation of subjective well-being and moderation of forgiveness climate in health care sector.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education\u003c/em\u003e 11 (4):1107-1119. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11040082.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKinnunen, Ulla, Johanna Rantanen, Jessica de Bloom, Saija Mauno, Taru Feldt, and Kalevi Korpela. 2016. \u0026quot;The role of work\u0026ndash;nonwork boundary management in work stress recovery.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e International Journal of Stress Management\u003c/em\u003e 23 (2):99. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039730.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKirrane, Melrona, and Finian Buckley. 2004. \u0026quot;The influence of support relationships on work‐family conflict: differentiating emotional from instrumental support.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Equal Opportunities International\u003c/em\u003e 23 (1/2):78-96. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610150410787800.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKossek, Ellen Ernst, and Brenda A. Lautsch. 2012. \u0026quot;Work\u0026ndash;family boundary management styles in organizations: A cross-level model.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Organizational Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e 2 (2):152-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611436264.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKossek, Ellen Ernst, Marian N Ruderman, Phillip W Braddy, and Kelly M Hannum. 2012. \u0026quot;Work\u0026ndash;nonwork boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e 81 (1):112-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKreiner, Glen E, Elaine C Hollensbe, and Mathew L Sheep. 2009. \u0026quot;Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Academy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e 52 (4):704-730.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrick, Annika, J\u0026ouml;rg Felfe, and Laura Klebe. 2023. \u0026quot;Can Mindfulness Buffer Against Negative Effects of Job Demands for Military and Police Personnel?\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine\u003c/em\u003e 65 (5).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLagios, Constantin, Nathan Nguyen, Florence Stinglhamber, and Ga\u0026euml;tane Caesens. 2023. \u0026quot;Dysfunctional rules in organizations: The mediating role of organizational dehumanization in the relationship between red tape and employees\u0026rsquo; outcomes.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e European Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e 41 (5):802-813. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.06.002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeger, Kate A, Soomi Lee, Kelly D Chandler, and David M Almeida. 2022. \u0026quot;Effects of a workplace intervention on daily stressor reactivity.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of occupational health psychology\u003c/em\u003e 27 (1):152. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000297.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, B., W. Hu, and Y. C. Cheng. 2015. \u0026quot;From the west to the east: Validating servant leadership in the Chinese public sector.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Personnel Management\u003c/em\u003e 44 (1):25-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014555995.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, B., K. Yang, and W. Yu. 2015. \u0026quot;Work-Related Stressors and Health-Related Outcomes in Public Service: Examining the Role of Public Service Motivation.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e American Review of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e 45 (6):653-673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014524298.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaslach, Christina, Wilmar B Schaufeli, and Michael P Leiter. 2001. \u0026quot;Job burnout.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Annual review of psychology\u003c/em\u003e 52 (1):397-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMathieu, Michael, Kevin J. Eschleman, and Danqiao Cheng. 2019. \u0026quot;Meta-analytic and multiwave comparison of emotional support and instrumental support in the workplace.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of occupational health psychology\u003c/em\u003e 24 (3):387-409. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000135.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMayo, Margarita, Juan I. Sanchez, Juan C. Pastor, and Alfredo Rodriguez. 2012. \u0026quot;Supervisor and coworker support: a source congruence approach to buffering role conflict and physical stressors.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e The International Journal of Human Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e 23 (18):3872-3889. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.676930.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMazzetti, Greta, Enrique Robledo, Michela Vignoli, Gabriela Topa, Dina Guglielmi, and Wilmar B Schaufeli. 2023. \u0026quot;Work engagement: A meta-analysis using the job demands-resources model.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Psychological Reports\u003c/em\u003e 126 (3):1069-1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211051988.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMolina, Jos\u0026eacute; Alberto. 2021. \u0026quot;The Work\u0026ndash;Family Conflict: Evidence from the Recent Decade and Lines of Future Research.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Family and Economic Issues\u003c/em\u003e 42 (1):4-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-020-09700-0.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoynihan, Donald P. 2012. \u0026quot;A theory of culture‐switching: Leadership and red‐tape during hurricane Katrina.