Work Life Balance A Short Review of The PDF

Continental J.
Social Sciences 7 (1): 1 - 24, 2014 ISSN: 2141 - 4265

©Wilolud Journals, 2014 http://www.wiloludjournal.com
Printed in Nigeria doi:10.5707/cjsocsci.2014.7.1.1.24
WORK LIFE BALANCE: A SHORT REVIEW OF THE THEORETICAL

AND CONTEMPORARY CONCEPTS
V.M. Rincy* and N. Panchanatham

Department of Business Administration, Annamalai University, Annamalainagar 608 002, Tamil
Nadu, India
ABSTRACT
Last decade has witnessed a phenomenal growth in the research pertaining to
work-life balance (WLB). Even though a number of studies are available at the
global level, the exact theoretical framework is either overlapping or missing
in many of them and such situations have caused many redundancies in the
theoretical frame work of WLB research. In this context attempts have been
made in this article to consolidate and disseminate the various theoretical
propositions existing in the field of work-family research with particular
emphasis on WLB. The attempted review covers various published works in
OB, HR, work-family and some multidisciplinary journals from 1960 to 2012
with a view to explore the key conceptual issues related to WLB theories.
Major conceptual reviews are categorized and presented in the description
format. This narrative overview is organized on the chronological order of the
theories. Literatures needed for this work were collected by online and manual
search. The major conceptual frameworks pertaining to work and life domains
included in this study are of resources, segmentation, enrichment/enhancement,
facilitation, spillover, social identity, compensation, congruence, conflict,
human capital, instrumental, resource drain, conservation ecology, border,
integration and ladder theories with adequate descriptions.
KEYWORDS: Work-life balance, WLB, WLB theories, Concepts in WLB.
Received for Publication: 22/05/14 Accepted for Publication: 14/07/14

Corresponding author: rincy1020@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
The intersection of work and family research is fundamentally challenged by the lack of a
commonly accepted basic theoretical framework and key constructs. No single prevailing
framework or perspective is universally accepted (Pitt-Catsouphes et al., 2006). The academic
All rights reserved

This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
1
Rincy and Panchanatham: Continental J. Social Sciences 7 (1): 1 - 24, 2014
body of knowledge regarding work-family scholarship relies on a variety of theoretical frameworks

(Zedeck and Mosier, 1990; O’Driscoll, 1996; Clark, 2000; Guest, 2002;
Morris and Madsen, 2007), which include segmentation, enrichment/enhancement, facilitation,
spillover, social identity, compensation, congruence, conflict, human capital, instrumental,
resource drain, conservation of resources, ecology, border, integration and ladder theories
(Zedeck and Mosier, 1990; Frone et al., 1992; Clark, 2000; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000; Frone,
2003; Greenhaus and Powell, 2006; Krouse and Afifi, 2007; Bakker et al., 2009).
In order to specify the nature of the cross relationships between work and family life within the
context of past research, the basic theoretical approaches linking work and non-work domains
are reviewed in this article. A number of theoretical propositions have been advanced, ranging
from complete separation to full integration of the two domains. Even though some of the
theories are partly overlapping, they are different enough to warrant separate presentation.
Interestingly, while some views have become more accepted than others, empirical evidence
exists in support of each of the propositions, thus making it very difficult to identify the correct
view. Before suggesting an approach to reconcile the various perspectives, each perspective is
outlined in brief. The following review is not intended to be comprehensive but it would provide
an overview of the various existing theoretical frameworks in work-family research.
Objectives
Despite the increasing number of studies examining work and family issues, to the best of our
knowledge, little serious attempts have been made to consolidate the various work-life theories
(Guest, D. 2001). Extant reviews focus either on specific relationships/ summaries on work-
family variables or comparing only few theories. Even though there are useful high lightings
about particular relationships between work and family variables, they do not provide a
comprehensive overview of WLB theories published in various journals and/or books. The
dearth of such works has led to many redundancies in the field of WLB research.
Therefore, the present study is aimed at reviewing the various theoretical propositions on issues
related to WLB and published in various journals during the period 1960-2012 with an intention
to consolidate and compile the various theories related to WLB in a chronological description
format. Such an attempt could possibly disseminate the conceptual framework and reduce
redundancies in the field of WLB research.
Method for identifying articles

Relevant articles published between 1960 to 2012 were identified using computer and manual
searches conducted using the keywords such as work-like balance, spillover, compensation,
conflict, congruence, boarder theory, social identity theory, conservation of resources, human
capital and boundary theory. In keeping with the stated objectives of the present study, authors
limited their search to the H.R, work-family OB and some multidisciplinary journals because
these journals routinely publish articles on work family research. Collectively these reviews
All rights reserved

2
have contributed greatly to our understandings on specific relationships between work and
family domain variables and suggested important directions for future research. However extant
reviews have focused on specific aspects of work family theories rather than WLB research as a
whole.
Theories in work-life research

The following are the major theories commonly discussed in various aspects of work-family
research having special emphasis on WLB.
Segmentation theory
The earliest view of the relationship between work and home was that they are segmented and
independent and do not affect each other. Blood and Wolfe (1960), who were pioneers of this
perspective, applied this concept to blue collar workers. They explained that for workers in
unsatisfying or un-involving jobs, segmentation of work and home is a natural process. In the
segmentation theory, work and family operate as separate entities; there is no interaction between
the work life and the family life. Segmentation theory considers work and family as distinct
entities and experiences in one will not affect or influence experiences in the other (Young and
Kleiner, 1992). Stated otherwise, work has no impact on the family unit, nor has the family unit
any influence on work life. For example, a person in a very stressful job might feel overwhelmed
by work and as such might want to build a wall to separate work from the family unit. Lambert
(1990) suggests that if segmentation occurs, it does not occur naturally. Instead, workers
actively attempt to separate work and family life in order to deal with work-related stresses.
Parasuraman et al. (1992) who looked at two career couples found that relations within the work
environment (work attributes) and within the family environment (family attributes). The
attributes of the work environment, defined as role conflict, role ambiguity and role overload
were related to job satisfaction, but not to family satisfaction. Family conflict and parenthood
were found to be related to family satisfaction but no to job satisfaction. Thus it may seem that
this study demonstrates a true separation between work life and the family life, for the sample
they have taken. The authors of this research explain their results and defined them as
segmentation. This was because the subjects were able to compartmentalize or segment different
spheres of their lives to minimize strain arising from multiple roles.
The separate spheres pattern viewed the family as a domestic heaven for women and work as a
public arena for men (Zedeck, 1992). However, this view of segmentation was challenged by
researchers who demonstrated that work and family are closely related domains of human life
(Bruke and Greenglass, 1987; Voydanoff, 1987). The segmentation theory states that work roles
and life roles exist in separate domains and have no influence on one another (Kanter, 1977;
Pleck, 1977). It refers to the complete compartmentalization or fragmentation of work and family
systems (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000) whereby the two domains are lived separately and have
no influence on one another. Guest (2001) argues that this model appears to be offered as a
All rights reserved

