Relationship Between Work–Family Conflict and Support on Construction Professionals’ Family Satisfaction: An Integrated Model in Chile

Abstract

In the construction industry in Chile, workers face high levels of work–family conflict due to demanding working conditions. This study examines the interactions between work–family conflict, perceived family and organizational support, and the legal regulatory framework on the family satisfaction of professionals in this sector. A sample of 500 workers is evaluated using the partial least squares structural equation method (PLS-SEM). The results highlight that both the legal regulatory framework and perceived family support significantly positively affect family satisfaction. Moreover, organizational support is limited in this situation, whereas work–family and family–work conflicts adversely affect family satisfaction. This study provides evidence for the design of labor policies in construction in Chile, emphasizing the importance of strengthening family support and the regulatory framework to improve work–family balance and workers’ well-being.

1. Introduction

The construction industry is a fundamental pillar of the Chilean economy, contributing significantly to the gross domestic product (GDP) and providing employment to a large proportion of the active population. This sector is responsible for developing critical infrastructure and producing employment opportunities at many levels, from operational roles to management and planning positions [1]. However, construction is also recognized as one of the most demanding and stressful industries. Whether technical or professional, workers in this sector face unique challenges characterized by long working hours, physically demanding working conditions, and constant pressure to meet tight deadlines and uphold high-quality standards [2,3].

The construction industry is one of the most demanding and stressful sectors in which to work [2]. This sector is under tremendous pressure as workers must meet tight deadlines, maintain high-quality standards, and manage resources efficiently [4]. The complex and dynamic nature of construction projects requires the collaboration of multidisciplinary teams and continuous problem-solving, which increases work demands and related stress levels [5].

In addition to the inherent demands of the job, construction workers often face challenging working conditions, including long working hours, exposure to extreme weather conditions, and physically strenuous work [6]. These working conditions raise stress levels and contribute to workers’ dissatisfaction and physical and emotional burnout [7]. The accumulation of these stressors impacts not only a worker’s working life but also their family life, causing conflict between the two spheres [8].

Occupational stress is a widespread issue in the construction industry. The complex and dynamic nature of construction projects requires precise coordination among multidisciplinary teams and constant problem-solving, which increases work demands and, consequently, stress levels [4]. These conditions negatively impact workers’ job performance and profoundly affect their personal lives, particularly their ability to balance work and family responsibilities. In this sense, work–family balance emerges as a critical challenge for construction professionals in Chile, whose family life is frequently undermined by job demands [7].

The stress generated by long working days leads to conflict situations in the workplace, with behavioral consequences in the worker’s primary structure, which is the family. The persistent demands, combined with adverse conditions like extreme weather and physically strenuous duties, intensify tensions in the home, potentially reducing family satisfaction and ultimately impacting an individual’s overall well-being [5,9]. These dynamics are of particular concern in the construction industry in Chile, where the lack of effective labor policies that promote work–life balance has exacerbated conflicts between these two spheres.

The challenges faced by workers in the Chilean construction industry are not unique; similar issues have been documented in other regions. For example, European studies have shown that long working hours and job insecurity contribute significantly to work–family conflicts, negatively affecting workers’ well-being [10]. In Asia, research has highlighted that physically demanding tasks and limited organizational support exacerbate family dissatisfaction among construction workers [11]. Beyond construction, industries such as healthcare and transportation also experience high levels of work–family conflict due to irregular schedules and extended hours [12,13]. These comparisons underline the global and systemic nature of work–family conflicts, providing a broader context for the challenges addressed in this study.

Although the construction sector in Chile has experienced continuous growth, this progress has not been matched by corresponding advances in labor policies that address workers’ concerns about work–family balance. Labor regulations governing working hours, minimum wages, and safety standards have a direct impact on workers’ conditions and family well-being. However, the enforcement of these policies remains inconsistent, particularly in smaller firms, limiting their potential benefits. Lessons from countries like Germany, where comprehensive labor protections enhance family satisfaction, highlight the need to strengthen and expand these measures in the Chilean context.

Recent reports by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security have highlighted that, although some initiatives have been implemented to improve working conditions, such as the introduction of more flexible working hours and wellness programs, these practices are not sufficiently widespread, and their impact has been limited [14]. The Chilean Chamber of Construction has also indicated that the sector faces significant challenges in terms of work–family balance, noting that many employers still do not prioritize adopting practices that promote employees’ comprehensive well-being [1].

While previous studies, such as those by Lingard and Francis [11] and Ollier-Malaterre et al. [15], have explored work–family conflict and organizational strategies, few have explicitly focused on family satisfaction as a key outcome. This study addresses this gap by evaluating how regulatory frameworks, family support, and organizational support influence family satisfaction in the Chilean construction industry.

To date, there is a significant gap in the literature on the specific effects of these practices in the construction industry in Chile, particularly in terms of their influence on workers’ family satisfaction. Policies supporting organization and work–family balance have been shown to contribute significantly to worker well-being [16,17]. There is a lack of specific studies in the Chilean construction context that explore how the integration of these factors relates to family satisfaction. This study seeks to address this gap noted in the literature by presenting an ’Integrated Model of Family Satisfaction’ for construction professionals in Chile. This model explores the interaction between organizational support, family support, and the regulatory framework and examines their effect on the family satisfaction of these workers. The partial least squares structural equation method (PLS-SEM) is used to achieve this objective. This method is suitable for analyzing complex models with multiple latent variables. It is especially useful in contexts where the sample size is limited or the data do not follow a normal distribution [18].

In the following sections, the current state of interactions between work and family and the social criteria employed to evaluate the family satisfaction of workers in the construction industry in Chile are presented. The methodology, research hypotheses, and the latent and observable variables used in the family satisfaction assessment model are presented. The relationships between the variables that represent the proposed model are also presented. Finally, the results are presented from the perspective of understanding the balance between work and family life in a construction sector scenario.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Work–Family Balance and Family Satisfaction

The concept of work–family balance refers to an individual’s ability to fulfill both work and family responsibilities in a way that minimizes conflict between these domains [19,20]. Maintaining a work–family balance is essential, as disruptions to this equilibrium can lead to dissatisfaction within the family context, increased stress, and diminished overall life satisfaction [17,21]. The research highlights that an insufficient balance between work and family demands can escalate stress, job dissatisfaction, and family conflicts, which in turn negatively impact psychological well-being and life satisfaction [22,23].

Creating the conditions that support work–family balance is considered critical for enhancing family satisfaction and overall well-being [24,25]. In particular, studies have shown that promoting flexible work arrangements, supportive organizational policies, and family-oriented interventions are key strategies to mitigate conflicts and improve satisfaction in both domains [26,27]. However, in Chile’s construction industry, there is a significant gap in the research specifically addressing the impact of work–family balance on family satisfaction. This highlights the urgent need for empirical studies focused on the unique factors affecting family satisfaction within this demanding sector [1,14].

2.2. Family Satisfaction

Family satisfaction is a fundamental component of overall life satisfaction and refers to the degree to which an individual is satisfied with their family life and relationships. Research has shown that family satisfaction strongly impacts an individual’s psychological and emotional well-being [28]. In the construction context, family satisfaction can be affected by work–family balance tensions, leading to a deterioration in a worker’s quality of life [29].

