Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review: Dong-Jin Lee Djlee81@yonsei - Ac.kr M. Joseph Sirgy Sirgy@vt - Edu

Applied Research Quality Life (2018) 13:229–254
DOI 10.1007/s11482-017-9509-8
Work-Life Balance: an Integrative Review
M. Joseph Sirgy 1 & Dong-Jin Lee 2
Received: 4 July 2016 / Accepted: 25 January 2017 / Published online: 8 February 2017
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies
(ISQOLS) 2017
Abstract Based on a thorough review of the literature we introduce an integrated

conceptualization of work-life balance involving two key dimensions: engagement in
work life and nonwork life and minimal conflict between social roles in work and
nonwork life. Based on this conceptualization we review much of the evidence
concerning the consequences of work-life balance in terms work-related, nonwork-
related, and stress-related outcomes. We then identify a set of personal and organiza-
tional antecedents to work-life balance and explain their effects on work-life balance.
Then we describe a set of theoretical mechanisms linking work-life balance and overall
life satisfaction. Finally, we discuss future research directions and policy implications.
Keywords Work-life balance . Work-family conflict . Work-life integration . Work-

family interface . Work-life interface . Life satisfaction . Work-related consequences of
work-life balance . Nonwork-related consequences of work-life balance . Stress-related
consequences of work-life balance . Personal predictors of work-life balance .
Organizational predictors of work-life balance
Much research has demonstrated that work-life balance leads to high organizational
performance, increased job satisfaction, and stronger organizational commitment (e.g.,
Allen et al. 2000). Research has also demonstrated that work-life balance plays an
important role in individual well-being such as health satisfaction, family satisfaction,
and overall life satisfaction (e.g., Keyes 2002; Marks and MacDermid 1996). Hence,
* Dong-Jin Lee
djlee81@yonsei.ac.kr
M. Joseph Sirgy
sirgy@vt.edu
1
Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia, USA
2
School of Business, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea
230 Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
this is an important area of research in organizational behavior, human resource

management, and quality-of-life studies.
What is work-life balance? There seems to be many definitions of work-life balance.
These definitions (and conceptualizations) can be categorized in terms of two key
dimensions, namely (1) role engagement in multiple roles in work and nonwork life
and (2) minimal conflict between work and nonwork roles (see Table 1). Within the
overall dimension of engagement in multiple roles in work and nonwork life, we
identified at least four different definitions (conceptualizations) of work-life balance.
The first definition involves attentive engagement in multiple roles (e.g., Marks 1977;
Marks and MacDermid 1996; Sieber 1974). A formal statement of this definition is:
Work-life balance is the tendency to become fully engaged in the performance of every
role in one’s total role system to approach each role and role partner with an attitude of
attentiveness and care. The second definition involves equal time and involvement
across multiple roles (e.g., Greenhaus et al. 2003; Kirchmeyer 2000). This definition
can be stated formally as follows: Work-life balance is engagement in multiple roles
with an approximate equal level of attention, time, involvement or commitment. The
third definition is balanced satisfaction across life domains (e.g., Clark 2000;
Greenhaus et al. 2003; Kirchmeyer 2000). The concept of work-life balance can be
defined formally as engagement in work and nonwork roles producing an outcome of
equal amounts of satisfaction in work and nonwork life domains. The fourth definition
of work life balance involves balanced involvement and satisfaction across life do-
mains. Specifically, work life balance is defined as allocation of time and psychological
energy in a balanced way in work and nonwork life while deriving much satisfaction
from both work and non-work life (Greenhaus et al. 2003).
As previously stated, the second dimension of work-life balance is minimal conflict
between work and nonwork roles. We identified at least three definitions that relate to
minimal conflict between work and nonwork roles. The first definition involves
minimizing role conflict between work and family roles (Allen et al. 2000; Clark
2000; Kahn et al. 1964; Kossek and Ozeki 1998). This definition can be captured as
follows: Work-life balance is satisfaction and good functioning in work and family
roles with minimum role conflict. The second definition involves role enrichment with
no role conflict (e.g., Frone 2003; Greenhaus and Allen 2011; Greenhaus and Powell
2006). Formally stated: Work-life balance is characterized by a high degree of role
enrichment with a low degree of role conflict in work and nonwork life domains. The
third definition reflects management of resources to minimize role conflict (e.g., Fisher
et al. 2009; Gareis et al. 2009; Hobfoll 1989). A formal definition of the construct from
this vantage point is: Work-life balance is achieved through effective management of
role conflict—conflict or interference results when resources to meet role demand are
threatened or lost.
The research in work-life balance is voluminous. The plethora of research on this
topic has generated much complexity in definitions, theoretical approaches, measures,
determinants, and consequences, etc. (see the following literature reviews: Allen et al.
2000; Crosby 1991; Danna and Griffin 1999; Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Frone
2003; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Korabik et al. 2008). As previously mentioned,
much of the research can be grouped in terms of two major categories: work-family
conflict and work-family enrichment. As such, we found certain review articles to
capture these different research programs. The review articles that seem to capture
Table 1 Various conceptualization of work-life balance
Theoretical approaches to Key Characteristics in Conceptualization of work-life balance Representative authors

work life balance work-life balance
Role engagement in work Attentive engagement in The tendency to become fully engaged in the performance Marks (1977); Marks and
life and non-work life multiple roles of every role in one’s total role system to approach each MacDermid (1996); Sieber (1974)
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
role and role partner with an attitude of attentiveness and care

Equal time and involvement Engagement in multiple roles with an approximate equal level Kirchmeyer (2000)
across multiple roles of attention, time, involvement or commitment
Balanced satisfaction across Engagement in work and nonwork roles to produce an outcome Clark (2000); Kirchmeyer (2000)
life domains of equal amounts of satisfaction in work and nonwork life domains
Balance in time, involvement, Allocation of time and psychological energy in a balanced way in Greenhaus et al. (2003)
and satisfaction across life domains work and nonwork life while deriving much satisfaction from
both work and non-work life
Minimal conflict between Minimizing role conflict between Satisfaction and good functioning in work and family roles with Allen et al. (2000); Clark (2000);
work and non-work roles work and family roles minimum role conflict Kahn et al. (1964); Galinsky
and Johnson (1998);
Role enrichment with no role conflict A high degree of role enrichment with a low degree of role conflict Frone (2003); Greenhaus and
in work and nonwork life domains Powell (2006)
Management of resources to Work-life balance is achieved through effective management of role Fisher et al. (2009); Hobfoll (1989)
minimize role conflicts conflict--conflict or interference results when resources to meet
role demand are threatened or lost.
231
much of the research in work-life balance based on the work-family conflict tradition
include the Kossek and Ozeki (1998), Allen et al. (2000), Eby et al. (2005), Byron
(2005), and Casper et al. (2007). We found review articles capturing much of
the work-family enrichment program include McNall et al. (2010b), and
Whiston and Cinamon (2015).
Given the above, we believe that research in work-life balance is in desperate need
of a literature review using an integrated framework. Without an integrative frame-
work, it is difficult to understand the construct of work life balance in a holistic way –
its key dimensions, antecedents, moderators, mediators, and consequences. This is the
main objective of this paper. We make an attempt to develop a unifying framework for
research on work-life balance guided by a thorough review of the research literature.
More specifically, this major objective can be better understood in terms of the
following four goals.
Our first goal is to make an attempt to integrate the research literature by proposing
an integrative conceptualization of work-life balance. We define work-life balance as a
high level of engagement in work life as well as nonwork life with minimal conflict
between social roles in work and nonwork life. The second goal of this paper is to argue
that this construct of work-life balance can provide the unifying framework that would
allow us to better account for a host of consequences. The second goal focuses on the
consequences of work-life balance, namely work, non-work, and stress-related out-
comes. The third goal of this paper is to make an attempt to further integrate the
literature on work-life balance by showing how past empirical research on personal and
organizational factors can be made to predict our construct of work-life balance. In
other words, we will identify a set of personal and organizational predictors and explain
their effects on work-life balance in terms our two key dimensions of work-life balance,
namely role engagement in work and nonwork life and minimal conflict between work
and nonwork roles. The focus of the third goal is on the antecedents to work-life
balance. The fourth goal is to describe theoretical notions designed to explain the
relationship between work-life balance and overall life satisfaction.
In sum, our hope is that the net result of this effort could provide work-life balance
researchers with an integrated framework that may better account for the voluminous
research regarding the antecedents and consequences of work-life balance as well as
possible mediators that may explain the effect of work-life balance on life satisfaction
(see Fig. 1).
The Construct of Work-Life Balance
As previously stated, we believe that an integrative definition of work-life balance