3
theoretical possibility rather than one with empirical support and it is considered to be the
weakest one on the relationship between work and personal life.
Segmentation theory hypothesizes that every domain functions independently. Therefore, this
theory is the antithesis of spillover theory. Further, it postulates that work and family
environments of an individual do not influence each other and in all cases operate separately. This
separation in time, space and function allows the individual to neatly compartmentalize his or her life. The
family is seen as the realm of affectivity, intimacy and significantly ascribed relations, whereas the
work world is viewed as impersonal, competitive and instrumental rather than expressive
(Piotrkowski, 1978). For example, one’s feelings of dissatisfaction with one’s job may be
segmented within the job domain, thus preventing these negative feelings from affecting other
aspects of one’s personal life (Zedeck and Mosier, 1990).
Since the industrial revolution, work and family have been inherently separate by time, space and
function, the industrial world described segmentation as what occurs when people actively
suppress work-related thoughts, feelings and behaviors in the family domain and vice versa. As
this has been proven no longer to be true and perhaps never was, particularly for female workers,
segmentation is now referred to as the active process that people use to create and maintain
boundaries between work and family. The literature also reports the usage of the terms
compartmentalization, independence, separateness, disengagement, neutrality and detachment to
describe this theory (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000).
According to the segmentation approach, involvement is usually defined as time, attention,

energy, or importance associated with a domain (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000). This theory
further postulates that one can compartmentalize one’s life and his or her work roles and both the
roles are seen as having totally separate functions with work serving instrumental purposes
within a competitive environment and non-work satisfying affective and expressive needs (Evans
and Bartolome, 1984; Randall, 1988; Lambert, 1990; Zedeck, 1992; Fredriksen-Goldsen and
Scharlach, 2001).
Enrichment/enhancement
Seiber (1974) has proposed the enrichment perspective in such a way that engagement in multiple
roles, or role accumulation provides access to various resources that can be utilized by individuals
across various role performances. Marks (1977) argued that human energy in not finite.
Participation in one role may lead to the expansion of energy and thus people can find energy
for things they like doing. Frone (2003) has suggested that WLB included not only the
bidirectional forces of work family conflict. It also encompasses the positive influence of one
role to another (Repetti, 1987). Individuals’ engagement in one domain may lead to positive
emotional response rather than negative resource or strain (Verbrugge, 1986; Gove and Zeiss,
1987; Stephens et al., 1997).
All rights reserved

4
This positive approach in WLB studies emanates from Seiber’s (1974) role accumulation theory
which assumes that having multiple life roles can be psychologically enriching, as long as the
roles are ones that the individual has high identity with, sees of good quality and reap rewards
and life privileges. Zedeck and Mosier (1990) used the term instrumental to characterize this
concept, which states that good work outcomes lead to good family outcomes and vice versa.
Enrichment theory refers to the degree to which experiences from instrumental sources (skills,
abilities, values) or affective sources (mood, satisfaction) enhance the quality of the other
domain (Morris and Madsen, 2007). Greenhaus and Powell (2006) defined enrichment as the
extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in the other role and reported
that employees perceive that their work and family roles enrich each other.
Under a role accumulation perspective, a person can achieve balance by being able to regulate
and have greater control over when where and how to invest time and energy between work and
family to ensure that they perceive they are accumulating positive outcomes from both roles. The
more roles one has that provide positive rewards, the better off an individual is, unless she/he has
too much to do from the sum of these roles (causing role overload) or has too many competing
role demands. The assumption is that WLB have instrumental and affective paths. The
instrumental path focuses on how positive skills and behaviors and rewards from one domain
(such as income, learning how to manage people or solve problems) can help one perform better
in the other domain. The affective path focused on the degree to which mood and emotions from
one domain can seep in and positively impact how one feels, acts and behaves in the other
domain. So if someone has a good day at work, she/he comes home happy and is able to have
extra energy and emotions to allocate to the family. Or if one has a wonderful family life, she/he
is able to bring these positive emotions to work.
Facilitation theory
This is in fact an offshoot of enrichment theory. The extent to which individuals’ participation in
one life domain (e.g., work) may bring resources, pleasurable and enriching experiences to
another role (Marks, 1977; Thoits, 1991; Barnett and Hyde, 2001), or is made easier by the skills,
experiences and opportunities gained by their participation in another domain (Frone, 2003;
Grzywaez, 2002) was commonly known as work-family facilitation. Work family facilitation is
bi-directional in that it involves both work-to-family facilitations and family-to-work facilitation.
Work has provided financial and other resources which enabled people to support and be more
functional in dealing with problems in family. Family, on the other hand, offers emotional
support that buffer stress arising from work. Facilitation theory refers to what occurs when the
participation in one domain fosters and enhances the engagement in another domain. This
portability of augmentation can include skills, experiences, resources and knowledge (Edwards
and Rothbard, 2000). According to Grzywacz (2002), facilitation occurs because social systems
naturally utilize available means to improve situations without regard for domain restrictions.
All rights reserved

5
Demands are generally seen as causing conflict and resources to result in facilitation. Facilitation
occurs when engagement in work and home roles contribute positively to and benefit each other.
Spillover theory
Several researchers suggested that workers carry the emotions, attitudes, skills and behaviors that
they establish at work into their family life and vice versa (Piotrkowski, 1979; Piotrkowski and
Crits-Christoph, 1981; Crouter, 1984; Belsky et al., 1985; Kelly and Voydanoff, 1985).Staines
(1980) defines spillover as a positive relationship between work and family, whence positive
work experiences would be associated with positive family experiences and negative work
experiences would be associated with negative family experiences. As an example of negative
spillover we could imagine that a worker experiencing negative emotions from his/ her shift
might be affected during the shift(work) and might continue being affected from the stressful
shift in his/her home. A similar situation would be for an employee going through marital
problems, where not only his/her home life but also the quality of the work might be affected.
The employees reactions at work might be negatively affected from the problems carried over
from his/ her home life. Joyful experiences in the work such as a promotion, or the feelings of
elation once a project is completed can be passed on to the family life also just like positive
family life experiences can enhance the work environment. In spillover theory work and family
operate as one entity. “There is no boundary between the workplace and the home. Therefore,
what happens at work will also happen at home”(Young and Kleiner, 1992).
Overall, spillover theory is the most popular stance adopted by researchers examining work and
family and it is also the theory with the most supporting evidence, although weakly, as is shown
by a review article by Rice et al. (1980). Researchers such as Bromet et al. (1986) looked at a
sample of blue collar working wives and found some support for the spillover theory from the
self-reports of the subjects. A study by Doby and Caplan (1995) also looked at spillover,
however with the perspective of a threat to the reputation of the subject. The researchers
hypothesized that a worker experiencing emotional distress because of loss of a good reputation,
or unfavourable criticism by the supervisor, or co-worker could bring negative emotions from the
workplace to the family life. Willians and Alliger (1994) took a sample of working parents and
found that negative moods spilled more easily than positive moods over the course of the day.
There are two interpretations of spillover (Edwards Rothbard, 2000): (a) the positive association
between family and work satisfaction and family and work values (Zedeck, 1992) and (b)
transference in entirety of skills and behaviors between domains (Repetti, 1987) such as when
fatigue from work is exhibited at home or when family demands interfere with work schedule.
Spillover in one domain can influence the other in either a positive or negative way
(Staines, 1980; Lambert, 1990; Googins, 1991; Zedeck, 1992; Friedman and Greenhaus,
2000). Positive spillover refers to the fact that satisfaction and achievement in one domain may
bring along satisfaction and achievement in another domain. Negative spillover refers to the fact
All rights reserved