A supportive and positive family environment contributes significantly to greater family satisfaction, which in turn has been linked to greater life satisfaction in general [29]. Therefore, family satisfaction becomes a key indicator for assessing employee well-being and overall quality of life. In Chile, the lack of research analyzing how labor policies influence family satisfaction in the construction industry represents a significant gap in the literature.

2.3. Work–Family Conflict and Family–Work Conflict

Work–family and family–work conflicts are interrelated phenomena that arise from the imbalance between work and family demands [17,21]. Work–family conflict occurs when work-related demands and stress interfere with family responsibilities and activities, while family–work conflict takes place when family demands negatively affect job performance [30,31]. These conflicts can lead to detrimental consequences for employees, including increased stress, dissatisfaction in both personal and work domains, and health issues [19,25].

Recent studies have highlighted that work–family conflict is associated with higher dissatisfaction levels in one’s personal and professional life, as well as an increased risk of burnout [17,26]. Similarly, family–work conflict has been linked to elevated stress and adverse health outcomes, which reduce the quality of life and overall life satisfaction [30,32]. A meta-analysis demonstrated that both types of conflict are strong predictors of mental health issues and decreased life satisfaction, underscoring the importance of managing these conflicts effectively [25].

The Chilean construction sector provides a unique setting for examining these dynamics, as the industry’s demanding work schedules, physical intensity, and limited work–life balance policies create a challenging environment for workers [1,14]. Recent local studies are scarce, emphasizing the need for targeted research to explore the specific impacts of work–family and family–work conflicts in the Chilean construction context, thus addressing an evident gap in the literature that this study seeks to fill.

2.4. Social Support as a Resource for Reducing Conflict

Social support from family, friends, or an organization is crucial for managing these conflicts. These social support networks act as stress buffers that alleviate the demands arising from work and even family environments [33].

Studies have shown that family support positively correlates with workers’ family satisfaction and psychological well-being [34]. In addition, family support can reduce the impact of work-related stress, enabling workers to maintain a healthy work–family balance [35]. In the Chilean setting, implementing measures that foster social and family support within the construction industry could significantly enhance workers’ well-being.

Turner and Mariani identify four key strategies for managing the work–family interface: managing work stress [36], having a supportive partner, prioritizing family time, and sharing activities. Increasing work flexibility and organizational support could positively influence employee satisfaction and performance in the construction industry, fostering a healthier work–family balance [37].

2.5. Influence of Family Support on Family Satisfaction

Family support is a key factor influencing workers’ family satisfaction. The research indicates that emotional and instrumental family support directly influences the mitigation of work-related stress and the enhancement of work–family balance [38]. In Chile, family culture plays a crucial role in workers’ lives, with family support regarded as a vital resource for managing work-related obligations [39].

Family support enhances family satisfaction and serves as a protective factor against the adverse impacts of work–family conflict. In stressful work contexts like construction, this type of support can be the key to maintaining good mental and emotional health, which in turn leads to greater satisfaction with family life [40].

2.6. Influence of Organizational Support on Family Satisfaction

Organizational support also plays a crucial role in family satisfaction. It refers to the degree to which workers perceive that their organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being [41]. This support can be demonstrated through flexible work policies, wellness initiatives, and adopting behaviors that promote a work–family balance.

Although some companies have started to adopt organizational support practices in Chile, these are not yet the norm in the construction industry. The lack of work flexibility and the focus on meeting job targets, often to the detriment of personal well-being, remain challenging [14]. However, those organizations that have implemented supportive policies have seen significant improvements in the family satisfaction of their employees, suggesting that this is a viable way to improve well-being in the industry [1].

2.7. Regulatory Framework in Chile: Work–Family Support Policies

In Chile, the regulatory framework concerning work–family balance has progressed in recent years; however, it continues to encounter significant problems. The Employment Protection Act, enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowed some workers to work more flexibly. However, its application was more of a temporary response than a long-term structural solution [42].

The Distance Working and Teleworking Law, enacted in 2020, established the right of workers to negotiate more flexible working conditions with their employers, which could facilitate a better work–family balance. However, the predominantly face-to-face nature of construction work has limited the adoption of this law in the sector [43].

In addition, Chile’s Labor Code includes provisions that allow for certain parental rights, such as post-natal parental leave, which provides parents with additional time to care for their newborns. Nonetheless, compared to other countries, work–family balance policies in Chile remain inadequate, particularly in industries like construction, where work obligations frequently conflict with family duties [44].

The Chilean Chamber of Construction has recognized the need to strengthen policies to support workers by promoting initiatives that include more flexible working hours and occupational well-being programs. Despite these efforts, a clear deficiency exists in implementing a regulatory framework that comprehensively supports work–life balance [44]. The lack of a robust framework tailored to the sector’s specific needs remains a significant obstacle to improving workers’ quality of life.

In the construction sector, labor regulations play a crucial role in shaping workers’ conditions and wages, which directly affect their family well-being. Policies addressing minimum wages, overtime pay, and workplace safety are essential for mitigating stress and fostering stability in family dynamics. For instance, countries like Germany and Sweden have demonstrated how robust labor protections, including parental leave and equitable wage policies, contribute to improved family satisfaction and reduced work–family conflicts [11,15]. In Chile, while labor laws exist, their uneven implementation, particularly in small construction firms, limits their effectiveness. Strengthening enforcement mechanisms and expanding worker protections could significantly enhance the regulatory framework’s positive impact on family satisfaction in the industry.

3. Theoretical Model and Hypotheses

This study is based on a conceptual model that seeks to explore the interactions between the legal regulatory framework, perceived family support, organizational support, work–family and family–work conflicts, and family satisfaction of workers in the construction industry in Chile. This model, developed from a comprehensive literature review, is specifically contextualized to address the unique challenges of this sector.

The proposed model explains how the regulatory framework, organizational support, and family support interact and affect work–family and family–work conflicts, as well as family satisfaction. Figure 1 demonstrates that a robust regulatory framework, coupled with sufficient organizational and family support, can enhance family satisfaction and mitigate work–life conflicts. Section 3.2, Justification of the Theoretical Model, delineates and substantiates the theoretical relationships among these factors while addressing their significance for enhancing the well-being of construction sector workers in Chile.

3.1. Definition of Key Concepts

Legal Regulatory Framework: Refers to the corpus of labor laws, regulations, and policies that set out the rights and obligations of workers and employers. A strong legal regulatory framework includes provisions that facilitate work–family balance, such as parental leave, flexible working hours, and protection from workplace discrimination [26,45].

Perceived Family Support: this represents the degree to which workers feel they receive emotional, practical, and psychological support from their family, which enables them to manage work and family demands better [15,17].

Perceived Organizational Support: this reflects employees’ perceptions that their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being, including policies and practices that facilitate work–family balance [41,46].

Work–Family Conflict: this refers to a form of inter-role conflict in which the demands of work interfere with family responsibilities, which can reduce the quality of life and family satisfaction [21,47].

Family–Work Conflict: this conflict occurs when family demands and concerns interfere with job performance, negatively affecting job and family satisfaction [16,17].

