work life balance and employee performance a literature review

Work-life balance -a systematic review

Vilakshan - XIMB Journal of Management

ISSN : 0973-1954

Article publication date: 15 December 2021

Issue publication date: 31 July 2023

This study aims to systematically review the existing literature and develop an understanding of work-life balance (WLB) and its relationship with other forms of work-related behavior and unearth research gaps to recommend future research possibilities and priorities.

Design/methodology/approach

The current study attempts to make a detailed survey of the research work done by the pioneers in the domain WLB and its related aspects. A total of 99 research work has been included in this systematic review. The research works have been classified based on the year of publication, geographical distribution, the methodology used and the sector. The various concepts and components that have made significant contributions, factors that influence WLB, importance and implications are discussed.

The paper points to the research gaps and scope for future research in the area of WLB.

Originality/value

The current study uncovered the research gaps regarding the systematic review and classifications based on demography, year of publication, the research method used and sector being studied.

Work-life balance
Flexibility
Individual’s ability to balance work-life
Support system
WLB policy utilization
Societal culture

S., T. and S.N., G. (2023), "Work-life balance -a systematic review", Vilakshan - XIMB Journal of Management , Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 258-276. https://doi.org/10.1108/XJM-10-2020-0186

Emerald Publishing Limited

Published in Vilakshan – XIMB Journal of Management . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

In this technological era, work is becoming demanding with changing nature of work and working patterns (Thilagavathy and Geetha, 2020 ). The proactive, aggressive and demanding nature of business with the intention of reaching the top requires active involvement and comprehensive devotion from the employees, thereby compromising their work-life balance (WLB) (Turanlıgil and Farooq, 2019 ). Research concerning the work-life interface has exploded over the past five decades because of the changing trends in the nature of gender roles, families, work and careers (Powell et al. , 2019 ). Researchers in this domain has published many literature reviews with regard to WLB. It is argued that the study of WLB remains snowed under by a lack of conceptual clarity (Perrigino et al. , 2018 ). Thus, research and theory only partially view the employees’ work-life needs and experiences.

How WLB is conceptualized in the past?

What are the factors that significantly influenced WLB?

In which geographical areas were the WLB studies undertaken?

Which sectors remain unstudied or understudied with regard to WLB?

Methodology

We systematically conducted the literature review with the following five steps, as shown in Figure 1 . The first step was to review the abstracts from the database like EBSCO, Science Direct, Proquest and JSTOR. The articles from publishers like ELSEVIER, Emerald insight, Springer, Taylor and Francis and Sage were considered. The literature survey was conducted using the search terms WLB, balancing work and family responsibility and domains of work and life between the period 1990 to 2019. This search process led to the identification of 1,230 relevant papers. Inclusion criteria: The scholarly articles concerning WLB published in the English language in journals listed in Scopus, web of science or Australian business deans council (ABDC) were included in this review. Exclusion criteria: The scholarly articles concerning WLB published in languages other than English were not taken into consideration. Similarly, unpublished papers and articles published in journals not listed in Scopus, web of science or ABDC were excluded.

In the second step, we identified the duplicates and removed them. Thus, the total number of papers got reduced to 960. Following this, many papers relating to work-life spillover and work-life conflict were removed, resulting in further reduction of the papers to 416. Subsequently, in the third step, the papers were further filtered based on the language. The paper in the English language from journals listed in Scopus, web of science or ABDC were only considered. This search process resulted in the reduction of related papers to 93. The fourth step in the search process was further supplemented with the organic search for the related articles, leading to 99 papers illustrated in Appendix Table 1 . In the fifth step, an Excel sheet was created to review the paper under different headings and the results are as follows.

Literature review

Evolution and conceptualization of work-life balance.

WLB concern was raised earlier by the working mothers of the 1960s and 1970s in the UK. Later the issue was given due consideration by the US Government during the mid of 1980. During the 1990s WLB gained adequate recognition as the issue of human resource management in other parts of the world (Bird, 2006 ). The scholarly works concerning WLB have increased, mainly because of the increasing strength of the women workforce, technological innovations, cultural shifts in attitudes toward the relationship between the work and the family and the diversity of family structures (Greenhaus and Kossek, 2014 ). The research works on WLB include several theoretical work-family models. Though the research on WLB has expanded to a greater extend, there are considerable gaps in our knowledge concerning work-family issues (Powell et al. , 2019 ).

Moreover, in studies where WLB and related aspects are explored, researchers have used different operational definitions and measurements for the construct. Kalliath and Brough (2008) have defined WLB as “The individual’s perception that work and non-work activities are compatible and promote growth in accordance with an individual’s current life priorities.” WLB is “a self-defined, self-determined state of well being that a person can reach, or can set as a goal, that allows them to manage effectively multiple responsibilities at work, at home and in their community; it supports physical, emotional, family, and community health, and does so without grief, stress or negative impact” (Canadian Department of Labor, as cited in Waters and Bardoel, 2006 ).

Figure 2 depicts the flowchart of the framework for the literature survey. It clearly shows the factors that have been surveyed in this research article.

Individual factors

The individual factors of WLB include demographic variables, personal demands, family demands, family support and individual ability.

Work-life balance and demography.

WLB has significant variations with demographic variables (Waters and Bardoel, 2006 ). A significant difference was found between age (Powell et al. , 2019 ), gender (Thilagavathy and Geetha, 2020 ) and marital status (Powell et al. , 2019 ) regarding WLB. There is a significant rise in women’s participation in the workforce (Jenkins and Harvey, 2019 ). WLB issues are higher for dual-career couples (Crawford et al. , 2019 ).

Many studies were conducted on WLB with reference to sectors like information technology (IT), information technology enabled services, Banking, Teaching, Academics and Women Employment. A few WLB studies are conducted among services sector employees, hotel and catering services, nurses, doctors, middle-level managers and entrepreneurs. Only very scarce research has been found concerning police, defense, chief executive officers, researchers, lawyers, journalists and road transport.

Work-life balance and personal demands.

High work pressure and high family demand lead to poor physical, psychological and emotional well-being (Jensen and Knudsen, 2017 ), causing concern to employers as this leads to reduced productivity and increased absenteeism (Jackson and Fransman, 2018 ).

Work-life balance and family demands.

An employee spends most of the time commuting (Denstadli et al. , 2017 ) or meeting their work and family responsibilities. Dual career couple in the nuclear family finds it difficult to balance work and life without domestic help (Dumas and Perry-Smith, 2018 ; Srinivasan and Sulur Nachimuthu, 2021 ). Difficulty in a joint family is elderly care (Powell et al. , 2019 ). Thus, family demands negatively predict WLB (Haar et al. , 2019 ).

Work-life balance and family support.

Spouse support enables better WLB (Dumas and Perry-Smith, 2018 ). Family support positively impacted WLB, especially for dual-career couples, with dependent responsibilities (Groysberg and Abrahams, 2014 ).

Work-life balance and individual’s ability.

Though the organizations implement many WLB policies, employees still face the problems of WLB (Dave and Purohit, 2016 ). Employees achieve better well-being through individual coping strategies (Zheng et al. , 2016 ). Individual resources such as stress coping strategy, mindfulness emotional intelligence positively predicted WLB (Kiburz et al. , 2017 ). This indicates the imperative need to improve the individual’s ability to manage work and life.

Organizational factor

Organizational factors are those relating to organization design in terms of framing policies, rules and regulations for administering employees and dealing with their various activities regarding WLB ( Kar and Misra, 2013 ). In this review, organizational factors and their impact on the WLB of the employee have been dealt with in detail.

Work-life balance and organizational work-life policies.

The organization provides a variety of WLB policies (Jenkins and Harvey, 2019 ). Employee-friendly policies positively influenced WLB ( Berg et al. , 2003 ). Further, only a few IT industries provided Flexi timing, work from home and crèches facilities (Downes and Koekemoer, 2012 ). According to Galea et al. (2014) , industry-specific nuance exists.

Work-life balance and organizational demands.

Organizations expect employees to multi-task, causing role overload (Bacharach et al. , 1991 ). The increasing intensity of work and tight deadlines negatively influenced WLB (Allan et al. , 1999 ). The shorter time boundaries make it challenging to balance professional and family life (Jenkins and Harvey, 2019 ). Job demands negatively predicted WLB (Haar et al. , 2019 ).

Work-life balance and working hours.

Work does vacuum up a greater portion of the personal hours (Haar et al. , 2019 ). This causes some important aspects of their lives to be depleted, undernourished or ignored (Hughes et al. , 2018 ). Thus, employees find less time for “quality” family life (Jenkins and Harvey, 2019 ).

Work-life balance and productivity.

Organizational productivity is enhanced by the synergies of work-family practices and work-team design (Johari et al. , 2018 ). Enhanced WLB leads to increased employee productivity (Jackson and Fransman, 2018 ).

Work-life balance and burnout.

WLB is significantly influenced by work exhaustion (burnout). Negative psychological experience arising from job stress is defined as burnout (Ratlif, 1988). Increased work and non-work demands contribute to occupational burnout and, in turn, negatively predict WLB and employee well-being (Jones et al. , 2019 ).

Work-life balance and support system.

Support from Colleagues, supervisors and the head of institutions positively predicted WLB (Ehrhardt and Ragins, 2019 ; Yadav and Sharma, 2021 ). Family-supportive organization policy positively influenced WLB (Haar and Roche, 2010 ).

Work-life balance and employee perception.

The employee’s perception regarding their job, work environment, supervision and organization positively influenced WLB (Fontinha et al. , 2019 ). Employees’ awareness concerning the existence of WLB policies is necessary to appreciate it (Matthews et al. , 2014). The employee’s perception of the need for WLB policies differs with respect to their background (Kiburz et al. , 2017 ).

Work-life balance and job autonomy.

Job autonomy is expressed as the extent of freedom the employee has in their work and working pattern ( Bailey, 1993 ). According to Ahuja and Thatcher (2005) , autonomy and flexibility enable employees to balance competing demands of work-life. Job autonomy will enhance WLB (Johari et al. , 2018 ).

Work-life balance and job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction is the driving force for task accomplishment and employees’ intention to stay (Brough et al. , 2014 ). Employees’ positive perception concerning their job enhances job satisfaction (Singh et al. , 2020 ; Yadav and Sharma, 2021 ). WLB and job satisfaction are positively correlated (Jackson and Fransman, 2018 ).

Work-life balance and organizational commitment.

Alvesson (2002) describes organizational commitment as a mutual and fair social exchange. WLB positively predicted organizational commitment (Emre and De Spiegeleare, 2019 ). Work-life policies offered by an organization lead to increased loyalty and commitment (Callan, 2008 ).

Work-life balance and work-life balance policy utilization.

The utilization of WLB policies (Adame-Sánchez et al. , 2018 ) helps meet job and family demands. Despite the availability of WLB policies, their actual adoption is rather small (Waters and Bardoel, 2006 ) and often lag behind implementation (Adame-Sánchez et al. , 2018 ).

Work-life balance and organizational culture.

Employees perceive WLB policy utilization may badly reflect their performance appraisal and promotion (Bourdeau et al. , 2019 ). Hence, seldom use the WLB policies (Dave and Purohit, 2016 ). The perception of the organization culture as isolated, unfriendly and unaccommodating (Fontinha et al. , 2017 ); a lack of supervisor and manager support and a lack of communication and education about WLB strategies (Jenkins and Harvey, 2019 ). This leads to counterproductive work behavior and work-family backlash (Alexandra, 2014 ). As a result, growing evidence suggests a dark side to WLB policies, but these findings remain scattered and unorganized (Perrigino et al. , 2018 ). Organizational culture significantly affects WLB policy utilization (Callan, 2008 ; Dave and Purohit, 2016 ).

