Article reviews
angelavjdv
7.WorkLifeBalanceAnintegrativereview.pdf
Work-Life Balance: an Integrative Review
M. Joseph Sirgy1 & Dong-Jin Lee2
Received: 4 July 2016 /Accepted: 25 January 2017 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) 2017
Abstract Based on a thorough review of the literature we introduce an integrated conceptualization of work-life balance involving two key dimensions: engagement in work life and nonwork life and minimal conflict between social roles in work and nonwork life. Based on this conceptualization we review much of the evidence concerning the consequences of work-life balance in terms work-related, nonwork- related, and stress-related outcomes. We then identify a set of personal and organiza- tional antecedents to work-life balance and explain their effects on work-life balance. Then we describe a set of theoretical mechanisms linking work-life balance and overall life satisfaction. Finally, we discuss future research directions and policy implications.
Keywords Work-life balance .Work-family conflict .Work-life integration .Work- family interface .Work-life interface . Life satisfaction .Work-related consequences of work-life balance . Nonwork-related consequences of work-life balance . Stress-related consequences of work-life balance . Personal predictors of work-life balance .
Organizational predictors of work-life balance
Much research has demonstrated that work-life balance leads to high organizational performance, increased job satisfaction, and stronger organizational commitment (e.g., Allen et al. 2000). Research has also demonstrated that work-life balance plays an important role in individual well-being such as health satisfaction, family satisfaction, and overall life satisfaction (e.g., Keyes 2002; Marks and MacDermid 1996). Hence,
Applied Research Quality Life DOI 10.1007/s11482-017-9509-8
* Dong-Jin Lee [email protected]
M. Joseph Sirgy [email protected]
1 Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
2 School of Business, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea
this is an important area of research in organizational behavior, human resource management, and quality-of-life studies.
What is work-life balance? There seems to be many definitions of work-life balance. These definitions (and conceptualizations) can be categorized in terms of two key dimensions, namely (1) role engagement in multiple roles in work and nonwork life and (2) minimal conflict between work and nonwork roles (see Table 1). Within the overall dimension of engagement in multiple roles in work and nonwork life, we identified at least four different definitions (conceptualizations) of work-life balance. The first definition involves attentive engagement in multiple roles (e.g., Marks 1977; Marks and MacDermid 1996; Sieber 1974). A formal statement of this definition is: Work-life balance is the tendency to become fully engaged in the performance of every role in one’s total role system to approach each role and role partner with an attitude of attentiveness and care. The second definition involves equal time and involvement across multiple roles (e.g., Greenhaus et al. 2003; Kirchmeyer 2000). This definition can be stated formally as follows: Work-life balance is engagement in multiple roles with an approximate equal level of attention, time, involvement or commitment. The third definition is balanced satisfaction across life domains (e.g., Clark 2000; Greenhaus et al. 2003; Kirchmeyer 2000). The concept of work-life balance can be defined formally as engagement in work and nonwork roles producing an outcome of equal amounts of satisfaction in work and nonwork life domains. The fourth definition of work life balance involves balanced involvement and satisfaction across life do- mains. Specifically, work life balance is defined as allocation of time and psychological energy in a balanced way in work and nonwork life while deriving much satisfaction from both work and non-work life (Greenhaus et al. 2003).
As previously stated, the second dimension of work-life balance is minimal conflict between work and nonwork roles. We identified at least three definitions that relate to minimal conflict between work and nonwork roles. The first definition involves minimizing role conflict between work and family roles (Allen et al. 2000; Clark 2000; Kahn et al. 1964; Kossek and Ozeki 1998). This definition can be captured as follows: Work-life balance is satisfaction and good functioning in work and family roles with minimum role conflict. The second definition involves role enrichment with no role conflict (e.g., Frone 2003; Greenhaus and Allen 2011; Greenhaus and Powell 2006). Formally stated: Work-life balance is characterized by a high degree of role enrichment with a low degree of role conflict in work and nonwork life domains. The third definition reflects management of resources to minimize role conflict (e.g., Fisher et al. 2009; Gareis et al. 2009; Hobfoll 1989). A formal definition of the construct from this vantage point is: Work-life balance is achieved through effective management of role conflict—conflict or interference results when resources to meet role demand are threatened or lost.
The research in work-life balance is voluminous. The plethora of research on this topic has generated much complexity in definitions, theoretical approaches, measures, determinants, and consequences, etc. (see the following literature reviews: Allen et al. 2000; Crosby 1991; Danna and Griffin 1999; Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Frone 2003; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Korabik et al. 2008). As previously mentioned, much of the research can be grouped in terms of two major categories: work-family conflict and work-family enrichment. As such, we found certain review articles to capture these different research programs. The review articles that seem to capture
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
T ab
le 1
V ar io us
co nc ep tu al iz at io n of
w or k- lif e ba la nc e
T he or et ic al ap pr oa ch es
to w or k lif e ba la nc e
K ey
C ha ra ct er is tic s in
w or k- lif e ba la nc e
C on ce pt ua liz at io n of
w or k- lif e ba la nc e
R ep re se nt at iv e au th or s
R ol e en ga ge m en t in
w or k
lif e an d no n- w or k lif e
A tte nt iv e en ga ge m en t in
m ul tip le ro le s
T he
te nd en cy
to be co m e fu lly
en ga ge d in
th e pe rf or m an ce
of ev er y ro le in
on e’ s to ta l ro le sy st em
to ap pr oa ch
ea ch
ro le an d ro le pa rt ne r w ith
an at tit ud e of
at te nt iv en es s an d ca re
M ar ks
(1 97 7) ; M ar ks
an d
M ac D er m id
(1 99 6) ; Si eb er
(1 97 4)
E qu al tim
e an d in vo lv em
en t
ac ro ss
m ul tip le ro le s
E ng ag em
en t in
m ul tip le ro le s w ith
an ap pr ox im
at e eq ua l le ve l
of at te nt io n,
tim e, in vo lv em
en t or
co m m itm
en t
K ir ch m ey er
(2 00 0)
B al an ce d sa tis fa ct io n ac ro ss
lif e do m ai ns
E ng ag em
en t in
w or k an d no nw
or k ro le s to
pr od uc e an
ou tc om
e of
eq ua l am
ou nt s of
sa tis fa ct io n in
w or k an d no nw
or k lif e do m ai ns
C la rk
(2 00 0) ; K ir ch m ey er
(2 00 0)
B al an ce
in tim
e, in vo lv em
en t,
an d sa tis fa ct io n ac ro ss
lif e do m ai ns
A llo
ca tio
n of
tim e an d ps yc ho lo gi ca l en er gy
in a ba la nc ed
w ay
in w or k an d no nw
or k lif e w hi le de ri vi ng
m uc h sa tis fa ct io n fr om
bo th
w or k an d no n- w or k lif e
G re en ha us
et al .( 20 03 )
M in im
al co nf lic t be tw ee n
w or k an d no n- w or k ro le s
M in im
iz in g ro le co nf lic t be tw ee n
w or k an d fa m ily
ro le s
Sa tis fa ct io n an d go od
fu nc tio
ni ng
in w or k an d fa m ily
ro le s w ith
m in im
um ro le co nf lic t
A lle n et al .( 20 00 ); C la rk
(2 00 0) ;
K ah n et al .( 19 64 ); G al in sk y
an d Jo hn so n (1 99 8) ;
R ol e en ri ch m en t w ith
no ro le co nf lic t
A hi gh
de gr ee
of ro le en ri ch m en t w ith
a lo w
de gr ee
of ro le co nf lic t
in w or k an d no nw
or k lif e do m ai ns
Fr on e (2 00 3) ; G re en ha us
an d
Po w el l (2 00 6)
M an ag em
en t of
re so ur ce s to
m in im
iz e ro le co nf lic ts
W or k- lif e ba la nc e is ac hi ev ed
th ro ug h ef fe ct iv e m an ag em
en t of
ro le
co nf lic t- -c on fl ic t or
in te rf er en ce
re su lts
w he n re so ur ce s to
m ee t
ro le de m an d ar e th re at en ed
or lo st .