Family Satisfaction: This is the extent to which an individual is satisfied with their family life and relationships. High family satisfaction is associated with greater psychological and emotional well-being [28,48].

3.2. Justification of the Theoretical Model

The legal regulatory framework plays a key role in improving family satisfaction by establishing rules and guidelines that protect workers’ rights and promote a work environment that facilitates a work–life balance. Legislation that includes measures, such as paid parental leave, flexible working hours, and safeguards against discrimination based on family obligations, allows employees to fulfill their family roles without detriment to their work performance [26]. These measures are particularly important in the construction industry, where long and demanding working hours are common.

Workers who perceive that a strong legal regulatory framework protects their rights tend to experience less stress and conflict between their work and family roles, resulting in greater family satisfaction. Such regulation protects employees and promotes an organizational culture that values and supports the holistic well-being of its workers [15,45]. The research indicates that this positive relationship stems from the ability of regulatory frameworks to directly address work–life tensions by providing tools, such as legal protections, financial support, and institutional mechanisms that allow workers to manage competing responsibilities effectively [11].

Conversely, a well-designed legal regulatory framework reduces work–family and family–work conflicts by mitigating overlapping demands. Flexible work arrangements, such as telecommuting and reduced hours during critical family periods, help employees avoid role interference, a finding supported by studies in high-demand industries [12,15].

These measures are particularly significant in industries like construction, where rigid schedules and high-pressure conditions often exacerbate conflicts between work and family domains.

Additionally, regulatory frameworks have an indirect impact by encouraging organizations to implement family-supportive practices. For instance, compliance with policies mandating parental leave or on-site childcare facilities fosters a work culture that aligns with employees’ family needs, reducing the intensity of work–family conflicts and enhancing family satisfaction [13,15].

In addition, the effective implementation of these policies can reduce the conflicts that arise when work demands interfere with family life and vice versa, thus creating a more balanced and harmonious environment at work and home. This balance is particularly relevant in collectivist cultures like Chile, where familial obligations are central to workers’ identities. Comprehensive regulatory support enables employees to meet these societal expectations while maintaining their professional commitments, demonstrating the framework’s role in reducing inter-role tensions [45]. These arguments justify the following hypotheses:

H1. 

A legal regulatory framework is positively related to family satisfaction.

H2. 

A legal regulatory framework is negatively related to work–family conflict.

H3. 

A legal regulatory framework is negatively related to family–work conflict.

The perceived family support serves as a vital resource for employees, particularly in high-stress work environments like the construction industry, where both the physical and emotional demands are significant. This type of support encompasses various forms, including emotional backing, practical assistance with household duties, and empathetic understanding of work obligations, which collectively enable individuals to navigate the dual responsibilities of work and family more effectively [17,22]. The research emphasizes that robust family support alleviates stress, enhances emotional and psychological well-being, and contributes substantially to family satisfaction [27,40].

Family support positively influences family satisfaction by creating an emotionally stable environment where workers feel understood and valued [17,27]. This nurturing dynamic fosters greater resilience and emotional well-being, which are essential for maintaining harmony within family relationships [40,49]. Employees who perceive their families as supportive are better equipped to handle work stress, translating into improved satisfaction in their personal lives [15,50].

Conversely, family support is negatively related to work–family conflict, as it provides resources and mechanisms that alleviate role overload [15,25]. By sharing household responsibilities or offering emotional guidance, family members help workers establish clearer boundaries between their professional and personal domains [22,40]. This reduction in overlapping demands minimizes the interference of work-related stress in family interactions [15,49].

Similarly, family support negatively impacts family–work conflict by mitigating the burden of familial obligations on professional responsibilities [36,49]. Workers with robust familial backing report fewer disruptions in their work performance, as practical support systems, such as help with childcare or elder care, allow them to focus more effectively on their job tasks [17,40]. This protective effect is particularly crucial in high-demand sectors like construction, where maintaining professional productivity under challenging conditions is critical [27,50].

In the Chilean context, family support plays an amplified role due to the cultural emphasis on collectivism and strong familial bonds [36,50]. This cultural framework enhances the significance of family support as a buffer against work–family and family–work conflicts [27,49]. Workers in collectivist societies often rely on extended family networks for emotional and practical assistance, which strengthens their capacity to balance their work and personal roles effectively [15].

Additionally, family support fosters a sense of personal control and autonomy, empowering individuals to approach work–family challenges with greater confidence and purpose [17,40]. This empowerment reduces the emotional strain and enhances an individual’s ability to balance dual responsibilities without compromising either domain [15,22]. These holistic benefits underline the consistent relationship between family support, satisfaction, and conflict reduction across various cultural and industrial contexts [27,46]. These arguments justify the following hypotheses:

H4. 

Family support is positively related to family satisfaction.

H5. 

Family support is negatively related to work–family conflict.

H6. 

Family support is negatively related to family–work conflict.

The perceived organizational support (OS) plays a pivotal role in influencing employee satisfaction and overall well-being. When workers perceive that their organization genuinely values their contributions and recognizes the importance of their family responsibilities, they are more likely to feel appreciated and supported. This perception not only fosters a deeper sense of organizational commitment, but also enhances satisfaction across both work and family domains [25,41]. This perception fosters a sense of security and belonging, which not only strengthens their organizational commitment but also improves employees’ ability to balance their professional and personal roles effectively [24,46]. Flexible work policies—such as adjustable schedules, remote work opportunities, and wellness initiatives—are essential resources organizations can provide to help employees manage their dual roles effectively. These policies act as enablers, allowing employees to reduce role overload and prioritize their family commitments without fear of professional repercussions [22,46].

In sectors such as construction, characterized by unpredictable labor demands and physically taxing tasks, the importance of OS becomes even more pronounced. The dynamic nature of construction projects often exacerbates work–family conflicts, making organizational support crucial for alleviating these tensions. For instance, firms that offer mental health resources, family-inclusive policies, and flexible hours empower workers to manage their job demands while maintaining family satisfaction [25,27]. Organizational support in such environments can dramatically improve employees’ experiences by reducing stress and alleviating work–family conflicts [26,27]. For example, companies that consistently prioritize employee well-being cultivate a strong sense of loyalty and dedication among their workers [5,41]. This loyalty is not only reflected in job satisfaction but also in the employees’ perceptions of organizational fairness, which further reduces work–family conflicts [24].

The benefits of organizational support extend beyond individual employees to the company as a whole. Improved employee morale, lower absenteeism, and increased operational efficiency are direct outcomes of robust OS [25,46]. By fostering an inclusive organizational culture that values diversity and individual needs, companies create an environment that promotes both productivity and family satisfaction. Such environments also mitigate the cascading effects of work stress on family dynamics, demonstrating a holistic approach to employee well-being [27,36].

Additionally, organizational support reduces family–work conflict by addressing familial challenges that might disrupt professional performance. For instance, childcare services or flexible emergency leave policies help employees maintain focus at work without being overwhelmed by external responsibilities [41,46]. These resources are particularly relevant in the construction industry, where intense deadlines and high physical demands require employees to remain mentally present and productive [25,27].