involves two key dimensions, namely role engagement in work and nonwork life and
minimal conflict between work and nonwork roles. To achieve work-life balance,
individuals must actively engage in social roles in work life as well as nonwork life.
Engagement in multiple roles facilitates high role performance producing satisfaction
that spills over across life domains (e.g., Clark 2000; Greenhaus et al. 2003;
Kirchmeyer 2000; Marks 1977; Marks and MacDermid 1996; Sieber 1974). Work-
life conflict generates much stress and reduces satisfaction in work and nonwork life
(e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Clark 2000; Fisher et al. 2009; Frone 2003; Greenhaus and
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review 233
Work-related
outcomes
Work-Life
Personal Balance
Predictors Role
engagement
in work and Nonwork-
nonwork life related
Minimal outcomes
conflict
Organizational between
Predictors work and
nonwork Stress-related
roles outcomes
Fig. 1 An Integrative Framework of Work-Life Balance Research
Powell 2006; Hobfoll 1989; Kahn et al. 1964; Kossek and Ozeki 1998). That is, work-
life balance involves the interaction not only of high levels of role engagement in
work and nonwork domains but also minimal conflict between work-related roles
and other social roles in nonwork life (see Table 1). This definition of work-life
balance captures much of the research in this area. Below we describe these two
dimensions in some depth.
Role Engagement in Work and Nonwork Life
A major requisite for work-life balance is a high level of engagement in work-related

roles. A high level of engagement in work life is likely to produce positive affect
assuming that work-related goals are important to the individual, and that the individual
is successful in goal attainment. Work-life balance is further enhanced not only by goal
attainment in work life but also through positive spillover effects in other salient life
domains. For example, Poelmans et al. (2008) have shown that employees who are
highly engaged in work and nonwork life can achieve work-life balance when (1)
positive affect from one life domain are transferred to other life domains, (2) the skills
and experiences in one life domain improves role performance in other life domains,
and (3) the two or more life domains are integrated for easy transfer of positive
experiences and affect.
That is, high level of work-life balance requires first and foremost a high level of
engagement in work-related roles that generate much positive affect through the
successful transfer of positive skills, values, privileges, status, and affect from work-
related roles to other roles in nonwork life domains. High level of engagement in work
life contributes to positive personal outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction) that results from
role enrichment—the degree to which participation in one life domain enhances
performance and quality of life in other life domains (Frone 2003; Greenhaus and
Powell 2006).
A co-requisite for work-life balance seems to be high level of engagement in
nonwork-related roles. Much research in work-life balance made the case that work-
life balance is achieved when individuals have role commitments in various roles
across life domains. In other words, balanced individuals cannot be engaged in work
life exclusively; they have to be equally engaged in nonwork life too (e.g., Voydanoff
2005). Work-life balance is achieved when people are fully committed in their various
social roles in work and nonwork life.
Individuals with work-life balance engage in multiple roles, experience satisfaction
from multiple roles by effectively distributing time and effort across these roles in
salient life domains (e.g., Kalliath and Brough 2008; Marks et al. 2001). Specifically,
individuals engaged in multiple life domains are likely to experience augmentation of
power, prestige, resources, and emotional gratification from their multiple roles (e.g.,
Sieber 1974; Marks 1977; Moen et al. 1995). Multiple roles provide the individual with
B(1) role privileges, (2) overall status security, (3) resources for status enhancement, and
(4) enrichment of the personality and ego gratification^ (Sieber 1974). Thus, individ-
uals highly engaged in nonwork life, as well as work life, are provided with opportu-
nities that allow them access to resources not otherwise available to those who are
focused mostly on work life (cf. Rozario et al. 2004).
There is empirical evidence suggesting that lack of engagement and involvement in
salient life domains may have a negative impact on life satisfaction (e.g., Michaels et al.
1988). Some people withdraw from life’s major roles such as work and family; they
care little about all their social roles, approach their roles with little energy, and do not
feel intrinsically motivated to engage in role performance. These alienated individuals
become disengaged from social life and society at large, and they experience low life
satisfaction. As such, we believe that engagement in multiple roles in important life
domains is an important dimension of work-life balance. Consistent with this approach
to work-life balance is the work of Greenhaus et al. (2003) who addressed disengage-
ment and alienation in terms of negative balance. These authors distinguished between
positive balance and negative balance. Positive balance between work and family life
refers to high investment of time and involvement in both work and family roles. In
contrast, negative balance is the opposite—that is, the individual does not invest much
time or energy in both work and family roles. These scholars maintain that positive
balance produces beneficial quality-of-life effects, not negative balance. Negative role
balance refers to tendency to become fully disengaged in the performance of every role.
It is practice of apathy and cynicism (Marks and MacDermid 1996).
In sum, research has demonstrated that work-life balance focuses on engagement
and involvement across various social roles in multiple life domains—the more the
individual is engaged and committed to his or her various social roles, the more likely
that he or she would experience positive behavioral outcomes such as life satisfaction.
Minimal Conflict between Social Roles in Work and Nonwork Life
The second major requisite for work-life balance is minimal conflict between social
roles in work and nonwork life domains. Much research has documented the notion that
work-life balance is achieved when there is little-to-no role conflict between social roles
(e.g., Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Rau and Hyland 2002). Role conflict reflects the
degree to which role responsibilities in one life domain and another life domain are
incompatible (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985). As such, the demands of one role make
performance of the other role more difficult (Netemeyre et al. 1996). People experience
role conflict between work and family domains, because the demands of the roles of
work life and family life are inherently incompatible. This notion of role conflict is
supported by much research guided by the conservation of resources model (e.g.,
Fisher et al. 2009; Grandey and Cropanzano 1999; Hobfoll 1989). The model suggests
that individuals are motivated to seek and conserve resources to meet demand of their
various roles. As such, work-life balance is diminished given role conflict. Role conflict
arises when resources are threatened—to meet the demand of one role at the expense of
another. The model also suggests that work-life balance can be enhanced when
resources obtained from one domain can be used to facilitate role performance in
another domain.
Frone (2003) distinguished between two forms of work-family conflict. The
direction of the adverse effect stemming from one domain over the other has to
be identified. As such, the factors related to the interference of work on family
life are not the same as factors related to the interference of family on work
life (see also Carlson et al. 2000; Friedman and Greenhaus 2000; Greenhaus
and Beutell 1985).
Furthermore, research on work and family roles has shown that work-family role
conflict is associated with life dissatisfaction (e.g., Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Fu and
Shaffer 2001; Holahan and Gilbert 1979; Sturges and Guest 2004), as well as low
martial and family satisfaction and symptoms of low mental and physical well-being
(e.g., Parasuraman et al. 1992).
Consequences of Work-Life Balance
As previously stated, the second goal of this paper is to account for the voluminous
research that has focused on the consequences of work-life balance using our integra-
tive definition of work-life balance. That is, we will describe the research that focus on
the consequences of work-life balance using the work-life balance construct that
involves the two dimensions, namely engagement in work and nonwork life and
minimal conflict between social roles in work and nonwork life.
There are many employee outcomes that are influenced by work-life balance (e.g.,
Adams et al. 1996; Burke 1988; Frone et al. 1992; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985;
Netemeyre et al. 1996; Thomas and Ganster 1995). Employee-related outcomes include
job satisfaction/dissatisfaction, job burnout, life satisfaction/dissatisfaction, and marital
satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Organizational-related outcomes include turnover, absen-
teeism, presenteeism, and job performance. In reviewing the research on work
interference with family conflict, Allen et al. (2000) grouped employee outcomes in
terms of three major categories: (1) work-related outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, intention to turnover, absenteeism, job performance, career
satisfaction, and career services), (2) nonwork-related outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction,
marital satisfaction family satisfaction, family performance, leisure satisfaction), and
(3) stress-related outcomes (e.g., general psychological strain, somatic/physical symp-
toms, depression, substance abuse, burnout, work-related stress, family-related stress).
See Table 2.
Work-Related Outcomes Research has found that work-life balance of employees