Fi sh er
et al .( 20 09 ); H ob fo ll (1 98 9)
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
much of the research in work-life balance based on the work-family conflict tradition include the Kossek and Ozeki (1998), Allen et al. (2000), Eby et al. (2005), Byron (2005), and Casper et al. (2007). We found review articles capturing much of the work-family enrichment program include McNall et al. (2010b), and Whiston and Cinamon (2015).
Given the above, we believe that research in work-life balance is in desperate need of a literature review using an integrated framework. Without an integrative frame- work, it is difficult to understand the construct of work life balance in a holistic way – its key dimensions, antecedents, moderators, mediators, and consequences. This is the main objective of this paper. We make an attempt to develop a unifying framework for research on work-life balance guided by a thorough review of the research literature. More specifically, this major objective can be better understood in terms of the following four goals.
Our first goal is to make an attempt to integrate the research literature by proposing an integrative conceptualization of work-life balance. We define work-life balance as a high level of engagement in work life as well as nonwork life with minimal conflict between social roles in work and nonwork life. The second goal of this paper is to argue that this construct of work-life balance can provide the unifying framework that would allow us to better account for a host of consequences. The second goal focuses on the consequences of work-life balance, namely work, non-work, and stress-related out- comes. The third goal of this paper is to make an attempt to further integrate the literature on work-life balance by showing how past empirical research on personal and organizational factors can be made to predict our construct of work-life balance. In other words, we will identify a set of personal and organizational predictors and explain their effects on work-life balance in terms our two key dimensions of work-life balance, namely role engagement in work and nonwork life and minimal conflict between work and nonwork roles. The focus of the third goal is on the antecedents to work-life balance. The fourth goal is to describe theoretical notions designed to explain the relationship between work-life balance and overall life satisfaction.
In sum, our hope is that the net result of this effort could provide work-life balance researchers with an integrated framework that may better account for the voluminous research regarding the antecedents and consequences of work-life balance as well as possible mediators that may explain the effect of work-life balance on life satisfaction (see Fig. 1).
The Construct of Work-Life Balance
As previously stated, we believe that an integrative definition of work-life balance involves two key dimensions, namely role engagement in work and nonwork life and minimal conflict between work and nonwork roles. To achieve work-life balance, individuals must actively engage in social roles in work life as well as nonwork life. Engagement in multiple roles facilitates high role performance producing satisfaction that spills over across life domains (e.g., Clark 2000; Greenhaus et al. 2003; Kirchmeyer 2000; Marks 1977; Marks and MacDermid 1996; Sieber 1974). Work- life conflict generates much stress and reduces satisfaction in work and nonwork life (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Clark 2000; Fisher et al. 2009; Frone 2003; Greenhaus and
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
Powell 2006; Hobfoll 1989; Kahn et al. 1964; Kossek and Ozeki 1998). That is, work- life balance involves the interaction not only of high levels of role engagement in work and nonwork domains but also minimal conflict between work-related roles and other social roles in nonwork life (see Table 1). This definition of work-life balance captures much of the research in this area. Below we describe these two dimensions in some depth.
Role Engagement in Work and Nonwork Life
A major requisite for work-life balance is a high level of engagement in work-related roles. A high level of engagement in work life is likely to produce positive affect assuming that work-related goals are important to the individual, and that the individual is successful in goal attainment. Work-life balance is further enhanced not only by goal attainment in work life but also through positive spillover effects in other salient life domains. For example, Poelmans et al. (2008) have shown that employees who are highly engaged in work and nonwork life can achieve work-life balance when (1) positive affect from one life domain are transferred to other life domains, (2) the skills and experiences in one life domain improves role performance in other life domains, and (3) the two or more life domains are integrated for easy transfer of positive experiences and affect.
That is, high level of work-life balance requires first and foremost a high level of engagement in work-related roles that generate much positive affect through the successful transfer of positive skills, values, privileges, status, and affect from work- related roles to other roles in nonwork life domains. High level of engagement in work life contributes to positive personal outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction) that results from role enrichment—the degree to which participation in one life domain enhances performance and quality of life in other life domains (Frone 2003; Greenhaus and Powell 2006).
A co-requisite for work-life balance seems to be high level of engagement in nonwork-related roles. Much research in work-life balance made the case that work- life balance is achieved when individuals have role commitments in various roles
Personal Predictors
Work-Life Balance
Role engagement in work and nonwork life Minimal conflict between work and nonwork roles
Nonwork- related
outcomes
Organizational Predictors
Stress-related outcomes
Work-related outcomes
Fig. 1 An Integrative Framework of Work-Life Balance Research
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
across life domains. In other words, balanced individuals cannot be engaged in work life exclusively; they have to be equally engaged in nonwork life too (e.g., Voydanoff 2005). Work-life balance is achieved when people are fully committed in their various social roles in work and nonwork life.
Individuals with work-life balance engage in multiple roles, experience satisfaction from multiple roles by effectively distributing time and effort across these roles in salient life domains (e.g., Kalliath and Brough 2008; Marks et al. 2001). Specifically, individuals engaged in multiple life domains are likely to experience augmentation of power, prestige, resources, and emotional gratification from their multiple roles (e.g., Sieber 1974; Marks 1977; Moen et al. 1995). Multiple roles provide the individual with B(1) role privileges, (2) overall status security, (3) resources for status enhancement, and (4) enrichment of the personality and ego gratification^ (Sieber 1974). Thus, individ- uals highly engaged in nonwork life, as well as work life, are provided with opportu- nities that allow them access to resources not otherwise available to those who are focused mostly on work life (cf. Rozario et al. 2004).
There is empirical evidence suggesting that lack of engagement and involvement in salient life domains may have a negative impact on life satisfaction (e.g., Michaels et al. 1988). Some people withdraw from life’s major roles such as work and family; they care little about all their social roles, approach their roles with little energy, and do not feel intrinsically motivated to engage in role performance. These alienated individuals become disengaged from social life and society at large, and they experience low life satisfaction. As such, we believe that engagement in multiple roles in important life domains is an important dimension of work-life balance. Consistent with this approach to work-life balance is the work of Greenhaus et al. (2003) who addressed disengage- ment and alienation in terms of negative balance. These authors distinguished between positive balance and negative balance. Positive balance between work and family life refers to high investment of time and involvement in both work and family roles. In contrast, negative balance is the opposite—that is, the individual does not invest much time or energy in both work and family roles. These scholars maintain that positive balance produces beneficial quality-of-life effects, not negative balance. Negative role balance refers to tendency to become fully disengaged in the performance of every role. It is practice of apathy and cynicism (Marks and MacDermid 1996).
In sum, research has demonstrated that work-life balance focuses on engagement and involvement across various social roles in multiple life domains—the more the individual is engaged and committed to his or her various social roles, the more likely that he or she would experience positive behavioral outcomes such as life satisfaction.
Minimal Conflict between Social Roles in Work and Nonwork Life
The second major requisite for work-life balance is minimal conflict between social roles in work and nonwork life domains. Much research has documented the notion that work-life balance is achieved when there is little-to-no role conflict between social roles (e.g., Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Rau and Hyland 2002). Role conflict reflects the degree to which role responsibilities in one life domain and another life domain are incompatible (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985). As such, the demands of one role make performance of the other role more difficult (Netemeyre et al. 1996). People experience role conflict between work and family domains, because the demands of the roles of
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
work life and family life are inherently incompatible. This notion of role conflict is supported by much research guided by the conservation of resources model (e.g., Fisher et al. 2009; Grandey and Cropanzano 1999; Hobfoll 1989). The model suggests that individuals are motivated to seek and conserve resources to meet demand of their various roles. As such, work-life balance is diminished given role conflict. Role conflict arises when resources are threatened—to meet the demand of one role at the expense of another. The model also suggests that work-life balance can be enhanced when resources obtained from one domain can be used to facilitate role performance in another domain.
