See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340224627

Work-Life Balance: Definitions, Causes, and Consequences

Chapter · March 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-05031-3_20-1

CITATIONS READS

3 15,914

5 authors, including:

Paula Brough Carolyn Timms

Griffith University James Cook University
192 PUBLICATIONS   6,697 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   1,518 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xi Wen (Carys) Chan Amy Hawkes

Griffith University Griffith University
36 PUBLICATIONS   389 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   99 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PASS Project View project

Psychosocial Factors at Work in the Asia Pacific View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xi Wen (Carys) Chan on 27 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Work–Life Balance: Definitions, Causes, and
Consequences
link-springer-com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-030-05031-3_20-1

This chapter reviews the multiple definitions of work–life balance, including definitions
focused on the equity of time spent in the work and non-work domains, satisfaction with
performance/time spent in each domain, and the salience of each role for an individual.
There is a general consensus that a preferred definition should focus on work–life rather
than work-family, in order to include non-family responsibilities and demands, such as
study or travel commitments. The chapter also discusses the common antecedents and
consequences of work–life balance arising from both work and non-work domains.
These include work demands and resources, family demands and resources, and
personality antecedents including evidence associating psychological capital constructs
with work–life balance. Finally, this chapter considers the future directions for work–life
balance research, focusing on technological advancements (e.g., Fitbits) and individual
levels of mindfulness and resilience. The chapter concludes by noting the increasing
evidence linking employee appointments and retention with an organization’s positive
work–life balance culture.

Work–life balance Technology Culture Salience Work Family Satisfaction Performance

Access to this content is enabled by RMIT University Library

“Eight hours to work, Eight hours to play, Eight hours to sleep, Eight bob a day. A fair
day’s work, For a fair day’s pay.” This mantra was intoned by stonemasons who walked
off their jobsite at Melbourne University in 1856. According to Franklin (2010), these
skilled workers were among the first in the world to achieve an 8-hour working day. The
nineteenth-century movement for a 40-hour working week recognized the rights of
humans for lives that included work, recreation, family, and recuperation and effectively
preempted and sculpted the shape of the modern concept of work–life balance. Initially
a simple formula in an era when the workforce was predominantly male, the concept has
remained difficult to define and operationalize (Kalliath and Brough 2008a). This could
largely be due to paradigms suggesting that balance was about portions of time and the
domains of work, home, and social life were separate entities. Kanter (1977) challenged
any notion of such separation, tendering that the different domains of workers’ lives
were permeable and interconnected.

Subsequently, the interface between work and people’s non-work activities has been of
particular interest to organizational psychologists. The interface has been described in
terms of incompatibility (most commonly referred to as “conflict”; Carlson et al. 2000).
Following a scarcity model of personal resources, the work–life interface has typically
focused on how participation in multiple life roles depletes resources and produces
stress and strain (Goode 1960). Alternatively, other authors have adopted a role
expansion or accumulation perspective, suggesting that participation in multiple life roles
1/13
can derive rewards, gratification, energy creation, and growth (Marks 1977; Sieber 1974).
In this view, the interface between work and other life roles has been termed enrichment
(Brough et al. 2014a; Carlson et al. 2006), enhancement (Voydanoff 2002), or facilitation
(Wayne et al. 2004). In addition, societal changes precipitated by the entrance of large
numbers of women into the workplace, simulating consequent changes in traditionally
socially predetermined gender roles balanced against organizational imperatives for
productivity gains, have also exacerbated the importance of the work–life interface
(Brough et al. 2007; Lappegard et al. 2017).

Within the last 20 years, scholars have attempted to provide a more integrated view of
the work–family interface, and work–life balance has been a dominant concept reflecting
this perspective. However, while the term work–life balance is commonly coined, it is “a
concept whose popular usage has outpaced its theoretical development” (Valcour 2007,
p. 1513). Across the literature, there is still not a clear consistency in terms used to
articulate the construct, and the themes that underpin conceptualizations of the
construct are varied. Initial attempts to operationalize work–life balance drew upon the
two primary perspectives in the extant literature, that is, role conflict and role
enrichment. Within these approaches, work–life balance was commonly represented by
an absence of work–family conflict coupled with high levels of work–family enrichment
(Duxbury and Higgins 2001; O’Driscoll et al. 2006).