6
that difficulties and depression in one domain may bring along the same emotion in another
domain (Xu, 2009).
This approach presumes that there is a similarity between what occurs in work environment and
what occurs in family environment, for example satisfaction or happiness in one area of life may
influence satisfaction or happiness in other life domains such as family, leisure, social, health,
financial, etc.; i.e. emotions spillover between the work and non-work systems (Zedeck and
Mosier, 1990; Sirgy et al., 2001; Guest, 2002; Hill et al., 2003). Research documents that if
work-family interactions are rigidly structured in time and space, then spillover in terms of time,
energy and behaviour is generally negative. Research also supports the notion that work
flexibility, which enables individuals to integrate and overlap work and family responsibilities in
time and space, leads to positive spillover and is instrumental in achieving healthy work and
family balance (Hill et al., 2003). Moreover, Zedeck and Mosier (1990) state that job stresses
can supplant the potential for positive family inter actions while requiring family members to
spend their personal resources on helping the worker to manage the stress.
According to Sirgy et al. (2001) two types of spillover exist viz., horizontal spillover and vertical
spillover. Horizontal spillover shows how one life domain influences a neighbouring domain.
For example, job satisfaction may influence feelings of satisfaction in the family life domain and
vice versa. On the other hand, in order to understand the concept of vertical spillover, it is
necessary to first understand the concept of domain hierarchy. Individuals rank the life domains
in hierarchical order in their minds. At the top of the hierarchy is the most super ordinate
domain, namely overall life. Feelings in this domain reflect life satisfaction, personal happiness,
or subjective well-being. The other important life domains such as family, job, leisure,
community, etc. are subordinate to the most super ordinate life domain.
Satisfaction/dissatisfaction within any of the main life domains ‘spills over’ to the most super
ordinate domain, therefore influencing overall life satisfaction. Moreover, the vertical spillover
can be either bottom-up or top-down. For example, job satisfaction spills over 16 domains
vertically (bottom-up) affecting overall life satisfaction, whereas the vertical top-down spillover
refers to the influence of life satisfaction on a subordinate life domain (e.g. job satisfaction)
(Sirgy et al., 2001).
However, Guest (2002) argues that even though high amount of research on spillover exists, as a
proposition it is specified in such a general way as to have little value and thus more detailed
propositions about the nature, causes and consequences of spillover are needed. Spillover theory
recognizes the influence of the two domains on each other. It states that increased satisfaction (or
dissatisfaction) at work leads to increased satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) at home. Spillover
experiences can be either positive or negative (Morris and Madsen, 2007), but the experiences of
work and family are identical either both are positive or both are negative (Edwards and
Rothbard, 2000; Grzywacz, 2000). Spillover refers to the effects of work and family on each
other and is described in terms of affect (mood and satisfaction), values (importance of work and
All rights reserved

7
family) and skills (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000). The majority of research in the area of work-
family frameworks has been done using spillover theory (Zedeck and Mosier, 1990). In the
literature, spillover has also been termed generalization, isomorphism, continuation, extension,
familiarity and similarity (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000; Staines, 1980; Zedeck, 1992).
Social identity theory

The social identity theory has not been explicitly used for explaining the issue of WLB in the
literature so far; however, it is relevant to explain some of the phenomena of individual
behaviour in terms of balance between work and private life by this theory. Moreover, many of
the approaches to WLB seem to have their roots just in this theory. Social identity theory was
developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979. Even though this theory is not a new one in the
psychological field of research, it has not been cited within the WLB field of research so far.
However, social identity theory seems to be relevant and research in WLB might be enriched by
this theory. Different social contexts may trigger an individual to think, feel and act on basis of
his personal, family or national ‘level of self’ (Turner et al., 1987). Social identity theory is a
theoretical perspective on the relationship between self-concept (individual level) and group
behaviour (work, family, community and friends). The basic idea of social identity theory is the
social category within which one falls and to which one feels one belongs, provides a definition of
which one is in terms of defining characteristics of the category a self-definition that is a part of the
self-concept (Hogg and Terry, 2001).
Social identity theory maintains that social structures and institutions are comprised of roles and
role relationships. People function within roles, as part of institutions. Everyone holds multiple
roles; an employee, a spouse/partner, a friend, a parent, an activist, an artist, a sportsman, a
volunteer, etc. (Hall, 1971, 1972; Hoelter, 1983; Callero, 1985; Super, 1991). Roles are the
dynamic aspect of social positions and refer to expectations and actual behaviors, more
specifically, to coherent sets and patterns of behaviors rather than single acts (Goode, 1960; Siber,
1974; Hall, 1976; Thoits, 1983; Stryker and Serpe, 1994; Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach,
2001). Different roles give rise to identities (sometimes referred to as role identities) associated with
these roles. Common ways to define identities is enacted by role relationships (Thoits, 1983) and
internalized roles used for self-definition (Hoelter, 1983, 1985, 1986). Identities refer to more or
less discrete parts of the self and people may hold as many identities as the number of distinct
relationships in which he or she is involved (Hall, 1971, 1972; Stryker and Serpe, 1982; Hall and
Murvis, 1996;).
Further, social identity theory maintains that the multiple roles and related identities that a
personal holds are differentiated with respect to their importance for defining oneself. More
specifically, there is an assumption that roles and identities are hierarchically organized. In other
words, some identities are more important than others and such identities are conceptualized as
being positioned at the top of the hierarchy and the less important ones closer to the bottom. In
other words, some identities are more part of the self than others. Different identities have a
All rights reserved