Frone (2003) distinguished between two forms of work-family conflict. The direction of the adverse effect stemming from one domain over the other has to be identified. As such, the factors related to the interference of work on family life are not the same as factors related to the interference of family on work life (see also Carlson et al. 2000; Friedman and Greenhaus 2000; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985).
Furthermore, research on work and family roles has shown that work-family role conflict is associated with life dissatisfaction (e.g., Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Fu and Shaffer 2001; Holahan and Gilbert 1979; Sturges and Guest 2004), as well as low martial and family satisfaction and symptoms of low mental and physical well-being (e.g., Parasuraman et al. 1992).
Consequences of Work-Life Balance
As previously stated, the second goal of this paper is to account for the voluminous research that has focused on the consequences of work-life balance using our integra- tive definition of work-life balance. That is, we will describe the research that focus on the consequences of work-life balance using the work-life balance construct that involves the two dimensions, namely engagement in work and nonwork life and minimal conflict between social roles in work and nonwork life.
There are many employee outcomes that are influenced by work-life balance (e.g., Adams et al. 1996; Burke 1988; Frone et al. 1992; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Netemeyre et al. 1996; Thomas and Ganster 1995). Employee-related outcomes include job satisfaction/dissatisfaction, job burnout, life satisfaction/dissatisfaction, and marital satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Organizational-related outcomes include turnover, absen- teeism, presenteeism, and job performance. In reviewing the research on work interference with family conflict, Allen et al. (2000) grouped employee outcomes in terms of three major categories: (1) work-related outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to turnover, absenteeism, job performance, career satisfaction, and career services), (2) nonwork-related outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction, marital satisfaction family satisfaction, family performance, leisure satisfaction), and (3) stress-related outcomes (e.g., general psychological strain, somatic/physical symp- toms, depression, substance abuse, burnout, work-related stress, family-related stress). See Table 2.
Work-Related Outcomes Research has found that work-life balance of employees increases job performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, career
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
development and success. Research also demonstrated that work-life balance reduces job malfunction, job burnout and alienation, absenteeism, and turn over intention. Specifically, with respect to work-related outcomes, much of the research has shown a consistent pattern: as work-life balance increases,
& job performance increases (e.g., Blazovich et al. 2014; Carlson et al. 2010; Frone et al. 1997; Wayne et al. 2004; Whiston and Cinamon 2015).
& job satisfaction increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Anaton 2013; Carlson et al. 2006; De Simone et al. 2014; Fisher et al. 2009; Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Whiston and Cinamon 2015),
& organizational commitment increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998) and intentions to leave the organization decrease (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998; McNall et al. 2010a),
Table 2 Antecedents and Consequences of Work-Life Balance
Antecedents Consequences
Personal Predictors Work-related outcomes: • job involvement • high job performance • job importance • high job satisfaction • family involvement • high organizational commitment • conscientiousness • high career development and success • neuroticism • low job malfunction • coping style • low job burnout • individualism • low job alienation • power distance • low absenteeism • masculinity • low turnover intention • uncertainty avoidance
Nonwork-related outcomes: • high life satisfaction
Organizational Predictors: • high marital satisfaction • job demand • high family performance • time pressure at work • high family satisfaction • job autonomy • high parental satisfaction • role ambiguity • high leisure satisfaction • scheduling flexibility • high poor health condition • flexible work arrangement • low conflicts with family members • part-time work • assistance with childcare Stress-related outcomes: • parenting resources/lactation support • low emotional exhaustion • elder care resources • low psychological distress • employee health and wellness programs • low anxiety
• low irritability • family-leave policies • low hostility • social support at work • low hypertension • other services designed to assist employees
manage their multiple roles • low depression • low affective parental distress • low marital distress • low illness symptoms • low somatic complaints • low blood pressure and cholesterol • low alcohol abuse • low cigarette consumption
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
& career development increases (e.g., Konrad and Yang 2012; Whiston and Cinamon 2015) and career success increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998),
& job malfunction decreases (e.g., Whiston and Cinamon 2015), & job burnout decreases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Frone et al. 1997; Kossek and Ozeki
1998; Wayne et al. 2004), & work alienation decreases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998), & absenteeism decreases (e.g., Frone et al. 1997; Wayne et al. 2004), & turnover intention decreases (e.g., Frone et al. 1997; Wayne et al. 2004).
Nonwork-Related Outcomes Research has shown that work-life balance of em- ployees increases employee’s life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, family performance, family satisfaction, parental satisfaction, and leisure satisfaction. Research also found that work life balance of employees reduces poor health condition, cognitive problems, and conflicts with family members. Specifically, much of the research has shown that as work-life balance increases,
& life satisfaction increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Anaton 2013; Carlson et al. 2006; De Simone et al. 2014; Fisher et al. 2009; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Schaufeli et al. 2002; Schaufeli and Bakker 2004),
& marital adjustment and marital satisfaction increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Whiston and Cinamon 2015),
& family performance increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Carlson et al. 2010; Kossek and Ozeki 1998),
& family satisfaction increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Carlson et al. 2006; Fisher et al. 2009; Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Whiston and Cinamon 2015),
& parental satisfaction increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998) & satisfaction with leisure activities increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and
Ozeki 1998), & conflict with other family members decreases (e.g., Westman and Etzion 2005).
Stress-Related Outcomes Research has found that work-life conflict increases psy- chological distress (emotional exhaustion, emotional ill-being, anxiety, irritability and hostility, hypertension, depression) and family-related stress (affective parental and marital stress), and manifestation of illness symptoms (somatic complaints, high blood pressure and cholesterol, alcohol abuse, and cigarette consumption). Research has also demonstrated significant links between work-life conflict and stress. Specifically, as work-life balance decreases,
& psychological distress increases (e.g., Whiston and Cinamon 2015) and general life stress increases–being upset and frustrated, or tense (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Frone et al. 1992; Kossek and Ozeki 1998),
& emotional exhaustion increases (e.g., Lee and Kim 2013), & emotional ill-being increases (e.g., Whiston and Cinamon 2015), & anxiety increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Frone et al. 1992; Kossek and Ozeki 1998), & irritability/hostility increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998),
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
& hypertension increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998), & depression increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Whiston and
Cinamon 2015), & family-related stress increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998), & affective parental and marital stress increase (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and
Ozeki 1998), and & manifestation of illness symptoms increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and
Ozeki 1998), & somatic complaints (e.g., loss of appetite, fatigue, and nervous tension) increase
(e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Whiston and Cinamon 2015), & blood pressure and cholesterol become increased (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek
and Ozeki 1998), & incidence of alcohol abuse increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki
1998; Whiston and Cinamon 2015) & incidence of cigarette consumption increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and
Ozeki 1998),
Of course, as one might expect, many of the outcomes (work, non-work, and stress- related outcomes) are interrelated. For example, research has shown that role conflict between work and family has a negative influence on both job satisfaction and life satisfaction (Netemeyre et al. 1996). Balance is restored by reducing role conflict (e.g., conflict between the work and family roles). Doing so reduces stress in general, which serves to decrease the employee’s dissatisfaction with life.
Also, many of the consequences of work-life balance on employee and organizational outcomes are not simply direct effects. These effects seem to be moderated by many factors. For example, Greenhaus et al. (2003) found that work- life balance is related to quality of life. Specifically, work-life balance contributes to individual’s quality of life when they are highly involved in both their work and family roles, as well as when they are satisfied with these roles. Based on a literature review, Anaton (2013) suggested a comprehensive list of moderator effects. These include age, gender, education, organizational tenure, and number of children living at home (cf. Testi and Andriotto 2013; Whiston and Cinamon 2015).