Other early conceptualizations of work–life balance focused on the notion of equal

distribution of resources across work and family or other life roles. Following this
approach, Kirchmeyer (2000) suggested that balance is achieved when an individual’s
time, energy, and commitment are evenly distributed across life roles. Meanwhile, Marks
and MacDermid (1996) defined role balance as being fully engaged across all life roles.
Greenhaus et al. (2003) also progressed the equality approach, suggesting that work–life
balance is “the extent to which an individual is engaged in and equally satisfied with his
or her work role and family role” (p. 513). Components of this definition include equal
time, involvement, and satisfaction across an individual’s work and non-work roles.

The equality approach, however, has received criticism, with researchers suggesting that
it fails to account for an individual’s role preferences or their subjective sense of balance
(Brough et al. 2007). For example, Kalliath and Brough (2008b) described balance as the
extent to which investment in roles is consistent with the importance or salience an
individual places on a role. Similarly, work–life balance has been described as the extent
to which an individual’s needs for autonomy, competence, and connection with others
are met. While, Voydanoff (2002) focused on the fit with available resources, suggesting
that work–life balance is achieved when personal resources are adequate to meet
demands in work and family roles, thereby enabling effective participation in each
domain.

As with the salience perspective, other authors have described work–life balance as a
psychological construct with a focus on satisfaction across multiple roles (Kalliath and
Brough 2008a). Valcour (2007) suggested that satisfaction with work–life balance is “an

2/13
overall level of contentment resulting from an assessment of one’s degree of success at
meeting work and family role demands” (p. 1512). Valcour (2007) operationalized work–
life balance via both affective (contentment) and cognitive (assessment of success)
components. Similarly, Kirchmeyer (2000) defined work–life balance as “achieving
satisfying experiences in all life domains and to do so requires personal resources such
as energy, time, and commitment to be well distributed across domains” (p. 80).

Grzywacz and Carlson (2007) suggested that a conceptualization of work–life balance

should consider the impact of an individual’s balance, or lack of balance, on their work
and family environments. They defined work–life balance as the “accomplishment of
role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared between an individual and
his/her role-related partners in the work and family domains” (p. 66). In this context,
work–life balance is operationalized by individuals’ perceptions of whether expectations
are met that are shared and agreed with their work and family role partners. As such, it
shifts the concept of work–life balance from psychological constructs (e.g., satisfaction,
salience), to a focus on role-related performance.

Some authors have rejected the concept of “balance” based on the inherent implication
that equal time be split between multiple roles. Halpern and Murphy (2005) likened the
concept of “balance” to a balancing beam, with work and family roles on either side of a
fulcrum, where time spent in one role will always negatively impact the other role. In this
way, work–life balance could be seen as an unrealistic expectation. Alternatively, terms
such as work–life integration or work–life harmony have been employed, to reflect a more
holistic appraisal of this concept (Greenhaus and Allen 2011). Timms et al. (2015a)
portrayed work–life balance in terms of complementarity, rather than compatibility of
domains, suggesting that the experience of multiple roles can enhance an individual’s
overall sense of well-being. For example, Gini (1998) viewed work as providing a valuable
sense of identity necessary within modern society and noted the grief inherent in the
loss of this identity associated with job loss or retirement. Similarly, May et al. (2004)
observed that work contributes a sense of personal worth and individual well-being,
thereby contributing to human thriving. This is consistent with Carlson et al.’s (2006)
construct of enrichment, where positive experiences in each domain of people’s lives
improve and enhance the quality of life in the other domains.

