In agreement with Rudolph etal. (Reference Rudolph, Allan, Clark, Hertel, Hirschi, Kunze, Shockley, Shoss, Sonnentag and Zacher2021), we see the need to explore different antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict, specifically as employee experiences relate to drastic shifts in work-family domains as a result of COVID-19. Although general focuses on the three main types of work–family conflict is warranted (i.e., time-, strain-, and behavior-based conflict), the purpose of this commentary is to delve deeper into specific work–family experiences regarding the massive shift to remote work and high-risk frontline work. We examine health and safety as an antecedent to work–family conflict for dual-earner couples with support from the job-demands-resource model. Next, we propose that new research should explore both within- and between-person experiences via spillover and crossover as a prominent manifestation of pandemic forced workplace shifts. Finally, we discuss how prior research may be a promising route for current work–family conflict reduction. Specifically, we suggest further exploration of couples and their relationship dynamics as potential avenues for stress and strain that increase work–family conflict during pandemics, with consideration of supervisor support for remote and/or frontline work.

With some individuals able to work remotely during the current pandemic and others forced to remain on the front line, the potential mismatch in partner role expectations and changes in work and family roles may leave individuals in a unique position for navigating stress and coping, or lack thereof, in their home relationships. The resources available in the form of schedule and location flexibility directly and indirectly influence employee demands and resources (Shockley & Allen, Reference Shockley and Allen2007). For example, ensuring that employees can work from home (in applicable occupations) shows that supervisors value their subordinates’ preferences and safety and provide resources for coping with job and environmental stressors. Alternatively, if employees are needed on the front lines, ensuring proper hygiene by providing cleaning supplies and requiring the use of face masks implies a similar value in safety for their employees and, thus, provides resources as well.

Although supervisors may serve a more proximal role with frontline workers and a distal role with teleworkers, their engagement through general support behaviors and family support behaviors is still likely to affect their subordinates via changes in demands and resources (Kossek etal., Reference Kossek, Pichler, Bodner and Hammer2011). According to the job demands-resources (JD-R) model, characteristics of the job can be considered resources for dealing with stressors or as demands which deplete resources (Demerouti etal., Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli2001). In the current context, individuals working on the front lines may have to put more effort into managing a safe distance from customers or patients even though their job demands closer proximity. Extending JD-R theory, the different work situations and forms of supervisor support that a couple may differentially experience in their respective workplaces will likely have unique manifestations of strain within and between partners. Regarding couples who are still actively employed (i.e., have not been laid off or furloughed), couples are likely to find themselves in one of three work location situations: one partner working from home and one on the front line (mixed location), both partners working from home (same location), or both partners on the front line (same location).

Experiences in one domain (e.g., work) affect experiences in another domain (e.g., home) through stressors and strain. For instance, if a supervisor is not enforcing the policy for mask-wearing and appropriate physical protection, the additional stressor from physical safety concerns may carry over to the home domain. This example would be characteristic of a spillover effect, which occurs when strain transitions from one role to another within an individual (Bakkar & Demerouti, Reference Bakker, Demerouti, Grzywacz and Demerouti2013). In consideration of the pandemic context, the magnitude of spillover likely varies depending on the nature of the work and resources provided by the organization and supervisor. In other words, employees working on the front line may bring home strain from supervisor behaviors in addition to a higher risk of infection, whereas those working from home may experience strain from having lower resources or unsuitable workspace for remote work, as noted by the focal article authors. General and family-based supervisor support through instrumental resources such as granting requests for time off or positive role-modeling must be considered for remote workers as well. With the use of video communication and telework, the ability to deal with immediate family concerns, such as children, may be indicative of supervisor–subordinate relationships through both direct and indirect communicated values. For instance, a supervisor may show that it is acceptable to tend to a family member while on a work call. Displaying an understanding of the pandemic context and valuing both work and home through role modeling provides subordinates a resource to deal with spillover from work and home stressors.

Although frontline and remote work offers unique stressors and strains, experiences of strain felt in the work role can also carry over to partners when returning to the home role via crossover effects (Bakkar & Demerouti, Reference Bakker, Demerouti, Grzywacz and Demerouti2013). For example, Bakkar and Demerouti note that crossover can occur from partner empathy and shared experiences, as well as indirectly through partner interactions (2012). For mixed location couples, a frontline worker may experience stressors at work leading to exhaustion and subsequently resulting in conflict with their partner when they return home because they lack adequate resources for positive communication (Berkowsky, Reference Berkowsky2013). Alternatively, when both partners are working from home, the spillover and crossover may be exacerbated by role switching and higher partner proximity (Higgins etal., Reference Higgins, Duxbury and Julien2014) or reduced via shared experiences and increased family cohesion (Stevens etal., Reference Stevens, Kiger and Riley2006). According to Higgins etal. (Reference Higgins, Duxbury and Julien2014), when flexible work arrangements are used, more conflict in both directions (work to family and family to work) is experienced. Conversely, Hill etal. (Reference Hill, Yang, Hawkins and Ferris2004) showed support for decreased work–family conflict when there was increased job flexibility. The COVID-19 pandemic offers a unique circumstance in which employees might transition to remote work but lack flexibility, providing a new avenue for researchers to understand the experiences of work–family conflict, spillover, and crossover.

Although traditionally understanding telework might be useful in examining the current pandemic situation, we must also consider that teleworking for many was forceful as opposed to it being optional or even preferential. An extension of the current research on work and family domains should focus on differentiating outcomes for families based on whether partners share work locations, such as working remotely or on-site/front lines, and whether their current work situation is a reflection of their choice of occupational location or by way of a mandate. Manifestations of stress and strain for couples via spillover and crossover must be considered in the context of work and family. More specifically, examining the utility of both general and family supportive supervisor behaviors on couples working both remotely and on the front lines may stimulate influential organizations to support their employees. Because increases in work-family conflict are likely as family dynamics change, strategies that help reduce conflict should be explored such as providing broad organizational support (i.e., improving attitudes and perceptions around family needs) or specific support for work-family needs (i.e., emotional and instrumental support; French etal., Reference French, Dumani, Allen and Shockley2018). For example, Hammer etal. (Reference Hammer, Kossek, Anger, Bodner and Zimmerman2011) found that training on family-supportive supervisor behaviors may be particularly useful for organizations when work–family conflict is higher. Organizations should provide family care resources and strategies for managing telework to individuals who are having a particularly difficult time transitioning to telework. Alternatively, organizations may provide personal protection equipment to frontline workers who may not have the resources to acquire their own. Supervisor support, both general and family-based, can improve resources and decrease demands for dual-earner couples.