Antecedents or Predictors of Work-Life Balance
As previously stated, the third goal of this paper is to make an attempt to further integrate the literature on work-life balance by showing how past empirical research on personal, situational, institutional, and cultural factors can be made to predict our construct of work-life balance. In this section, we organize much of the discussion of the antecedents in terms of two major groups of antecedents, namely personal and organizational predictors of work-life balance (see Table 2).
Personal Predictors
Antecedents of work-life balance include a host of personal factors. Research has shown that personal predictors that affect work-life balance include individual
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
characteristics and cultural values (see Table 2). We will first discuss individual characteristics as antecedents of work-life balance.
Individual Characteristics There are many individual characteristics affecting work- life balance including job involvement, family involvement, conscientiousness, neu- roticism, and coping style. Specifically, the research literature shows that increases in work-life balance are associated with:
& increases in job involvement (see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)– through increases in engagement in work life;
& increases in job importance (i.e., work life becomes highly salient to personal identity and self-concept) (e.g., Burke and Reitzes 1991; May et al. 2004)–through increases in engagement in work life;
& increases in family involvement (see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)– through increases in engagement in nonwork life;
& increases in work based self-esteem and self-efficacy (e.g., Mauno et al. 2007)– through increases in engagement in work life;
& increases in conscientiousness, which is associated with lower levels of role conflict (see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)–through decreases in role conflict in social roles in work and nonwork life;
& decreases in neuroticism, which is associated with higher levels of role conflict (see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)–through decreases in role conflict in social roles in work and nonwork life;
& increases in coping style, which is associated with lower levels of role conflict (see literature review in Byron 2005)–through decreases in role conflict in social roles in work and nonwork life; and
& increases in time management skills (see literature review in Byron 2005), which is associated with lower levels of role conflict and higher levels of engagement in both work and nonwork domains.
Cultural Values Cultural values of an individual also influence work-life balance. Specifically, individualism influences the degree to which work and family roles are segregated (Schein 1984; Triandis 1989), power distance influences the degree of supervisory support for work-life balance (Lu et al. 2010), masculinity influences competitiveness at work (Hofstede 1980), and uncertainty avoidance moderates the degree to which work-life conflict influences overall life satisfaction (Javidan and House 2001).
Individualism refers to the degree of integration between members of society and the relative value of individual over collective needs (e.g., Hofstede 1980; Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 1993). People in individualistic cultures are likely to believe that personal interests are more important than group interests. In contrast, people in collectivistic cultures value group interests, reciprocity of favors, and a sense of belongingness. Research found that the effect of work demand on work family conflict is high for people in individualistic cultures (Aziz and Chang 2013; Lu et al. 2001; Spector et al. 2004, 2007; Yang et al. 2000). That is, work-family conflict seems amplified for employees experiencing work/family
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
demands living in countries with an individualistic culture, more so than em- ployees living in collectivistic countries. How can this be explained? People in individualistic culture are more likely to segregate work and family roles (Schein 1984; Triandis 1989). For people in individualistic cultures, excessive involve- ment in work is perceived as family neglect that leads to work-family conflict (Spector et al. 2004, 2007; Yang et al. 2000). Work-life imbalance is experienced when roles conflict, and this may occur more often in individualistic rather than collectivist cultures (Schein 1984). For people in collectivistic culture, long working hours are often perceived as self-sacrifice and a contribution to the family, leading to family members expressing appreciation and support, which in turn serves to reduce work-family conflict (Spector et al. 2007). Thus, people in collectivistic cultures are likely to experience less work-life conflict and a high level of engagement in multiple social roles, which in turn may lead to a high level of work-life balance.
Power distance refers to the extent to which the less powerful member of a society expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede and Hofstede 2001). For those in high power distance cultures, supervisory support is likely to be perceived as a goodwill gesture and is effective in reducing work- life conflict. Lu et al. (2010) conducted a cross-cultural comparison study to examine the protective effects of work and family resources such as supervisory support on work-family conflict. The study found that supervisory support was more effective in reducing work-family conflict for those employees in high than low power distance cultures.
Masculinity refers to a preference for valuing assertiveness, achievement, and material success while femininity refers to a preference for relationships, modesty, and caring for the weak (Hofstede 1980). Thus, one can argue that work-to-family conflict is high for employees in masculine cultures because they value competitive achievement in the workplace. Additionally, one can also argue that family-to-work conflict is high for employees in feminine cultures because people view caring and family relationships as very important.
Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which people feel threatened by ambiguous or an unknown situations (Hofstede and Hofstede 2001). Individuals in uncertainty avoidance culture seek certainty and focus on avoiding stressful negative events (cf. Javidan and House 2001). Thus, one can argue that work-life conflict is likely to have a greater negative impact on life satisfaction for those employees in high than low uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Organizational Predictors
Antecedents of work-life balance also include a host of institutional factors such as job characteristics and organizational support (see Table 2).
Job Characteristics Research has shown that work-life balance is influenced by several job characteristics including job demand, time pressure at work, job autonomy, role ambiguity and scheduling flexibility. Specifically, work-life balance increases as a function of:
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
& decreases in job demands (e.g., Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Kopelman et al. 1983; Whiston and Cinamon 2015)–through decreases in perceived job requirements to meet job expectations which serve to increase engagement in nonwork life and minimize conflict between roles in work and nonwork domains;
& decreases in time pressure at work (e.g., Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Whiston and Cinamon 2015; also see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)–through decreases in perceived lack of time to meet role expectations in work and nonwork life, which serves to minimize conflict between roles in work and nonwork domains;
& increases in autonomy (see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)–through increases in perceived freedom to make one’s own decisions to increase satisfaction in work and nonwork domains, which in turn serve to heighten level of engagement in work and nonwork domains;
& decreases in role ambiguity (see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)– through decreases in perceived uncertainty of work and nonwork role expectations, which serve to heighten engagement in work and nonwork domains; and
& increases in scheduling flexibility (see literature review in Byron 2005)–through increases in the extent to which employees can work at times most convenient to them, which serve to minimize conflict between roles in work and nonwork domains.
Support System Research has shown that work-life balance is influenced by various organizational support programs aimed at assisting employees better manage work and life demands. Many of these programs are designed to enhance work-life balance. Examples of organizational support programs include flexible work arrangement, part-time work, part time work, childcare assistance, parenting resources, eldercare resources, health programs, family leave policy, other services, and social support at work.
Specifically, work-life balance is enhanced by organizational support programs including:
& flexible work arrangement (e.g., Allen 2001; Allen et al. 2013; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Dikkers et al. 2001; Galvez et al. 2011–12), which is associated with lower levels of role conflict and higher levels of engagement in work and nonwork domains;
& part-time work (e.g., Beham et al. 2012), which is associated with lower levels of role conflict;
& assistance with childcare (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Dikkers et al. 2001), which is associated with lower levels of role conflict and higher levels of engagement in work and nonwork domains;
& parenting resources/lactation support (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Dikkers et al. 2001), which is associated with lower levels of role conflict and higher levels of engagement in work and nonwork domains;
& elder care resources (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Dikkers et al. 2001), which is associated with lower levels of role conflict and higher levels of engagement in work and nonwork domains;
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
& employee health and wellness programs such as on-site fitness facilities, healthy food options (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Dikkers et al. 2001)— associated with higher levels of engagement in work and nonwork domains;
& family-leave policies offered by many organizations to help with the birth or adoption of a child or a family member’s illness (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Dikkers et al. 2001), which is associated with lower levels of role conflict and higher levels of engagement in work and nonwork domains;
& social support at work (e.g., Anaton 2013; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Lee and Kim 2013; Parasuraman et al. 1992; Schaufeli and Bakker 2004; Thomas and Ganster 1995; Whiston and Cinamon 2015; also see literature review in Byron 2005)–through increases support provided by members at work to minimize con- flict between roles in work and nonwork domains; and
& other services designed to assist employees manage their multiple roles such as dry cleaning, postal services (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Dikkers et al. 2001), which are associated with lower levels of role conflict and higher levels of engagement in work and nonwork domains.