Societal factors

Societal changes that have taken place globally and locally have impacted the individual’s lifestyle. In this modern techno world, a diversified workforce resulting from demographic shifts and communication technology results in blurring of boundaries between work and personal life (Kalliath and Brough, 2008 ).

Work-life balance and societal demands.

Being members of society, mandates employee’s participation in social events. But in the current scenario, this is witnessing a downward trend. The employee often comes across issues of inability to meet the expectation of friends, relatives and society because of increased work pressure. Societal demands significantly predicted WLB (Mushfiqur et al. , 2018 ).

Work-life balance and societal culture.

Societal culture has a strong influence on WLB policy utilization and work and non-work self-efficacy. Specifically, collectivism, power distance and gendered norms had a strong and consistent impact on WLB Policy utilization by employees (Brown et al. , 2019 ). Women’s aspiration to achieve WLB is frequently frustrated by patriarchal norms deep-rooted in the culture (Mushfiqur et al. , 2018 ).

Work-life balance and societal support.

WLB was significantly predicted by support from neighbors, friends and community members (Mushfiqur et al. , 2018 ). Sometimes employees need friend’s viewpoints to get a new perspective on a problem or make a tough decision (Dhanya and Kinslin, 2016 ). Community support is an imperative indicator of WLB ( Phillips et al. , 2016 ).

Analyzes and results

Article distribution based on year of publication.

The WLB studies included for this review were between the periods of 1990–2019. Only a few studies were published in the initial period. A maximum of 44 papers was published during 2016–2019. Out of which, 17 studies were published during the year 2019. In the years 2018, 2017 and 2016 a total of 12, 7 and 8 studies were published, respectively. The details of the article distribution over the years illustrate a rising trend, as shown in Figure 3 .

Geographical distribution

Papers considered for this review were taken globally, including the research works from 26 countries. American and European countries contributed to a maximum of 60% of the publications regarding WLB research. Figure 4 illustrates the contribution of different countries toward the WLB research.

Basic classification

The review included 99 indexed research work contributed by more than 70 authors published in 69 journals. The contribution worth mentioning was from authors like Allen T.D, Biron M, Greenhaus J. H, Haar J.M, Jensen M.T, Kalliath T and Mc Carthy A. The basic categorization revealed that the geographical distribution considered for this review was from 26 different countries, as shown in Figure 4 . The research was conducted in (but not limited to) countries like Africa, Australia, Canada, China, India, Israel, The Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, Sweden, Turkey, the USA and the UK. American and European countries together contributed to the maximum of 60% of publications. Further, the categorization uncovered that 7 out of the 99 journals contributed to 30% of the WLB papers considered for this review, clearly illustrated in Table 1 .

Methodology-based categorization of papers

The basic information like research methods, sources of data, the proportion of papers using specific methodologies were considered for methodology-based categorization. The categorization revealed that 27 out of 99 papers reviewed were conceptual and the remaining 72 papers were empirical. The empirical papers used descriptive, exploratory, explanatory or experimental research designs. Further, categorization based on the data collection method revealed that 69 papers used the primary data collection method. Additionally, classification uncovered that 57 papers used the quantitative method, whereas 11 papers used the qualitative approach and four used the mixed method. The most prominent primary method used for data collection was the questionnaire method with 58 papers, while the remaining 20 papers used interview (10), case study (5), experimental studies (3), daily dairy (1) or panel discussion (1).

Sector-based categorization of papers

The sector-based categorization of papers revealed that 41.6% (30 papers) of research work was carried out in service sectors. This is followed by 40.2% (29 papers) research in the general public. While one paper was found in the manufacturing sector, the remaining nine papers focused on managers, women, the defense sector, police and the public sector, the details of which are showcased in Table 2 .

Research gap

Individual factor.

The literature survey results demonstrated that the impact of employee education and experience on their WLB had not been examined.

The literature survey has uncovered that the relationship between income and WLB has not been explored.

The influence of domestic help on WLB has not been investigated.

Much of the research work has been carried out in developed countries like the US, UK, European countries and Australia. In contrast, very scarce research works have been found in developing countries and underdeveloped countries.

Not much work has been done in WLB regarding service sectors like fire-fighters, transport services like drivers, railway employees, pilots, air hostesses, power supply department and unorganized sectors.

A review of the relevant literature uncovered that studies concerning the individual’s ability to balance work and life are limited. The individual’s ability, along with WLB policies, considerably improved WLB. Individual strategies are the important ones that need investigation rather than workplace practices.

Kibur z et al . (2017) addressed the ongoing need for experimental, intervention-based design in work-family research. There are so far very scares experimental studies conducted with regard to WLB.

Organizational factor.

A very few studies explored the impact of the WLB policies after the implementation.

Studies concerning the organizational culture, psychological climate and WLB policy utilizations require investigation.

Organizational climates influence on the various factors that predict WLB needs exploration.

Societal factor.

The impact of the societal factors on WLB is not explored much.

Similarly, the influence of societal culture (societal beliefs, societal norms and values systems) on WLB is not investigated.

Discussion and conclusion

The current research work aspires to conduct a systematic review to unearth the research gaps, and propose direction for future studies. For this purpose, literature with regard to WLB was systematically surveyed from 1990 to 2019. This led to identifying 99 scientific research papers from index journals listed in Scopus, the web of science or the ABDC list. Only papers in the English language were considered. The review section elaborated on the evolution and conceptualization of WLB. Moreover, the literature review discussed in detail the relationship between WLB and other related variables. Further, the research works were classified based on the fundamental information revealed that a maximum of 44 papers was published during the year 2016–2019. The geographical distribution revealed that a maximum of research publications concerning WLB was from American and European countries. Further, the basic classification revealed that 7 out of the 69 journals contributed to 30% of the WLB papers considered for this review. The methodology-based classification unearthed the fact that 73% of the papers were empirical studies. Additionally, the categorization uncovered that 79% ( n = 57) of papers used quantitative methods dominated by survey method of data collection. Sector-based categorization made known the fact that a maximum of 41.6% of research work was carried out in the service sector. The research gaps were uncovered based on the systematic literature review and classifications and proposed future research directions.

Limitations

We acknowledge that there is a possibility of missing out a few papers unintentionally, which may not be included in this review. Further, papers in the English language were only considered. Thus, the papers in other languages were not included in this systematic review which is one of the limitations of this research work.

Implications

The discussion reveals the importance and essentiality of the individual’s ability to balance work and life. Consequently, the researchers have proposed future research directions exploring the relationship between the variables. WLB is an important area of research; thus, the proposed research directions are of importance to academicians. The review’s finding demonstrates that there are very scarce studies on the individual’s ability to balance work and life. This leaves a lot of scopes for researchers to do continuous investigation in this area. Hence, it is essential to conduct more research on developing individuals’ ability to balance work and life. There are a few experimental studies conducted so far in WLB. Future experimental studies can be undertaken to enhance the individual’s ability to balance work and life.

Flow chart of the steps in systematic review process

Framework for the literature review

Distribution of papers based on year of publication

Geographical distribution of papers across countries

Journals details

Table 1 List of papers included in the review

Adame-Sánchez , C. , Caplliure , E.M. and Miquel-Romero , M.J. ( 2018 ), “ Paving the way for competition: drivers for work-life balance policy implementation ”, Review of Managerial Science , Vol. 12 No. 2 , pp. 519 - 533 , doi: 10.1007/s11846-017-0271-y .

Ahuja , M. and Thatcher , J. ( 2005 ), “ Moving beyond intentions and towards the theory of trying: effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use ”, MIS Quarterly , Vol. 29 No. 3 , pp. 427 - 459 .

Allan , C. , O'Donnell , M. and Peetz , D. ( 1999 ), “ More tasks, less secure, working harder: three dimensions of labour utilization ”, Journal of Industrial Relations , Vol. 41 No. 4 , pp. 519 - 535 , doi: 10.1177/002218569904100403 .

Alvesson ( 2002 ), Understanding Organizational Culture , Sage Publications , London . 10.4135/9781446280072

Bacharach , S.B. , Bamberger , R. and Conely , S. ( 1991 ), “ Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers: mediating the impact of stress on burnout and satisfaction at work ”, Journal of Organizational Behavior , Vol. 12 No. 1 , pp. 39 - 63 , doi: 10.1002/job.4030120104 .

Bailey , T.R. ( 1993 ), “ Discretionary effort and the organization of work: employee participation and work reform since Hawthorne ”, Teachers College and Conservation of Human Resources , Columbia University .

Bardoel , E.A. ( 2006 ), “ Work-life balance and human resource development ”, Holland , P. and De Cieri , H. (Eds), Contemporary Issues in Human Resource Development: An Australian Perspective , Pearson Education , Frenchs Forest, NSW , pp. 237 - 259 .

Berg , P. , Kalleberg , A.L. and Appelbaum , E. ( 2003 ), “ Balancing work and family: the role of high - commitment environments ”, Industrial Relations , Vol. 42 No. 2 , pp. 168 - 188 , doi: 10.1111/1468-232X.00286 .

Bird , J. ( 2006 ), “ Work-life balance: doing it right and avoiding the pitfalls ”, Employment Relations Today , Vol. 33 No. 3 , pp. 21 - 30 , doi: 10.1002/ert.20114 .

Bourdeau , S. , Ollier-Malaterre , A. and Houlfort , N. ( 2019 ), “ Not all work-life policies are created equal: career consequences of using enabling versus enclosing work-life policies ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 44 No. 1 , pp. 172 - 193 , doi: 10.5465/amr.2016.0429 .

Brough , P. , Timm , C. , Driscoll , M.P.O. , Kalliath , T. , Siu , O.L. , Sit , C. and Lo , D. ( 2014 ), “ Work-life balance: a longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New Zealand workers ”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management , Vol. 25 No. 19 , pp. 2724 - 2744 , doi: 10.1080/09585192.2014.899262 .

Callan , S.J. ( 2008 ), “ Cultural revitalization: the importance of acknowledging the values of an organization's ‘golden era’ when promoting work-life balance ”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 78 - 97 , doi: 10.1108/17465640810870409 .

Crawford , W.S. , Thompson , M.J. and Ashforth , B.E. ( 2019 ), “ Work-life events theory: making sense of shock events in dual-earner couples ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 44 No. 1 , pp. 194 - 212 , doi: 10.5465/amr.2016.0432 .

Dave , J. and Purohit , H. ( 2016 ), “ Work-life balance and perception: a conceptual framework ”, The Clarion- International Multidisciplinary Journal , Vol. 5 No. 1 , pp. 98 - 104 .

Denstadli , J.M. , Julsrud , T.E. and Christiansen , P. ( 2017 ), “ Urban commuting – a threat to the work-family balance? ”, Journal of Transport Geography , Vol. 61 , pp. 87 - 94 , doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.04.011 .

Downes , C. and Koekemoer , E. ( 2012 ), “ Work-life balance policies: the use of flexitime ”, Journal of Psychology in Africa , Vol. 22 No. 2 , pp. 201 - 208 , doi: 10.1080/14330237.2012.10820518 .

Dumas , T.L. and Perry-Smith , J.E. ( 2018 ), “ The paradox of family structure and plans after work: why single childless employees may be the least absorbed at work ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 61 No. 4 , pp. 1231 - 1252 , doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0086 .