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e 90 (4):851-868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02017.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuylaert, Jolien, Adelien Decramer, and Mieke Audenaert. 2022. \u0026quot;How Leader\u0026rsquo;s Red Tape Interacts With Employees\u0026rsquo; Red Tape From the Lens of the Job Demands-Resources Model.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Review of Public Personnel Administration\u003c/em\u003e 43 (3):430-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221087420.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;. 2023. \u0026quot;Linking red tape originating from digital tools to affective commitment: the mediating roles of role ambiguity and work engagement.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Management Review\u003c/em\u003e 25 (12):2402-2427. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2291797.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNetemeyer, Richard G, James S Boles, and Robert McMurrian. 1996. \u0026quot;Development and validation of work\u0026ndash;family conflict and family\u0026ndash;work conflict scales.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 81 (4):400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeveu, Jean‐Pierre. 2007. \u0026quot;Jailed resources: Conservation of resources theory as applied to burnout among prison guards.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior\u003c/em\u003e 28 (1):21-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.393.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, Nhung Thi Hong, and Luu Trong Tuan. 2022. \u0026quot;Creating reasonable workload to enhance public employee job satisfaction: The role of supervisor support, co-worker support, and tangible job resources.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Performance \u0026amp; Management Review\u003c/em\u003e 45 (1):131-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2021.2018717.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNicklin, Jessica M., Kristen M. Shockley, and Hope Dodd. 2022. \u0026quot;Self-compassion: Implications for work-family conflict and balance.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e 138:103785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103785.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNippert-Eng, Christena. 1996. \u0026quot;Calendars and keys: The classification of \u0026ldquo;home\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;work\u0026rdquo;.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Sociological Forum\u003c/em\u003e 11 (3):563-582. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02408393.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOng, Wei Jee, and Michael D Johnson. 2023. \u0026quot;Toward a configural theory of job demands and resources.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Academy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e 66 (1):195-221. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.0493.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePandey, S. K., and G. A. Kingsley. 2000. \u0026quot;Examining red tape in public and private organizations: alternative explanations from a social psychological model.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory\u003c/em\u003e 10 (4):779-800. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024291.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePandey, Sanjay K. 2021. \u0026quot;The psychological process view of bureaucratic red tape.\u0026quot; In \u003cem\u003eResearch handbook on HRM in the public sector\u003c/em\u003e, 260-275. Edward Elgar Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;. 2023. \u0026quot;Elevating subjective individual experience in public policy and public administration: Reflections on red tape, administrative burden, and sludge.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Administration Review\u003c/em\u003e 83 (5):1072-1082.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePark, YoungAh, Charlotte Fritz, and Steve M Jex. 2011. \u0026quot;Relationships between work-home segmentation and psychological detachment from work: the role of communication technology use at home.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of occupational health psychology\u003c/em\u003e 16 (4):457. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023594.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes. 2008. \u0026quot;The SAGE Sourcebook of Advanced Data Analysis Methods for Communication Research.\u0026quot; In. Thousand Oaks\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePutwain, David W., and Nathaniel P. von der Embse. 2019. \u0026quot;Teacher self-efficacy moderates the relations between imposed pressure from imposed curriculum changes and teacher stress.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 39 (1):51-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1500681.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuratulain, Samina, and Abdul Karim Khan. 2015. \u0026quot;Red tape, resigned satisfaction, public service motivation, and negative employee attitudes and behaviors: Testing a model of moderated mediation.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Review of Public Personnel Administration\u003c/em\u003e 35 (4):307-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13511646.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReiche, B. Sebastian, Mihaela Dimitrova, Mina Westman, Shoshi Chen, Olivier Wurtz, Mila Lazarova, and Margaret A. Shaffer. 2021. \u0026quot;Expatriate work role engagement and the work\u0026ndash;family interface: A conditional crossover and spillover perspective.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Human Relations\u003c/em\u003e 76 (3):452-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211046816.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSadiq, Misbah. 