Work-life balance research has established a positive link between practices promoting work-life balance and certain employee and organizational outcomes (for a review, see Batt and Valcour 2003; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Kelly et al. 2008; Ten Brummelhuis and Van der Lippe 2010; Yasbek 2004). Specifically, with regard to employee outcomes, research has supported the relationship between work-life balance practices and variables, such as job satisfaction, turnover inten- tions and stress levels (e.g., Yasbek 2004). With respect to organizational outcomes, the research has provided support for the effect of work-life balance practices on improved recruitment and retention capabilities (e.g., Batt and Valcour 2003; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Evans 2001; Yasbek 2004), higher returns on invest- ment in employee human capital (e.g., Yasbek 2004), increased employee loyalty and commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and financial performance (e.g., Avgar et al. 2011; Dex and Scheibl 2001; Lambert 2000; Thompson and Prottas 2006; Yasbek 2004), and improved productivity (e.g., Eaton 2003; Galinsky and Johnson 1998).
Theoretical Principles Linking Work-Life Balance and Overall Life Satisfaction
As stated in the front part of this paper, the fourth goal of this literature review is to describe theoretical notions designed to explain the relationship between work-life balance and overall life satisfaction. What are some of the theoretical notions of work-life balance that have established a foothold in the literature? We will briefly describe some of the theories (or psychological principles) of work-life balance that may explain the links between work-life balance and overall life satisfaction, namely the satisfaction limits, satisfaction of the full spectrum of human developmental needs, role conflict, positive spillover, role enrichment, segmentation, and compensation (Table 3).
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
The Principle of Satisfaction Limits
The bottom-up spillover additive model of life satisfaction proposes that overall life satisfaction is determined by cumulative satisfaction experienced in important life domains such as satisfaction in work life, family life, social life, leisure life, spiritual life., community life, etc. (e.g., Andrews and Withey 1976; Campbell et al. 1976; Michalos 1985; Rice et al. 1985). That is, the model posits that overall life satisfaction can be predicted by adding all the satisfaction scores across salient life domains.
Thus, the principle of satisfaction limits posits that the amount of contribution of positive affect from a single life domain to life satisfaction is limited. One can achieve only a limited amount of satisfaction from a single life domain. Why? First, the intensity of the positive affect in the context of a social role in a given life domain tends to decay with adaptation effects (Ahuvia and Friedman 1998; Rojas 2006). That is, individuals not satisfied in a life domain are likely to experience a higher level of intensity of positive affect from a positive event in that domain than individuals who are already satisfied in the same domain. Put succinctly, increases in satisfaction in a life domain serve to increase overall life satisfaction, but in a decreasing marginal rate and subject to a threshold (Diener et al. 2008).
Second, overall life satisfaction is accrued from satisfaction in multiple life domains. That is, overall life satisfaction depends on a threshold level of satisfaction in a number of salient life domain. If that threshold is not met, the person is not likely to feel wholly satisfied with life (Campbell et al. 1976). Research has demonstrated that satisfaction from a variety of life domains contributes to unique variance to overall life satisfaction (Rojas 2006). High engagement in a single life domain with little or no engagement in other life domains does not contribute to overall life satisfaction (e.g., Sirgy 2002, pp.
Table 3 Theoretical Principles of Work-Life Balance Affecting Life Satisfaction (Mediator Effects)
Theoretical principle Description
The principle of satisfaction limits The amount of contribution of positive affect from a single life domain (such as work life) to overall life satisfaction is limited.
The principle of satisfaction of the full spectrum of human development needs
Individuals satisfied with a full spectrum of development needs (i.e., satisfaction of growth needs as well as basic needs) are likely to have a higher level of overall life satisfaction than those who are satisfied with only a handful of needs.
The principle of role conflict Role conflict in life domains has an adverse effect on domain satisfaction (either work or non-work domains, or both) and overall life satisfaction.
The principle of positive spillover Spillover of positive affect from one life domain to another contributes to overall life satisfaction.
The principle of role enrichment Successful transfer of skills and resources in one role to another life domain enhances overall life satisfaction.
The principle of segmentation principle Preventing spillover of negative affect from one life domain to another contributes to overall life satisfaction.
The principle of compensation Compensation of dissatisfaction in a life domain by increasing engagement in other life domains contributes to overall life satisfaction.
Increasing in salience of a life domain housing high levels of satisfaction while decreasing salience of domains housing high levels of dissatisfaction contributes to overall life satisfaction.
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
34–36; Sirgy 2012; Sirgy and Lee 2015; Sirgy and Wu 2009). As such, employees engaging in various social roles in nonwork life domains, in addition to roles in work life, are likely to experience a high level of life satisfaction.
The Principle of Satisfaction of the Full Spectrum of Human Developmental Needs
Employees who are satisfied with a full spectrum of developmental needs (i.e., satisfaction of growth needs as well as basic needs) are likely to experience positive outcomes–work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes. This principle posits that satisfaction of the full spectrum of development needs has a positive influence on overall life satisfaction. That is, when individuals are satisfied with their basic and growth needs, they are likely to experience positive work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes (Alderfer 1972; Herzberg 1966; Maslow 1954, 1970; Sirgy 2012; Sirgy and Lee 2015).
Engagement in multiple life domains has a positive impact on work- nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes because engagement in multiple roles provides the person with opportunities to satisfy the full spectrum of human developmental needs. When em- ployees engage in multiple roles across life domains, they are likely to obtain access to psychological and physical resources, which in turn increase opportunities for satisfac- tion of many basic and growth needs. Seeking to satisfy a specific need in a single life domain does not positively and adequately contribute to work-related, nonwork-related, and stress-related outcomes (Greenhaus and Powell 2006). That is, when employees engage in multiple roles, they are likely to experience satisfaction of growth needs as well as basic needs. Only satisfaction of both sets of basic and growth needs contribute life satisfaction, not one or the other alone (Sirgy 2012; Sirgy and Lee 2015).
The Principle of Role Conflict
Work-life balance can be achieved when social roles in work and non-work life domains are compatible with the no or minimal conflict (Greenhaus and Allen 2011). The principle of role conflict posits that role conflict across life domains has a negative impact on life satisfaction.
Consider the conflict between roles in work and family domains. Work-family conflict is a form of inter-role conflict in which role pressures from the work and the family become mutually incompatible. That is, participation in work-related roles is made more difficult by participation in family-related roles, and vice versa (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985). This inter-role conflict can take two directions (Frone 2003): work roles can interfere with family roles and family roles can interfere with work roles. Work-family conflict has a significantly negative influence on job satisfaction, family satisfaction, and overall life satisfaction (Kossek and Ozeki 1998). High level of psychological involvement in one role is associated with increased amount of time and involvement devoted to role in one domain, thereby making it difficult to deal with role demands in another domain (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985).
Specifically, inter-role conflict across life domains has a negative influence, not only on overall life satisfaction, but a host of work-related, nonwork-related, and stress- related outcomes. This can be explained as follows. First, individuals experiencing role
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
conflict across life domains are likely to experience psychological stress, anxiety, and depression. They experience psychological stress as their role expectations become incompatible; they often feel that they do not have adequate psychological and physical resources to deal with the demands of the conflicting roles (Greenhaus et al. 2001). Increased stress and depression are negatively associated with life satisfaction (Frone et al. 1992). Second, individuals experiencing role conflict across life domain are likely to experience dissatisfaction in those domains involving the conflicting roles, which in turn adversely impacts overall life satisfaction and other work-, nonwork-, and stress- related outcomes. This occurs because of failure in role performance. In other words, role overload and role interference result in failing performance, which in turn induces negative affect in the respective domains (Marks and MacDermid 1996). Third, individuals experiencing role conflict across life domain are not likely to allocate much time, effort, and other resources to the roles in question. They are less likely to engage in these roles in integrated ways, adversely impacting a host of work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes (cf. Frone 2003; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985).