8
differential effect on individual’s self-concept and, in turn, on their behavior, as people invest
more in those identities that are more important to their self-concept (Burke and Reitzes, 1981;
Jackson, 1981; Hoelter, 1983; Callero, 1985; Thoits, 1992; Reitzes and Mutran, 1994; Stryker
and Serpe, 1994; Marks and MacDermid, 1996). Thus, for example, not all parents make the same
choices about how to spend a Sunday afternoon. While one may take the children to the Zoo, another
may choose to work on an important project, a third might decide to donate time to a community
based volunteer organization and yet another may opt to go to playground with friends. Social
identity theory would argue that the choice of activity will be largely determined on the basis of
how important the identities are in the hierarchical order to the individual in question.
Every individual has a variety of social identities and he/she alternates them based on where and
with whom he is in a particular time. These identities are called multiple identities (Ashforth and
Johnson, 2001). Multiple identities can take different forms, from which the nested identities and
cross-cutting identities are relevant for the research on WLB. Certain identities are nested or
embedded within others (Ashforth and Johnson, 2001). For example, personal identity or the
portable self refers to self-knowledge that derives from the individual’s unique attributes.
Personal identity, which is salient under every condition, is a lowest level identity in the nested
identities hierarchy ladder (Ashforth and Johnson, 2001). Lower level nested identities differ
from higher level nested identities in terms of their relative higher salience (i.e. greater subjective
importance and situational relevance), exclusivity, concreteness and relevance. Depending on the
context, besides the personal identity, other-higher level-identities become salient. For example,
in work settings, the sequence of embedded identities may be as follows: Personal identity →
Job → Workgroup → Department → Division → Organization. Similarly, in non-work settings,
higher order identities include the lower order ones. Such as in work settings, some individuals
never experience salience of the higher order identities. For example, one’s thinking might be
limited and therefore just as commitment of an employee to the whole organization is difficult to
achieve, it is not easy to enact the community level identity of individual. The possible order of
non-work identities might be as follows: Personal identity → Family → Relatives and friends →
Interest groups → Community. Within the family identity, several other identities are embedded
due to the fact that different identity exists between every family member. Also, the order of
non-work identities is highly personalized and differs from individual to individual, which is
compliant with Ashforth and Johnson’s (2001) argument that organizational nested identities
vary in organization-specificity. The salience of particular identities depends on individual and
organizational contexts and also on subjective importance of an identity for individuals. In case
an identity is perceived to be extremely subjectively important, it is likely that it will remain
chronically salient, which will make the salience shifts infrequent. For example, a manager who
has family problems is likely to invoke the family identity during the work, even at meetings, i.e.
at socially inappropriate times (Ashforth and Johnson, 2001).
While nested identities are connected to formal social categories, cross-cutting identities are
attached to categories that are either formal or informal (Ashforth and Johnson, 2001). Also, cross-
All rights reserved

9
cutting identities are similar to lower order identities in that they to be relatively exclusive,
concrete and proximal. In the work non-work settings, the work related nested identities could be
considered cross-cutting non-work identities and vice versa. Shifts in salience between social
identities, whether nested or cross-cutting, are facilitated by overlap in identity content,
generalization of identification and transition scripts. However, in contemporary organizational
environments, which become more and more complex and organic, identities may be salient
simultaneously. The simultaneous existence of multiple identities may lead to conflicting
situations between them and depending on which identity will prevail in the individual’s mind; it
may influence his/her19 overall well-being (Ashforth and Johnson, 2001). However, it is likely
that depending on the actual environment, the contextually irrelevant social identity will become
more salient. As an example, the case of a manager who is overloaded with work tasks and
therefore has not enough time to spend with his partner and family may be taken. At home, he
thinks about work and on the other hand, at work, his thoughts are running away from work tasks
and the family identity prevails. This situation, in which multiple conflicting identities are
salient, does not bring any good to any of the parties concerned. This further influences his/her
job satisfaction as well as personal well-being and ultimately the WLB.
Compensation theory
According to Piotrkowski (1979) men look to their homes as havens a source of satisfaction
lacking in the occupational sphere. The Compensation theory proposes that workers try to
compensate for the lack of satisfaction in one domain (work or home) by trying to find more
satisfaction in the other (Lambert, 1990). Compensation theory also predicts that the workplace
and family life are part of the same environment. However, work and home have a
compensating effect on each other. One can usually make up for what is missing in one
environment from another. If one feels unfulfilled at work, this negative experience could be
compensated by a more positive experience at home (Young and Kleiner, 1992). Staines (1980)
defines compensation as a negative relationship between work and family. The term negative
refers to the fact that negative work experiences would be associated with positive family
experiences and vice versa. An example of compensation theory would be an employee who
encounters difficulties at work because of tensions in the workplace and might want to disengage
from his/her work. This employee might feel dissatisfied with his/her work and redirect his
energies towards his/her home life where he/she feels rewarded or acknowledged for his/her
efforts. In the same pattern a worker experiencing marital problems might invest more time and
energy in his/her work where he/she might see the impact or usefulness of his/her efforts. The
other aspect of this theory is that it can be not only seen as a disengagement from one sphere as
described above but also as total involvement in one sphere to the detriment of the other. A
worker might feel very involved in his/her work experience and fully satisfied from the expected
outcomes coming from this work involvement. However with this high work involvement the
worker might not want to put any efforts into building or maintaining an enjoyable family life.
Two forms of compensation have been distinguished in the literature (Edwards and Rothbard,
2000). First, a person may decrease involvement in the dissatisfying domain and increase
All rights reserved