Ehrhardt , K. and Ragins , B.R. ( 2019 ), “ Relational attachment at work: a complimentary fit perspective on the role of relationships in organizational life ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 62 No. 1 , pp. 248 - 282 , doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0245 .

Emre , O. and De Spiegeleare , S. ( 2019 ), “ The role of work-life balance and autonomy in the relationship between commuting, employee commitment, and well-being ”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management , Vol. 32 No. 11 , pp. 1 - 25 , doi: 10.1080/09585192.2019.1583270 .

Fontinha , R. , Easton , S. and Van Laar , D. ( 2017 ), “ Overtime and quality of working life in academics and non-academics: the role of perceived work-life balance ”, International Journal of Stress Management , ( in Press ).

Fontinha , R. , Easton , S. and Van Laar , D. ( 2019 ), “ Overtime and quality of working life in academics and non-academics: the role of perceived work-life balance ”, International Journal of Stress Management , Vol. 26 No. 2 , pp. 173 , doi: 10.1037/str0000067 .

Galea , C. , Houkes , I. and Rijk , A.D. ( 2014 ), “ An insider’s point of view: how a system of flexible working hours helps employees to strike a proper balance between work and personal life ”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management , Vol. 25 No. 8 , pp. 1090 - 1111 , doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.816862 .

Greenhaus , J.H. and Kossek , E.E. ( 2014 ), “ The contemporary career: a work–home perspective ”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , Vol. 1 No. 1 , pp. 361 - 388 , doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091324 .

Groysberg , B. and Abrahams , R. ( 2014 ), “ Manage your work, manage your life ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 92 No. 3 , pp. 58 - 66 , available at: https://hbr.org/2014/03/manage-your-work-manage-your-life

Haar , J.M. and Roche , M. ( 2010 ), “ Family-supportive organization perceptions and employee outcomes: the mediating effects of life satisfaction ”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management , Vol. 21 No. 7 , pp. 999 - 1014 , doi: 10.1080/09585191003783462 .

Haar , J.M. , Sune , A. , Russo , M. and Ollier-Malaterre , A. ( 2019 ), “ A cross-national study on the antecedents of work-life balance from the fit and balance perspective ”, Social Indicators Research , Vol. 142 No. 1 , pp. 261 - 282 , doi: 10.1007/s11205-018-1875-6 .

Hughes , R. , Kinder , A. and Cooper , C.L. ( 2018 ), “ Work-life balance ”, The Wellbeing Workout , pp. 249 - 253 , doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-92552-3_42 .

Jackson , L.T. and Fransman , E.I. ( 2018 ), “ Flexi work, financial well-being, work-life balance and their effects on subjective experiences of productivity and job satisfaction of females in an institution of higher learning ”, South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences , Vol. 21 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 13 , doi: 10.4102/sajems.v21i1.1487 .

Jenkins , K. and Harvey , S.B. ( 2019 ), “ Australian experiences ”, Mental Health in the Workplace , pp. 49 - 66 . Springer , Cham .

Jensen , M.T. and Knudsen , K. ( 2017 ), “ A two-wave cross-lagged study of business travel, work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and psychological health complaints ”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 30 - 41 , doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1197206 .

Johari , J. , Yean Tan , F. and TjikZulkarnain , Z.I. ( 2018 ), “ Autonomy, workload, work-life balance, and job performance among teachers ”, International Journal of Educational Management , Vol. 32 No. 1 , pp. 107 - 120 , doi: 10.1108/IJEM-10-2016-0226 .

Jones , R. , Cleveland , M. and Uther , M. ( 2019 ), “ State and trait neural correlates of the balance between work-non work roles ”, Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging , Vol. 287 , pp. 19 - 30 , doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2019.03.009 .

Kalliath , T. and Brough , P. ( 2008 ), “ Work-life balance: a review of the meaning of the balance construct ”, Journal of Management & Organization , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 323 - 327 , doi: 10.1017/S1833367200003308 .

Kar , S. and Misra , K.C. ( 2013 ), “ Nexus between work life balance practices and employee retention-the mediating effect of a supportive culture ”, Asian Social Science , Vol. 9 No. 11 , p. 63 , doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2019.03.008 , doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n11p63 .

Kiburz , K.M. , Allen , T.D. and French , K.A. ( 2017 ), “ Work-family conflict and mindfulness: investigating the effectiveness of a brief training intervention ”, Journal of Organizational Behavior , Vol. 38 No. 7 , pp. 1016 - 1037 , doi: 10.1002/job.2181 .

Mushfiqur , R. , Mordi , C. , Oruh , E.S. , Nwagbara , U. , Mordi , T. and Turner , I.M. ( 2018 ), “ The impacts of work-life balance (WLB) challenges on social sustainability: the experience of nigerian female medical doctors ”, Employee Relations , Vol. 40 No. 5 , pp. 868 - 888 , doi: 10.1108/ER-06-2017-0131 .

Perrigino , M.B. , Dunford , B.B. and Wilson , K.S. ( 2018 ), “ Work-family backlash: the ‘dark side’ of work-life balance (WLB) policies ”, Academy of Management Annals , Vol. 12 No. 2 , pp. 600 - 630 , doi: 10.5465/annals.2016.0077 .

Phillips , J. , Hustedde , C. , Bjorkman , S. , Prasad , R. , Sola , O. , Wendling , A. and Paladine , H. ( 2016 ), “ Rural women family physicians: strategies for successful work-life balance ”, The Annals of Family Medicine , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 244 - 251 .

Powell , G.N. , Greenhaus , J.H. , Allen , T.D. and Johnson , R.E. ( 2019 ), “ Introduction to special topic forum: advancing and expanding work-life theory from multiple perspectives ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 44 No. 1 , pp. 54 - 71 , doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0310 .

Ratliff , N. ( 1988 ), “ Stress and burnout in the helping professions ”, Social Casework , Vol. 69 No. 1 , pp. 147 - 154 .

Singh , S. , Singh , S.K. and Srivastava , S. ( 2020 ), “ Relational exploration of the effect of the work-related scheme on job satisfaction ”, Vilakshan – XIMB Journal of Management , Vol. 17 Nos 1/2 , pp. 111 - 128 , doi: 10.1108/XJM-07-2020-0019 .

Srinivasan , T. and Sulur Nachimuthu , G. ( 2021 ), “ COVID-19 impact on employee flourishing: parental stress as mediator ”, Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Advance Online Publication , doi: 10.1037/tra0001037 .

Thilagavathy , S. and Geetha , S.N. ( 2020 ), “ A morphological analyses of the literature on employee work-life balance ”, Current Psychology , pp. 1 - 26 , doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-00968-x .

Turanlıgil , F.G. and Farooq , M. ( 2019 ), “ Work-Life balance in tourism industry ”, in Contemporary Human Resources Management in the Tourism Industry , pp. 237 - 274 , IGI Global .

Waters , M.A. and Bardoel , E.A. ( 2006 ), “ Work-family policies in the context of higher education: useful or symbolic? ”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources , Vol. 44 No. 1 , pp. 67 - 82 , doi: 10.1177/1038411106061510 .

Yadav , V. and Sharma , H. ( 2021 ), “ Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, and job satisfaction: mediating effect of work-family conflict ”, Vilakshan - XIMB Journal of Management , doi: 10.1108/XJM-02-2021-0050 .

Zheng , C. , Kashi , K. , Fan , D. , Molineux , J. and Ee , M.S. ( 2016 ), “ Impact of individual coping strategies and organizational work-life balance programmes on australian employee well-being ”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management , Vol. 27 No. 5 , pp. 501 - 526 , doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1020447 .

Acknowledgements

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Compliance of ethical standard statement: The results reported in this manuscript were conducted in accordance with general ethical guidelines in psychology.

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Publications
Account settings
Advanced Search
Journal List

Work–Life Balance: Weighing the Importance of Work–Family and Work–Health Balance

Andrea gragnano, silvia simbula, massimo miglioretti.

Author information
Article notes
Copyright and License information

Correspondence: [email protected]

Received 2019 Dec 17; Accepted 2020 Jan 29; Issue date 2020 Feb.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).

To date, research directed at the work–life balance (WLB) has focused mainly on the work and family domains. However, the current labor force is heterogeneous, and workers may also value other nonworking domains besides the family. The aim of this study was to investigate the importance of other nonworking domains in the WLB with a particular focus on health. Moreover, the importance of the effects of the work–family balance (WFB) and the work–health balance (WHB) on job satisfaction was investigated. Finally, we explored how the effects of the WFB and the WHB on job satisfaction change according to worker characteristics (age, gender, parental status, and work ability). This study involved 318 workers who completed an online questionnaire. The importance of the nonworking domains was compared with a t -test. The effect of the WFB and the WHB on job satisfaction was investigated with multiple and moderated regression analyses. The results show that workers considered health as important as family in the WLB. The WHB explained more of the variance in job satisfaction than the WFB. Age, gender and parental status moderated the effect of the WFB on job satisfaction, and work ability moderated the effect of the WHB on job satisfaction. This study highlights the importance of the health domain in the WLB and stresses that it is crucial to consider the specificity of different groups of workers when considering the WLB.

Keywords: work–life balance, work–family balance, work–health balance, diversity in the workplace, job satisfaction, multiple regression, interaction analysis

1. Introduction

The term work–life balance (WLB) has gained increasing popularity in the public discourse [ 1 ]. It is a term that is commonly used in companies, especially large ones, and it is often said to be at the core of their corporate welfare, e.g., [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. However, academic knowledge around the WLB concept is not as solid and extensive as the widespread use of the term would suggest [ 1 ]. Researchers have argued that WLB theoretical development has not kept pace with the popularity of the concept [ 5 , 6 ]. Among the many issues raised by recent critical reviews [ 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 ], the present study focuses on the limited consideration that has been given to the heterogeneity of the contemporary labor force in the WLB literature [ 8 ]. The extant research has largely assumed that the WLB is a concern mainly for working parents, where caring for dependent children is the relevant load in the life part of the WLB [ 1 ]. This became clear when we realized that the majority of the studies about the WLB actually only considered the family in the “life” part of the balance; that is, they considered the work–family balance (WFB) [ 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].

Currently, in addition to the massive presence of women in the labor market, which has fostered the literature about work–family balance, there is a highly increasing rate of active elderly workers, workers with a long-standing health problem or disability (LSHPD), single workers, and childless couples [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. These workers have different needs and interests outside work. This situation places renewed importance on a key feature of the WLB: The importance that is attached to the many different life role changes from person to person [ 9 ]. Therefore, even if the family role remains central in nonworking life, it is important to recognize the value of other roles when conceptualizing and measuring the WLB [ 11 ]. The family may not be the most important part of the WLB in determining the positive outcomes of, for example, workers with chronic diseases for whom the management of health has great influence. From this perspective, Gragnano et al. [ 15 ] recently developed the concept and measure of the work–health balance (WHB), which is particularly relevant for elderly workers and workers with a LSHPD.

This study aims to contribute to the WLB research by comparing the relevance of other nonwork domains beyond family and considering the heterogeneity of the current labor force in studying the WLB. Specifically, we (a) investigate the perceived importance of other nonwork life domains beyond family, with a focus on health; (b) compare the influence of the WFB and the WHB on job satisfaction; and (c) examine how the effects of the WFB and the WHB on job satisfaction change according to different worker characteristics.