increases job performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, career
Table 2 Antecedents and Consequences of Work-Life Balance
Antecedents Consequences
Personal Predictors Work-related outcomes:

• job involvement • high job performance
• job importance • high job satisfaction
• family involvement • high organizational commitment
• conscientiousness • high career development and success
• neuroticism • low job malfunction
• coping style • low job burnout
• individualism • low job alienation
• power distance • low absenteeism
• masculinity • low turnover intention
• uncertainty avoidance
Nonwork-related outcomes:
• high life satisfaction
Organizational Predictors: • high marital satisfaction
• job demand • high family performance
• time pressure at work • high family satisfaction
• job autonomy • high parental satisfaction
• role ambiguity • high leisure satisfaction
• scheduling flexibility • high poor health condition
• flexible work arrangement • low conflicts with family members
• part-time work
• assistance with childcare Stress-related outcomes:
• parenting resources/lactation support • low emotional exhaustion
• elder care resources • low psychological distress
• employee health and wellness programs • low anxiety
• low irritability
• family-leave policies • low hostility
• social support at work • low hypertension
• other services designed to assist employees • low depression
manage their multiple roles • low affective parental distress
• low marital distress
• low illness symptoms
• low somatic complaints
• low blood pressure and cholesterol
• low alcohol abuse
• low cigarette consumption
development and success. Research also demonstrated that work-life balance reduces
job malfunction, job burnout and alienation, absenteeism, and turn over intention.
Specifically, with respect to work-related outcomes, much of the research has shown
a consistent pattern: as work-life balance increases,
& job performance increases (e.g., Blazovich et al. 2014; Carlson et al. 2010; Frone
et al. 1997; Wayne et al. 2004; Whiston and Cinamon 2015).
& job satisfaction increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Anaton 2013; Carlson et al. 2006;
De Simone et al. 2014; Fisher et al. 2009; Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Whiston and
Cinamon 2015),
& organizational commitment increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki
1998) and intentions to leave the organization decrease (e.g., Allen et al. 2000;
Kossek and Ozeki 1998; McNall et al. 2010a),
& career development increases (e.g., Konrad and Yang 2012; Whiston and Cinamon
2015) and career success increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998),
& job malfunction decreases (e.g., Whiston and Cinamon 2015),
& job burnout decreases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Frone et al. 1997; Kossek and Ozeki
1998; Wayne et al. 2004),
& work alienation decreases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998),
& absenteeism decreases (e.g., Frone et al. 1997; Wayne et al. 2004),
& turnover intention decreases (e.g., Frone et al. 1997; Wayne et al. 2004).
Nonwork-Related Outcomes Research has shown that work-life balance of em-

ployees increases employee’s life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, family performance,
family satisfaction, parental satisfaction, and leisure satisfaction. Research also found
that work life balance of employees reduces poor health condition, cognitive problems,
and conflicts with family members. Specifically, much of the research has shown that
as work-life balance increases,
& life satisfaction increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Anaton 2013; Carlson et al. 2006;
De Simone et al. 2014; Fisher et al. 2009; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Kossek and
Ozeki 1998; Schaufeli et al. 2002; Schaufeli and Bakker 2004),
& marital adjustment and marital satisfaction increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek
and Ozeki 1998; Whiston and Cinamon 2015),
& family performance increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Carlson et al. 2010; Kossek
and Ozeki 1998),
& family satisfaction increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Carlson et al. 2006; Fisher et al.
2009; Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Whiston and Cinamon 2015),
& parental satisfaction increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998)
& satisfaction with leisure activities increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and
Ozeki 1998),
& conflict with other family members decreases (e.g., Westman and Etzion 2005).
Stress-Related Outcomes Research has found that work-life conflict increases psy-
chological distress (emotional exhaustion, emotional ill-being, anxiety, irritability and
hostility, hypertension, depression) and family-related stress (affective parental and
marital stress), and manifestation of illness symptoms (somatic complaints, high blood
pressure and cholesterol, alcohol abuse, and cigarette consumption). Research has also
demonstrated significant links between work-life conflict and stress. Specifically, as
work-life balance decreases,
& psychological distress increases (e.g., Whiston and Cinamon 2015) and general life
stress increases–being upset and frustrated, or tense (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Frone
et al. 1992; Kossek and Ozeki 1998),
& emotional exhaustion increases (e.g., Lee and Kim 2013),
& emotional ill-being increases (e.g., Whiston and Cinamon 2015),
& anxiety increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Frone et al. 1992; Kossek and Ozeki 1998),
& irritability/hostility increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998),
& hypertension increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998),
& depression increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Whiston and
Cinamon 2015),
& family-related stress increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998),
& affective parental and marital stress increase (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and
Ozeki 1998), and
& manifestation of illness symptoms increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and
Ozeki 1998),
& somatic complaints (e.g., loss of appetite, fatigue, and nervous tension) increase
(e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Whiston and Cinamon 2015),
& blood pressure and cholesterol become increased (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek
and Ozeki 1998),
& incidence of alcohol abuse increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and Ozeki
1998; Whiston and Cinamon 2015)
& incidence of cigarette consumption increases (e.g., Allen et al. 2000; Kossek and
Ozeki 1998),
Of course, as one might expect, many of the outcomes (work, non-work, and stress-
related outcomes) are interrelated. For example, research has shown that role conflict
between work and family has a negative influence on both job satisfaction and life
satisfaction (Netemeyre et al. 1996). Balance is restored by reducing role conflict (e.g.,
conflict between the work and family roles). Doing so reduces stress in general, which
serves to decrease the employee’s dissatisfaction with life.
Also, many of the consequences of work-life balance on employee and
organizational outcomes are not simply direct effects. These effects seem to be
moderated by many factors. For example, Greenhaus et al. (2003) found that work-
life balance is related to quality of life. Specifically, work-life balance contributes to
individual’s quality of life when they are highly involved in both their work and family
roles, as well as when they are satisfied with these roles. Based on a literature review,
Anaton (2013) suggested a comprehensive list of moderator effects. These include age,
gender, education, organizational tenure, and number of children living at home (cf.
Testi and Andriotto 2013; Whiston and Cinamon 2015).
Antecedents or Predictors of Work-Life Balance
As previously stated, the third goal of this paper is to make an attempt to further
integrate the literature on work-life balance by showing how past empirical research on
personal, situational, institutional, and cultural factors can be made to predict our
construct of work-life balance. In this section, we organize much of the discussion of
the antecedents in terms of two major groups of antecedents, namely personal and
organizational predictors of work-life balance (see Table 2).
Personal Predictors
Antecedents of work-life balance include a host of personal factors. Research has