The Principle of Positive Affect Spillover
Experiences in work and nonwork life may spillover. That is, affect may spillover from work life to nonwork life and vice versa. This is what is commonly referred to as Baffect spillover^ (Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Grzywacz and Carlson 2007). The principle of positive affect spillover posits positive affect spillover across life domains contributes to overall life satisfaction.
Affect spillover can be either positive or negative. Positive affect spillover refers to positive mood that transfer from one life domain to another. Conversely, negative spillover refers to negative mood spilling over from one domain to another. Affect spillover should be distinguished from crossover effects. Affect spillover refers to feelings caused by experiences in one life domain influence the other life domain. It is an intra-individual phenomenon (i.e., within an individual). In contrast, crossover effect is an inter-individual construct. It refers to emotional contagion between individuals whereby individuals are influenced by the emotions displayed by those around them (Hatfield et al. 1994). Crossover effects are likely to be high when individuals are in physical proximity and close communications (Barsade 2002; Neumann and Strack 2000).
Affect spillover between work life and family life is one type of spillover (Edwards and Rothbard 2000). This type of spillover refers to work-related moods being carried home, or family-related moods being carried to work. For those who are highly involved with work, affect spillover from work to family seems to be stronger than family to work spillover (Frone et al. 1992). This may be due to the possibility that when one has a strong identification with a work-related role, the employee is likely to carry work matters to home but not the other way around. The boundary between work life and family life for those highly involved with work is highly permeable allowing work mood to spillover unto family life (Ashforth et al. 2000). In general, people experience a high level of affect spillover between life domains when the two domains are interdependent, the roles are integrated, and/or there is minimal role conflict across the two domains (Greenhaus and Powell 2006; Ilies et al. 2009).
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
Hence, the notion of positive spillover means that positive affect spillover between experiences in life domains contribute to positive work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes. This may be due to the following. First, positive affect spillover between life domains increases the level of satisfaction in a life domain. For example, sharing of positive work experiences increases family satisfaction because sharing of positive events facilitates positive mood among family members and family satisfaction (Gable et al. 2006; Heller and Watson 2005). Second, positive affect transfer works as a buffer against negative experiences in a life domain. Experiences of positive affect transfer protect or buffer individuals from the effect of negative experiences (Barnett and Hyde 2001). Third, positive affect in one role can enhance psychological availability and energy to engage in another role effectively. Thus, positive affect in one role increases performance in the second role (Edwards and Rothbard 2000).
The Principle of Role Enrichment
Experiences in one role can produce positive experiences and outcomes in the other role. Role enrichment refers to the notion that skills and experiences in one role can improve or further enhance performance and satisfaction in another role (McNall et al. 2010b; Greenhaus and Powell 2006). Work-to-family enrichment occurs when work experiences serve to increase satisfaction in the family life, and family-to-work enrich- ment occurs when family experiences contribute to heightened satisfaction in work life (Greenhaus and Powell 2006). Learning occurring in one life domain that is easily transferred to other life domains, thus enhancing role engagement and effectiveness in multiple domains. For example, a woman may feel that being a mother taught her patience, which serves her well as a manager at work (cf. Voydanoff 2004).
The principle of role enrichment posits that role enrichment contributes to overall life satisfaction. Employees experiencing increased levels of role enrichment are likely to experience increased positive work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes. This may be due to the following. First, high levels of role enrichment can help with role performance in work and nonwork domains, which in turn contribute to work and nonwork domain satisfaction. That is, skills, psychological, material resources gener- ated in a life domain are effectively applied to roles in another life domain (Hanson et al. 2003). Research has documented the effect of role enrichment on overall life satisfaction given three conditions: (1) when the two roles are integrated (Olson- Buchanan and Boswell 2006), (2) when the skills and resource requirements are similar (Greenhaus and Powell 2006), and (3) role performance in one life domain becomes increasingly interdependent with another (Hanson et al. 2003; Ilies et al. 2009). Second, employees with high role enrichment are less likely to experience stress and anxiety from role demand. Such individuals apply their skills and resources across social roles producing more positive outcomes—less psychological distress and anxiety in performing multiple roles and a heightened sense of self efficacy in those roles.
The Principle of Segmentation
Negative affect in one life domain is likely to spill over to other life domains when there is a high level of overlap across life domains in terms of time, space, effort, and resources (Sirgy 2002). To prevent spillover of negative affect to other life domains,
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
employees create and maintain psychological boundaries around selected life do- mains—those domains that may spill over negative affect unto other life domains (Ashforth et al. 2000). For example, employees segment the family life domain from the work life domain (Judge et al. 2001; Sonnentag 2012). They do not bring home their work-related concerns and troubles. Work-related issues are dealt with at work and only at work. Consider the following studies. Research has demonstrated that increased use of mobile technologies blurs the boundaries between work and family, making segmentation difficult and creating undue stress (Chesley 2005; Park et al. 2011).
The principle of segmentation posits that segmenting one’s dissatisfaction in given life domain prevents negative affect from spilling over to other life domains. Doing so contributes to overall life satisfaction. That is, employees who segment life domains manage to reduce and possibly prevent spillover of negative affect experienced at work unto family life, and vice versa. Segmentation of life domains that have the potential of negative spillover is, therefore, is a successful strategy to maintain a certain level of life satisfaction. In other words, segmentation of a life domain containing negative affect from other life domains ensures the maintenance of satisfaction in other life domains (Sonnentag et al. 2008). In sum, the segmentation effect is a strategy of work-life balance. Employees segment dissatisfying experiences at work from spilling over to family life, which in turn serves to maintain an adaptation level of life satisfaction.
The Principle of Compensation
Employees manage to maintain a semblance of work-life balance by compensating for dissatisfying life domains. Such a psychological strategy serves to maintain an adap- tation level of overall life satisfaction (Sirgy 2002). Specifically, employees experienc- ing dissatisfaction at work are more likely to compensate by engaging in satisfying nonwork activities (Brief et al. 1993).
The principle of compensation posits that using compensation to overcome dissat- isfaction in a particular life domain contributes to life satisfaction. Compensation works when the person experiencing dissatisfaction in one life domain increases his or her the level of engagement (or perceived importance) in another domain to increase satisfac- tion in that domain. For example, when employees become dissatisfied with their jobs, their employer, or work life, such dissatisfaction may cause them to experience decreased life satisfaction. To guard against decreases in life satisfaction due to decreases in satisfaction at work, employees tend to engage in activities in other life domains that may generate positive affect. Such positive affect in these other domains Bcompensates^ for the decreased positive affect at work. The same principle applies in reverse. That is, if employees experience high levels of dissatisfaction in family life (or any other domain such as social life or leisure life), they may compensate by engaging in activities at work that may help them generate extra positive affect to make up for the loss of positive affect in family life (Judge et al. 2001; Tait et al. 1989). Generically speaking, when an individual experiences dissatisfaction in a particular life domain, he or she allocates greater resources to other life domains to increase positive affect in those domains (Freund and Baltes 2002).
It should be noted that compensation can take two forms. The first involves increases in in engagement in a domain likely to increase satisfaction in that domain, which in turn contribute to life satisfaction. The second involves cognitive
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
manipulation of perceived importance of life domains (e.g., Hsieh 2003; Sirgy 2002). That is, one can decrease the importance of life domains housing much negative affect, while increasing importance of domains housing much positive affect. Doing so may allow them to increase their life satisfaction, or maintain an adaptation level of life satisfaction.