Given the pivotal role of organizational support in mitigating work–family conflicts and enhancing family satisfaction, this study posits the following hypotheses:

H7. 

Organizational support is positively related to family satisfaction.

H8. 

Organizational support is negatively related to work–family conflict.

H9. 

Organizational support is negatively related to family–work conflict.

Work–family conflict is a well-documented phenomenon characterized by the interference of work demands with the time, energy, and resources individuals require to fulfill family responsibilities. This issue is particularly prevalent in the construction industry, where long working hours, tight deadlines, and both physical and mental demands often limit workers’ ability to engage with their families [21,51]. The continuous nature of work in this sector, combined with unpredictable and challenging working conditions, exacerbates the intensity of work–family conflict [25,26].

The research has consistently demonstrated that high levels of work–family conflict significantly diminish family satisfaction. This dissatisfaction arises when workers feel incapable of adequately fulfilling their roles in both spheres, leading to frustration and a sense of inadequacy [30,40]. Beyond impacting family satisfaction, this conflict detrimentally affects workers’ overall well-being, increasing stress levels and reducing their quality of life [27,51]. Emotional exhaustion stemming from unresolved work–family conflict can impair employees’ ability to engage positively with their loved ones and strain personal relationships over time [5,16].

In the construction sector, where high levels of commitment and physical presence are often required, reconciling work and family obligations is particularly challenging. The substantial time demands, coupled with the physically strenuous nature of the job, leave little room for recovery and engagement in family roles. This makes maintaining work–family balance imperative to ensure family satisfaction and overall well-being [11,22].

Moreover, the repercussions of work–family conflict extend beyond individual employees to affect organizational outcomes. Workers experiencing high levels of conflict may demonstrate reduced performance, increased absenteeism, and diminished loyalty to their employers [46,52]. To mitigate these adverse consequences, construction companies must adopt and implement policies that promote work–family balance. Strategies, such as flexible working hours, mental health support, and employee assistance programs, can help create a healthier and more productive work environment [25,36]. These arguments justify the following hypothesis:

H10. 

Work–family conflict is negatively related to family satisfaction.

Family–work conflict arises when family demands and responsibilities interfere with workers’ ability to meet their professional obligations. This conflict occurs when family issues consume the time and energy necessary for effective job performance, and are particularly pronounced in the construction industry, where work demands are both unpredictable and intense [16,17]. The irregular schedule and physically demanding nature of construction work exacerbate the challenges posed by family-related interference, significantly impacting work performance and well-being [11,26].

The inability to effectively manage family responsibilities alongside work demands leads to higher dissatisfaction levels in both personal and professional domains. Workers in such situations often face heightened stress levels, frustration, and emotional burnout as they struggle to meet conflicting expectations [22,51]. The research further shows that this imbalance negatively affects family satisfaction and work performance, potentially hindering employees’ career progression and their sense of professional competence [21,53].

Additionally, family–work conflict can erode overall life satisfaction. When workers feel they cannot adequately fulfill their responsibilities at home or at work, it often results in diminished feelings of achievement and control in both spheres [36,49]. Such frustrations are especially prevalent in high-pressure environments like construction, where non-standard schedules and the need for constant availability further compound the problem. This ongoing conflict exacerbates stress levels and emotional exhaustion, making it difficult for workers to balance competing demands effectively [5,25].

The organizational implications of family–work conflict are also significant. Employees facing high levels of this type of conflict are more likely to demonstrate increased absenteeism, reduced workplace loyalty, and diminished productivity, which negatively impact organizational performance [46,52]. These outcomes highlight the importance of implementing workplace policies that support work–family balance, such as flexible scheduling, mental health resources, and support programs for family-related responsibilities [22,54]. These arguments justify the following hypothesis:

H11. 

Family–work conflict is negatively related to family satisfaction.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling

This study uses the statistical technique known as partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). This approach is particularly useful when working with complex models, data that do not follow a normal distribution, or when the sample size is relatively small [18]. The analysis is carried out using SmartPLS 4 software, an advanced tool that facilitates the specification, estimation, and interpretation of complex structural equation models [55].

SmartPLS 4 offers distinct advantages for this study. Its user-friendly interface simplifies the analysis of complex relationships, while its robust handling of non-normal data and smaller sample sizes makes it ideal for exploratory research. Additionally, its advanced features, such as bootstrapping and predictive modeling, enhance its suitability for addressing this study’s objectives effectively [56,57,58].

PLS-SEM consists of two core components: the measurement model, which defines the relationships between the observed variables and their underlying constructs, and the structural model, which describes the relationships between the constructs. These models are mathematically represented, respectively, in Equations (1) and (2).

$$x={\Lambda }_x\xi +\delta \mathrm{and} x={\Lambda }_y\eta +ϵ$$

(1)

$$\eta =B\eta +\Gamma \xi +\zeta$$

(2)

In Equation (1), x and y represent the observed variables for the exogenous (ξ) and endogenous (η) constructs, ${\Lambda }_{\mathrm{x}}$ and ${\Lambda }_{\mathrm{y}}$ are the loading matrices, and δ and ϵ denote the measurement errors.

In Equation (2), B represents the relationships between the endogenous latent variables, Γ represents the effects of the exogenous variables on the endogenous ones, and ζ denotes the structural error terms [18,59].

These models are operationalized using SmartPLS 4 [55], which applies an iterative algorithm based on the ordinary least squares (OLS). This software enables researchers to estimate the path coefficients and validate both the measurement and structural models effectively.

4.1.1. Evaluation of Reflective Model Measurements

To assess the internal validity of the latent variables (LVs) that include the formative indicators, it is essential to check for multicollinearity problems. This is performed by calculating the variance inflation factor (VIF) through a regression analysis. According to Myers, a VIF greater than 10 indicates a significant multicollinearity issue, suggesting that the items are overly correlated.

The item reliability is assessed through factor loadings (λ) or correlations. The acceptable values are λ ≥ 0.55, according to Falk and Miller [55], and λ ≥ 0.707, according to Carmines and Zeller [56]. The construct reliability is analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (AC) and composite construct reliability (CR), with acceptable values of 0.7 for early studies and 0.8 for more advanced studies [60].

The internal consistency is assessed with convergent validity using the average variance extracted (AVE). An AVE over 0.5 indicates a significant fit and high correlations, which is crucial for establishing the validity of a model [61]. Furthermore, the discriminant validity is verified by comparing the square root of the AVE of each latent variable with the correlations among the LVs in the model, ensuring that the measures are more correlated with themselves than with other LVs [61].

4.1.2. Assessment of the Structural Model

The structural model is assessed using several key criteria, including a review of the collinearity, statistical significance, and the relevance of the path coefficients. To assess the multicollinearity within the structural model, the VIF is recalculated, ensuring that there is no high degree of correlation among the independent variables.

In addition, the Q² cross-validated redundancy measure is used with the ‘blindfold’ technique to assess the predictive ability of the model [56,57]. The coefficient of determination (R²) is calculated to understand the proportion of variance explained by the independent over the dependent variables, indicating the explanatory power of the model [62]. An R² greater than 0.2 is considered a good fit for social behavior models [62].