2022. \u0026quot;Policing in pandemic: Is perception of workload causing work\u0026ndash;family conflict, job dissatisfaction and job stress?\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Public Affairs\u003c/em\u003e 22 (2):e2486. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2486.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharma, Indu, and Vivek Tiwari. 2023. \u0026quot;Modeling the impact of techno‐stress and burnout on employees\u0026rsquo; work‐life balance and turnover intention: A job demands‐resources theory perspective.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Global Business and Organizational Excellence\u003c/em\u003e 43 (1):121-134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShi, Yanwei, Dan Li, Zhiqing E. Zhou, Hui Zhang, Zhuang She, and Xi Yuan. 2023. \u0026quot;How Work\u0026amp;ndash,Nonwork Conflict Affects Remote Workers\u0026amp;rsquo, General Health in China: A Self-Regulation Theory Perspective.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e 20 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021337.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSim\u0026atilde;es, Clara, J\u0026eacute;ssica Rodrigues, Arminda Manuela Gon\u0026ccedil;alves, Susana Faria, and Ant\u0026oacute;nio Rui Gomes. 2021. \u0026quot;Work\u0026ndash;family conflicts, cognitive appraisal, and burnout: Testing the mediation effect with structural equation modelling.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e British Journal of Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 91 (4):1349-1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12420.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpieler, Ines, Susanne Scheibe, Christian Stamov-Ro\u0026szlig;nagel, and Arvid Kappas. 2017. \u0026quot;Help or hindrance? Day-level relationships between flextime use, work\u0026ndash;nonwork boundaries, and affective well-being.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 102 (1):67. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000153.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteijn, Bram, and Joris Van der Voet. 2019. \u0026quot;Relational job characteristics and job satisfaction of public sector employees: When prosocial motivation and red tape collide.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e 97 (1):64-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12352.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTadić, Maja, Arnold B Bakker, and Wido GM Oerlemans. 2015. \u0026quot;Challenge versus hindrance job demands and well‐being: A diary study on the moderating role of job resources.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 88 (4):702-725. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12094.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTayfur, Ozge, and Mahmut Arslan. 2013. \u0026quot;The role of lack of reciprocity, supervisory support, workload and work\u0026ndash;family conflict on exhaustion: Evidence from physicians.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Psychology, Health \u0026amp; Medicine\u003c/em\u003e 18 (5):564-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2012.756535.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomas, Linda Thiede, and Daniel C. Ganster. 1995. \u0026quot;Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 80 (1):6-15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThompson, Cynthia A., and David J. Prottas. 2006. \u0026quot;Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of occupational health psychology\u003c/em\u003e 11 (1):100-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTucker, Michelle K., Nerina L. Jimmieson, and Prashant Bordia. 2018. \u0026quot;Supervisor support as a double-edged sword: Supervisor emotion management accounts for the buffering and reverse-buffering effects of supervisor support.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e International Journal of Stress Management\u003c/em\u003e 25 (1):14-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000046.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUluturk, Bulent, Elgiz Yilmaz Altuntas, and Tuba Isik. 2023. \u0026quot;Impact of Ethical Leadership on Job Satisfaction and Work-Related Burnout among Turkish Street-Level Bureaucrats: The Roles of Public Service Motivation, Perceived Organizational Support, and Red Tape.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Performance \u0026amp; Management Review\u003c/em\u003e 46 (6):1502-1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2256705.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan den Broeck, Anja, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Hans De Witte, and Willy Lens. 2008. \u0026quot;Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Work \u0026amp; stress\u003c/em\u003e 22 (3):277-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393672.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Den Tooren, Marieke, and Jan De Jonge. 2008. \u0026quot;Managing job stress in nursing: what kind of resources do we need?\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Advanced Nursing\u003c/em\u003e 63 (1):75-84. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04657.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan der Voet, Joris. 2016. \u0026quot;Change leadership and public sector organizational change: Examining the interactions of transformational leadership style and red tape.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e The American Review of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e 46 (6):660-682. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740155747.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVogel, Rick, Dominik Vogel, and Artur Reuber. 2022. \u0026quot;Finding a mission in bureaucracies: How authentic leadership and red tape interact.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12895.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWallace, J Craig, Bryan D Edwards, Todd Arnold, M Lance Frazier, and David M Finch. 