Conclusion
In this paper we reviewed the literature on work-life balance and presented a more integrative concept of work-life balance. We first reviewed various conceptualization of work-life balance and proposed an integrative definition of work-life balance. We did this by conceptualizing work-life balance as a high level of role engagement in work and nonwork life with minimal conflict between social roles in work and nonwork life. We then reviewed much of the evidence related to the consequences of work-life balance in terms of work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes. We then reviewed much of evidence on major antecedents of work-life balance. We did so by identifying a set of personal and organizational predictors of work-life balance and explained how they influence work-life balance. We finally presented a set of theoretical mechanisms linking work-life balance and life satisfaction.
Implications for Future Research
There are several future research implications related to this literature review. First, we developed an integrative definition of work-life balance by stating that work-life balance involves a high level of role engagement in work- and nonwork life with minimal conflict among roles in work and nonwork life. Future research could examine whether the two dimensions have independent or interactive effects in the formation of work-life balance as a latent construct.
Second, many of work-life balance studies collected survey data from single infor- mant groups or employees. Future empirical studies should collect data from multiple respondent groups to control informant bias. In addition, past research have employed the single-survey method, which is subject to common-method bias. Future studies should not only use self-report measures but also behavior-based measures to control common-method bias.
Third, this literature review identified many personal and organizational predictors affecting work-life balance. Limited attention has been given to interrelationships among the antecedents. Research should examine whether these predictors of work- life balance are independent, synergistic, or supplementary. That is, we still do not know much about relative effect of various antecedents (and their interactions) on work-life balance. Future empirical studies should identify interrelationships among antecedents in predicting work-life balance.
Fourth, we hypothesized several cultural moderators affecting the relationship between work-life balance and its consequences. Future cross-cultural research could test these hypotheses.
Fifth, this literature review identified several theoretical mechanisms linking work- life balance with overall life satisfaction. Future research could empirically develop
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
measures of these mediating mechanisms and test the mediating hypotheses. Future research also is needed to examine relative efficacy of each mediator on work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes, including life satisfaction. What may be the moderators of each mediating effect?
Sixth, this review focused mostly on work-family interface. Future research could examine the interface between work life and other life domains such as leisure life, social life, spiritual life, community life, etc.
Managerial and Policy Implications
There are several managerial and policy implications to this literature review. First, managers and policy makers should make an effort to regularly measure and monitor the degree of work-life balance on a regular basis. Given the fact that work-life balance has a significant influence on work, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes, it is important for managers and policy makers to develop programs and policies to ensure employees maintain a high level of work-life balance.
Second, managers as well as policy makers should evaluate the relative efficacy of various organizational policies and programs (e.g., flexible work time, part time, job sharing, parental leave, childcare, eldercare, social support) in fostering work-life balance. This should help managers/policy makers select the most effective policies and programs.
Third, it should be noted that there are many personal and organizational antecedents to work-life balance and these antecedents can have interactive effects on work-life balance. As such, managers (and in some cases policy makers) should allocate resources to develop and implement work-life programs guided by our understanding of how these programs and policies influence work-life balance. The same can be said in relation to the consequences of work-life balance on work-, nonwork-, and stress- related outcomes. That is, programs and policies should be guided by our understand- ing of how they influence work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes.
In summary, this study reviewed and presented an integrated framework of work-life balance. We hope this study will spur increasing future research in this area and increasingly prompt managers and policy makers to make decisions guided by the science of work-life balance.
References
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411– 420.
Ahuvia, A. C., & Friedman, D. C. (1998). Income, consumption, and subjective well-being: toward a composite macromarketing model. Journal of Macromarketing, 18(2), 153–168.
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: human needs in organizational settings. New York: The Free Press.
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work- to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308.
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work-family conflict and flexible work arrangements: deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66, 345–376.
Anaton, L. (2013). A proposed conceptual framework of work-family/family-work facilitation (WFF/FWF) approach in inter-role conflict. Journal of Global Management, 6, 89–100.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America’s perception of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491.
Avgar, A. C., Givan, R. K., & Liu, M. (2011). A balancing act: work-life balance and multiple stakeholder outcomes in hospitals. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49, 717–741.
Aziz, A., & Chang, A. (2013). Work-family balance: the 3-way interaction effect of role demands, collectivism value, and ethnicity. Journal of Global Management, 6, 22–39.
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: an expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675.
Batt, R., & Valcour, M. P. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42, 189–220.
Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. S. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 9–22.
Beham, B., Prag, P., & Drobnic, S. (2012). Who’s got the balance? A study of satisfaction with work-family balance among part-time service sector employees in five western European countries. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 3725–3741.
Blazovich, J. L., Smith, K. T., & Smith, L. M. (2014). Employee-friendly companies and work-life balance: is there an impact on financial performance and risk level? Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 18, 1–13.
Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., George, J. M., & Link, K. E. (1993). Integrating bottom-up and top-down theories of subjective well-being: the case of health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 646–653.
Bulger, C. A., & Fisher, G. G. (2012). Ethical imperatives of work/life balance. In N. P. Reilly, M. J. Sirgy, & C. A. Gorman (Eds.), Work and quality of life (pp. 181–202). Dordrecht: Springer.
Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 287–302.
Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An identity approach to commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 239–251.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimen- sional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work-family work/family interface: development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131–164.
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Kacmar, K. M. (2010). The relationship of schedule flexibility and outcomes via the work-family interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 330–355.
Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43.
Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress, and family satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1237–1248.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance. Human relations, 53, 747–770.
Crosby, F. J. (1991). Juggling: the unexpected advantages of balancing career and home for women and their families. New York: Free Press.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25, 357–384.
De Simone, S., Lampis, J., Lasio, D., Serri, F., Ciotto, G., & Putzu, D. (2014). Influences of work-family interface on job and life satisfaction. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 9, 831–861.
Dex, S., & Scheibl, F. (2001). Flexible and family-friendly working arrangements in U.K.-based SMEs: business cases. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39, 411–431.
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
Diener, E., Ng, W., & Tov, W. (2008). Balance in life and declining marginal utility of diverse resources. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 3, 277–291.
Dikkers, J. S. E., Geurts, S. A. E., den Dulk, L., & Peper, B. (2001). Work-nonwork culture, utilization of work-nonwork arrangements, and employee-related outcomes in two Dutch organizations. In S. A. Y. Poelmans (Ed.), Work and family: an international research perspective (pp. 147–172). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eaton, S. C. (2003). If you can use them: flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived performance. Industrial Relations, 42, 145–167.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124–197.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199.
Evans, J. M. (2001). Firms’ contribution to the reconciliation between work and family life. Paris: Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers, OECD.
Fisher, G. G., Bulger, C. A., & Smith, C. S. (2009). Beyond work and family: a measure of work/nonwork interference and enhancement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 441–456.
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2002). Life-management strategies of selection, optimization and compensa- tion: measurement by self-report and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 642–662.
Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family—alies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. New York: Oxford University Press.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., &Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work- family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.
Fu, C. K., & Shaffer, M. A. (2001). The tug of work and family: direct and indirect domain-specific determinants of work-family conflict. Personnel Review, 30, 502–522.
Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 904–917.
Galinsky, E., & Johnson, A. A. (1998). Reframing the business case for work-life initiatives. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Galvez, A., Martinez, M. J., & Perez, C. (2011). Telework and work-life balance: Some dimensions for organizational change. Journal of Workplace Rights, 16, 273–297.
Gareis, K. C., Barnett, R. C., Ertel, K. A., & Berkman, L. F. (2009). Work-family enrichment and conflict: additive effects, buffering, or balance? Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 696–707.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Allen, T. D. (2011). Work-family balance: a review and extension of the literature. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 165–183). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Career involvement and family involvement as moderators of relationships between work–family conflict and withdrawal from a profession. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 91–100.
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work-family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 510–531.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Carlson, D. S. (2007). Conceptualizing work–family balance: implications for practice and research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 455–471.