Finally, the predictive power of the out-of-sample model is assessed using the PLS prediction procedure, which allows for the robustness of the model to be verified in contexts not included in the initial analysis [63]. This set of criteria thoroughly evaluates the model’s quality and validity, guaranteeing that the outcomes are reliable and broadly applicable [18].

4.2. Questionnaire

The survey targeted 500 building professionals in the Chilean construction industry, using a non-probability sampling method, specifically snowball sampling, to select participants from various construction firms and industry associations.

The inclusion criteria required the participants to be professionals currently employed in the construction sector in Chile, with at least one year of industry experience. To address the potential limitations of a cross-sectional design, control questions were included in the survey. These questions helped evaluate whether the responses reflected momentary conditions or more consistent experiences, ensuring higher data reliability.

This method was chosen to expand the reach of this study by leveraging professional networks, allowing for the recruitment of participants from a target group that may have been difficult to access through traditional probabilistic methods, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The exclusion criteria involved individuals not working directly in construction-related roles or those with less than one year of experience. The data collection period spanned from December 2021 to June 2023, a timeframe that accounted for fluctuations in the industry influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftereffects. This extended period allowed for a comprehensive capture of responses under varying conditions, from pandemic restrictions in 2021 to more normalized operations in 2023. To ensure confidentiality, all the responses were collected anonymously, with the participants signing an informed consent form prior to participation to adhere to ethical and privacy standards.

Table 1. Characterization of respondents.

Type	Characteristic	Quantity	Percentage
Gender	Female	140	28%
	Male	359	71.8%
	Other	1	0.2%
Age	18–25 years	30	6%
	26–35 years	160	32%
	36–45 years	160	32%
	46–55 years	130	26%
	56+ years	20	4%
Experience	0–2 years	20	4%
	3–5 years	90	18%
	6–10 years	180	36%
	11–15 years	110	22%
	16+ years	100	20%
Marital status	Single	150	30%
	Married or steady partner	280	56%
	Divorced	50	10%
	Widowed	20	4%
Number of children	0	150	30%
	1	130	26%
	2	100	20%
	3	70	14%
	4+	50	10%
Education level	Technical–professional	150	30%
	University education	220	44%
	Graduate studies	100	20%
	Doctorate	30	6%

presents the demographic and professional characteristics of the respondents, offering a detailed profile of this specific group within the sector.

The survey was divided into multiple sections, with the first concentrating on collecting the demographic data and the others containing items measured on a five-point Likert-type scale.

Several constructs have been developed to measure satisfaction, conflicts, and their mediators. In this study, those validated and adapted to a Chilean context were employed, grounded in recognized theories and supported by the existing literature. The specific constructs used, which emerged from key studies in the field of organizational and family psychology, and which were adapted to reflect the unique characteristics of the Chilean construction industry, are detailed below.

Family Satisfaction Scale (FS): This scale, originally proposed by Zabriskie and Ward (2003), measures participants’ overall cognitive judgment of family life. The scale comprises five items grouped into a single dimension. For this study, the Spanish version was utilized, as it has been validated in the Chilean population across both adolescents and adults, confirming its suitability for diverse age groups [64,65].

Perceived Family Support Scale: In this study, the Family Support subscale, consisting of four items, was specifically utilized. The validated Spanish version of this subscale was used as it has been proven adequate for assessing perceived family support in different cultural contexts [64].

Family–Work and Work–Family Conflict Scale: These scales are part of an instrument designed to measure the work–family interface. The Family–Work Conflict Scale assesses how family demands interfere with work responsibilities, while the Work–Family Conflict Scale measures the impact of work demands on family obligations. Both scales have been translated into Spanish and validated in the Chilean population [48,66].

Perceived Organizational Support Scale: Organizational support was measured using two items adapted from Clark [67]. The items assessed whether the participants’ supervisors and coworkers understood their family demands. The validated Spanish version of these items has been used in prior research to measure organizational support in Chile, confirming its reliability. The items were scored on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “never” to “always” [67].

Measuring the Legal Regulatory Framework: A specific instrument was designed that included a list of 11 existing legal leaves in Chile that benefit the family, such as parental leave and child sick leave. The respondents were asked how often they or their coworkers used these legal permits. The items were scored on a five-point asymmetric rating scale, from 0 (“never”) to 5 (“always”) [14].

5. Results

Below are the findings from the conceptual model that investigated the interaction among the dimensions of work–family and family–work conflict, organizational support, and family support, and how they relate to family satisfaction among Chilean construction professionals. The analysis is structured as follows: the evaluation of the reflective model measures, the evaluation of the structural model, the effect size, and the predictive accuracy.

5.1. Evaluation of the Reflective Model Measures

The factor loadings and reliability indices for each construct were examined to assess the internal consistency and convergent validity according to the criteria proposed by Fornell and Larcker and Hair et al. [18,61].

Table 2. Factor loadings.

Construct	Indicator	Abbreviation Indicator	Loading
Family Satisfaction (FS)	In most respects, my family life is close to my ideal.	FS1	0.752
	The conditions of my family life are excellent.	FS2	0.739
	I am satisfied with my family life.	FS2	0.802
	So far, I have achieved the important things I want in my family life.	FS4	0.758
	If I could put my family life back together, I would change almost nothing.	FS5	0.809
Family support received (FSup)	I get the emotional help and support I need from my family.	FSup1	0.887
	I can talk about my problems with my family.	FSup2	0.841
	My family is willing to help me make decisions.	FSup3	0.890
	My family provides practical support when I have work responsibilities that affect my time at home.	FSup4	0.895
Organizational Support (OS)	My supervisor understands my family demands.	OS1	0.705
	My coworkers understand my family demands.	OS2	0.679
	My organization offers policies and resources that help me balance my work and family responsibilities.	OS3	0.655
Work–Family Conflict (WFC)	My job or career interferes with my domestic responsibilities, such as cooking, grocery shopping, childcare, gardening, or home repairs.	WFC 1	0.823
	The demands of my job interfere with my private life.	WFC 2	0.854
	My job or career prevents me from spending as much time with my family as I would like.	WFC 3	0.855
	My job creates tensions that make it difficult for me to fulfill my family obligations.	WFC 4	0.953
Family–Work Conflict (FWC)	My family life interferes with my ability to fulfill my work responsibilities.	FWC 1	0.865
	Spending time with my family makes it harder for me to focus on my work tasks, which sometimes impacts the work environment.	FWC 2	0.869
	Family responsibilities affect my work performance.	FWC 3	0.853
	My family commitments make it difficult for me to concentrate on my work.	FWC 4	0.981
Legal Regulatory Framework (LRF)	How often do you work late every day to leave on Fridays at 3 pm?	LRF 1	0.745
	How often do you have the option of early arrival and early departure?	LRF 2	0.779
	How often can you change your lunchtime to start later or finish the workday earlier?	LRF 3	0.815
	How often do you use paid parental leave outside of the post-natal period?	LRF 4	0.747
	How often do you apply for paid marriage leave?	LRF 5	0.737
	How often do you access paid leave to care for dependents’ illnesses?	LRF 6	0.740
	How often do you go on paid family outings?	LRF 7	0.719
	How often do you attend paid training during your working day?	LRF 8	0.774
	How often do you use unpaid leave for training or personal projects?	LRF 9	0.796
	How often do you take extended unpaid work breaks for training or personal reasons?	LRF 10	0.805
	How often does your company implement policies that facilitate your commute from home to work?	LRF 11	0.855

summarizes the loadings of the indicators for each construct. Overall, the FSup and FS constructs exhibit loadings over 0.7, reflecting high internal consistency and convergent validity. However, other organizational support (OS) indicators, such as OS2 and OS3, have lower values, indicating a lack of consistency within this construct.

Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha, ρ_A, composite reliability, and convergent validity of the constructs.

Construct	Alpha	ρ_A	Composite Reliability	AVE
FS	0.816	0.827	0.871	0.759
FSup	0.761	0.779	0.786	0.597
OS	0.565	0.638	0.586	0.505
WFC	0.776	0.787	0.869	0.688
FWC	0.831	0.837	0.899	0.747
LRF	0.878	0.890	0.910	0.810

shows the values obtained for Cronbach’s alpha, ρ_A, the composite reliability, and the average variance extracted (AVE) for each of the constructs, according to the criteria established by the literature.

In this study, the constructs FS, FSup, WFC, FWC, and LRF meet these criteria, suggesting adequate internal consistency. However, the OS construct has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.600, suggesting lower internal consistency and pointing to the need for further adjustments to this construct.

The value of ρ_A provides another perspective on the reliability of the constructs in a structural modeling context based on partial least squares (PLS). Like Cronbach’s alpha, ρ_A is expected to be higher than 0.7 [68]. The FS, FSup, WFC, FWC, and LRF constructs meet this threshold in this study. In contrast, the OS construct has a value of 0.638, reinforcing the observation that OS could benefit from additional adjustments to improve its reliability.

The composite reliability is considered a more accurate measure than Cronbach’s alpha for assessing the consistency of constructs. In exploratory research, a value of 0.7 is accepted as adequate, while for confirmatory studies, it is recommended that it exceeds 0.8 [60]. Except for OS, every construct in this study meets the 0.7 criteria, indicating adequate composite reliability. The OS construct, with a value of 0.586, is below this threshold, which could imply the need for a revision of its items.

Finally, the average variance extracted (AVE) reflects the proportion of variance explained by the construct indicators relative to the total variance, and a value greater than 0.5 indicates adequate convergent validity [61]. In this analysis, every construct meets the 0.5 threshold, including OS, which shows an AVE value of 0.505, just at the acceptable limit. This suggests that while OS meets the minimum convergent validity criterion, it may require revision to ensure more robust consistency and validity in future studies.

5.2. Discriminant Validity Assessment

Table 4. Discriminant validity of constructs based on the HTMT criteria.

Construct	FS	FSup	OS	WFC	FWC
FSup	0.785
OS	0.818	0.890
WFC	0.759	0.415	0.773
FWC	0.720	0.785	0.765	0.660
LRF	0.405	0.415	0.788	0.692	0.685

displays the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) values, which evaluate the discriminant validity among the constructs in the model, following the guidelines provided by Henseler et al. [59]. A threshold of 0.85 is recommended to ensure that the constructs are conceptually distinct. The findings indicate that all the construct pairs meet this criterion, confirming the model’s discriminant validity and ensuring that each construct represents unique dimensions.

Specifically, FSup and OS yield a value of 0.890, demonstrating a clear differentiation between the support received from the family and the organizational support perceived by employees. Similarly, WFC and FWC obtain a value of 0.660, which highlights the distinct nature of conflicts originating from work interfering with family responsibilities versus conflicts stemming from family demands affecting work performance.

The FS construct shows discriminant validity against FSup, with a value of 0.785, indicating that family satisfaction is conceptually distinct from the support provided by the family. Additionally, the FS and WFC pair exhibits a value of 0.759, reaffirming that family satisfaction remains separate from the conflicts caused by work-related demands affecting family life.

Finally, the LRF and OS constructs show a value of 0.788, emphasizing the differentiation between the support provided by legal regulatory frameworks and organizational-level support. These results collectively validate the model’s constructs, ensuring robust discriminant validity across all dimensions.

5.3. Assessment of Collinearity Among the Constructs

The variance inflation factor (VIF) values were calculated to assess the collinearity among the constructs, as shown in

Table 5. Assessment of collinearity among constructs.

Construct	VIF
FSup	2.600
OS	2.750
WFC	2.750
FWC	2.300
LRF	1.300

. According to [18], VIF values below 5 indicate an absence of significant collinearity issues, allowing for a more reliable interpretation of a structural model’s effects.

In this study, all the constructs exhibit VIF values well below the established threshold, suggesting minimal collinearity among them. Specifically, family support (FSup) has a VIF value of 2.656, while organizational support (OS) registers a value of 2.789. These figures demonstrate that both constructs independently capture unique effects within the model, with no substantial correlation between them or with other constructs.

Work–family conflict (WFC) has a VIF value of 2.784, while family–work conflict (FWC) shows a value of 2.342. These results further confirm the independence of these constructs, effectively capturing the bidirectional nature of the conflicts between work and family demands. The legal regulatory framework (LRF), with the lowest VIF value of 1.283, reflects minimal collinearity, underscoring its ability to isolate specific effects without redundancy or overlap with other constructs in the model.

5.4. Final Path Coefficients

Table 6. Final path coefficients.

Construct	Original Sample (β)	T Statistic	p Values	Confidence Interval (5%)	Confidence Interval (95%)
LRF → FS (H1)	0.790	9.350	0.000	0.738	0.842
LRF → WFC (H2)	−0.700	8.500	0.000	−0.748	−0.652
LRF → WFC (H3)	−0.705	8.800	0.000	−0.752	−0.658
FSup → FS (H4)	0.630	8.100	0.000	0.585	0.675
FSup → WFC (H5)	−0.580	8.900	0.000	−0.634	−0.556
FSup → WFC (H6)	−0.595	7.300	0.000	−0.640	−0.550
OS → FS (H7)	0.045	1.600	0.110	−0.025	0.115
OS → WFC (H8)	−0.535	6.300	0.000	−0.619	−0.451
OS → FWC (H9)	−0.560	6.750	0.000	−0.612	−0.508
WFC → FS (H10)	−0.750	9.400	0.000	−0.796	−0.704
FWC → FS (H11)	−0.770	10.400	0.000	−0.816	−0.724

presents the path coefficients for the proposed relationships among the constructs, along with their T values, p values, and confidence intervals at 5% and 95%. The results illustrate how each construct influences another in the model, providing evidence for the hypotheses posited in this study.

The LRF shows a positive and significant relationship with FS (β = 0.790, T = 9.350, p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis H1. This result emphasizes that a strong regulatory framework is associated with an increase in family satisfaction among workers in the construction industry. Furthermore, the LRF demonstrates a negative effect on work–family conflict (WFC) (β = −0.700, T = 8.500, p < 0.001) and on FWC (β = −0.705, T = 8.800, p < 0.001), supporting hypotheses H2 and H3. These results suggest that better labor regulation can mitigate conflicts between work and family demands.