2009. \u0026quot;Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 94 (1):254. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/a0013090.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWestman, Mina, Stevan E. Hobfoll, Shoshi Chen, Oranit B. Davidson, and Shavit Laski. 2004. \u0026quot;Organizational stress through the lens of conservation of resources (COR) theory.\u0026quot; In \u003cem\u003eExploring Interpersonal Dynamics\u003c/em\u003e, edited by Pamela L. Perrewe and Daniel C. Ganster, 167-220. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWidyanti, Rahmi. 2020. \u0026quot;What Role Perceived Red Tape, Job Goal Clarity, and Leader-Member Exchange Can Play in Organizational Commitment? An Empirical Study of Indonesian Pharmaceutical Sector.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy\u003c/em\u003e 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.5530/srp.2020.1.71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWright, B. E., and B. S. Davis. 2003. \u0026quot;Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the work environment.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e American Review of Public Administration\u003c/em\u003e 33:70-90.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu, Xiaohong, and Stephanie C. Payne. 2020. \u0026quot;When do job resources buffer the effect of job demands?\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e International Journal of Stress Management\u003c/em\u003e 27 (3):226-240. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000146.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYunus, Suhaer, Keith Whitfield, and Ahmed Mohammed Sayed Mostafa. 2023. \u0026quot;High‐performance HR practices, job demands and employee well‐being: The moderating role of managerial support.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003e Stress and Health\u003c/em\u003e 39 (5):1106-1123.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"JD-R model, Perceived boundary control, Work-family conflict, Red tape, Family-Supportive Supervisors ","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6120245/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6120245/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Previous research has focused on the adverse effects of red tape on public organizations’ management and performance, but has largely overlooked its impact on employees’ roles within the family domain. Drawing upon the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, we conducted two studies to investigate how high job demands (i.e., red tape) may be positively related to work-family conflict by blurring the boundaries between work and non-work domains. The study further measures whether job resources (i.e., family-supportive supervisors and perceived organizational support) mitigate the decline in perceived boundary control caused by high job demand, in response to the buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model. Study 1 conducted a preliminary validation in a prefecture-level city in China (N=265). To circumvent the limitations associated with the research setting and the specificity of job resource types, Study 2 tested the robustness of the findings by expanding the scope to a national level and incorporating additional types of job resources (N=324). Results reveal that red tape has a spillover effect in work scene, which will blur the boundary between work and non-work domains, reduce perceived boundary control, and lead to work-family conflict. Importantly, the buffering hypothesis in the JD-R model was contradicted by evidence showing that job resources (i.e., family-supportive supervisors and perceived organizational support) exacerbated the negative effects of high job demands (i.e., red tape). The implications of these findings for theory and practice are explored.","manuscriptTitle":"Examining the Impact of Red Tape on Work-Family Conflict: The Mediating Role of Perceived Boundary Control and the Buffering Role of Family-Supportive Supervisors","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-05 10:41:51","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6120245/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-06-17T17:00:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-14T15:13:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"140351088239366193123881572947559329532","date":"2025-05-27T00:57:59+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-02T15:46:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"163253421852101748169515396463291296487","date":"2025-05-01T04:52:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-29T13:25:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-01T15:13:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-03-18T12:04:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-03-18T12:04:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-02-27T10:48:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"58c13229-4e62-4bf1-8b6b-c4e8ec01ea31","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 5th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":48004730,"name":"Humanities/Health humanities"},{"id":48004731,"name":"Social science/Psychology"},{"id":48004732,"name":"Social science/Sociology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-07T16:02:55+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6120245","link":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07013-5","journal":{"identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-02 15:59:30","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 2nd, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-05 10:41:51","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1057/s41599-026-07013-5","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07013-5","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6120245","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6120245","identity":"rs-6120245","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}