Allen (2013) employed the term work–family balance but applied it to the multiple
domains of individuals’ lives. Other researchers (e.g., Kalliath and Brough 2008b; Keeney
et al. 2013) have asserted that the term work–life balance is more inclusive of those
employees who are not parents but who nevertheless wish to accommodate interests
such as study, sports, religious observance, and travel with their work commitments. A
recent refinement by Casper et al. (2018) suggested that this concept could be more
accurately stated as work–non-work balance. They accentuated employees’ assessment of
how personally favorable the combination of work and non-work roles was for them.
This has resonance with Brough et al. (Brough et al. 2014b) observation that people
could experience substantial time commitments at work that did not necessarily
interfere with their subjective sense of balance between the domains of their lives.
3/13
Casper et al. (2018) identified three subjective balance domains previously not
acknowledged by researchers: affect (emotional), effectiveness (sense of success), and
involvement (level of engagement) as instrumental in contributing to individuals’ sense of
balance between their work and non-work domains. In this chapter, the term work–life
balance is employed, while acknowledging the variations in the published definitions of
this construct.

Since Kalliath and Brough’s (2008b) call for systematic reviews of the antecedents,
moderators, mediators, and consequences of work–life balance, there has been a
proliferation of studies focusing on the antecedents and outcomes of work–life balance.
A summary and synthesis of these key antecedents and outcomes are provided below.
First, the evidence associated with three types of antecedents of work–life balance, (a)
work-related, (b) family-related, and (c) other non-work-related, is reviewed.

A majority of the research on work–life balance has focused on its work-related

antecedents. These studies primarily draw on resource-based theories (viz., job
demands–resources, conservation of resources, work–home resources model, and
resource–gain–development perspective) to explain the impact of work-related demands
and resources upon work–life balance. Job demands are the physical, psychological,
social, or organizational aspects of the job requiring constant physical and psychological
effort. Job demands are commonly defined as time-based demands (e.g., overtime and
nonstandard work schedules), strain-based or cognitive demands (e.g., task difficulty and
mental load), affect-based or emotional demands (e.g., negative mood and leader or co-
worker hostility), or physical demands (e.g., manual jobs that require intense labor;
Brough and Biggs 2015). Evidence indicates that job demands generally have a negative
influence on work–life balance. For example, both Brough et al. (2014b) and Haar et al.
(2018) found that cognitive job demands decreased employees’ perceptions of their
work–life balance, while Syrek et al. (2013) demonstrated that time pressures reduced
work–life balance. Job demands reduce perceptions of work–life balance primarily due to
the effort exerted to meet these job demands, which subsequently hinders an
individual’s efforts to fulfill their responsibilities within their non-work domains.

However, some research has indicated that specific job demands can actually enhance
levels of work–life balance. For example, LePine et al. (2005) distinguished between
challenge demands and hindrance demands, suggesting that challenging job demands may
have the potential to promote personal gain or growth, positive emotions, and an active
style of coping. Similarly, Green and Skinner (2005) found that amidst the increased
workloads, longer working hours, and greater time pressures, some employees have
learnt to work “smarter” through experience and time management training to achieve
an acceptable level of work–life balance.

Job resources are the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job
that facilitate the achievement of work goals. In general, employees strive to protect their
current resources and acquire new resources, which enable them to cope with their job
demands (Halbesleben et al. 2014). Similar to job demands, job resources are also

4/13
categorized as time-based resources (e.g., job flexibility and alternative work schedules),
cognitive resources (e.g., mental resilience and attention), emotional resources (e.g., mood
and optimism), or physical resources (e.g., strength and skills). Evidence is consistent that
job resources have a positive impact on work–life balance. For example, Hill et al. (2001)
found that job flexibility in terms of timing (flextime) and work location (flexiplace)
generated a positive spillover effect from work to home, helping employees to achieve
work–life balance. Similarly, Ferguson et al. (2012) demonstrated that both co-worker
and partner support reinforced positive experiences facilitating work–life balance.
Finally, both Greenhaus et al. (2012) and Brough et al. (2005) also showed that having a
supervisor who was supportive of an employee’s family demands was positively related
to the employee’s levels of work–life balance.