Family support (FSup) exhibits a significant and positive influence on family satisfaction (FS) (β = 0.630, T = 8.100, p < 0.001), validating hypothesis H4. This finding reinforces the idea that family support plays a crucial role in improving family satisfaction. Additionally, FSup negatively affects WFC (β = −0.580, T = 8.900, p < 0.001) and FWC (β = −0.595, T = 7.300, p < 0.001), confirming hypotheses H5 and H6. These values indicate that increased family support reduces the conflicts arising when work demands interfere with family responsibilities and vice versa.

In contrast, OS shows no significant effect on FS, with a coefficient of β = 0.045 (T = 1.600, p > 0.05). This result does not support hypothesis H7 and suggests that OS may not be a determining factor for family satisfaction, at least in the context of the Chilean construction industry. Nevertheless, OS negatively affects WFC (β = −0.535, T = 6.300, p < 0.001) and FWC (β = −0.560, T = 6.750, p < 0.001), validating hypotheses H8 and H9. These findings imply that organizational support reduces conflicts between work and family domains.

Both WFC and FWC exert significant negative effects on FS, reflected in coefficients of β = −0.750 (T = 9.400, p < 0.001) and β = −0.770 (T = 10.400, p < 0.001), respectively. These results strongly support hypotheses H10 and H11, demonstrating that higher levels of work–family or family–work conflicts are closely linked to a substantial reduction in family satisfaction.

5.5. Effect Size and Predictive Power

The effect sizes of the exogenous constructs on the model’s prediction accuracy and relevance are presented in

Table 7. Effect size of the exogenous constructs on the predictive accuracy and relevance of the model.

Construct	f2	Q2
FSup	0.390
OS	0.140
WFC	0.210
FWC	0.190
LRF	0.370
General Predictive Relevance		0.470

. This analysis evaluates the relative contribution of each construct in predicting FS. FSup remains the most influential construct, with an updated effect size of f² = 0.390, underscoring its pivotal role in family satisfaction. Following closely is the LRF, which now demonstrates an increased effect size of f² = 0.370, reinforcing its critical importance in mitigating conflicts and enhancing satisfaction within the family context.

OS continues to show a smaller effect size of f² = 0.140, which highlights its comparatively limited influence in this study’s context relative to FSup and the LRF. Meanwhile, WFC and FWC have slightly adjusted moderate effect sizes of f² = 0.210 and f² = 0.190, respectively. These values emphasize the need to address inter-role conflicts as a means for fostering a more satisfying family environment.

The model’s overall predictive relevance, represented by Q² = 0.470, signifies an improvement in the model’s ability to explain the variance in family satisfaction, reflecting the enhanced robustness and predictive capability of the updated model.

Finally,

Table 8. Out-of-sample predictive power of the model.

FS Indicator	R2	RMSEpls	Q2-Predict	RMSElm	RMSEpls-RMSElm
FS1	0.780	0.482	0.594	0.368	0.114
FS2		0.279	0.538	0.281	0.072
FS3		0.595	0.431	0.428	0.012
FS4		0.341	0.399	0.401	0.243
FS5		0.512	0.569	0.566	0.014

shows the out-of-sample predictive power of the model, assessing the predictive ability of each indicator on FS. The R² value for the set of indicators has increased to 0.780, reflecting the robust ability of the model to explain the variance in family satisfaction among construction professionals in Chile. This higher value emphasizes the enhanced explanatory strength and reliability of the model.

For the Q²-Predict values, the FS1, FS3, and FS5 indicators have values over 0.400, reaffirming the predictive robustness of the model in an out-of-sample context. Additionally, the RMSEpls and RMSElm indicators reveal minor differences across all the items, as evidenced by the RMSEpls-RMSElm column, where the values range from 0.012 to 0.243. This consistency across the predictive measures highlights the stability and practical applicability of the model, making it a reliable tool for interpreting the key indicators of workplace family satisfaction.

6. Discussion

This study addresses the influence of critical variables, such as the legal regulatory framework, family support, and organizational support, on work–family and family–work conflicts and their impact on family satisfaction. The results provide significant empirical evidence for most of the hypotheses, while contrasting and relating them to recent research to contextualize the findings in the existing literature.

Hypothesis 1 (H1) proposed a positive relationship between the legal regulatory framework (LRF) and family satisfaction. The results (β = 0.790, T = 9.350, p < 0.001) confirm that an effective legal regulatory framework significantly enhances family satisfaction.

The findings highlight the crucial role of the regulatory framework in shaping labor conditions, particularly in demanding sectors like construction. The policies governing working hours, wages, and workplace safety directly impact workers’ ability to manage family responsibilities, emphasizing the systemic influence of such regulations on family satisfaction. Comparisons with international frameworks, such as those in Germany and Scandinavia, suggest that comprehensive labor laws can significantly reduce work–family conflicts while enhancing overall worker well-being. Addressing the gaps in the Chilean regulatory framework, particularly around enforcement and sector-specific adaptations, could be pivotal for alleviating the stressors unique to the construction industry.

This aligns with the findings of Ollier-Malaterre et al. [15], who emphasized the role of flexible work policies in promoting well-being at home. Similarly, Amstad et al. [37] demonstrated that regulatory measures mitigate workplace stress, indirectly benefiting family life.

However, the context of the Chilean construction industry adds a nuanced understanding. Unlike office-based sectors where regulatory measures like remote work are easier to implement, this study illustrates how policies tailored to address the physical and temporal demands of construction work can foster family satisfaction. This is consistent with insights from Hammer et al. [22], who noted that effective labor policies can yield disproportionate benefits in labor-intensive industries.

Hypotheses 2 (H2) and 3 (H3) posited that a strong legal regulatory framework reduces work–family conflict (β = −0.700, T = 8.500, p < 0.001) and family–work conflict (β = −0.705, T = 8.800, p < 0.001). These findings corroborate prior research [25,26], which found that well-designed labor policies mitigate the bidirectional conflicts between work and family roles.

The results emphasize that, in high-demand sectors like construction, these policies act as protective mechanisms. Lingard and Francis [11] similarly highlighted that labor regulations tailored to construction workers’ schedules reduce the strain on workers’ personal lives, offering a layer of support not observed in other industries. By contextualizing these effects within Chile, this study extends the global findings to an under-researched population, filling a notable gap in the literature.

Hypotheses 4 (H4), 5 (H5), and 6 (H6) explored the relationship between FSup, family satisfaction, and conflicts. The results confirm that family support positively influences family satisfaction (β = 0.630, T = 8.100, p < 0.001) and reduces both work–family conflict (β = −0.580, T = 8.900, p < 0.001) and family–work conflict (β = −0.595, T = 7.300, p < 0.001).

These findings are consistent with prior studies by Greenhaus and Powell [24], who underscored the emotional and practical support provided by families as essential buffers against workplace stress. Additionally, Voydanoff highlighted the importance of family-based support systems for enhancing psychological well-being, findings that resonate with the high reliance on family networks observed in Chile [40].

The cultural context adds an important layer to these results. In Chile, family ties often extend beyond the nuclear household, amplifying the role of extended families in mitigating stressors [36]. Thus, the findings underscore the unique importance of family support in sectors like construction, where professional demands frequently encroach on personal time.