10
involvement in a potentially satisfying domain (Lambert, 1990). Second, the person may respond
to dissatisfaction in one domain by pursuing rewards in the other domain (experiences that may
fulfill the person’s desires, (Champoux, 1978). The latter form of compensation can be either
supplemental or reactive in nature (Zedeck, 1992). Supplemental compensation occurs when
individuals shift their pursuits for rewarding experiences from the dissatisfying role to a potentially
more satisfying one. For example, individuals with little autonomy at work seek more autonomy
outside of their work role. On the other hand, reactive compensation represents individuals'
efforts to redress negative experiences in one role by pursuing contrasting experiences in the
other role such as engaging in leisure activities after a fatiguing day at work (Zedeck and Mosier,
1990).
The compensation theory also defines the compensatory effect between two forms of
psychological interference: work-to-family and family-to-work. It proposes that what may be
lacking in one sphere, in terms of demands or satisfactions can be made up in the other. For
example work may be routine and undemanding but this is compensated for by a major role in
local community activities outside work. In contrast to the spillover compensation theory holds
that the relationship between the two is bi-directional; that is, one domain compensate for what is
missing in the other. In other words it represents efforts to offset negative experiences in one
domain (i.e., work or family) by increased efforts to seek positive experiences in the other
domain (i.e., family or work). Such efforts are pursued through one of the two pathways. One
pathway includes increased involvement in one domain (e.g., work) reciprocated by decreased
involvement in the other domain (e.g., family). The other pathway includes pursuing the domain
offering greater rewards and fulfillment at the expense of the domain that offers little return
(Edwards and Rothbard, 2000). The assumption here is that the worker who is dissatisfied with
family life may be happier putting in more hours and thus enhancing his performance and vice
versa (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Lambert, 1990; Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Kossek et al., 1999;
MacDermind et al., 2002; Krouse and Afifi, 2007).
Congruence theory
Congruence theory refers to how additional variables that are not directly related to work or
family influence the balance of multiple roles. While spillover has a direct influence on work and
family, congruence attributes similarity through a third variable, such as personality traits,
behavioral styles, genetic forces and socio-cultural forces (Staines, 1980; Zedeck, 1992; Edwards
and Rothbard, 2000). For example, based on congruence theory, a third variable such as
intelligence or level of education could positively influence both work and family domains.
Conflict theory
Conflict occurs when the demands of work and home roles are incompatible in some respect so
that meeting the demands in one domain (work or home life) makes it difficult to meet the
demands in the other domain. Inter-role conflict theory refers to what occurs when meeting the
demands in one domain makes it difficult to meet the demands in the other domain (Greenhaus
All rights reserved

11
and Beutell, 1985). In the literature, this has also been termed opposition or incompatibility
theory (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000).
The conflict model proposes that with high levels of demand in all spheres of life, some difficult
choices have to be made and some conflicts and possibly some significant overload on an
individual occur (Guest, 2002), i.e. satisfaction in one environment entails sacrifices in the other
due to the fact that these two environments are incompatible because each of them has own
norms and requirements (Zedeck and Mosier, 1990). Seventeen conflict models have been
recently given particular attention, especially in dual career families (Guest, 2002). All of these
models have in common that they merely describe the WLB; however, they do not go deeper
into exploring the nature, causes and consequences of balance or imbalance between work and
the rest of life. A person must be satisfied with her/his job and feel well inside as well as outside
the job in order to be able to harmonize her/his working and personal life. The right balance
depends on every individual and is influenced by many factors. Guest (2002) also suggests that it
might be helpful to make a distinction between objective and subjective indicators. He adds that
any objective indicators (e.g. working hours) reflect the subjective social values and that any use
of subjective indicators may benefit from some kind of stakeholder analysis. In other words what
may seem like balance to one individual may not do so to his or her partner or boss. Recently,
interest has been focused in particular on the conflict model, especially in dual career families,
although research on the spillover and compensation models continues to be widely reported.
What these types of model cannot so easily address is what constitutes a balance between work
and the rest of life.
In contrast to the spillover perspective, a number of partly overlapping theoretical approaches

(conflict, resource drain, compensation and accommodation) proposes a negative relationship
between the two spheres. Most often, these approaches are applied to studying involvement in one
sphere and comparing it to involvement in the other sphere. Most notably, the conflict
perspective maintains that high involvement in one sphere entails sacrifices in the other. The
main premise of this approach is that while interconnected, the two spheres are inherently
incompatible, given their differing demands, responsibilities, expectations and norms. For
example, this approach would suggest that satisfying demanding work expectations may result in
not meeting expectations in one’s non-work life (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Zedeck, 1992;
Hockschild, 1997; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000; Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, 2001).
Greenhaus and Beutll (1985) have identified time-based conflict (insufficient time to meet the
demands of both roles), behavior-based conflict (behaviors appropriate in one environment may
be incompatible with behaviors needed in another) and strain-based conflict (strain produced by
one role makes it difficult to meet the responsibilities and requirements of another).
Human capital theory

Human capital theory (Becker, 1985) argues that people prioritize broad domains of activities
(for example work, family and leisure) that they are willing to allocate resources to and then
All rights reserved

12
make the choices about how to spend the resources. As time and energy are exhaustible
commodities, once spent they are not available for other tasks either within the same domain or
other domains. Human capital theory provides an avenue for understanding the direct influence
of family based inputs in combination with the work-based inputs on work life balance. From
this perspective, it is clear that inter role conflict occurs when one domain interferes with the
other and in all probabilities; a struggle to maintain a balance between the two ensues. Based on
the human capital theory of Becker (1985; 1991), Shaffer et al. (2001) formulated that
employees have access to a finite pool of personal resources. In their most basic form, these
resources are time (allocated to behaviours) and energy (both physical and psychological).
According to Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), this struggle is especially stressful when the two
phases of life are of similar salience and dependent on each other for resources, as in the case of
work and family.
Instrumental theory
The instrumental model suggests that activities in one environment are means (instrumental) to
facilitate obtaining things in other environment (Zedeck and Mosier, 1990; Guest, 2002). Guest
(2002), cites a traditional example where a worker strives to maximize work outcomes, even at
the price of working long hours, in order to be able to buy a car and thus improve family life (or
own leisure time), whereby activities in one sphere facilitate success in the other. Similar to the
spillover approach, the instrumental approach suggests a positive relationship between the two
spheres. It suggests that one domain serves as means for obtaining things needed in the other
domain (more specifically, that work provided material gain that is used by the family)
(Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, 2001).
Resource drain theory

Resource drain theory states that a negative correlation between family and work domains exist
in such a way that any personal resource expended on one domain reduces the amount of
resources available to the other domain (Frone et al., 1997; Bakker et al., 2009). Resource drain
theory refers to the transfer of resources from one domain to another; because resources are limited
(e.g., time, money and attention) and the available resources in the original domain are reduced
(Morris and Madsen, 2007). When the remaining (unused) resources become insufficient or
depleted or both; the potentials for increased levels of stress, fatigue and burnout set in (Edwards
and Rothbard, 2000; Frone, 2003). Resources can also be shifted to other domains that are not
work and family related, such as community or personal pursuits (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000).
Similar to the conflict approach, the resource drain approach suggests that having invested finite
personal resources into one domain leaves less/ fewer resources for the other domain, which
leads to lower involvement in the latter. Edwards and Rothbard (2000) have argued that in some
instances, conflict is a form of resource drain (e.g., time-based conflict), thus explicitly pointing
out the similarities and intersections between the two approaches. Finally, the compensation and
the accommodation approaches, even though based on a slightly different rationale, also suggest a
All rights reserved

13
negative relationship between involvements in the two spheres. The compensation perspective
implies that people are making the conscious choice to limit or enhance their involvement in one
domain, as a function of whether their experience in the other domain is satisfying or not
(Lambert, 1990). Stemming from the compensation approach but also very closely related to the
conflict perspective, the accommodation approach proposes that people may be forced to (rather
than choose to, as the compensation approach would suggest) limit their involvement in one
sphere because of obligations and high involvement in the other.
Conservation of resources theory