In subsequent sections of this article, we discuss the relationship between the WLB and the WFB, also considering different worker characteristics. We then introduce the concept of the WHB.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

2.1. specific nonwork life domains: family and health.

The field of study about the work–life balance has had difficulty in establishing a commonly agreed-upon definition of the WLB [ 16 ]. A plethora of different conceptualizations exist in the literature, and many researchers have tried to summarize them [ 9 , 10 , 16 ]. After a review of the conceptualizations of the WLB in the literature, Kalliath and Brough [ 16 ] proposed a definition of the WLB that we endorse. “Work–life balance is the individual perception that work and nonwork activities are compatible and promote growth in accordance with an individual’s current life priorities” (p.326). A recent review indicated that a better work–life balance fosters not only job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational commitment but also life and family satisfaction [ 10 ]. The work–life balance also reduces stress-related outcomes such as psychological distress, emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and depression [ 10 ].

Research on work and nonwork interactions dates back to the mid-twentieth century, e.g., [ 17 ], and the issue has gained increasing importance in the popular press since the 1990s [ 16 ]. Today, there exists an extensive and growing body of research about the work–life balance [ 18 ], and the topic is of even more concern than in the past considering the new flexible ways of managing work (e.g., agile working, smart working, activity-based working, and flexible working).

Researchers have highlighted that the field of research about the work–life balance is itself “unbalanced.” The majority of studies on the work–life balance have focused only on work and family roles, that is, on the work–family balance [ 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. For example, Casper et al. [ 9 ] reviewed the conceptual definition of the balance in the academic literature and found that 66% of the definitions focused only on work and family. In their review, Chang et al. [ 7 ] found that the WLB was studied specifically, not in the form of the WFB, in only 9% and 26% of the quantitative and qualitative studies reviewed, respectively. As a result, the knowledge acquired over time about the predictors and consequences of the balance with work is based mainly on the work–family balance [ 1 , 10 ].

Different types of the work–family balance have been studied in the literature. A general classification distinguished four types of influence that can occur between work and family based on their direction and valence [ 19 ]. When the effect is negative from the family domain to the work domain, it is called the family-to-work conflict. When the effect is still negative but from the work domain to the family domain, it is called work-to-family conflict. When the effect is positive, it is called enrichment and can have the same two directions; therefore, there is family-to-work enrichment and work-to-family enrichment. The work–family balance has been extensively studied in its negative form, work–family conflict [ 19 ]. However, since the 2000s, the scientific community has begun to focus on its positive form, work–family enrichment [ 20 ].

Many researchers have called for a real expansion of the WLB concept, such that the second arm of the balance—life—is not confined to the family role [ 6 , 9 , 19 ]. The call for an expansion of the concept is not only theoretically grounded but also related to recent changes in the labor market. The identification of the WFB as an indicator of the WLB was relatively effective and useful in recent decades, when the greatest change in workplace demographics was the increase in the participation of women, and the management of family and work roles for working women and dual-earner couples, especially those with children, became a central issue within organizations. Currently, workplace demographics are more heterogeneous. In addition to the massive presence of woman in the labor market, we are also seeing an increase in the rate of active elderly workers, workers with an LSHPD, single workers, and childless couples [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. It is clear that an exclusive focus on family has become at least reductive when considering the WLB [ 1 , 21 ].

The majority of the studies that have investigated the work–nonwork balance without an exclusive focus on the family domain have considered nonwork to be unspecific, i.e., they have considered nonworking life in general, including nonfamily and family domains [ 19 ]. However, the consideration of the specific nonwork domains is essential to a full comprehension of the dynamics that influence the work–life balance in the heterogeneous working population, that is, the different, specific nonwork domains will have different levels of importance and different effects in the determination of the work–life balance among workers with diverse characteristics and needs outside work [ 11 ].

Based on the quality of life literature [ 22 ], the multiple identity perspective [ 23 ], and Super’s [ 24 ] life-space theory of career development, Keeney et al. [ 11 ] identified eight nonwork domains of relevance in the WLB: education, health, leisure, friendships, romantic relationships, family, household management, and community involvement. The importance that individuals give to the different domains varies from person to person [ 11 ]. Moreover, the relative importance of these life domains is likely to change over time within the same person because of changes in interests and life circumstances [ 24 ]. Thus, it is crucial to understand whether the other nonwork domains are as important as family and under which circumstances the priorities change. Among the domains that were detected by Keeney et al. [ 11 ], there was health. This is relevant because to our knowledge, for the first time in work–life balance literature, it has been recognized that health management can conflict with work activity.

As stated, the relevance of health to the work life derives from an increase in the rate of workers with an LSHPD and elderly workers, both with a higher incidence of health problems. In 2017, 27.8% of the European Union (EU) workers reported an LSHPD, and 19% of the employed persons in the EU were 55 years of age or older [ 25 , 26 ]. There is, however, another reason that makes the health domain relevant even for “healthy” workers. A paradigm shift has occurred in the planning and delivery of healthcare. People are now expected to actively manage their healthcare. Theorizations in the field of public health and in medicine have indicated that it is strategic for healthcare systems to have informed patients who are more directly responsible for their health and care management [ 27 ]. This has been paired with an increasing focus on health promotion that is based, partly but strongly, on good individual healthy behaviors [ 28 ]. Therefore, the workers, not just the sick ones, must take on a somewhat active role in the health domain of life, which may be more or less compatible with the working role.

In light of this literature and considering the life domains defined by Keeney et al. [ 11 ], we hypothesized that family is still central in the WLB of workers but that the health domain also has an equally important role. Therefore, if the workers were asked directly:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Workers will indicate that the family and health domains are more important than the other life domains in the WLB process .

2.2. Consequences of Work–Family Balance: Job Satisfaction

Many studies have analyzed individual consequences of the different types of the work–life balance, and several meta-analyses have summarized the literature about the correlates of work–family conflict [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ] and work–family enrichment [ 20 ]. Work–family conflict, in both directions, has been consistently found to be associated with work-related, family-related, and domain-unspecific outcomes. Specifically, among the many outcomes that are associated with work–family conflict in a statistically significant manner, the ones that were more strongly associated were organizational citizenship behavior, work-related and general stress, burnout and exhaustion, and job, marital and life satisfaction [ 29 ]. Far fewer studies exist for work–family enrichment, but by comparing the two extant bodies of literature, it is possible to note that the effect sizes of work–family enrichment are comparable to those of work–family conflict [ 20 , 29 ]. For simplicity and because more studies are needed about the relationship between work–family enrichment and conflict [ 33 ], which goes beyond the objectives of this research, we considered only the conflict, in both directions, in our study.

Among the literature considering work-related outcomes, job satisfaction has been the most studied variable [ 29 ]. Job satisfaction represents the extent to which workers like or dislike their job [ 34 ]. Job satisfaction is a central variable in organizational behavior research. Spector [ 34 ] ascribed its importance to three main reasons. Job satisfaction is an indicator of well-being and psychological health, it is related to many behaviors of the worker that are positive for the organization, and finally, it is a very useful indicator of organizational problems when its level is low. In fact, job satisfaction is highly related to burn-out, self-esteem, depression, anxiety and, to a lower extent, perceived physical illness [ 35 ]. It is consistently correlated with job performance [ 36 ] and with four dispositional traits predictive of job performance: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability [ 37 ]. Job satisfaction has also been found to be a significant predictor of turnover and turnover intention [ 38 , 39 ].

Job satisfaction is also related to the work–family balance. The meta-analysis conducted by Amstad et al. [ 29 ] reported that the correlation with job satisfaction was stronger for work-to-family conflict (weighted mean correlation = −0.26) than for family-to-work conflict (weighted mean correlation = −0.13). Theoretically, the work–family balance affects job satisfaction because an incompatibility between two personally relevant roles creates negative states and feelings. Following the principle that when something threatens something else personally relevant, the first is appraised negatively with negative emotion [ 40 ], and a role that interferes with the fulfilment of another personally relevant role is negatively evaluated. Specifically, a negative evaluation of an individual’s job is formed (i.e., low job satisfaction) depending on the extent to which the job threatens the fulfillment of the family role [ 41 ]. This explanation justifies why family-to-work conflict has been found to have a lower correlation with job satisfaction than work-to-family conflict. In fact, provided that both conflict directions may generate a strain in both domains, the family-to-work conflict will generate a low family satisfaction—instead of a low job satisfaction—because the family role interferes with the work role, and the negative evaluation will be toward the source of the interference [ 41 ]. This was supported by the meta-analysis conducted by Amstad et al. [ 29 ], who found that work-to-family conflict was more strongly correlated with work-related outcomes than family-related ones and that the opposite was true for family-to-work conflict. Based on these premises, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Work-to-family and family-to-work conflict will be significantly and negatively related to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): The relationship between work-to-family conflict and job satisfaction will be greater than the relationship between family-to-work conflict and job satisfaction.

2.3. Consequences of Work–Health Balance

The present study aimed to expand the knowledge about the nonwork life domain other than family, specifically the health domain. Despite the importance of the life domain of health, the literature has not offered many studies that consider health in the WLB process or measurement instruments that are specifically designed for the purpose [ 42 ]. Considering the literature about job retention and the quality of working life among workers with an LSHPD [ 43 , 44 ], Gragnano et al. [ 15 ] conceptualized the work–health balance (WHB) as a state in which the worker feels able to effectively balance health and work needs, arising from the perception of how much the characteristics of one’s work are a barrier to health needs and counterbalanced by the evaluation of the helpfulness of the working environment to meet health needs.

Health needs are understood here in a broad sense, covering not only the care needs of workers with chronic illnesses or conditions but all the needs that a worker considers necessary to adequately care for his or her health. From the definition, a measure of the WHB has been developed. The WHB questionnaire measures three distinct constructs: work–health incompatibility, health climate and external support [ 15 ]. The first construct measures how much work commitments hamper the desired management of health. The last two constructs measure the helpfulness of the working environment for health needs. The health climate detects the extent to which workers perceive that management is truly interested in their employees’ health, whereas external support identifies the perception of the level of help available for health problems in the workplace in the form of support from the supervisor and work flexibility.

Studies have shown that elderly workers and workers with an LSHPD have more difficulties in reaching a good WHB [ 45 , 46 ]. In addition, it has been shown that among workers who stop working for cardiovascular diseases, the process of returning to work is faster for those who have a good WHB [ 47 ]. With low levels of the WHB, the rates of presenteeism, emotional exhaustion, workaholism and general psychological distress (GHQ) increase [ 15 , 48 ]. In contrast, a good WHB is associated with greater work autonomy, job engagement, and job satisfaction [ 15 , 49 , 50 , 51 ].

In the WHB, a good balance generates job satisfaction because the work role is not a threat to the management of health. A low level of work-to-family conflict generates job satisfaction because the work role is not a threat to the family domain. Because the two domains at risk are different, the proportion of the job satisfaction variance that is explained by the WHB is expected to not overlap, to a great extent, with the proportion that is explained by the work-to-family conflict. Moreover, in the current working context, characterized by a great heterogeneity of the contemporary labor force with a substantial proportion of elderly workers and workers with an LSHPD, as well as with the increasing spread of a health care system that is based on the active and informed role of patients, we expect the WHB to be as important as work-to-family conflict in shaping attitudes toward job and job satisfaction. Therefore, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 3a (H3a): The WHB will have a significant positive effect on job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b): The effect size of the WHB on job satisfaction will be at least as large as that of work-to-family conflict.