Less attention has been focused on the family-related antecedents of work–life balance.
The associations between family-related antecedents and work–life balance are generally
weaker than compared to the associations between work-related antecedents and work–
life balance. Alongside partner support (Ferguson et al. 2012), other specific family
resources demonstrating an influence for work–life balance include family support
(Russo et al. 2016), family-to-work enrichment (Chan et al. 2016), spending quality time
with children (Milkie et al. 2010), partner’s work–life balance satisfaction (Stock et al.
2014), and home-based business (Walker et al. 2008). Interestingly, these family
resources have been found to benefit female employees more than male employees.
Family demands which have been examined in relation to work–life balance include
family involvement (Aryee et al. 2005; Stock et al. 2014) and caring for children and/or
aging parents and relatives (Brough and O’Driscoll 2005; Neal and Hammer 2017). Family
demands predominately affect employees juggling both work and family commitments
and generally hinder an individual’s ability to achieve their desired level of work–life
balance (Chan et al. 2017).

Education is the most robust predictor of the quality of work people can perform. Lower
educational attainment is associated with lower economic status and menial (and
therefore, less flexible) work. According to Montez et al. (2014), workers with the least
choice of flexibility in their work are single parents (predominately single mothers) with
only a rudimentary education. These workers experience high levels of work–family
conflict and insecurity due to severe competing demands on their time and consequently
experience lower health outcomes. Stack and Meredith (2018) reported that single
working parents experienced grinding poverty, psychological distress, and anxiety, even
when employed on a full-time basis, because of their low hourly rates of pay. According
to Danziger and Waters Booth (2008), although the non-work needs of low SES workers
echo those of higher SES workers, they are less likely to be accommodated by employers
due to the casual nature of the work. With regard to specific Australian experiences,
Carney and Stanford (2018) reported that insecurities facing low SES workers include
reducing wages, increasing casualization of the workforce, underemployment, and
indifferent protection by such mechanisms as enterprise agreements. Similarly, the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2019) reported that while 30% of Australians

5/13
work part time, 9% of employed people are underemployed. This reveals that although
part-time work constitutes flexibility for some workers, for others it represents insecurity
and a reduction in living standards.

Aryee et al. (2005) found weak associations between proactive personality characteristics
and work–life balance, and between neuroticism and work–life balance, and suggested
that personality variables are more strongly related to work–family enrichment than to
work–life balance. Kossek and Lautsch (2012) described work–family boundary
management style as a personality-related antecedent of work–life balance, which refers
to how an individual demarcates their work and family boundaries and roles. Boundary
management styles include segmentation, integration, and alternating. In general,
segmentation (delineating work and personal life as separate domains) facilitates work–
life balance, integration (delineating work and personal life as freely interacting domains)
reduces levels of work–life balance, while alternating (clear periods of segmentation and
integration) facilitates work–life balance in the long term (Kossek and Lautsch 2012;
Matthews et al. 2010).

Psychological capital (PsyCap) comprising self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resiliency

has generally been demonstrated to have a positive influence on levels of work–life
balance. Drawing on Hobfoll’s (1988) conservation of resources (COR) theory, specifically
the tenet that people strive to retain, protect, and build resources, Siu (2013)
demonstrated that the four components of PsyCap each significantly enhanced
individuals’ work–life balance over time. Similarly, Chan et al. (2016) also found that
domain-specific self-efficacy (self-efficacy to regulate work and life) facilitated employees’
achievement of work–life balance, as they were more likely to believe in their own ability
to maintain a balance between work and non-work demands.

Research on work–life balance has primarily focused on its work-related outcomes,

which primarily consist of job satisfaction, turnover, turnover intentions, work
engagement, organizational citizenship behavior, job performance, job involvement, and
career outcomes. Less attention has been given to the family-related outcomes of work–
life balance which primarily include family satisfaction, family functioning, and family
performance. For example, evidence of significant associations over time between work–
life balance and both job satisfaction and family satisfaction have been demonstrated
with samples of workers drawn from numerous national cultures (e.g., O’Driscoll et al.
2004; Spector et al. 2007). Evidence also suggests that work–life balance also mediates
the associations between job stress and adverse mental health outcomes (e.g.,
depression and anxiety) for workers (e.g., Timms et al. 2015b). Similarly, Chan et al.
(2017) demonstrated that work–life balance mediated the associations between both
work and family demands and an employee’s perception of work engagement. Chan et
al. (2017) noted that the relationships between work demands and work engagement
were stronger, compared to the family demands and work engagement pathways.
Furthermore, the mediation of family demands and work engagement by work–life
balance was reduced to non-significance when an employee’s level of self-efficacy was
controlled. Chan et al. (2017) concluded that “when prioritising work responsibilities,
6/13
employees [still] sacrifice their family and personal roles in the process” (p. 830).
Importantly, it appears that an employee’s personal characteristics, including their levels
of self-efficacy, appear to influence work–life balance outcomes to a similar or even
greater extent than family demands directly.