It serves as a means of integrating role theory and spillover theory (Grandey and Cropanzano,
1999) as an organizing theoretical framework. This model operates on the scarcity assumption,
i.e., at any point in time individuals have limited resources to expend. Applied to the work-life
context, it posits that participation in work and non-work activities consumes time and energy.
That is, work has the ability to tax an individual’s resources interfering with one’s ability to
perform in other areas of life. This model also assumes that individuals are sensitive to resource
loss due to interference of work. The process of reacting to and dealing with work interfering life
consumes resources in and of it and can lead to adverse consequences for personal well-being
(Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999).
Ecological systems theory

Ecological systems theory examines how a person’s development is shaped by the interaction
between their characteristics and their environments. It refers to the suggestion that work and
family are a joint function of process, person, context, time characteristics and symptomatic of
the fact that each and multiple characteristics yield an additive consequence on the work life
experience (Grzywacz and Marks, 2000). Ecology theory was later developed into the person-in-
environment theory with the common thread among different person- environment variants as the
recognition that individuals and groups have dynamic relationships with their social, physical and
natural environments (Pitt-Catsouphes et al., 2006).
Border theory
According to Clark (2000), traditional spillover and compensation theories do not explain under
what conditions spillover or compensation would function and therefore she developed the
border theory in order to overcome the limitations in current approaches to WLB. The border
theory is a new approach to WLB issues and according to this theory, each of person’s roles
takes place within a specific domain of life and these domains are separated by borders that may
be physical, temporal, or psychological. The theory addresses the issue of “crossing borders”
between domains of life, especially the domains of home and work. The flexibility and
permeability of the boundaries between people’s work and family lives will affect the level of
integration, the ease of transitions and the level of conflict between these domains. Campbell
Clark, states that work-family border theory attempts to explain a complex interaction between
border-crossers and their work and family lives, to predict when conflict will occur and give a
All rights reserved

14
framework for attaining balance. It argues that people are daily border-crossers as they move
between home and work. This theory opens up an interesting analysis of the nature of borders,
their permeability, the ease with which they can be managed or moved and so on (Guest, 2002).
Interesting questions are also raised about the existence of borders for those who work from
home, either in the traditional sense of farmers and those with family hotels and restaurants or in
the more contemporary sense of those who use new technology to work from home rather than
the traditional office. For example: Are borders desirable? If desirable ,under what
circumstances? There are also potentially interesting parallels with the notion of the boundary-
less career and the European Union Futures Project notion of a mosaic society in which the
boundaries between work and leisure become increasingly blurred.
Borders are referred to as lines of demarcation between domains, defining the point at which
domain-relevant behaviour begins or ends (Clark, 2000). The borders can be physical (e. g.
walls, define where domain-relevant behaviour should take place), temporal (e.g. work hours,
define when work is done/from when family responsibilities can be pursued), or psychological
(rules created by individuals that dictate when thinking patterns, behavior patterns and emotions
are appropriate for one domain but not the other). There are also three attributes that characterize
the borders: permeability (the degree to which elements from other domains may enter a
domain), flexibility (the extent to which a border may contract or expand, depending on the
demands of one domain or the other) and blending (occurs when high degree of permeability and
flexibility is present near the border; means ‘mixing’ of the domains borders). These three border
qualities combine and thus indicate the border strength. Strong borders are characterized by high
impermeability, high inflexibility and by not permitting blending. On the other hand, borders that
enable permeations are flexible and facilitate blending and are weak. Depending on the border
strength, Clark (2000) proposes that the WLB is facilitated either, when domains are similar and
borders weak or, when domains are different and borders strong.
In terms of any analysis of WLB, the analysis of borders can help to illuminate how far
individuals are in control of issues determining balance. It also allows for analysis of physical
and psychological controls. While a heavy emphasis in the recent literature suggests that
technology and competition have resulted in more intensive and extensive work, any analysis
needs to accommodate human agency also. Border theory begins to permit this. In other words, it
opens up scope for the social construction or cognitive distortion of boundaries to create a
defensible subjective sense of balance.
Clark (2000) argues that even though the work and family system differ from each other, they
are interconnected and individuals often manage to integrate them to certain degree. In other
words people shape their environments and in turn, they are shaped by them. Unlike spillover
and compensation theories, which focus on the emotional linkages at the work-family boundary,
Clark’s theory addresses how these boundaries divide the times, places and people that are
associated with work versus family (Desrochers et al., 2005). The border theory can give a
All rights reserved

15
theoretical framework that is missing from most research on WLB by identifying both why
conflict exists and providing a framework for individuals and organizations to encourage better
balance between work and families. This can be done by organizations as well as individuals.
According to the theory, a more flexible workplace should be more like employees’ homes in terms of
values and purpose (Clark, 2000). Many of the WLB policies, flexible working arrangements and
other tools supporting the WLB issue have not managed to facilitate the balance of employees,
due to the fact that many organizations have created flexible work policies to serve their own
interests and not those of employees and families and in order to succeed, the organizational
values and cultures need to be changed (Clark, 2000).
Bellavia and Frone (2005) are of the view that flexible and permeable boundaries facilitate
integration between work and home domains. When domains are relatively integrated, transition is
easier, but work family issues are more likely. Conversely, when these domains are segmented,
transition is more effortful, but work family conflict is less likely
Integration theory
Googins (1997) believed that an approach to work and family that includes all parties and shared
responsibility will yield greater results in both domains than solutions created in isolation.
Integration theory refers to the holistic view expressed by Clark (2000) that a healthy system of
flexible and permeable boundaries can better facilitate and encourage the family-life, work-life
and community-life domains. Morris and Madsen (2007) acknowledged that integration theory
best describes the incorporation of additional contextual elements, such as community, into the
body of knowledge regarding work and family. Integration calls for contemporary
understandings that retool traditional work-life paradigms, making all stakeholders (employers,
workers and communities) active partners with equal voices in the creation of a holistic model of
WLB (Morris and Madsen, 2007).
Majority of recent researches are supportive of the notion of interdependence between work and
other life domains (Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, 2001). At the other end of the spectrum
from the segmentation theory, the integrative theory (sometimes also labeled identity approach)
purports that work and non-work are closely intertwined and it is practically impossible to
consider them separately. Several other models take an in-between position according to which
the work and non-work domain are separate but interact constantly.
Ladder theory
Last is the WLB ladder developed by Bird (2006). It is the most practically oriented approach to
WLB. It is said that there are two sides for every story and the same goes for WLB also. There
are two legs for the WLB ladder. The left leg of ladder deals with the issues concerning the
organization’s point of view: What is an organization providing for its employees and what are
the responsibilities of a company in terms of this matter? The right leg of the ladder concerns
All rights reserved