2.4. The Heterogeneity of the Labor Force and WLB

As stated before, the present study focuses on the problem of the limited consideration that has been given in the WLB literature to the heterogeneity of the contemporary labor force [ 8 ]. The current labor force is characterized not only by a greater female presence but also by an increasing rate of elderly workers, workers with an LSHPD, single workers, and childless couples [ 12 , 13 , 14 ], all with different needs and with a different levels of importance that are given to their various nonworking roles [ 1 ].

This last consideration is particularly relevant in the context of the WLB because the balance is not absolute; rather, it depends on the importance that is given by the worker to the various roles. Therefore, when studying the effect of the WLB on outcomes by using concepts and measures such as work-to-family conflict or the WHB, which measure the balance between a specific nonwork role and work, it is theoretically appropriate to expect that the studied effect will vary based on the importance that is given by the worker to the nonwork role under consideration. In other words, the perception of an imbalance between a specific nonworking role and work will have a negative effect on the outcome to the extent that the nonworking role in question is important for the worker.

Despite the centrality of individual priorities in the definition of the WLB [ 9 , 10 , 16 ], surprisingly few studies have explored how individual priorities moderate the effect of the WLB on outcomes [ 6 , 29 , 52 ], which is a symptom of the limited consideration of diversity in the labor force by the WLB literature [ 1 , 8 ]. Individual differences have been considered as predictors of differences in the level of balance [ 10 , 53 ] instead of as moderators of the effects of the balance on the outcomes. Crooker et al. [ 21 ] developed a theoretical framework that extensively considered differences in individual value systems as moderators, but this study was focused on the genesis of the WLB instead of its consequences.

In the present study, we considered four variables (i.e., age, gender, parental status, and work ability) that, according to the literature, moderate the relationship between the WFB and job satisfaction or, alternatively, the relationship between the WHB and job satisfaction. The hypothesis is that individual conditions and characteristics that increase (or decrease) the importance that is given by the worker to the family or health domain will increase (or decrease) the effect that the work–family balance or the WHB has on job satisfaction.

Gender has been studied in the WLB literature as a possible predictor of different levels of the work–family balance. The hypothesis has been that, since family responsibilities usually pertain more to women, women have worse levels of the work–family balance, but these studies have not consistently supported this hypothesis [ 54 ]. However, research has still indicated that there are significant disparities between men and women pertaining to the work–family balance [ 55 ]. There have also been studies that have indicated that women do value family more than men, and the opposite has been shown to be true for work [ 56 , 57 ]. This is consistent with other studies that have indicated a stronger effect of the work–family balance on job satisfaction [ 58 , 59 ] and negative emotional responses [ 60 ] for women. Based on these premises, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 4a (H4a): The negative effect of work–family conflict (work-to-family and family-to work) on job satisfaction will be stronger for women than for men.

Similarly, there is evidence that parents experience more problems with the work–family balance than workers without children (for a meta-analysis, see [ 61 ]). This is often because family-related demands are higher for parents [ 62 ]. However, we also sustain that the importance that is given to the family domain is higher for workers with children than for those without. Thus, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 4b (H4b): The negative effect of work–family conflict (work-to-family and family-to work) on job satisfaction will be stronger for workers with children than for those without.

Socioemotional selectivity theory (SST) [ 63 ] sustains that individuals have an intrinsic perception of the time left in their life—the future time perspective—and based on that, they adjust their preferences and behavior. A shortened future time perspective promotes the pursuit of short-term emotion-related goals, such as positive emotional and psychological well-being, and it devaluates long-term goals, such as the development of skills or career advancements [ 63 ]. In the WLB literature, SST implies that elderly workers, who have a shorter future time perspective, should consider family relationships more important than work [ 64 ]. Therefore, a high level of work-to-family conflict will affect elderly workers and their evaluation of job satisfaction more than younger worker. In line with this, Treadway et al. [ 65 ] found that, in the presence of a high work-to-family conflict, workers with a more constrained future time perspective experienced a lower continuance commitment than employees with a less shallow future time perspective.

Hypothesis 4c (H4c): The negative effect of work–family conflict (work-to-family and family-to-work) on job satisfaction will be stronger for elderly workers than for younger workers.

Because increasing age is associated with higher morbidity, (multiple) chronic conditions, and higher use of health services [ 66 ], the importance of the health domain is expected to be higher among elderly workers than younger workers. Therefore, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 4d (H4d): The positive effect of the WHB on job satisfaction will be stronger for elderly workers than for younger workers.

Finally, work ability is expected to play a role in association with the WHB. Work ability represents the perceived ability to do one’s job effectively and to continue to do so in the near future when considering personal health problems and resources [ 66 ]. Thus, in the life of workers with a low work ability, the health domain generally has more importance than workers with a high work ability because health is a current problem. Considering this, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 4e (H4e): The positive effect of the WHB on job satisfaction will be stronger for workers with a low work ability than for those with a high work ability.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. sample and procedure.

The study involved workers of full age under an employment contract. Entrepreneurs and self-employed workers were excluded. We distributed the link to the online questionnaire with a brief description of the research through social networks (i.e., Facebook and LinkedIn), messaging applications, and email. To begin the assessment, the participants had to read and approve an informed consent form to freely decide whether to participate in the research. The informed consent provided informed about the aim of the study and the procedures to collect the data, and it ensured that there were no potential risks or costs involved. The research team assured the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants’ responses throughout the entire study process. The contact details of the researcher in charge were provided in the event of any further questions. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of Milano-Bicocca (Prot.160-2014). The number of subjects that started the questionnaire was 350. However, the dataset used in the analyses contained 318 responses after excluding 32 questionnaires because they were substantially incomplete; that is, the subjects opened the online page of the questionnaire but did not answer any questions. These values represent a completion rate of 91%. All participants lived in Italy; 90% lived in northern Italy. Overall, 37%, 28%, and 35% of the respondents were between 20 and 30, 31 and 44, and 45 and 60 years old, respectively. The proportion of men and women, as well as people with and without children, was balanced in the sample (56% women and 58% with children). Among the 134 workers with children, 49%, 43%, and 8% of the respondents had one, two, and three or more children, respectively. The workers with one or more children under the age of twelve were 51%. Most of the respondents had a partner (76%) and at least an upper secondary school diploma (93%). Most of the participants worked full-time (85%) with an open-ended contract (79%) as a white-collar worker (72%). Table 1 presents detailed descriptive statistics of the sample.

Descriptive statistics of the sample (N = 318).

3.2. Measures

The sociodemographic information described above was provided by the respondents at the beginning of the online questionnaire.

Based on the instrument developed by Keeney et al. [ 11 ] to evaluate the importance in the WLB attached to the different life domains (family, health, household management, friendship, training activities, favorite leisure activities, and community involvement), respondents were asked “How important is it in your life to reconcile work with …? ”. The question was asked, changing the final part, for all of the seven domains of life considered. The response scale was a 10-point scale from 1 (not at all important) to 10 (extremely important).

Two forms of the WLB were measured: the work–family balance and the work–health balance. The work–family balance was measured in the form of the work-to-family conflict (WFC—three items, α = 0.79) and family-to-work conflict (FWC—three items, α = 0.72) with the abbreviated version of the measure of work–family conflict [ 67 ]. Answers were given with a five-point Likert scale, from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The work–health balance was measured with the Work–Health Balance Questionnaire [ 15 ], which was composed of three subscales: work–health incompatibility (WH—six items, α = 0.84), health climate (HC—five items, α = 0.92), and external support (ES—six items, α = 0.81). The total WHB score was calculated by subtracting WHI from the mean of HC and ES. Answers were given according to a five-point rating scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree) for WHI and from 1 (never) to 5 (always) for HC and ES.

Work ability, the perceived ability to do one’s job effectively and to continue to do so in the near future when considering personal health problems and resources, was measured with the Work Ability Index (WAI) [ 68 ]. The index was calculated from seven factors (α = 0.79) for a total of 10 items with different rating scales.

Job satisfaction was measured with a single item that asked respondents to rate their overall satisfaction with their job on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (fully satisfied). The reliability and validity of the single-item measure to assess job satisfaction has been established [ 69 ].

Harman’s single-factor test was adopted to check for a common method bias. The first factor explained 27% of the variance. Given that this fell below the threshold of 50%, the common method bias does not appear to have been a significant factor in this study. The results of the explorative factor analysis performed for the Harman single-factor test are available in the online Supplementary Materials of this article.

3.3. Data Analysis

All data analyses were performed by using R [ 70 ]. The different life domains were ordered according to the mean importance to the WLB that was attached to them by the respondents. Mean and standard deviations were provided for all the life domains. To test whether family and health domains were considered more important than the other life domains in the WLB (H1), the mean of the importance that was attached to health and family were compared to the mean of the importance that was attached to all the other life domains with a paired t-test. Even if no hypothesis was formulated specifically on this point, we explored whether the family and health domain were considered equally important. A paired t-test between the importance ascribed to family and to health was performed.

The hypotheses about the direction and effect size of work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict, and the WHB on job satisfaction (H2a,b and H3a,b) were tested with a multiple linear regression with job satisfaction as the dependent variable and work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict and the WHB as independent variables. To evaluate the relative importance of these predictors to the multiple regression model just described, we used the Lindeman, Merenda, and Gold’s metric (LMG) and reported the standardized β . The LMG expresses the squared semipartial correlation that was averaged across all possible ordering of the predictors. Since each order of predictors yields a different decomposition of the model sum of squares, the variance of the dependent variable that is explained by a predictor in a multiple regression varies according to the sequential order in which a predictor is entered into the model in relation to the other predictors. LMG averaged this value for all the possible orders of entry [ 71 ]. As a result, LMG considers both the predictor’s direct effect and its effect when combined with other predictors. Conversely, the standardized β represents only the incremental contribution of each predictor when combined with all remaining predictors [ 71 , 72 ].

This model, as well as the other following models, was controlled for age, marital status, and parental status. The control variables to be included were chosen with a backward model selection by the Akaike information criterion (AIC) from an initial model that included age, gender, education level, marital and parental status, job role, type of contract, and working hours. These preliminary analyses are available in the online Supplementary Material of this article.

Finally, the hypotheses about the moderation of the relation between the work–family balance and/or the WHB with job satisfaction (H4a–e) by individual characteristics (age, gender, parental status, and work ability) were tested with several models—one per moderator—with interaction effects. Continuous variables involved in the interaction were centered on the mean.

4.1. Perceived Importance of Family and Health Domain

The mean and standard deviation of the importance that is attached to the different life domains, ordered by their importance, are listed in Figure 1 .

Mean importance and standard deviation of the seven life domains.

The first paired t-test resulted in a significant difference in the mean of the importance that was attached to health and family (M = 9.27 and SD = 1.04) and those ascribed to the other life domains (M = 7.3 and SD = 1.32); t (317) = 25.7 and p < 0.001. This result supported H1a, that is, the health and family domains were considered to be more important than the other domains in the WLB.

Moreover, the second paired t-test resulted in a nonsignificant difference in the importance that is attached to health (M = 9.29 and SD = 1.18) and those attached to family (M = 9.25 and SD = 1.3); t (317) = 0.57 and p = 0.57. This exploratory analysis showed that health and family are life domains considered of equivalent importance in the WLB.

4.2. Consequences of Work–Family and Work–Health Balance on Job Satisfaction

Table 2 presents the result of the first model that tested the effects of work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict, and the WHB on job satisfaction (R 2 = 0.28, F (6/308) = 20.24, and p < 0.001).