Overall, when employees perceive themselves as having an acceptable level of work–life

balance, they experience positive work-related outcomes due to the accumulation of
resources, increase in self-beliefs to achieve goals, positive spillover of resources from
the non-work to work domain, and reciprocity of favorable treatment to the
organization. Sometimes, work–life balance may not directly impact work outcomes but
instead may facilitate the accumulation of resources such as affective commitment (Kim
2014) which in turn does enhance work outcomes such as job performance. Importantly,
the evidence has established that both formal and informal access to appropriate
organizational work–life balance policies clearly assists employees to manage their
multiple role demands (Brough and O’Driscoll 2010). Consequently, these employees
have positive work attitudes and performance levels. Conversely, not having appropriate
access to organizational work–life balance policies, or having an organizational culture
which discourages this access, is associated with negative work attitudes and
performance, including employee turnover (Brough et al. 2009).

It is apparent that work–life balance is more complex than a simple conflict between
domains. As discussed at the start of this chapter, the recent focus on values,
satisfaction, and experiences provides welcome depth to this field (Casper et al. 2018;
Kalliath and Brough 2008b). Consistent with this shift to explore balance with life more
broadly, there has been growing recognition that activities outside of work can have
restorative benefits for individuals, enhancing subsequent levels of work performance
(Sonnentag 2003). Employees who demonstrate appropriate “recovery” (or “resilience”)
from their work demands are more engaged, have higher job performance, and display
more organizational citizenship behaviors (Binnewies et al. 2010). These benefits have
been found when recovery is achieved in the evening, over weekends, or while on
vacation (Fritz et al. 2010). It is proposed that such recovery enables resources to be
replenished, thereby enabling employees to cope better with subsequent job demands.

An inherent risk when discussing recovery is that blame for burnout and strain falls
solely on the individual for not managing to appropriately recover outside of work.
However, it is apparent that appropriate provisions of organizational support and work–
life balance policies, including the provision of an organizational culture encouraging
work–life balance and recovery techniques, do reduce employees’ experiences of
psychological strain and burnout (e.g., Brough et al. 2009). Furthermore, it is likely that
the recovery from the demands of family/carer responsibilities is just as important as the
recovery from work demands. Further research is required to explain more specifically
how recovery experiences impact employee outcomes beyond well-being and
productivity, to include, for example, broader improvements in work–life balance
(Sonnentag et al. 2016).

7/13
Mindfulness has also recently been a focus of mental health research and, for example,
has recently been applied as an intervention for occupational stress and well-being (e.g.,
Eby et al. 2017). Mindfulness is the nonjudgmental awareness of your surroundings,
“being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present” (Brown and Ryan
2003 p. 822). Evidence indicates that mindfulness can be beneficial when employed to
manage competing role demands. For example, Michel et al. (2014) trained employees to
use mindfulness as a segmentation strategy aimed to reduce strain-based work–family
conflict. Compared to the control group, the mindfulness group demonstrated significant
reductions in conflict and significant increases in psychological detachment. Trait
mindfulness has also been found to improve sleep quality and vitality and subsequent
reports of work–life balance (Allen and Kiburz 2012).

Both the application of recovery and mindfulness to the work–life balance research field
emphasizes a focus on the individual employee, as was mentioned above. It is important
to recognize that individually focused interventions can only succeed to a certain extent.
Experiencing chronically high levels of work and/or family demands in an organization
offering limited access to available work–life balance policies will produce adverse
employee outcomes which are only partially offset by levels of recovery, resilience, and
mindfulness.

At the broader level, there has been a rapid shift in technology use at work. These
changes have provided greater flexibility and choice in where, when, and how an
employee works, offering opportunities to bolster work–life balance levels (Day et al.
2010). However, this flexibility can also be problematic, with the boundaries between
work and home becoming increasingly indistinct. Employees may now access emails on
their smart phones immediately after waking and also work online late into the evening.
Evidence suggest that the chronic practice of “constant availability” is detrimental by, for
example, impinging on an employee’s recovery time (Barley et al. 2011; O’Driscoll et al.
2010; Lupton 2018). Furthermore, the impact of smart devices worn on the body (e.g.,
iWatch, Fitbit, Garmin) has yet to be empirically assessed in relation to employee mental
health and the implications for work–life balance. These devices mean that even when an
employee is away from their computer or mobile phone (e.g., practicing work recovery in
a gym class), they may still receive work notifications. The negative impact of technology
on employee’s mental health outcomes has stimulated some legislation to control its use
(particularly in regard to work email), outside of work hours to assist employees to
achieve deliberate segmentation of their work and non-work lives (e.g., O’Driscoll et al.
2010). It is likely that the formal control of such technology will increase in the future,
occurring either at organizational policy or at national legislative levels, in order to
safeguard employees’ levels of work–life balance.

This chapter serves to update our current thinking about work–life balance. The chapter
discussed the multiple definitions of work–life balance which commonly occur and
acknowledged that the field has moved beyond a simple focus on work and family, to a
focus which includes a variety of work and other life demands salient to an employee.
This broader definition of work–life balance is consequently applicable to a larger subset
8/13
of employees, rather than those simply caring for young children. The predominate
antecedents and consequences of work–life balance which guide current research were
also discussed. The focus on work/non-work demands and resources remains common.
It is apparent that an abundance of chronic demands from multiple domains, coupled
with inadequate levels of person and organizational resources (e.g., time, support),
remains the strongest causes of conflict or imbalance. An imbalance of multiple role
demands may be manageable in the short term and especially so with the use of
individually focused recovery/resilience strategies, but such an imbalance rarely
produces positive outcomes in the longer term. For those employees with a choice of
employer, preferences are increasing for employers offering desirable organisational
work–life balance polices, and who also enable access to these policies; that is,
organisations with a positive work–life balance organisational culture. Finally, the recent
technological developments that can lead to a state of employee permanent availability
were noted, contradicting the recognized benefits of work “downtime” or recovery.
Finally, it was suggested that it will become increasingly necessary for organizations to
formally mandate the use of such technology within their work–life balance policies.

1. Allen T (2013) The work-family interface: a synthesis of research from industrial

and organizational psychology. In: Weiner I (ed) Handbook of psychology, vol 12,
2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 698–718Google Scholar
2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2019) Australia’s welfare 2019 in brief.
Retrieved from Canberra: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/795385cc-6493-45c9-
b341-7ddf6006d518/aihw-aus-227.pdf.aspx?inline=true
3. Binnewies C, Sonnentag S, Mojza EJ (2010) Recovery during the weekend and
fluctuations in weekly job performance: a four-week longitudinal study examining
intra-individual relationships. J Occup Organ Psychol 83:419–441CrossRefGoogle
Scholar
4. Brough P, Biggs A (2015) Job demands x job control interaction effects: do
occupation-specific job demands increase their occurrence? Stress Health
31(2):138–149. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/10.1002/smi.2537CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoo
gle Scholar
5. Brough P, O’Driscoll M (2005) Work-family conflict and stress. In: Antoniou A,
Cooper C (eds) Research companion to organizational Health Psychology. Edward
Elgar Publisher, Cheltenham, pp 346–365Google Scholar
6. Brough P, O’Driscoll M (2010) Organisational interventions for balancing work and
home demands: an overview. Work & Stress 24:280–297. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/10.1080/02678373.2010.506808CrossRefGoogle
Scholar
7. Brough P, O’Driscoll M, Kalliath T (2005) The ability of ‘family friendly’ organisational
resources to predict work-family conflict and job and family satisfaction. Stress
Health 21:223–234. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/10.1002/smi.1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9/13
 8. Brough P, O’Driscoll MP, Kalliath TJ (2007) Work-family conflict and facilitation:
achieving work-family balance. In: Glendon AI, Thompson BM, Myors B (ed)
Advances in organisational psychology. Australian Academic Press, Brisbane. 73–
92Google Scholar
9. Brough P, O’Driscoll MP, Biggs A (2009) Parental leave and work-family balance
among employed parents following childbirth: an exploratory investigation in
Australia and New Zealand. Kotuitui: N Z J Soc Sci Online 4:71–87. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/10.1080/1177083X.2009.9522445CrossRefGoogle
Scholar
10. Brough P, Hassan Z, O’Driscoll MP (2014a) Work life enrichment. In: Dollard M,
Shimazu A, Bin Nordin R, Brough P, Tuckey M (eds) Psychosocial factors at work in
the Asia Pacific. Springer, London, pp 323–336Google Scholar
11. Brough P, Timms C, O’Driscoll MP, Kalliath T, Siu OL, Sit C, Lo D (2014b) Work–life
balance: a longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New
Zealand workers. Int J Hum Resour Manag 25(19):2724–2744CrossRefGoogle
Scholar
12. Brown KW, Ryan RM (2003) The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role
in psychological Well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol 84(4):822–848. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
13. Carlson DS, Kacmar K, Williams L (2000) Construction and initial validation of a
multidimensional measure of work/family conflict. J Vocat Behav 56(2):249–
276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Wayne JH, Grzywacz JG (2006) Measuring the positive side
of the work-family interface: development and validation of a work-family
enrichment scale. J Vocat Behav 68(1):131–164. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Carney T, Stanford J (2018) The dimensions of insecure work: a Factbook. Retrieved
from Canberra:
https://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/Insecure_Work_Factbook.pdf
16. Casper WJ, Vasziri H, Wayne J, DeHauw S, Greenhaus J (2018) The jingle-jangle of
work-nonwork balance: a comprehensive and meta-analytic review of its meaning
and measurement. J Appl Psychol 103(2):182–214
17. Chan XW, Kalliath T, Brough P, Siu OL, O’Driscoll MP, Timms C (2016) Work–family
enrichment and satisfaction: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work–life
balance. Int J Hum Resour Manag 27(15):1755–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Chan XW, Kalliath T, Brough P, O’Driscoll M, Siu OL, Timms C (2017) Self-efficacy
and work engagement: test of a chain model. Int J Manpow 38(6):819–
834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Danziger A, Waters Booth S (2008) Lower-wage workers and flexible work
arrangements. Retrieved from Washington D.C.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1000&context=legal

10/13
20. Day A, Scott N, Kelloway KE (2010) Information and communication technology:
Implications for job stress and employee well-being. In: New developments in
theoretical and conceptual approaches to job stress. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, Bingley, pp 317–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Duxbury L, Higgins C (2001) Work–life balance in the new millennium: Where are
we? Where do we need to go? CPRN, OttawaGoogle Scholar
22. Eby LT, Allen TD, Conley KM, Williamson RL, Henderson TG, Mancini VS (2017)
Mindfulness-based training interventions for employees: a qualitative review of the
literature. Hum Res Manage Rev. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Ferguson M, Carlson D, Zivnuska S, Whitten D (2012) Support at work and home:
the path to satisfaction through balance. J Vocat Behav 80(2):299–
307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Franklin N (writer). (2010) The rise and fall of the 8 hour day: part one. In Raynor M
(producer), Hindsight. Australian Broadcasting commission, MelbourneGoogle
Scholar
25. Goode WJ (1960) A theory of role strain. Am Psychol Rev 25:483–496Google Scholar
26. Greenhaus JH, Allen TD (2011) Work–family balance: a review and extension of the
literature. In: Handbook of occupational Health Psychology, 2nd edn. American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 165–183Google Scholar
27. Halbesleben JR, Neveu JP, Paustian-Underdahl SC, Westman M (2014) Getting to the
“COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. J
Manag 40(5):1334–1364Google Scholar
28. Halpern DF, Murphy SE (2005) From work–family balance to work–family
interaction: changing the metaphor. Erlbaum Publishers, MahwahGoogle Scholar
29. Hill EJ, Hawkins AJ, Ferris M, Weitzman M (2001) Finding an extra day a week: the
positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Fam
Relat 50(1):49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Hobfoll SE (1988) The ecology of stress. Hemisphere, New YorkGoogle Scholar
31. Kalliath T, Brough P (2008a) Work–life balance: a review of the meaning of the
balance construct. J Manag Organ 14(3):323–327Google Scholar
32. Kalliath T, Brough P (2008b) Achieving work-life balance. J Manage Org 14(3):224–
226Google Scholar
33. Kanter RM (1977) Work and family in the United States: a critical review and
agenda for research and policy. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
34. Kim HK (2014) Work–life balance and employees’ performance: the mediating role
of affective commitment. Glob Bus Manag Res 6(1):37–51Google Scholar
35. Kirchmeyer C (2000) Work–life initiatives: greed or benevolence regarding workers’
time? In: Cooper CL, Rousseau DM (eds) Trends in organizational behavior: time in
organizational behavior, vol 7. Wiley, Chichester, pp 79–94Google Scholar
36. Kossek EE, Lautsch BA (2012) Work–family boundary management styles in
organizations: a cross-level model. Organ Psychol Rev 2(2):152–171Google Scholar

11/13
 37. Lappegard T, Goldscheider F, Bernhardt E (2017) Introduction to the special
collection on finding work-life balance: history, determinants, and consequences of
new breadwinning models of the industrialized world. Demogr Res 37(26):853–
865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. LePine JA, Podsakoff NP, LePine MA (2005) A meta-analytic test of the challenge
stressor–hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for inconsistent
relationships among stressors and performance. Acad Manag J 48(5):764–
775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Lupton D (2018) Digital health. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
40. May DR, Gilson RL, Harter LM (2004) The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work. J Occup Organ Psychol 77:11–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. O’Driscoll M, Brough P, Kalliath T (2006) Work-family conflict and facilitation. In:
Jones F, Burke RJ, Westman M (eds) Work-life balance: A psychological perspective.
Psychology Press, Hove, pp 117–142Google Scholar
42. Spector PE, Allen TD, Poelmans S, Lapierre LM, Cooper CL, O’Driscoll M, Sanchez JI,
Abarca N, Alexandrova M, Beham B, Brough P, Ferreiro P, Fraile G, Lu C-Q, Lu L,
Moreno-Velazques I, Pagon M, Pitariu H, Salamtov V, Shima S, Simoni AS, Siu OL,
Widerszal-Bazyl M (2007) Cross-national differences in relationships of work
demands, job satisfaction and turnover intentions with work-family conflict. Pers
Psychol 60:805–835. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2007.00092.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. Stock RM, Bauer EM, Bieling GI (2014) How do top executives handle their work and
family life? A taxonomy of top executives’ work–family balance. Int J Hum Resour
Manag 25(13):1815–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Syrek CJ, Apostel E, Antoni CH (2013) Stress in highly demanding IT jobs:
transformational leadership moderates the impact of time pressure on exhaustion
and work–life balance. J Occup Health Psychol 18(3):252–261
45. Timms C, Brough P, Siu OL, O’Driscoll M, Kalliath T (2015a) Cross-cultural impact of
work–life balance on health and work outcomes. In: Lu L, Cooper CL (eds)
Handbook of research on work–life balance in Asia. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Cheltenham, pp 295–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46. Wayne JH, 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. J Vocat Behav 64:108–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Morten Wahrendorf
1
Jian Li
2

12/13
View publication stats

1. 1.Institute of Medical Sociology, Centre of Health and Society (CHS)University of

DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany
2. 2.Fielding School of Public Health, School of NursingUniversity of California Los
AngelesLos AngelesUSA

13/13