shown that personal predictors that affect work-life balance include individual
characteristics and cultural values (see Table 2). We will first discuss individual
characteristics as antecedents of work-life balance.
Individual Characteristics There are many individual characteristics affecting work-

life balance including job involvement, family involvement, conscientiousness, neu-
roticism, and coping style. Specifically, the research literature shows that increases in
work-life balance are associated with:
& increases in job involvement (see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)–
through increases in engagement in work life;
& increases in job importance (i.e., work life becomes highly salient to personal
identity and self-concept) (e.g., Burke and Reitzes 1991; May et al. 2004)–through
increases in engagement in work life;
& increases in family involvement (see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)–
through increases in engagement in nonwork life;
& increases in work based self-esteem and self-efficacy (e.g., Mauno et al. 2007)–
through increases in engagement in work life;
& increases in conscientiousness, which is associated with lower levels of role conflict
(see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)–through decreases in role conflict
in social roles in work and nonwork life;
& decreases in neuroticism, which is associated with higher levels of role conflict (see
literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)–through decreases in role conflict in
social roles in work and nonwork life;
& increases in coping style, which is associated with lower levels of role conflict (see
literature review in Byron 2005)–through decreases in role conflict in social roles in
work and nonwork life; and
& increases in time management skills (see literature review in Byron 2005), which is
associated with lower levels of role conflict and higher levels of engagement in both
work and nonwork domains.
Cultural Values Cultural values of an individual also influence work-life balance.

Specifically, individualism influences the degree to which work and family roles are
segregated (Schein 1984; Triandis 1989), power distance influences the degree of
supervisory support for work-life balance (Lu et al. 2010), masculinity influences
competitiveness at work (Hofstede 1980), and uncertainty avoidance moderates the
degree to which work-life conflict influences overall life satisfaction (Javidan and
House 2001).
Individualism refers to the degree of integration between members of society
and the relative value of individual over collective needs (e.g., Hofstede 1980;
Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 1993). People in individualistic cultures are
likely to believe that personal interests are more important than group interests. In
contrast, people in collectivistic cultures value group interests, reciprocity of
favors, and a sense of belongingness. Research found that the effect of work
demand on work family conflict is high for people in individualistic cultures (Aziz
and Chang 2013; Lu et al. 2001; Spector et al. 2004, 2007; Yang et al. 2000). That
is, work-family conflict seems amplified for employees experiencing work/family
demands living in countries with an individualistic culture, more so than em-

ployees living in collectivistic countries. How can this be explained? People in
individualistic culture are more likely to segregate work and family roles (Schein
1984; Triandis 1989). For people in individualistic cultures, excessive involve-
ment in work is perceived as family neglect that leads to work-family conflict
(Spector et al. 2004, 2007; Yang et al. 2000). Work-life imbalance is experienced
when roles conflict, and this may occur more often in individualistic rather than
collectivist cultures (Schein 1984). For people in collectivistic culture, long
working hours are often perceived as self-sacrifice and a contribution to the
family, leading to family members expressing appreciation and support, which
in turn serves to reduce work-family conflict (Spector et al. 2007). Thus, people
in collectivistic cultures are likely to experience less work-life conflict and a
high level of engagement in multiple social roles, which in turn may lead to a
high level of work-life balance.
Power distance refers to the extent to which the less powerful member of a
society expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede and
Hofstede 2001). For those in high power distance cultures, supervisory support
is likely to be perceived as a goodwill gesture and is effective in reducing work-
life conflict. Lu et al. (2010) conducted a cross-cultural comparison study to
examine the protective effects of work and family resources such as supervisory
support on work-family conflict. The study found that supervisory support was
more effective in reducing work-family conflict for those employees in high than
low power distance cultures.
Masculinity refers to a preference for valuing assertiveness, achievement, and
material success while femininity refers to a preference for relationships, modesty,
and caring for the weak (Hofstede 1980). Thus, one can argue that work-to-family
conflict is high for employees in masculine cultures because they value competitive
achievement in the workplace. Additionally, one can also argue that family-to-work
conflict is high for employees in feminine cultures because people view caring and
family relationships as very important.
Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which people feel threatened by
ambiguous or an unknown situations (Hofstede and Hofstede 2001). Individuals in
uncertainty avoidance culture seek certainty and focus on avoiding stressful negative
events (cf. Javidan and House 2001). Thus, one can argue that work-life conflict is
likely to have a greater negative impact on life satisfaction for those employees in high
than low uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Organizational Predictors
Antecedents of work-life balance also include a host of institutional factors such as job
characteristics and organizational support (see Table 2).
Job Characteristics Research has shown that work-life balance is influenced by

several job characteristics including job demand, time pressure at work, job autonomy,
role ambiguity and scheduling flexibility. Specifically, work-life balance increases as a
function of:
& decreases in job demands (e.g., Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Kopelman et al. 1983;
Whiston and Cinamon 2015)–through decreases in perceived job requirements to
meet job expectations which serve to increase engagement in nonwork life and
minimize conflict between roles in work and nonwork domains;
& decreases in time pressure at work (e.g., Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Whiston and
Cinamon 2015; also see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)–through
decreases in perceived lack of time to meet role expectations in work and nonwork
life, which serves to minimize conflict between roles in work and nonwork
domains;
& increases in autonomy (see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)–through
increases in perceived freedom to make one’s own decisions to increase satisfaction
in work and nonwork domains, which in turn serve to heighten level of engagement
in work and nonwork domains;
& decreases in role ambiguity (see literature review in Bulger and Fisher 2012)–
through decreases in perceived uncertainty of work and nonwork role expectations,
which serve to heighten engagement in work and nonwork domains; and
& increases in scheduling flexibility (see literature review in Byron 2005)–through
increases in the extent to which employees can work at times most convenient to
them, which serve to minimize conflict between roles in work and nonwork
domains.
Support System Research has shown that work-life balance is influenced by various
organizational support programs aimed at assisting employees better manage work and
life demands. Many of these programs are designed to enhance work-life balance.
Examples of organizational support programs include flexible work arrangement,
part-time work, part time work, childcare assistance, parenting resources, eldercare
resources, health programs, family leave policy, other services, and social support
at work.
Specifically, work-life balance is enhanced by organizational support programs
including:
& flexible work arrangement (e.g., Allen 2001; Allen et al. 2013; Beauregard and
Henry 2009; Dikkers et al. 2001; Galvez et al. 2011–12), which is associated with
lower levels of role conflict and higher levels of engagement in work and nonwork
domains;
& part-time work (e.g., Beham et al. 2012), which is associated with lower levels of
role conflict;
& assistance with childcare (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Dikkers
et al. 2001), which is associated with lower levels of role conflict and higher levels
of engagement in work and nonwork domains;
& parenting resources/lactation support (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard and Henry
2009; Dikkers et al. 2001), which is associated with lower levels of role conflict
and higher levels of engagement in work and nonwork domains;
& elder care resources (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Dikkers et al.
2001), which is associated with lower levels of role conflict and higher levels of
engagement in work and nonwork domains;
& employee health and wellness programs such as on-site fitness facilities, healthy
food options (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Dikkers et al. 2001)—
associated with higher levels of engagement in work and nonwork domains;
& family-leave policies offered by many organizations to help with the birth or
adoption of a child or a family member’s illness (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard
and Henry 2009; Dikkers et al. 2001), which is associated with lower levels of role
conflict and higher levels of engagement in work and nonwork domains;
& social support at work (e.g., Anaton 2013; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Lee and
Kim 2013; Parasuraman et al. 1992; Schaufeli and Bakker 2004; Thomas and
Ganster 1995; Whiston and Cinamon 2015; also see literature review in Byron
2005)–through increases support provided by members at work to minimize con-
flict between roles in work and nonwork domains; and
& other services designed to assist employees manage their multiple roles such as dry
cleaning, postal services (e.g., Allen 2001; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Dikkers
et al. 2001), which are associated with lower levels of role conflict and higher levels
of engagement in work and nonwork domains.
Work-life balance research has established a positive link between practices
promoting work-life balance and certain employee and organizational outcomes
(for a review, see Batt and Valcour 2003; Beauregard and Henry 2009; Kelly et al.
2008; Ten Brummelhuis and Van der Lippe 2010; Yasbek 2004). Specifically, with
regard to employee outcomes, research has supported the relationship between
work-life balance practices and variables, such as job satisfaction, turnover inten-
tions and stress levels (e.g., Yasbek 2004). With respect to organizational outcomes,
the research has provided support for the effect of work-life balance practices on
improved recruitment and retention capabilities (e.g., Batt and Valcour 2003;
Beauregard and Henry 2009; Evans 2001; Yasbek 2004), higher returns on invest-
ment in employee human capital (e.g., Yasbek 2004), increased employee loyalty
and commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and financial performance
(e.g., Avgar et al. 2011; Dex and Scheibl 2001; Lambert 2000; Thompson and
Prottas 2006; Yasbek 2004), and improved productivity (e.g., Eaton 2003; Galinsky
and Johnson 1998).
Theoretical Principles Linking Work-Life Balance and Overall Life