Adjusted effects of work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict, and the work–health balance (WHB) on job satisfaction.

*** = p < 0.001; ** = p < 0.01; * = p < 0.05; 1 se = standard error.

The model resulted in a significant negative effect of work-to-family conflict and a nonsignificant effect of family-to-work conflict, thus partially supporting H2a. The LMG of work-to-family conflict on job satisfaction (LMG = 0.08) was eight times greater than that of family-to-work conflict (LMG = 0.01). Moreover, the former was statistically significant, while the other was not. These results fully supported H2b. Considering the effect of the WHB on job satisfaction, the model estimated a significant positive effect, supporting H3a. Moreover, the variance that was explained by the WHB (LMG = 0.16) was twice as much as the variance that was explained by work-to-family conflict (LMG = 0.08), supporting H3b.

4.3. Moderators of the Effects of Work–Family and Work–Health Balance

Table 3 reports models 1 and 2, which tested the moderating effect of gender and parental status, respectively.

Adjusted effects of work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict, and the WHB on job satisfaction.

*** = p < 0.001; ** = p < 0.01; * = p < 0.05; 1 In model 1, the moderator is gender (female); in model 2, the moderator is parental status (no children). Continuous variables in the interactions have been centered on the mean.

Model 1 (R 2 = 0.30, F (9/305) = 14.54, and p < 0.001) in Table 3 showed a significant negative interaction of gender with work-to-family conflict but no interaction with family-to-work conflict. The interaction indicates that the negative effect of work-to-family conflict on job satisfaction was stronger among women than among men. To facilitate the interpretation, the interaction effect is depicted in Figure 2 . This result partially supported H4a: The effect of the work–family balance, specifically of work-to-family conflict, on job satisfaction was stronger among women than among men.

Moderating effect of gender on the relationship between work-to-family conflict and job satisfaction.

Model 2 (R 2 = 0.31, F (8/306) = 17.46, and p < 0.001) in Table 3 again showed a significant interaction of work-to-family conflict with the moderator (i.e., parental support) but no interaction of the moderator with family-to-work conflict. The interaction indicates that the negative effect of work-to-family conflict on job satisfaction was stronger among workers with children than among those without. This interaction effect is depicted in Figure 3 . This result partially supported H4b: The effect of the work–family balance on job satisfaction, specifically of work-to-family conflict, is stronger among workers with children than among those without.

Moderating effect of parental status on the relationship between work-to-family conflict and job satisfaction.

Table 4 reports models 3 and 4, which tested the effects of two moderators—age and work ability, respectively. Model 3 (R 2 = 0.31, F (9/305) = 15.28, and p < 0.001) in Table 4 showed a significant interaction of age with work-to-family and family-to-work conflict but no interaction with the WHB.

*** = p < 0.001; ** = p < 0.01; * = p < 0.05; 1 In model 3, the moderator is age; in model 4, the moderator is work ability. Continuous variables in the interactions have been centered on the mean.

The interactions showed that the negative effect of work-to-family conflict on job satisfaction increased with age ( Figure 4 a), whereas family-to-work conflict appeared to have a positive effect for older workers ( Figure 4 b). These results again supported H4c only for work-to-family conflict, whereas they showed an unexpected positive effect of family-to-work conflict on job satisfaction among the elderly. In contrast, the results did not support H4d because the effect of the WHB on job satisfaction did not seem to increase with age.

( a ) Moderating effect of age on the relationship between work-to-family conflict and job satisfaction. ( b ) Moderating effect of age on the relationship between family-to-work conflict and job satisfaction.

Model 4 (R 2 = 0.33, F (8/306) = 18.18, and p < 0.001) in Table 4 showed a significant negative interaction between the WHB and work ability. The interaction showed that the positive effect of the WHB on job satisfaction decreased with the increase in work ability ( Figure 5 ). This result supported H4e: The positive effect of the WHB on job satisfaction increased with the decline in work ability.

Moderating effect of work ability on the relationship between the work–health balance and job satisfaction.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to verify the importance of different, specific nonwork domains in the work–life balance process, with a focus on family and health. We also investigated the impact of the work–family balance (in both directions) and the work–health balance on job satisfaction and how the heterogeneity of the current workforce modifies these relationships.

The results supported the first hypothesis. As hypothesized, when considering their work–life balance, the workers attached more importance to the health and family domains than to the other nonwork domains. A further analysis showed that the health and family domains were given similar importance. This result was the starting point of the entire study and justified the inclusion of the concept of the work–health balance. The workers rated family and health as 25% more important than the other nonwork life domain in their work–life balance. The fact that health was important as family is a relevant result, and it was found to be even more important when we analyzed the sample. Indeed, there were no apparent sample characteristics that made this sample more exposed to health issues than the general population. This fact suggests that researchers and companies should pay more attention to the health domain even for workers that are not affected by severe or chronic health conditions.

The second hypothesis concerned the effect of the work–family balance on job satisfaction. The work–family balance was supposed to affect job satisfaction, and work-to-family conflict was supposed to be more important than family-to-work conflict. The results supported this hypothesis and, consistent with other studies, the effect of family-to-work conflict on job satisfaction was smaller than that of work-to-family conflict and was statistically not significant [ 73 ]. This result can be explained in light of the appraisal theory [ 40 ]: If work threatens family life (work–life conflict), work will be negatively appraised; if family issues threaten work participation (family–work conflict), family, not the work, will be negatively appraised [ 41 ]. Consistent with a prior meta-analysis [ 29 ], these results support the “matching-hypothesis” (work-to-family conflict affects the work domain more, whereas family-to-work conflict affects the family domain more) as opposed to the “cross-domain hypothesis” (work-to-family conflict affects the family domain more, whereas family-to-work conflict affects the work domain more). Our study provides new evidence in this sense because the regression model was controlled for the work–health balance and because of the adoption of the LMG metric.

The third hypothesis investigated the effect of the WHB on job satisfaction and its importance relative to work–family conflict. As hypothesized, the WHB had a positive and statistically significant relationship with job satisfaction, and its importance was two times greater than that of work-to-family conflict. This result supports the usefulness of the specific instrument, the WHB questionnaire, and confirms the importance of filling the gap in the literature [ 42 ] by introducing the health domain into the concept of the work–life balance. Even if our results cannot be considered definitive in saying that the health domain is more important than the family domain in the genesis of job satisfaction, they clearly indicate that, when investigating or promoting work–life balance, considering the WHB is at least as important as considering the work–family balance. The common practice of considering the work–life balance as an issue that is related only to family is wrong and limits the possibility to explain work phenomena through the lens of the work–life balance.

The fourth hypothesis was related to the moderation of the effects of work–family conflict and the WHB by specific work characteristics (i.e., gender, parental status, age, and work ability) on job satisfaction. All three hypothesized moderators of the effect of work-to-family conflict on job satisfaction (i.e., gender, parental status, and age) were supported, whereas only one moderator of the family-to-work conflict effect (i.e., age) was sustained. Of the two hypothesized moderators (age and work ability) of the WHB effect on job satisfaction, only the interaction with work ability was supported.

In particular, the impact of work-to-family conflict on job satisfaction was greater for women (H4a), parent workers (H4b), and elderly workers (H4c). The reason for this moderation effect is likely due to the difference in salience of the family domain attached by the groups of workers. Women are likely to evaluate family as more central in their lives than men because of widespread cultural norms and gender-differentiated values [ 56 , 57 ]. Likewise, parents are likely to give more salience to family than people with no children because of cultural norms and, possibly, because of a “self-selection process” that brings people with a high salience of family to be more prone to parenthood than people with a low salience [ 62 , 74 ]. Given such result, it is possible, and should be tested in future studies, that being responsible for eldercare, beyond generally increasing the level of work-to-family conflict, also increases the impact of work-to-family conflict on job satisfaction. Finally, as implied by the socioemotional selectivity theory, elderly workers are likely to consider family relationships more important than younger workers because of a shorter future time perspective [ 64 ].

Given the theoretically coherent nonsignificant main effect of family-to-work conflict on job satisfaction, it was not surprising that the hypothesized moderators of its effects were not relevant. However, the moderation of the effect of family-to-work conflict on job satisfaction by age was significant and indicated that among older workers, a higher level of family-to-work conflict was related to higher job satisfaction. A further analyses showed that the effect of family-to-work conflict was nonsignificant among workers of 27 (the first quartile) and 38 years of age (the mean age), but this effect was statistically significant among workers of 49 years of age (the third quartile). The interpretation of this effect is hazardous with the data at hand. Further studies should investigate this effect while also considering the cross-sectional nature of our study. In fact, it is not possible to exclude that the found relationship was inverse. That is, older workers with higher job satisfaction perceived a higher family-to-work conflict because of a greater importance that is attached to the work domain than other elderly workers with lower job satisfaction.

Concerning the WHB, we hypothesized that its effect on job satisfaction was stronger among older workers (H4d) and workers with a lower WAI score (H4e). Since the interaction term was not significant in the case of age, H4d was not supported. Our results showed that a good WHB was associated with an equally high job satisfaction among all ages. We believe this is simply because, in our sample, the importance that was given to the health domain was not associated with age. This idea was supported by post hoc analyses that correlated the importance that was given by the workers to the health domain with their age, which resulted in a nonsignificant correlation ( r = −0.09, t = −1.62, and p = 0.11). We believe this result indicates that the health domain is crucial for both younger and older workers. There is the possibility that the WHB is a very important dimension at all ages—not only for elderly workers as originally intended [ 15 ]. In contrast, our results supported H4e. With the decline of the WAI, that is, with more health problems affecting job activity, the importance of the positive effect of the WHB on job satisfaction was increased. As proposed elsewhere [ 15 ], workers who are more vulnerable to health problems had a greater gain from their work situation with a good balance between health needs and work demands than healthy workers.

Overall, the results regarding the hypothesized moderators indicate that it is crucial to take into account the heterogeneity of the current workforce and to consider the specificity of different groups of workers when considering the WLB. From the outset, most definitions of the work–life balance have stressed the fact that it is not possible to identify an absolute optimal balance because it depends on the importance that the worker gives to the different domains of life [ 1 , 9 , 10 , 16 ]. Despite being theoretically clear, individual differences have been mainly overlooked in the WLB literature. Our study presents strong evidence that the issue must be considered, especially in light of the large presence of women, elderly individuals, people with an LSHPD, singles, and childless couples in the labor force [ 12 , 13 , 14 ].

The current study presents some limitations to consider when interpreting the results. First, the study design was cross-sectional. This limits our confidence in determining the cause and effect in the relationships between the considered variables. We based our considerations on a strong theoretical basis [ 10 , 29 ], but longitudinal studies are needed to replicate our findings.

Second, we adopted an online recruitment procedure that has the problem of a participant selection bias because of the self-selection of participants [ 75 ]. The online recruitment made our sample not representative of the entire working population, but this was beyond our intent. As explained by Landers and Behrend [ 76 ], when the aim is to test theoretically relevant hypotheses, as in our study, sample representativeness is less crucial than when a study aims to estimate the presence and the level of one or more variables in the workers’ population. Of course, our results must be replicated in other samples to increase their generalizability. By comparing our sample characteristics with data representative of the employees in north Italy [ 77 ] (data shown in the online Supplementary Material of this article), it is possible to note some differences in the proportions of job roles, type of occupations, and levels of education that are worth being mentioned. Specifically, like many studies in the WLB literature [ 7 ], in our sample, there was an over-representation of white-collar workers and an under-representation of blue-collar workers. There was an over-representation of clerical support workers and an under-representation of factory workers, skilled laborers, building workers, elementary occupations, and services and sale workers. Finally, the level of education of the sample was higher than in the general population of employees in north Italy. Given these specificities, it will be necessary to test whether the same results hold across samples with an appropriate representation of factory workers, skilled laborers, building workers, elementary occupations, and services and sale workers, as well as employees with a lower level of education.