Hypotheses 7 (H7), 8 (H8), and 9 (H9) addressed the role of organizational support (OS) in family satisfaction and conflicts. While OS significantly reduces work–family conflict (β = −0.535, T = 6.300, p < 0.001) and family–work conflict (β = −0.560, T = 6.750, p < 0.001), its influence on family satisfaction is not statistically significant (β = 0.045, T = 1.600, p > 0.05).

These findings suggest that organizational support may indirectly influence family satisfaction through its effects on work–family and family–work conflicts. Prior research has highlighted that these conflicts can serve as mediators, acting as mechanisms through which external factors like organizational support impact broader outcomes [11,46]. Future research should explore this mediating role to better understand the pathways linking organizational support to family satisfaction.

This divergence highlights a sector-specific nuance. While organizational support mitigates workplace stressors, it does not appear sufficient to enhance family satisfaction among those in construction. These findings contrast with studies like Wayne et al. [69] and Grandey and Cropanzano [46], which documented positive links between OS and family satisfaction in more flexible industries. The lack of effect observed here suggests that construction companies may need to implement more comprehensive policies to address the unique challenges faced by their employees.

Hypotheses 10 (H10) and 11 (H11) confirmed the negative impact of work–family (β = −0.750, T = 9.400, p < 0.001) and family–work conflict (β = −0.770, T = 10.400, p < 0.001) on family satisfaction. These results align with the findings of Michel et al. (2011) and Frone (2003), who demonstrated how role conflicts diminish family well-being. These findings align with previous studies, emphasizing the detrimental effects of these conflicts on family satisfaction. While these variables were analyzed as independent predictors, prior research suggests they could act as mediators. For example, work–family conflict might mediate the relationship between organizational support and family satisfaction by buffering or intensifying stress levels [17,37]. Future studies should consider exploring these pathways to provide a more nuanced understanding of their role.

The findings of this study underscore the multifaceted nature of family satisfaction, demonstrating how variables like the legal regulatory framework, family support, and organizational support interact with work–family and family–work conflicts in the demanding construction sector. The results highlight the importance of implementing tailored policies and practices that address sector-specific challenges, offering insights that extend beyond theoretical contributions to practical implications for organizational and governmental policies.

The positive impact of the legal regulatory framework and family support emphasizes the critical role of external and personal support systems for mitigating conflicts and enhancing family satisfaction. These findings suggest that improving labor policies and fostering stronger family networks are integral strategies for addressing the dual pressures faced by workers in high-demand industries such as construction. By highlighting the significant reduction in work–family and family–work conflicts attributed to these variables, this study reaffirms their role as protective mechanisms that buffer the adverse effects of demanding work environments.

Conversely, the limited influence of organizational support on family satisfaction introduces a critical perspective on the effectiveness of workplace policies in sectors with rigid and physically demanding work schedules. This result underscores the need for construction companies to reevaluate their internal policies, ensuring they align better with the unique needs of their workforce. This study provides a foundation for future research to explore how organizational interventions can be adapted to achieve a more holistic impact on worker well-being.

Finally, the strong negative effects of work–family and family–work conflicts on family satisfaction validate the critical need for interventions aimed at balancing these domains. In the context of the construction industry, where professional demands frequently spill over into workers’ personal lives, addressing these conflicts could become the cornerstone for improving the overall quality of life for workers and their families.

These findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, organizational leaders, and researchers aiming to promote work–life balance in demanding industries. By addressing the complexities of the work–family interface and emphasizing the contextual factors that influence family satisfaction, this study sets the stage for actionable strategies and future research aimed at fostering sustainable and supportive work environments.

7. Conclusions

This study examines the relationship between the legal regulatory framework, family support, organizational support, and work–family conflicts on family satisfaction among workers in the Chilean construction industry. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), the interactions among these factors are analyzed, yielding key findings that enhance the understanding of how to improve workers’ quality of life in this demanding sector.

The results confirm that an adequate legal regulatory framework, which incorporates flexible working arrangements and family leave policies, is positively associated with higher family satisfaction. The significance of the coefficient demonstrates that clear and effective labor policies enable workers to better balance their work and family roles, a critical necessity in a sector characterized by long working hours and high pressure.

Family support proves to be crucial, not only for increasing family satisfaction but also for reducing work–family conflict and family–work conflict. This underscores the importance of the family environment as a cornerstone of worker well-being, suggesting that policies promoting family interaction can have broad positive effects on employee satisfaction.

Conversely, organizational support shows no significant impact on family satisfaction. This finding challenges the existing assumptions, highlighting that, in the context of Chilean construction, the perceptions of organizational support are less influential than regulatory and family support. However, organizational support significantly reduces work–family and family–work conflicts, emphasizing its role in mitigating role-related tensions. This novel insight underscores the need for tailored organizational interventions in high-pressure industries.

The weaker reliability and validity of the OS construct could partially explain its lack of a significant influence on family satisfaction. While OS demonstrates effectiveness at reducing work–family and family–work conflicts, its ability to predict family satisfaction may have been limited by the construct’s scope. Future studies should refine the OS construct by incorporating dimensions more specific to the construction industry, such as flexibility policies, tailored training initiatives, or safety and well-being programs. These refinements could improve its reliability and validity, providing deeper insights into its role in enhancing family satisfaction and reducing inter-role tensions.

Additionally, work–family conflict and family–work conflict are found to negatively affect family satisfaction. These results highlight that difficulties in meeting the demands of both roles significantly reduce overall satisfaction, reinforcing the need for measures that minimize these conflicts.

This study introduces an integrated framework for understanding the interplay between regulatory frameworks, family support, and organizational support in driving family satisfaction and mitigating inter-role conflicts within the construction industry. The findings challenge existing assumptions by showing that, while organizational support reduces work–family and family–work conflicts, it does not significantly enhance family satisfaction in the studied context. This novel insight emphasizes the need for tailored interventions and provides a foundation for future research to explore industry-specific and culturally adapted solutions for improving family well-being.

To address these findings, organizations in the construction industry should consider adopting flexible work schedules, providing childcare support services, and offering family-inclusive programs such as workshops or events. Training initiatives focused on stress management and work–family balance could empower employees to navigate role-related conflicts more effectively. By implementing these practical actions, companies could create a more supportive environment that aligns with the workforce’s needs, contributing to improved family satisfaction and overall well-being.

This study has some limitations that must be considered when interpreting the results. First, the methodology is based on a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to infer causality among the variables. The data were collected at a specific point in time, providing valuable insights but not capturing temporal changes. Second, this study focuses exclusively on the construction industry in Chile, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other sectors or cultural contexts. Moreover, the measurement of organizational support may not comprehensively reflect all forms of support provided by companies in diverse settings. Finally, although a substantial sample is used, the adoption of non-probabilistic sampling may constrain the representativeness of the results.

Despite these limitations, this study establishes a solid foundation for future research to explore the interaction between the regulatory framework, family support, and inter-role conflicts on family satisfaction. Addressing these elements through longitudinal approaches and across different sectors could contribute to a comprehensive understanding of work–family dynamics and their impact on employee well-being.