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, A. (1993). The seven cultures of capitalism: value systems for creating wealth in the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands. New York: Doubleday.
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
Hanson, G. C., Colton, C.L., & Hammer, L. B. (2003). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of work-family positive spillover. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of SIOP, Orlando.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge university press. Heller, D., &Watson, D. (2005). The dynamic spillover of satisfaction between work and marriage: the role of
time, mood and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1273–1279. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The American
Psychologist, 44, 513–524. Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad?
Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42–63. Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions
and organizations across nations. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Holahan, C. K., & Gilbert, L. A. (1979). Conflict between major life roles: women and men in dual career
couples. Human Relations, 32, 451–467. Hsieh, C. M. (2003). Counting importance: the case of life satisfaction and relative domain importance. Social
Indicators Research, 61, 227–240. Ilies, R., Wilson, K. S., &Wagner, D. T. (2009). The spillover of daily job satisfaction onto employees’ family
lives: the facilitating role of work-family integration. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 87–102. Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: lessons from project GLOBE.
Organizational Dynamics, 29, 289–305. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance
relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress. New
York: Wiley. Kalliath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Work-life balance: a review of the meaning of the balance construct. Journal
of Management and Organization, 14, 323–327. Kelly, E. I., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., Murphy, L. A., & Kaskubar,
D. (2008). Getting there from here: research on the effects of work-life initiatives on work-family conflict and business outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 305–349.
Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.
Kirchmeyer, C. (2000). Work-life initiatives: greed or benevolence regarding workers' time? Trends in Organizational Behavior, 7, 79–94.
Konrad, A. M., & Yang, Y. (2012). Is using work-life interface benefits a career limiting move? An examination of women, men, lone partners, and parents with partners. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1095–1119.
Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and interrole conflict: a construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 198–215.
Korabik, K., Lero, D. S., & Whitehead, D. L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of work-family integration: research, theory, and best practices. New York: Academic Press.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.
Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: the link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 801–815.
Lee, S., & Kim, S. L. (2013). Social support, work-family conflict, and emotional exhaustion in South Korea. Psychological Reports, 113, 619–634.
Lu, L., Gilmour, R., & Kao, S. F. (2001). Culture values and happiness: an east-west dialogue. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 477–493.
Lu, L., Cooper, C. L., Kao, S.-F., Chang, T.-T., Allen, T. D., Lapierre, L. M., O’Driscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Sanchez, J. I., & Spector, P. E. (2010). Cross-cultural differences on work-to-family conflict and role satisfaction: a Taiwanese-British comparison. Human Resource Management, 49, 67–85.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and strain: some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921–936.
Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: a theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 417–432.
Marks, S. R., Huston, T. L., Johnson, E. M., & MacDermid, S. M. (2001). Role balance among white married couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 1083–1098.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 70, 149–171.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.
McNall, L. A., Masuda, A. D., & Nicklin, J. M. (2010a). Flexible work arrangements and job satisfaction/ turnover intentions: the mediating role of work-to-family enrichment. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 144, 61–81.
McNall, L. A., Nicklin, J. M., & Masuda, A. D. (2010b). A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work–family enrichment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 381–396.
Michaels, R. E., Cron, W. L., Dubinsky, A. J., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. (1988). Influence of formalization on the organizational commitment and work alienation of sales people and industrial buyers. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 376–383.
Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16, 347–413. Moen, P., Robison, J., & McClain, D. D. (1995). Caregiving and women’s well-being: a life course approach.
Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 36, 259–273. Netemeyre, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict
and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410. Neumann, R., & Strack, F. (2000). "mood contagion": the automatic transfer of mood between persons.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 211–223. Olson-Buchanan, J., & Boswell, W. R. (2006). Blurring boundaries: correlates of integration and segmentation
between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 432–445. Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Ganrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well-being
among two-career couples. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 13, 339–356. Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (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, 457–467.
Poelmans, S., Stepanova, O., & Masuda, A. (2008). Positive spillover between personal and professional life: definitions, antecedents, consequences, and strategies. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration: research, theory, and best practices (pp. 141–156). New York: Academic Press.
Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: the effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55, 111–136.
Rice, R. W., McFarlin, D. B., Hunt, R. G., & Near, J. P. (1985). Organizational work and the perceived quality of life: toward a conceptual model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 296–310.
Rojas, M. (2006). Life satisfaction and satisfaction in domains of life: is it a simple or a simplified relationship? Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 467–497.
Rozario, P. A., Howell, N. M., & Hinterlong, J. E. (2004). Role enhancement or role strain: examining the impact of multiple roles on family caregivers. Research on Aging, 26, 413–428.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engage- ment and burnout and: a confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Schein, E. H. (1984). Culture as an environmental context for careers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5, 71–81.
Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567–578. Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia.
Dordrecht: Springer. Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, D-J. (2015). Work-life balance: A quality-of-life model. Applied Research in Quality of
Life (published online) Sirgy, M. J., & Wu, J. (2009). The pleasant life, the engaged life, and the meaningful life: what about the
balanced life? Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 183–196. Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological detachment from work during leisure time the benefits of mentally
disengaging from work. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 114–118. Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Binnewies, C., & Scholl, A. (2008). Being engaged at work and detached at
home: a week-level study on work engagement, psychological detachment, and affect.Work & Stress, 22, 257–276.
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S., Allen, T. D., O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., et al. (2004). A cross- national comparative study of work/family stressors, working hours, and well-being: China and Latin America vs. the Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119–142.
Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Lapierre, L. M., Cooper, C. L., O’Driscoll, M., et al. (2007). Cross-national differences in relationships of work demands, job satisfaction and turnover intentions with work-family conflict. Personnel Psychology, 60, 805–835.
Sturges, J., & Guest, D. (2004). Working to live or living to work? Work/life balance early in the career. Human Resource Management Journal, 14, 5–20.
Tait, M., Padgett, M. Y., & Baldwin, T. T. (1989). Job and life satisfaction: a reevaluation of the strength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the date of the study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 502–507.
Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Van der Lippe, T. (2010). Effective work-life balance support for various household structures. Human Resource Management, 49, 173–193.
Testi, E., & Andriotto, M. (2013). Effectiveness of employee welfare schemes: differences of specific professional profiles. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 3232–3246.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: a control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15.
Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 100–118.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing social contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.
Voydanoff, P. (2004). Implications of work and community demands and resources for work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 275–285.
Voydanoff, P. (2005). Toward a conceptualization of perceived work-family fit and balance: a demands and resources approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 822–836.
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130.
Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (2005). The crossover of work-family conflict from one spouse to the other. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1936–1957.
Whiston, S. C., & Cinamon, R. G. (2015). The work-family interface: integrating research and career counselling practice. Career Development Quarterly, 63, 44–56.
Yang, N., Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Zhou, Y. (2000). Sources of work-family conflict: a Sino-U.S. comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 113–123.
Yasbek, P. (2004). The business case for firm-level work-life-balance policies: a review of the literature. Labor market policy group. Wellington: Department of Labour http://www.dol.govt.nz/PDFs/FirmLevelWLB. pdf.
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
- Work-Life Balance: an Integrative Review
- Abstract
- The Construct of Work-Life Balance
- Role Engagement in Work and Nonwork Life
- Minimal Conflict between Social Roles in Work and Nonwork Life
- Consequences of Work-Life Balance
- Antecedents or Predictors of Work-Life Balance
- Personal Predictors
- Organizational Predictors
- Theoretical Principles Linking Work-Life Balance and Overall Life Satisfaction
- The Principle of Satisfaction Limits
- The Principle of Satisfaction of the Full Spectrum of Human Developmental Needs
- The Principle of Role Conflict
- The Principle of Positive Affect Spillover
- The Principle of Role Enrichment
- The Principle of Segmentation
- The Principle of Compensation
- Conclusion
- Implications for Future Research
- Managerial and Policy Implications
- References