Third, the measure of the importance that workers gave to the different life domains was based on the instrument of Keeney et al. [ 11 ], but the final instrument was created ad hoc for this study. Therefore, the measurement instrument may have biased the results regarding the importance of the different life domains. However, it should be considered that the questions that were posed to the participants were quite straightforward, and the values obtained for each domain were plausible and not extreme. Even if the instrument was not fine-tuned for exact comparisons, we believe it was appropriate for the aim of the study. The cited limitations warn against an unconditional generalization of the results of this study that, instead, have to be replicated with stronger research designs and other samples of workers.

6. Conclusions

The health issue has emerged in the organizational literature as a central topic. It no longer pertains to only small groups of workers with severe health problems. The changes in the labor force and of the patient’s role in the health system have made it impossible to consider the management of health as an exclusively nonworking activity. This study shows that workers are aware of the importance of the health domain for achieving a good work–life balance. Our results indicate health as a fundamental domain in the work–life balance dynamic that is as important as the family domain, if not more so. Researchers and practitioners should therefore consider the health domain in addition to the family domain when investigating the work–life balance.

By showing the differences in the effects of the work–family balance and the work–health balance on job satisfaction for different categories of workers, the present study demonstrates the importance of individual differences in the work–life balance process. That is, the balance between work and life is not absolute, but it is related to the importance that is given by the worker to the various domains. This relationship is of prominent importance in the current heterogeneous labor force.

Finally, our results provide evidence, to be replicated, that the importance of the work–health balance is not related to age, as previously believed; but only with the health condition.

Overall, this study is relevant for the work–life balance literature because, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first to consider the work–health balance. Moreover, it is one of the few studies that, through moderation analyses, investigates how the effect of the work–life balance on a relevant outcome changes according to workers’ characteristics.

Acknowledgments

We thank Martina Raimondi for her valuable assistance during the process of data collection and Zavagno D. for his help in proofreading the final changes made to the manuscript.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/907/s1 , Table S1: Factor Loadings of the EFA performed for the Harman’s single factor test, Table S2: Percentage of variance explained by the factors, Table S3: Comparison of the characteristics of the sample with those of the population of employees in north Italy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.G. and M.M.; Methodology, A.G. and S.S.; Formal analysis, A.G.; Investigation, A.G. and M.M.; Data curation, A.G., M.M.; Writing—original draft preparation, A.G.; Writing—review and editing, S.S., M.M. and A.G.; Visualization, A.G. and S.S.; Supervision, M.M.; Project administration, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding. The APC was funded by the “Fondo di Ateneo” grant, from the University of Milano-Bicocca to M.M.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

1. Kelliher C., Richardson J., Boiarintseva G. All of work? All of life? Reconceptualising work-life balance for the 21st century. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2019;29:97–112. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12215. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
2. Autogrill Work Life Balance and Corporate Welfare. [(accessed on 18 July 2019)]; Available online: http://autogrillcsr2012.message-asp.com/en/people/employees/work-life-balance-and-corporate-welfare .
3. ENEL WOrk-Life Balance, People Care and Corporate Welfare. [(accessed on 18 July 2019)]; Available online: http://sustainabilityreport2017.enel.com/en/our-commitment/our-people-and-their-value/work-life-balance-people-care-and-corporate-welfare .
4. SNAM Corporate Welfare and a Healthy Work/life Balance. [(accessed on 18 July 2019)]; Available online: http://reports.snam.it/2016/sustainability-report/part-two-csr-and-performance/our-responsibility/people/corporate-welfare-and-a-healthy-work-life-balance.html .
5. Valcour M. Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007;92:1512–1523. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1512. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
6. Haar J.M., Russo M., Suñe A., Ollier-Malaterre A. Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures. J. Vocat. Behav. 2014;85:361–373. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.010. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
7. 7 Chang A., Mcdonald P., Burton P. Methodological choices in work-life balance research 1987 to 2006: A critical review. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2010;21:2381–2413. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2010.516592. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
8. Ozbilgin M.F., Beauregard T.A., Tatli A., Bell M.P. Work-life, diversity and intersectionality: A critical review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2011;13:177–198. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00291.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
9. Casper W.J., Vaziri H., Wayne J.H., DeHauw S., Greenhaus J. The jingle-jangle of work-nonwork balance: A comprehensive and meta-analytic review of its meaning and measurement. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017;103:182–214. doi: 10.1037/apl0000259. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
10. Sirgy M.J., Lee D.-J. Work-life balance: An integrative review. Appl. Res. Qual. Life. 2018;13:229–254. doi: 10.1007/s11482-017-9509-8. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
11. Keeney J., Boyd E.M., Sinha R., Westring A.F., Ryan A.M. From “work-family” to “work-life”: Broadening our conceptualization and measurement. J. Vocat. Behav. 2013;82:221–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.005. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
12. OECD . OECD Factbook 2013: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics. OECD Publishing; Paris, France: 2018. OECD Factbook. [ Google Scholar ]
13. EUROSTAT Population by Type of Disability, Sex, Age and Labour Status [Table hlth_dlm040] [(accessed on 14 December 2015)]; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/hlth_dlm040 .
14. Casper W.J., Weltman D., Kwesiga E. Beyond family-friendly: The construct and measurement of singles-friendly work culture. J. Vocat. Behav. 2007;70:478–501. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.01.001. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
15. Gragnano A., Miglioretti M., Frings-Dresen M.H.W., de Boer A.G.E.M. Adjustment between work demands and health needs: Development of the work–health balance questionnaire. Rehabil. Psychol. 2017;62:374–386. doi: 10.1037/rep0000121. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
16. Kalliath T., Brough P. Work-life balance: A review of the meaning of the balance construct. J. Manag. Organ. 2008;14:323–327. [ Google Scholar ]
17. Rapoport R., Rapoport R. Work and family in contemporary society. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1965;30:381–394. doi: 10.2307/2090719. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
18. Guest D.E. Perspectives on the Study of Work-life Balance. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2002;41:255–279. doi: 10.1177/0539018402041002005. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
19. Frone M.R. Work-family balance. In: Quick J.C., Tetrick L.E., editors. Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. American Psychological Association; Washington, DC, USA: 2003. pp. 143–162. [ Google Scholar ]
20. McNall L.A., Nicklin J.M., Masuda A.D. A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work–family enrichment. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010;25:381–396. doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9141-1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
21. Crooker K.J., Smith F.L., Tabak F. Creating work-life balance: A model of pluralism across life domains. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2002;1:387–419. doi: 10.1177/1534484302238434. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
22. Campbell A., Converse P.E., Rodgers W.L. The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions. Russell Sage Foundation; New York, NY, USA: 1976. [ Google Scholar ]
23. Thoits P.A. Multiple identities and psychological well-being: A reformulation and test of the social isolation hypothesis. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983;48:174. doi: 10.2307/2095103. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
24. Super D.E. A life-span, life-space approach to career development. J. Vocat. Behav. 1980;16:282–298. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
25. EUROSTAT Employed Persons by Professional Status, Sex, Educational Attainment Level and Age [Table lfso_17csag] [(accessed on 19 July 2019)]; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/lfso_17csag .
26. EUROSTAT People Having a Long-Standing Illness or Health Problem, by Sex, Age and Labour Status [Table hlth_silc_04] [(accessed on 19 July 2019)]; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/hlth_silc_04 .
27. Graffigna G., Barello S., Bonanomi A., Lozza E. Measuring patient engagement: development and psychometric properties of the Patient Health Engagement (PHE) Scale. Front. Psychol. 2015;6:274. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00274. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
28. European Commission . State of Health in the EU: Companion Report 2017. Publications Office of the European Union; Luxembourg: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
29. Amstad F.T., Meier L.L., Fasel U., Elfering A., Semmer N.K. A meta-analysis of work-family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2011;16:151–169. doi: 10.1037/a0022170. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
30. Allen T.D., Herst D.E.L., Bruck C.S., Sutton M. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000;5:278–308. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.278. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
31. Ford M.T., Heinen B.A., Langkamer K.L. Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007;92:57–80. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.57. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
32. Ernst Kossek E., Ozeki C. Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. J. Appl. Psychol. 1998;83:139–149. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.139. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
33. Greenhaus J.H., Powell G.N., Greenhaus J.H., Powell G.N. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006;31:72–92. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.19379625. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
34. Spector P. Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences. SAGE Publications, Inc.; Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
35. Faragher E.B. The relationship between job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005;62:105–112. doi: 10.1136/oem.2002.006734. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
36. Judge T.A., Thoresen C.J., Bono J.E., Patton G.K. The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychol. Bull. 2001;127:376–407. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
37. Judge T.A., Bono J.E. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—Self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—With job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001;86:80–92. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
38. Tett R.P., Meyer J.P. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytical findings. Pers. Psychol. 1993;46:259–293. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
39. Griffeth R.W., Hom P.W., Gaertner S. A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. J. Manag. 2000;26:463–488. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600305. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
40. Lazarus R.S. Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. Am. Psychol. 1991;46:819–834. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
41. Grandey A.A., Cordeiro B.L., Crouter A.C. A longitudinal and multi-source test of the work-family conflict and job satisfaction relationship. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2005;78:305–323. doi: 10.1348/096317905X26769. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
42. Miglioretti M., Gragnano A. Subjective well-being and health in organizations. Psicol. Della Salut. 2016;1:44–48. doi: 10.3280/PDS2016-001006. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
43. Habeck R., Yasuda S., Rachel C., Kregel J. Organizational factors that facilitate successful job retention of employees with health impairments and disabilities. In: Wehman P., Kregel J., Brooke V., editors. Workplace Supports and Job Retention: Promoting an Employer Driven Approach to Employment of People With Disabilities. Virginia Commonwealth University - Rehabilitation Research & Training Center; Richmond, VA, USA: 2008. pp. 39–66. [ Google Scholar ]
44. de Jong M., de Boer A.G.E.M., Tamminga S.J., Frings-Dresen M.H.W. Quality of working life issues of employees with a chronic physical disease: A systematic review. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2015;25:182–196. doi: 10.1007/s10926-014-9517-6. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
45. Miglioretti M., Gragnano A., Griffo R., Ambrosetti M., Tramarin R., Vestri A.R. Does the return to work have a negative impact on the lifestyle of cardiovascular patients? Comments on the ICAROS results. Int. J. Cardiol. 2014;174:193–194. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.03.174. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
46. Novelo-Ramírez H., Méndez-Magaña A.C., Herrera-Godina M., González-Estévez G., Gragnano A. Work-Health Balance Questionnaire in Mexico: Its pertinence and preliminary results; Proceedings of the 19th European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP) Congress; Turin, Italy. 29 May–1 June 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
47. Miglioretti M., Previtali F., Manzi C., Gragnano A. The usefulness of Work-Health Balance in older workers and in workers with longstanding health problem or disability; Proceedings of the 19th European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP) Congress; Turin, Italy. 29 May–1 June 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
48. Previtali F., Gragnano A., Miglioretti M. The impact of work-health balance on aging blue-collar employees in the steel industry; Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference: Healthier Societies fostering Healthy Organizations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective; Florence, Italy. 30 August–1 September 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
49. Gragnano A., Previtali F., Manzi C., Miglioretti M. Investigating work-health balance in railway older employees: Result of a LPA; Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Healthier Societies fostering Healthy Organizations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective; Florence, Italy. 30 August–1 September 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
50. Previtali F., Torp S., Miglioretti M. Searching for the balance: Health needs and well-being at work in Italy and Norway. In: Di Fabio A.M., editor. Positive Psychology for Healthy Organizations. Nova Publisher; New York, NY, USA: 2019. pp. 235–266. [ Google Scholar ]
51. Topa G. Work-Health balance among Spanish workers: a mediating role in the Work Ability-Job satisfaction relationship; Proceedings of the 19th European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP) Congress; Turin, Italy. 29 May–1 June 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
52. Greenhaus J.H., Collins K.M., Shaw J.D. The relation between work–family balance and quality of life. J. Vocat. Behav. 2003;63:510–531. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00042-8. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
53. Grzywacz J.G., Marks N.F. Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000;5:111–126. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.111. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
54. McElwain A.K., Korabik K., Rosin H.M. An examination of gender differences in work-family conflict. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 2005;37:283–298. doi: 10.1037/h0087263. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
55. Sullivan O. Gender inequality in work-family balance. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2019;3:201–203. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0536-3. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
56. Weisgram E.S., Dinella L.M., Fulcher M. The role of masculinity/femininity, values, and occupational value affordances in shaping young men’s and women’s occupational choices. Sex Roles. 2011;65:243–258. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9998-0. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
57. Cinamon R.G., Rich Y. Gender differences in the importance of work and family roles: Implications for work-family conflict. Sex Roles. 2002;47:531–541. doi: 10.1023/A:1022021804846. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
58. Boles J.S., Wood J.A., Johnson J. Interrelationships of role conflict, role ambiguity, and work-family conflict with different facets of job satisfaction and the moderating effects of gender. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 2013;2:99–113. [ Google Scholar ]
59. Kinnunen U., Geurts S., Mauno S. Work-to-family conflict and its relationship with satisfaction and well-being: A one-year longitudinal study on gender differences. Work Stress. 2004;18:1–22. doi: 10.1080/02678370410001682005. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
60. Livingston B.A., Judge T.A. Emotional responses to work-family conflict: An examination of gender role orientation among working men and women. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008;93:207–216. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.207. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
61. Byron K. A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005;67:169–198. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
62. Winslow S. Work-family conflict, gender, and parenthood, 1977–1997. J. Fam. Issues. 2005;26:727–755. doi: 10.1177/0192513X05277522. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
63. Carstensen L.L. The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science. 2006;312:1913–1915. doi: 10.1126/science.1127488. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
64. Bramble R.J., Duerk E.K., Baltes B.B. Age and work–family issues. In: Shultz K.S., Gary A.A., editors. Aging and Work in the 21st Century. Routledge; New York, NY, USA: 2019. pp. 255–272. [ Google Scholar ]
65. Treadway D.C., Duke A.B., Perrewe P.L., Breland J.W., Goodman J.M. Time may change me: The impact of future time perspective on the relationship between work-family demands and employee commitment. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2011;41:1659–1679. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00777.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
66. Tuomi K., Ilmarinen J., Eskelinen L., Järvinen E., Toikkanen J., Klockars M. Prevalence and incidence rates of diseases and work ability in different work categories of municipal occupations. Scand. J. Work. 1991;17:67–74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
67. Matthews R.A., Barnes-Farrell J.L. Development and initial evaluation of an enhanced measure of boundary flexibility for the work and family domains. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2010;15:330–346. doi: 10.1037/a0019302. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
68. Ilmarinen J. The Work Ability Index (WAI) Occup. Med. (Chic. Ill). 2006;57:160. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqm008. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
69. Dolbier C.L., Webster J.A., McCalister K.T., Mallon M.W., Steinhardt M.A. Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of job satisfaction. Am. J. Health Promot. 2004;19:194–198. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-19.3.194. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
70. R Core Team . R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
71. Grömping U. Relative importance for linear regression in R: The package relaimpo. J. Stat. Softw. 2006;17:1–27. doi: 10.18637/jss.v017.i01. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
72. Johnson J.W., LeBreton J.M. History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods. 2004;7:238–257. doi: 10.1177/1094428104266510. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
73. Frye N.K., Breaugh J.A. Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family conflict, family-work conflict, and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. J. Bus. Psychol. 2004;19:197–220. doi: 10.1007/s10869-004-0548-4. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
74. Higgins C., Duxbury L., Johnson K.L. Part-time work for women: Does it really help balance work and family? Hum. Resour. Manag. 2000;39:17–32. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(200021)39:1<17::AID-HRM3>3.0.CO;2-Y. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
75. Eysenbach G., Wyatt J. Using the Internet for surveys and health research. J. Med. Internet Res. 2002;4:E13. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
76. Landers R.N., Behrend T.S. An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, mechanical turk, and other convenience samples. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2015;8:142–164. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.13. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
77. Istat Italian Labour Force Survey—October (2018). UniData—Bicocca Data Archive, Milan. Study Number SN202. Data File Version 1.0. [(accessed on 1 February 2020)]; Available online: https://www.unidata.unimib.it/?indagine=italian-labour-force-survey-october-2018 .