Satisfaction
As stated in the front part of this paper, the fourth goal of this literature review is to
describe theoretical notions designed to explain the relationship between work-life
balance and overall life satisfaction. What are some of the theoretical notions of
work-life balance that have established a foothold in the literature? We will briefly
describe some of the theories (or psychological principles) of work-life balance that
may explain the links between work-life balance and overall life satisfaction, namely
the satisfaction limits, satisfaction of the full spectrum of human developmental needs,
role conflict, positive spillover, role enrichment, segmentation, and compensation
(Table 3).
Table 3 Theoretical Principles of Work-Life Balance Affecting Life Satisfaction (Mediator Effects)
Theoretical principle Description
The principle of satisfaction limits The amount of contribution of positive affect from a single life
domain (such as work life) to overall life satisfaction is limited.
The principle of satisfaction of the Individuals satisfied with a full spectrum of development needs
full spectrum of human (i.e., satisfaction of growth needs as well as basic needs) are
development needs likely to have a higher level of overall life satisfaction than
those who are satisfied with only a handful of needs.
The principle of role conflict Role conflict in life domains has an adverse effect on domain
satisfaction (either work or non-work domains, or both) and
overall life satisfaction.
The principle of positive spillover Spillover of positive affect from one life domain to another
contributes to overall life satisfaction.
The principle of role enrichment Successful transfer of skills and resources in one role to another
life domain enhances overall life satisfaction.
The principle of segmentation principle Preventing spillover of negative affect from one life domain to
another contributes to overall life satisfaction.
The principle of compensation Compensation of dissatisfaction in a life domain by increasing
engagement in other life domains contributes to overall
life satisfaction.
Increasing in salience of a life domain housing high levels of
satisfaction while decreasing salience of domains housing
high levels of dissatisfaction contributes to overall life satisfaction.
The Principle of Satisfaction Limits
The bottom-up spillover additive model of life satisfaction proposes that overall life
satisfaction is determined by cumulative satisfaction experienced in important life
domains such as satisfaction in work life, family life, social life, leisure life, spiritual
life., community life, etc. (e.g., Andrews and Withey 1976; Campbell et al. 1976;
Michalos 1985; Rice et al. 1985). That is, the model posits that overall life satisfaction
can be predicted by adding all the satisfaction scores across salient life domains.
Thus, the principle of satisfaction limits posits that the amount of contribution of
positive affect from a single life domain to life satisfaction is limited. One can achieve
only a limited amount of satisfaction from a single life domain. Why? First, the
intensity of the positive affect in the context of a social role in a given life domain
tends to decay with adaptation effects (Ahuvia and Friedman 1998; Rojas 2006). That
is, individuals not satisfied in a life domain are likely to experience a higher level of
intensity of positive affect from a positive event in that domain than individuals who
are already satisfied in the same domain. Put succinctly, increases in satisfaction in a
life domain serve to increase overall life satisfaction, but in a decreasing marginal rate
and subject to a threshold (Diener et al. 2008).
Second, overall life satisfaction is accrued from satisfaction in multiple life domains.
That is, overall life satisfaction depends on a threshold level of satisfaction in a number
of salient life domain. If that threshold is not met, the person is not likely to feel wholly
satisfied with life (Campbell et al. 1976). Research has demonstrated that satisfaction
from a variety of life domains contributes to unique variance to overall life satisfaction
(Rojas 2006). High engagement in a single life domain with little or no engagement in
other life domains does not contribute to overall life satisfaction (e.g., Sirgy 2002, pp.
34–36; Sirgy 2012; Sirgy and Lee 2015; Sirgy and Wu 2009). As such, employees
engaging in various social roles in nonwork life domains, in addition to roles in work
life, are likely to experience a high level of life satisfaction.
The Principle of Satisfaction of the Full Spectrum of Human Developmental

Needs
Employees who are satisfied with a full spectrum of developmental needs (i.e.,
satisfaction of growth needs as well as basic needs) are likely to experience positive
outcomes–work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes. This principle posits that
satisfaction of the full spectrum of development needs has a positive influence on
overall life satisfaction. That is, when individuals are satisfied with their basic
and growth needs, they are likely to experience positive work-, nonwork-, and
stress-related outcomes (Alderfer 1972; Herzberg 1966; Maslow 1954, 1970;
Sirgy 2012; Sirgy and Lee 2015).
Engagement in multiple life domains has a positive impact on work- nonwork-, and
stress-related outcomes because engagement in multiple roles provides the person with
opportunities to satisfy the full spectrum of human developmental needs. When em-
ployees engage in multiple roles across life domains, they are likely to obtain access to
psychological and physical resources, which in turn increase opportunities for satisfac-
tion of many basic and growth needs. Seeking to satisfy a specific need in a single life
domain does not positively and adequately contribute to work-related, nonwork-related,
and stress-related outcomes (Greenhaus and Powell 2006). That is, when employees
engage in multiple roles, they are likely to experience satisfaction of growth needs as
well as basic needs. Only satisfaction of both sets of basic and growth needs contribute
life satisfaction, not one or the other alone (Sirgy 2012; Sirgy and Lee 2015).
The Principle of Role Conflict
Work-life balance can be achieved when social roles in work and non-work life
domains are compatible with the no or minimal conflict (Greenhaus and Allen 2011).
The principle of role conflict posits that role conflict across life domains has a negative
impact on life satisfaction.
Consider the conflict between roles in work and family domains. Work-family
conflict is a form of inter-role conflict in which role pressures from the work and the
family become mutually incompatible. That is, participation in work-related roles is
made more difficult by participation in family-related roles, and vice versa (Greenhaus
and Beutell 1985). This inter-role conflict can take two directions (Frone 2003): work
roles can interfere with family roles and family roles can interfere with work roles.
Work-family conflict has a significantly negative influence on job satisfaction, family
satisfaction, and overall life satisfaction (Kossek and Ozeki 1998). High level of
psychological involvement in one role is associated with increased amount of time
and involvement devoted to role in one domain, thereby making it difficult to deal with
role demands in another domain (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985).
Specifically, inter-role conflict across life domains has a negative influence, not only
on overall life satisfaction, but a host of work-related, nonwork-related, and stress-
related outcomes. This can be explained as follows. First, individuals experiencing role
conflict across life domains are likely to experience psychological stress, anxiety, and
depression. They experience psychological stress as their role expectations become
incompatible; they often feel that they do not have adequate psychological and physical
resources to deal with the demands of the conflicting roles (Greenhaus et al. 2001).
Increased stress and depression are negatively associated with life satisfaction (Frone
et al. 1992). Second, individuals experiencing role conflict across life domain are likely
to experience dissatisfaction in those domains involving the conflicting roles, which in
turn adversely impacts overall life satisfaction and other work-, nonwork-, and stress-
related outcomes. This occurs because of failure in role performance. In other words,
role overload and role interference result in failing performance, which in turn induces
negative affect in the respective domains (Marks and MacDermid 1996). Third,
individuals experiencing role conflict across life domain are not likely to allocate much
time, effort, and other resources to the roles in question. They are less likely to engage
in these roles in integrated ways, adversely impacting a host of work-, nonwork-, and
stress-related outcomes (cf. Frone 2003; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985).
The Principle of Positive Affect Spillover
Experiences in work and nonwork life may spillover. That is, affect may spillover from
work life to nonwork life and vice versa. This is what is commonly referred to as
Baffect spillover^ (Edwards and Rothbard 2000; Grzywacz and Carlson 2007). The
principle of positive affect spillover posits positive affect spillover across life domains
contributes to overall life satisfaction.
Affect spillover can be either positive or negative. Positive affect spillover refers to
positive mood that transfer from one life domain to another. Conversely, negative
spillover refers to negative mood spilling over from one domain to another. Affect
spillover should be distinguished from crossover effects. Affect spillover refers to
feelings caused by experiences in one life domain influence the other life domain. It
is an intra-individual phenomenon (i.e., within an individual). In contrast, crossover
effect is an inter-individual construct. It refers to emotional contagion between
individuals whereby individuals are influenced by the emotions displayed by those
around them (Hatfield et al. 1994). Crossover effects are likely to be high when
individuals are in physical proximity and close communications (Barsade 2002;
Neumann and Strack 2000).
Affect spillover between work life and family life is one type of spillover
(Edwards and Rothbard 2000). This type of spillover refers to work-related moods
being carried home, or family-related moods being carried to work. For those who
are highly involved with work, affect spillover from work to family seems to be
stronger than family to work spillover (Frone et al. 1992). This may be due to the
possibility that when one has a strong identification with a work-related role, the
employee is likely to carry work matters to home but not the other way around. The
boundary between work life and family life for those highly involved with work is
highly permeable allowing work mood to spillover unto family life (Ashforth et al.
2000). In general, people experience a high level of affect spillover between life
domains when the two domains are interdependent, the roles are integrated, and/or
there is minimal role conflict across the two domains (Greenhaus and Powell 2006;
Ilies et al. 2009).
Hence, the notion of positive spillover means that positive affect spillover between
experiences in life domains contribute to positive work-, nonwork-, and stress-related
outcomes. This may be due to the following. First, positive affect spillover between life
domains increases the level of satisfaction in a life domain. For example, sharing of
positive work experiences increases family satisfaction because sharing of positive
events facilitates positive mood among family members and family satisfaction (Gable
et al. 2006; Heller and Watson 2005). Second, positive affect transfer works as a buffer
against negative experiences in a life domain. Experiences of positive affect transfer
protect or buffer individuals from the effect of negative experiences (Barnett and Hyde
2001). Third, positive affect in one role can enhance psychological availability and
energy to engage in another role effectively. Thus, positive affect in one role increases
performance in the second role (Edwards and Rothbard 2000).
The Principle of Role Enrichment
Experiences in one role can produce positive experiences and outcomes in the other
role. Role enrichment refers to the notion that skills and experiences in one role can
improve or further enhance performance and satisfaction in another role (McNall et al.
2010b; Greenhaus and Powell 2006). Work-to-family enrichment occurs when work
experiences serve to increase satisfaction in the family life, and family-to-work enrich-
ment occurs when family experiences contribute to heightened satisfaction in work life
(Greenhaus and Powell 2006). Learning occurring in one life domain that is easily
transferred to other life domains, thus enhancing role engagement and effectiveness in
multiple domains. For example, a woman may feel that being a mother taught her
patience, which serves her well as a manager at work (cf. Voydanoff 2004).
The principle of role enrichment posits that role enrichment contributes to overall
life satisfaction. Employees experiencing increased levels of role enrichment are likely
to experience increased positive work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes. This
may be due to the following. First, high levels of role enrichment can help with role
performance in work and nonwork domains, which in turn contribute to work and
nonwork domain satisfaction. That is, skills, psychological, material resources gener-
ated in a life domain are effectively applied to roles in another life domain (Hanson
et al. 2003). Research has documented the effect of role enrichment on overall life
satisfaction given three conditions: (1) when the two roles are integrated (Olson-
Buchanan and Boswell 2006), (2) when the skills and resource requirements are similar
(Greenhaus and Powell 2006), and (3) role performance in one life domain becomes
increasingly interdependent with another (Hanson et al. 2003; Ilies et al. 2009). Second,
employees with high role enrichment are less likely to experience stress and anxiety
from role demand. Such individuals apply their skills and resources across social roles
producing more positive outcomes—less psychological distress and anxiety in
performing multiple roles and a heightened sense of self efficacy in those roles.
The Principle of Segmentation
Negative affect in one life domain is likely to spill over to other life domains when there
is a high level of overlap across life domains in terms of time, space, effort, and
resources (Sirgy 2002). To prevent spillover of negative affect to other life domains,
employees create and maintain psychological boundaries around selected life do-
mains—those domains that may spill over negative affect unto other life domains
(Ashforth et al. 2000). For example, employees segment the family life domain from
the work life domain (Judge et al. 2001; Sonnentag 2012). They do not bring home
their work-related concerns and troubles. Work-related issues are dealt with at work and
only at work. Consider the following studies. Research has demonstrated that increased
use of mobile technologies blurs the boundaries between work and family, making
segmentation difficult and creating undue stress (Chesley 2005; Park et al. 2011).
The principle of segmentation posits that segmenting one’s dissatisfaction in given
life domain prevents negative affect from spilling over to other life domains. Doing so
contributes to overall life satisfaction. That is, employees who segment life domains
manage to reduce and possibly prevent spillover of negative affect experienced at work
unto family life, and vice versa. Segmentation of life domains that have the potential of
negative spillover is, therefore, is a successful strategy to maintain a certain level of life
satisfaction. In other words, segmentation of a life domain containing negative affect
from other life domains ensures the maintenance of satisfaction in other life domains
(Sonnentag et al. 2008). In sum, the segmentation effect is a strategy of work-life
balance. Employees segment dissatisfying experiences at work from spilling over to
family life, which in turn serves to maintain an adaptation level of life satisfaction.
The Principle of Compensation
Employees manage to maintain a semblance of work-life balance by compensating for

dissatisfying life domains. Such a psychological strategy serves to maintain an adap-
tation level of overall life satisfaction (Sirgy 2002). Specifically, employees experienc-
ing dissatisfaction at work are more likely to compensate by engaging in satisfying
nonwork activities (Brief et al. 1993).
The principle of compensation posits that using compensation to overcome dissat-
isfaction in a particular life domain contributes to life satisfaction. Compensation works
when the person experiencing dissatisfaction in one life domain increases his or her the
level of engagement (or perceived importance) in another domain to increase satisfac-
tion in that domain. For example, when employees become dissatisfied with their jobs,
their employer, or work life, such dissatisfaction may cause them to experience
decreased life satisfaction. To guard against decreases in life satisfaction due to
decreases in satisfaction at work, employees tend to engage in activities in other life
domains that may generate positive affect. Such positive affect in these other domains
Bcompensates^ for the decreased positive affect at work. The same principle applies in
reverse. That is, if employees experience high levels of dissatisfaction in family life (or
any other domain such as social life or leisure life), they may compensate by engaging
in activities at work that may help them generate extra positive affect to make up for the
loss of positive affect in family life (Judge et al. 2001; Tait et al. 1989). Generically
speaking, when an individual experiences dissatisfaction in a particular life domain, he
or she allocates greater resources to other life domains to increase positive affect in
those domains (Freund and Baltes 2002).
It should be noted that compensation can take two forms. The first involves
increases in in engagement in a domain likely to increase satisfaction in that domain,
which in turn contribute to life satisfaction. The second involves cognitive
manipulation of perceived importance of life domains (e.g., Hsieh 2003; Sirgy 2002).
That is, one can decrease the importance of life domains housing much negative affect,
while increasing importance of domains housing much positive affect. Doing so may
allow them to increase their life satisfaction, or maintain an adaptation level of life
satisfaction.
Conclusion
In this paper we reviewed the literature on work-life balance and presented a more
integrative concept of work-life balance. We first reviewed various conceptualization of
work-life balance and proposed an integrative definition of work-life balance. We did
this by conceptualizing work-life balance as a high level of role engagement in work
and nonwork life with minimal conflict between social roles in work and nonwork life.
We then reviewed much of the evidence related to the consequences of work-life
balance in terms of work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes. We then reviewed
much of evidence on major antecedents of work-life balance. We did so by identifying
a set of personal and organizational predictors of work-life balance and explained how
they influence work-life balance. We finally presented a set of theoretical mechanisms
linking work-life balance and life satisfaction.
Implications for Future Research
There are several future research implications related to this literature review. First, we
developed an integrative definition of work-life balance by stating that work-life
balance involves a high level of role engagement in work- and nonwork life with
minimal conflict among roles in work and nonwork life. Future research could examine
whether the two dimensions have independent or interactive effects in the formation of
work-life balance as a latent construct.
Second, many of work-life balance studies collected survey data from single infor-
mant groups or employees. Future empirical studies should collect data from multiple
respondent groups to control informant bias. In addition, past research have employed
the single-survey method, which is subject to common-method bias. Future studies
should not only use self-report measures but also behavior-based measures to control
common-method bias.
Third, this literature review identified many personal and organizational predictors
affecting work-life balance. Limited attention has been given to interrelationships
among the antecedents. Research should examine whether these predictors of work-
life balance are independent, synergistic, or supplementary. That is, we still do not
know much about relative effect of various antecedents (and their interactions) on
work-life balance. Future empirical studies should identify interrelationships among
antecedents in predicting work-life balance.
Fourth, we hypothesized several cultural moderators affecting the relationship
between work-life balance and its consequences. Future cross-cultural research could
test these hypotheses.
Fifth, this literature review identified several theoretical mechanisms linking work-
life balance with overall life satisfaction. Future research could empirically develop
measures of these mediating mechanisms and test the mediating hypotheses. Future
research also is needed to examine relative efficacy of each mediator on work-,
nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes, including life satisfaction. What may be the
moderators of each mediating effect?
Sixth, this review focused mostly on work-family interface. Future research could
examine the interface between work life and other life domains such as leisure life,
social life, spiritual life, community life, etc.
Managerial and Policy Implications
There are several managerial and policy implications to this literature review. First,
managers and policy makers should make an effort to regularly measure and monitor
the degree of work-life balance on a regular basis. Given the fact that work-life balance
has a significant influence on work, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes, it is
important for managers and policy makers to develop programs and policies to ensure
employees maintain a high level of work-life balance.
Second, managers as well as policy makers should evaluate the relative
efficacy of various organizational policies and programs (e.g., flexible work
time, part time, job sharing, parental leave, childcare, eldercare, social support)
in fostering work-life balance. This should help managers/policy makers select
the most effective policies and programs.
Third, it should be noted that there are many personal and organizational antecedents
to work-life balance and these antecedents can have interactive effects on work-life
balance. As such, managers (and in some cases policy makers) should allocate
resources to develop and implement work-life programs guided by our understanding
of how these programs and policies influence work-life balance. The same can be said
in relation to the consequences of work-life balance on work-, nonwork-, and stress-
related outcomes. That is, programs and policies should be guided by our understand-
ing of how they influence work-, nonwork-, and stress-related outcomes.
In summary, this study reviewed and presented an integrated framework of work-life
balance. We hope this study will spur increasing future research in this area and
increasingly prompt managers and policy makers to make decisions guided by the
science of work-life balance.
References
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social
support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411–
420.
Ahuvia, A. C., & Friedman, D. C. (1998). Income, consumption, and subjective well-being: toward a
composite macromarketing model. Journal of Macromarketing, 18(2), 153–168.
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: human needs in organizational settings. New York:
The Free Press.
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-
to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 5, 278–308.
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work-family conflict and flexible
work arrangements: deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66, 345–376.
Anaton, L. (2013). A proposed conceptual framework of work-family/family-work facilitation (WFF/FWF)
approach in inter-role conflict. Journal of Global Management, 6, 89–100.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America’s perception of life quality.
New York: Plenum Press.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: boundaries and micro role
transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491.
Avgar, A. C., Givan, R. K., & Liu, M. (2011). A balancing act: work-life balance and multiple stakeholder
outcomes in hospitals. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49, 717–741.
Aziz, A., & Chang, A. (2013). Work-family balance: the 3-way interaction effect of role demands, collectivism
value, and ethnicity. Journal of Global Management, 6, 22–39.
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: an expansionist theory. American
Psychologist, 56, 781–796.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675.
Batt, R., & Valcour, M. P. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and
employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42, 189–220.
Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. S. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices and
organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 9–22.
Beham, B., Prag, P., & Drobnic, S. (2012). Who’s got the balance? A study of satisfaction with work-family
balance among part-time service sector employees in five western European countries. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 3725–3741.
Blazovich, J. L., Smith, K. T., & Smith, L. M. (2014). Employee-friendly companies and work-life balance: is
there an impact on financial performance and risk level? Journal of Organizational Culture,
Communications and Conflict, 18, 1–13.
Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., George, J. M., & Link, K. E. (1993). Integrating bottom-up and top-down theories
of subjective well-being: the case of health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 646–653.
Bulger, C. A., & Fisher, G. G. (2012). Ethical imperatives of work/life balance. In N. P. Reilly, M. J. Sirgy, &
C. A. Gorman (Eds.), Work and quality of life (pp. 181–202). Dordrecht: Springer.
Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 3, 287–302.
Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An identity approach to commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54,
239–251.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 67, 169–198.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: perceptions,
evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimen-
sional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the
work-family work/family interface: development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131–164.
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Kacmar, K. M. (2010). The relationship of schedule flexibility and
outcomes via the work-family interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 330–355.
Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods
in IO/OB work family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43.
Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress, and family
satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1237–1248.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance. Human relations, 53,
747–770.
Crosby, F. J. (1991). Juggling: the unexpected advantages of balancing career and home for women and their
families. New York: Free Press.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and synthesis of the
literature. Journal of Management, 25, 357–384.
De Simone, S., Lampis, J., Lasio, D., Serri, F., Ciotto, G., & Putzu, D. (2014). Influences of work-family
interface on job and life satisfaction. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 9, 831–861.
Dex, S., & Scheibl, F. (2001). Flexible and family-friendly working arrangements in U.K.-based SMEs:
business cases. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39, 411–431.
Diener, E., Ng, W., & Tov, W. (2008). Balance in life and declining marginal utility of diverse resources.
Applied Research in Quality of Life, 3, 277–291.
Dikkers, J. S. E., Geurts, S. A. E., den Dulk, L., & Peper, B. (2001). Work-nonwork culture, utilization of
work-nonwork arrangements, and employee-related outcomes in two Dutch organizations. In S. A. Y.
Poelmans (Ed.), Work and family: an international research perspective (pp. 147–172). Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eaton, S. C. (2003). If you can use them: flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived
performance. Industrial Relations, 42, 145–167.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family
research in IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 66, 124–197.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the relationship
between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199.
Evans, J. M. (2001). Firms’ contribution to the reconciliation between work and family life. Paris: Labour
Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers, OECD.
Fisher, G. G., Bulger, C. A., & Smith, C. S. (2009). Beyond work and family: a measure of work/nonwork
interference and enhancement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 441–456.
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2002). Life-management strategies of selection, optimization and compensa-
tion: measurement by self-report and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
642–662.
Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family—alies or enemies? What happens when
business professionals confront life choices. New York: Oxford University Press.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational
health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing
a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-
family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.
Fu, C. K., & Shaffer, M. A. (2001). The tug of work and family: direct and indirect domain-specific
determinants of work-family conflict. Personnel Review, 30, 502–522.
Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right?
Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
904–917.
Galinsky, E., & Johnson, A. A. (1998). Reframing the business case for work-life initiatives. New York:
Families and Work Institute.
Galvez, A., Martinez, M. J., & Perez, C. (2011). Telework and work-life balance: Some dimensions for
organizational change. Journal of Workplace Rights, 16, 273–297.
Gareis, K. C., Barnett, R. C., Ertel, K. A., & Berkman, L. F. (2009). Work-family enrichment and conflict:
additive effects, buffering, or balance? Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 696–707.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family
conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Allen, T. D. (2011). Work-family balance: a review and extension of the literature. In J. C.
Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 165–183).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of
Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family
enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Career involvement and family involvement as
moderators of relationships between work–family conflict and withdrawal from a profession. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 91–100.
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work-family balance and quality
of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 510–531.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Carlson, D. S. (2007). Conceptualizing work–family balance: implications for practice and
research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 455–471.
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, A. (1993). The seven cultures of capitalism: value systems for creating
wealth in the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands. New York:
Doubleday.
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
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
McNall, L. A., Masuda, A. D., & Nicklin, J. M. (2010a). Flexible work arrangements and job satisfaction/
turnover intentions: the mediating role of work-to-family enrichment. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 144, 61–81.
McNall, L. A., Nicklin, J. M., & Masuda, A. D. (2010b). A meta-analytic review of the consequences
associated with work–family enrichment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 381–396.
Michaels, R. E., Cron, W. L., Dubinsky, A. J., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. (1988). Influence of formalization on
the organizational commitment and work alienation of sales people and industrial buyers. Journal of
Marketing Research, 25, 376–383.
Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16, 347–413.
Moen, P., Robison, J., & McClain, D. D. (1995). Caregiving and women’s well-being: a life course approach.
Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 36, 259–273.
Netemeyre, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict
and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410.
Neumann, R., & Strack, F. (2000). "mood contagion": the automatic transfer of mood between persons.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 211–223.
Olson-Buchanan, J., & Boswell, W. R. (2006). Blurring boundaries: correlates of integration and segmentation
between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 432–445.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Ganrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well-being
among two-career couples. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 13, 339–356.
Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Relationships between work-home segmentation and psychological
detachment from work: the role of communication technology use at home. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 16, 457–467.
Poelmans, S., Stepanova, O., & Masuda, A. (2008). Positive spillover between personal and professional life:
definitions, antecedents, consequences, and strategies. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead
(Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration: research, theory, and best practices (pp. 141–156). New
York: Academic Press.
Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: the effects on applicant
attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55, 111–136.
Rice, R. W., McFarlin, D. B., Hunt, R. G., & Near, J. P. (1985). Organizational work and the perceived quality
of life: toward a conceptual model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 296–310.
Rojas, M. (2006). Life satisfaction and satisfaction in domains of life: is it a simple or a simplified
relationship? Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 467–497.
Rozario, P. A., Howell, N. M., & Hinterlong, J. E. (2004). Role enhancement or role strain: examining the
impact of multiple roles on family caregivers. Research on Aging, 26, 413–428.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and
engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engage-
ment and burnout and: a confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Schein, E. H. (1984). Culture as an environmental context for careers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5,
71–81.
Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567–578.
Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, D-J. (2015). Work-life balance: A quality-of-life model. Applied Research in Quality of
Life (published online)
Sirgy, M. J., & Wu, J. (2009). The pleasant life, the engaged life, and the meaningful life: what about the
balanced life? Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 183–196.
Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological detachment from work during leisure time the benefits of mentally
disengaging from work. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 114–118.
Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Binnewies, C., & Scholl, A. (2008). Being engaged at work and detached at
home: a week-level study on work engagement, psychological detachment, and affect. Work & Stress, 22,
257–276.
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.

Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review: Dong-Jin Lee Djlee81@yonsei - Ac.kr M. Joseph Sirgy Sirgy@vt - Edu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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: An Integrative Review: Dong-Jin Lee Djlee81@yonsei - Ac.kr M. Joseph Sirgy Sirgy@vt - Edu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Research Quality Life (2018) 13:229–254

Work-Life Balance: an Integrative Review

M. Joseph Sirgy 1 & Dong-Jin Lee 2

Abstract Based on a thorough review of the literature we introduce an integrated

Keywords Work-life balance . Work-family conflict . Work-life integration . Work-

this is an important area of research in organizational behavior, human resource

Theoretical approaches to Key Characteristics in Conceptualization of work-life balance Representative authors

role and role partner with an attitude of attentiveness and care

The Construct of Work-Life Balance

As previously stated, we believe that an integrative definition of work-life balance

Fig. 1 An Integrative Framework of Work-Life Balance Research

Role Engagement in Work and Nonwork Life

A major requisite for work-life balance is a high level of engagement in work-related

Minimal Conflict between Social Roles in Work and Nonwork Life

Consequences of Work-Life Balance

Work-Related Outcomes Research has found that work-life balance of employees

Table 2 Antecedents and Consequences of Work-Life Balance

Personal Predictors Work-related outcomes:

Nonwork-Related Outcomes Research has shown that work-life balance of em-

Antecedents or Predictors of Work-Life Balance

Antecedents of work-life balance include a host of personal factors. Research has

Individual Characteristics There are many individual characteristics affecting work-

Cultural Values Cultural values of an individual also influence work-life balance.

demands living in countries with an individualistic culture, more so than em-

Job Characteristics Research has shown that work-life balance is influenced by

Theoretical Principles Linking Work-Life Balance and Overall Life

Theoretical principle Description

The Principle of Satisfaction Limits

The Principle of Satisfaction of the Full Spectrum of Human Developmental

The Principle of Role Conflict

The Principle of Positive Affect Spillover

The Principle of Role Enrichment

The Principle of Segmentation

The Principle of Compensation

Employees manage to maintain a semblance of work-life balance by compensating for

Implications for Future Research

Managerial and Policy Implications

You might also like