16
individual’s responsibilities: What an individual does for him/herself and for the company he/she
is working for? Both legs are necessary for WLB to have a balanced approach.
CONCLUSION
To sum up, Clark (2000) in the work/family border theory defined borders as encompassing
psychological categories and tangible boundaries that divide the times, place and people
associated with work versus family. This theory distinguishes three types of boundaries between
work and non-work, family or personal life domains namely; physical, temporal and
psychological boundaries. Extending role theories such as the compensation theory, border
theory looks at how roles in life are separated by boundaries or borders. Permeability and
flexibility are key related concepts to examine how boundaries between life domains affect
integration, transitions and conflicts between domains (Guest, 2001). Much like managing a
physical geographical boundary, the Border theory implies that certain roles and their related
character attributes, are restricted specifically to one side of the divide between work and life
while others can only be allowed to transit after sufficient moderation or modification. It
considered many of the factors covered by the other theories and it extends on these by going
beyond the personal practice of the subject or the organisational policies having direct influence
on the determination of balance between work and life. This, therefore, is the theoretical
foundation on which this study is hinged.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors are thankful to Annamalai University authorities for providing various facilities for this
research.
REFERENCES
Ashforth, B.E. and Johnson, S.A. (2001). Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple
identities in organizational contexts. In: M.A. Hogg & D.J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes
in organizational contexts: 31-48. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2009). Workaholism and Relationship Quality: A Spillover–
Crossover Perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14: 23-33.
Barnett, R.C., and Hyde, J.S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An Expansionist Theory.
American Psychologist, 56(10): 781-796.
Becker, G. S. (1975). Human capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, G.S. (1985). Human capital, effort and sexual division of labour. Journal of Labor
Economics, 3: 35-58.
Becker, G.S. (1991). A treatise on the family, Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.
All rights reserved

17
Bellavia. G. and Frone, M. (2005). Work-family conflict. In: J. Barling, E.K. Kelloway, and M. Frone
(Eds.), Handbook of Work Stress, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, pp. 113-147.
Belsky, J., M.E. Lang and Rovine, M. (1985). Stability and Change in Marriage Across the
Transition to Parenthood: A Second Study. Journal of Marriage and the Family 47: 855–865.
Bird (2006), Work-life balance: Doing it right and avoiding the pitfalls. Employment Relations
Today, 33: 21-30.
Bromet, E.J., Dew, M.A. and Parkinson, D.K. (1990). Spillover between work and family: A
study of blue-collar working wives. In: J. Eckenrode, and S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between work
and family,. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 133-152.
Burke, P.J. and Reitzes, D.C. (1981). The link between identity and role performance. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 44: 83-92.
Burke, R. J. and Greenglass, E.R. (1987). Work and family. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York: John Wiley,
pp. 273-320.
Callero, P.L. (1985). Role-identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48: 203-214.
Clark, S.C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work-life balance. Human
Relations, 53(6): 7470-7770.
Clark, S.C. (2001) Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behaviour,
58: 348-365.
Crouter, A.C. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of the work-family
interface. Human Relations, 37: 425–442.
Desrochers, S., Hilton, J. and Larwood, L. (2005). Preliminary validation of the work-family
integration- blurring scale. Journal of Family Issues, 26: 442-466.
Doby, Victoria J. and Caplan, Robert D. (1995). Organizational Stress as Threat to Reputation:
Effects on Anxiety at Work and at Home. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4): 1105-1124.
Edwards, J.R. and Rothbard, N.P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the
relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25: 178-199.
All rights reserved

18
Evans, P. and Bartolome, F. (1984). The changing picture of the relationship between career and
family. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5: 9-21.
Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. and Scharlach, A. (2001). Families and work: New directions in the 21st
century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, S.D. and Greenhaus, J.H. (2000). Work and family-allies 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. and Copper, 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. and Markle, K.S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model
of work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50: 145-167.
Goode, W. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483-496.
Googins, B.K. (1991). Work/Family Conflicts: Private Lives-Public Responses. New York:
Auburn House.
Gove, W.R. and Zeiss, C. (1987). Multiple roles and happiness. In: F. Crosby (Ed.),Spouse,
parent, worker: On gender and multiple roles. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 125–
137.
Grandey A.A, and Cropanzano, (1999). The Conservation of Resources Model Appliedto Work–
Family Conflict and Strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54: 350–370.
Greenhaus, G. and Powell, G. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family
enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.
Greenhaus, J. and Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10: 76-88.
Grzywacz, J.G. (2000). Work-family spillover and health during midlife: Is managing conflict
everything? American Journal of Health Promotion, 14: 236-243.
All rights reserved

19
Grzywacz, J.G. (2002). Toward a theory of work family facilitation. Paper presented in the
Persons, process and places. Research on Families, work places and communities conferences,
San Francisco C.A
Grzywacz, J.G. and Marks, N.F. (2000) Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: an
ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and
family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 111-126.
Grzywacz, J.G. and Marks, N.F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An
ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and
family. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 5: 111-126.
Guest, D. (2001). Perspectives on the Study of Work-Life Balance. A Discussion Paper Prepared
for the 2001 ENOP Symposium, Paris, March 29-31.
Guest, D. (2002). Human resource management, corporate performance and employee well
being: Building the worker into HRM. Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3): 335-358.
Hall, D.T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Glenview, I.L: Scott, Foresman. Hall, D.T. and
Associates (1986). Career Development in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, D.T. (1996). The new role of the career practioner. In D.T. Hall (Ed.), The Career is Dead-
Long Live the Career, (pp.314-336). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
Hall, D.T. and Mirvis, P.H. (1996). The new protean career: Psychological success and the path
with a heart. In: D.T. Hall (Ed.), The Career is Dead - Long Live the Career, (pp. 15-45). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hall, S. (1971). Deviancy, Politics and the Media. Birmingham: Centre for Contemporary Cultural
Studies. “Life and Death of Picture Post”, Cambridge Review, 92: 220
Hall, S. (1972). The Social Eye of Picture Post, Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 2: 71-120.
Hill, E.J., Hawkins, A.J., Ferris, M., and Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week: The
positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family Relations,
50: 49–58
Hochschild, J. (1997). The Time Bind: When work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work.
New York: Henry Holt and Co.
All rights reserved

20
Hoelter, J.W. (1983). Factorial invariance and self-esteem: reassessing race and sex differences.
Social Forces, 61: 835-846.
Hoelter, J.W. (1983). The effects of role evaluation and commitment on identity salience. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 46: 140-147.
Hoelter, J.W. (1985). The structure of self-conception: Conceptualization and measurement.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 1392-1407.
Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (Eds.) (2001). Social identity processes in organizational contexts.
New York: Taylor & Francis.
Jackson, S.E., Schwab, R.L. and Schuler, R.S. (1986). Towards an understanding of the burnout
phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 630-640.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Work and family in the United States: A critical review for research and
policy. NY, NY: Russell Sage.
Kelly, R.F. and Voydanoff, P. (1985). Work/Family Role Strain Among Employed Parents.
Journal of Applied Family and Child Studies L 3(34): 367-374.
Kossek, E.E. and Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies and the job-life satisfaction
relationship: A review and directions for work-family research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83: 139-149.fol
Kossek, E.E., Noe, R. and DeMarr, B. (1999). Work-family role synthesis: Individual, family and
organizational determinants. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10: 102-129.
Krouse, S. and Afifi, T.D. (2007). Family-to-work spillover stress: Coping communicatively
in the workplace. Journal of Family Communication, 7: 85-122.
Lambert, S.J. (1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda.
Human Relations, 43: 239–257.
MacDermid, S.M., Seery, B.L. and Weiss, H.M. (2002). An emotional examination of the work-
family interface. In: R.G. Lord, R. Klimoski and R. Kanfer (Eds.) Emotions at Work. NY:
Jossey-Bass. (Frontiers in I/O Psychology Series). pp. 402-427.
All rights reserved

21
Marks, S.R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and
commitment. American Sociological Review. 41: 921-936.
Marks, S.R. and MacDermid, S.M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: a theory of role balance.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 58: 417-432.
Morris, M.L. and Madsen, S.R. (2007). Advancing work-life integration in individuals,
organizations, and communities [Special edition]. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9:
439-454.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J.H. and Granrose, C.S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and
well-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 339-356.
Piotrkowski C.S. (1978). Work and the family system: A naturalistic study of working-class and
lower-middle-class families, New York: Free Press.
Piotrkowski, C., Crits-Christoph, P. (1981). Women's jobs and women's family adjustment in
dual-earner families. Reprinted in Two Paychecks: Life in Dual-Earner Families, J. Aldous (Ed.),
Sage, 1982. Journal of Family Issues, 2: 126-147.
Piotrkowski, C.S. (1979). Work and family systems. New York: Free Press.
Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Kossek, E.E. and Sweet, S. (2006). The work and family handbook: Multi-
disciplinary perspectives and approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pleck, J.H. (1977). The work–family role system. Social Problems, 24: 417-427
Randall, D.M. (1988). Multiple roles and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 9: 309-317.
Reitzes, D. and Mutran, E. (1994). Multiple roles and identity: Factors influencing self-esteem
among middle-aged working men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57: 313-325.
Repetti. R.L. (1987). Linkages between work and family role. Applied Social Psychology Annual
7: 98-120
Rice, R.W., Near, J.P. & Hunt, R.G. (1980). The job-satisfaction/life-satisfaction relationship: A
review of empirical research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1: 37-64.
Seiber, S. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39:
567-578
All rights reserved

22
Shaffer, M.A., Harrison, D.A., Gilley, K.M. and Luk, D.M. (2001). Struggling for balance amid
turbulence on international assignments: Work-family conflict, support and commitment.
Journal of Management, 27: 99-121.
Sirgy, M.J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P and Lee, D. (2001). A new measure of quality of work life
(QoWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social Indicators Research, 55: 241-
302.
Staines, G.L. (1980). Spillover versus compensation: A review of the literature on the
relationship between work and nonwork. Human Relations, 33: 111-129.
Stephens, M.A.P., Franks, M.M. and Atienza, A.A. (1997). Where two roles intersect: Spillover
between parent care and employment. Psychology and Aging, 12: 30-37.
Stryker, S. and Serpe, R.T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent,
overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57: 16-38.
Stryker, S., and Serpe, (1982). Commitment, identity salience and role behavior: Theory and
research example. In: W. Ickes and E.S. Knowles (Eds.). Personality, Roles and Social Behavior.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Stryker, S., and Serpe, R.T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent,
overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57: 16-38.
Super (1957). Psychology of Careers, New York Harper.
Thoits, P.A. (1983). Multiple identities and psychological well-being: A reformulation and test of
the social isolation hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 48: 174-187.
Thoits, P.A. (1992). Identity structures and psychological well-being: Gender and marital status
comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55: 236-256.
Thoits, P.A. (1992). Identity structures and psychological well-being: Gender and marital status
comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55: 236-256
Turner, J.C., and Onorato, R.S. (1999). Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-
categorization perspective. In: T.R. Tyler, R.M. Kramer, and O.P. John (Eds.), The psychology of
the self. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 11–46.
Verbrugge, L.M. 1986. Role burdens and physical health of women and men. Women and
Health, 11: 47-77.
All rights reserved

23
Voydanoff, P. (1987). Work and family life. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Williams, K.J. and Alliger, G.M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-
family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4): 837-868.
Xu, L. (2009). View on Work-family linkage and work-family conflict model. International
Journal of Business and Management, 4(12): 229-233.
Young, L. and Kleiner, B.H. (1992). Work and family: Issues for the 1990s. Women in
Management Review, 7(5): 24-28.
Zedeck, S. (1992). Exploring the domain of work and family concerns: In: S. Zedeck, (Ed.),
Work, families and organizations (1-476), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zedeck, S. and Mosier, K. (1990). Work in the family and employing organization. American
Psychologist, 45: 240-251.
All rights reserved

24

Work Life Balance A Short Review of The PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Work Life Balance A Short Review of The PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Work Life Balance A Short Review of The PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Continental J.

Social Sciences 7 (1): 1 - 24, 2014 ISSN: 2141 - 4265

WORK LIFE BALANCE: A SHORT REVIEW OF THE THEORETICAL

V.M. Rincy* and N. Panchanatham

KEYWORDS: Work-life balance, WLB, WLB theories, Concepts in WLB.

Received for Publication: 22/05/14 Accepted for Publication: 14/07/14

All rights reserved

body of knowledge regarding work-family scholarship relies on a variety of theoretical frameworks

Method for identifying articles

All rights reserved

Theories in work-life research

All rights reserved

According to the segmentation approach, involvement is usually defined as time, attention,

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

Social identity theory

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

In contrast to the spillover perspective, a number of partly overlapping theoretical approaches

Human capital theory

All rights reserved

Resource drain theory

All rights reserved

Conservation of resources theory

Ecological systems theory

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

Becker, G. S. (1975). Human capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

Hoelter, J.W. (1985). The structure of self-conception: Conceptualization and measurement.

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

Super (1957). Psychology of Careers, New York Harper.

All rights reserved

All rights reserved

You might also like