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

View on publisher site
PDF (1.6 MB)
Collections

Add to Collections

Work-Life Balance: an Integrative Review

Published: 08 February 2017
Volume 13 , pages 229–254, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

work life balance and employee performance a literature review

M. Joseph Sirgy 1 &
Dong-Jin Lee 2

48k Accesses

243 Citations

113 Altmetric

18 Mentions

Explore all metrics

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 organizational 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Work–Life Balance: Definitions, Causes, and Consequences

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.

Article Google Scholar

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.

Google Scholar

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.

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.

Book Google Scholar

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.

Chapter Google Scholar

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 multidimensional 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.

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 compensation: 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.

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.

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 engagement 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.

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 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

M. Joseph Sirgy

School of Business, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

Dong-Jin Lee

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dong-Jin Lee .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sirgy, M., Lee, DJ. Work-Life Balance: an Integrative Review. Applied Research Quality Life 13 , 229–254 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9509-8

Download citation

Received : 04 July 2016

Accepted : 25 January 2017

Published : 08 February 2017

Issue Date : March 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9509-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

IMAGES

(PDF) Work-Life Balance and Employee Performance: A Literature Review
Work-Life Balance and Employee Performance
(PDF) A Review Paper on Work-Life Balance in Large Organization
(PDF) Work Life Balance & Job Satisfaction: A Literature Review
(PDF) The impact of work life balance on employees’ work performance
Frontiers

VIDEO

Work-Life Balance: How I Manage It All Doju 12
Work life balance

COMMENTS

Work–life balance: a systematic literature review and ...
reflects the perceptions of striking a balance between employees ’ work and personal life, including sensitivities about social life and leisure time ( Casper et al. , 2018; Chan et al. , 2020 ...
Exploring the Impact of Work-Life Balance on Employees: A ...
The primary aim of this review is to undertake a thorough examination of the consequences of work-life balance. concerning employees in general. Using the PRISMA method, resea rchers analyzed a ...
Work-Life Balance and Employee Performance: A Literature Review
Abstract—This paper is a review of literature on work life balance and employee performance in Nigeria as an attempt at knowledge building. This is a secondary research which sought to review literature in assessing work life balance in Nigeria and suggest suitable solutions for overcoming the problem of work life imbalance and its associated ...
Work-Life Balance and Employee Performance: A Literature Review
When companies support employees' family time and provide a better work environment, their performance and dedication improve. Work-life balance boosts employee performance [14], [37], [38]. The ...
How Is Work–Life Balance Arrangement Associated with ...
Thus, employees have a high tendency to work in the company if the organisation provides favourable work–life balance policies for employees. This result is in line with the previous studies of Yu [ 46 ] and Halpern [ 39 ], which have demonstrated that assisting employees to achieve a work–life balance can reduce employee turnover.
Work-life balance -a systematic review | Emerald Insight
Work-life balance and working hours. Work does vacuum up a greater portion of the personal hours (Haar et al., 2019). This causes some important aspects of their lives to be depleted, undernourished or ignored (Hughes et al., 2018). Thus, employees find less time for “quality” family life (Jenkins and Harvey, 2019).
WORK-LIFE BALANCE: A LITERATURE REVIEW - Semantic Scholar
Liu, Li, & Wu, 2015). Linking of between employees [ work-life balance and employee performance permits impressively through psychological procedures related to employee health. Work Life Balance and Job Satisfaction According to Lee and Noor (2017) in their research they determined that there is a liberal link between
Work–Life Balance: Weighing the Importance of Work–Family and ...
Researchers have highlighted that the field of research about the work–life balance is itself “unbalanced.”. The majority of studies on the work–life balance have focused only on work and family roles, that is, on the work–family balance [6, 9, 10, 11]. For example, Casper et al. [9] reviewed the conceptual definition of the balance ...
Work-life balance: A landscape mapping of two decades of ...
Work-life balance has gained increasing popularity among scholars and practitioners since the beginning of the century. Despite significant attempts to consolidate this burgeoning field, the scholarly knowledge on work-life balance research remains fragmented and detached due to extant number of publications in the area and the mostly subjective approaches used to encapsulate the literature.
Work-Life Balance: an Integrative Review | Applied Research ...
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 ...

Work-life balance -a systematic review

Design/methodology/approach

Originality/value

Introduction

Methodology

Literature review

Individual factors

Work-life balance and demography.

Work-life balance and personal demands.

Work-life balance and family demands.

Work-life balance and family support.

Work-life balance and individual’s ability.

Organizational factor

Work-life balance and organizational work-life policies.

Work-life balance and organizational demands.

Work-life balance and working hours.

Work-life balance and productivity.

Work-life balance and burnout.

Work-life balance and support system.

Work-life balance and employee perception.

Work-life balance and job autonomy.

Work-life balance and job satisfaction.

Work-life balance and organizational commitment.

Work-life balance and work-life balance policy utilization.

Work-life balance and organizational culture.

Societal factors

Work-life balance and societal demands.

Work-life balance and societal culture.

Work-life balance and societal support.

Analyzes and results

Geographical distribution

Basic classification

Methodology-based categorization of papers

Research gap

Organizational factor.

Societal factor.

Discussion and conclusion

Limitations

Implications

Further reading

Acknowledgements

Corresponding author

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Work–Life Balance: Weighing the Importance of Work–Family and Work–Health Balance

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

2.2. Consequences of Work–Family Balance: Job Satisfaction

2.3. Consequences of Work–Health Balance

2.4. The Heterogeneity of the Labor Force and WLB

3. Materials and Methods

3.2. Measures

3.3. Data Analysis

4.1. Perceived Importance of Family and Health Domain

4.2. Consequences of Work–Family and Work–Health Balance on Job Satisfaction

4.3. Moderators of the Effects of Work–Family and Work–Health Balance

5. Discussion

6. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Supplementary Materials

Author Contributions

Conflicts of Interest

Associated Data

Similar articles

Add to Collections

Work-Life Balance: an Integrative Review

Cite this article

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Work–Life Balance: Definitions, Causes, and Consequences

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS