This document provides an integrative literature review of work-life balance research. It introduces a conceptualization of work-life balance involving two key dimensions: engagement in work and nonwork life roles, and minimal conflict between these roles. It reviews evidence that work-life balance leads to positive work-related, nonwork-related, and stress-related outcomes. It also identifies personal and organizational antecedents that predict work-life balance and impact the two key dimensions. Finally, it discusses theoretical mechanisms linking work-life balance to overall life satisfaction and outlines directions for future research.

1. Applied Research Quality Life
DOI 10.1007/s11482-017-9509-8
Work-Life Balance: an Integrative Review
M. Joseph Sirgy1 & Dong-Jin Lee2
Received: 4 July 2016 /Accepted: 25 January 2017
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and The
International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies
(ISQOLS) 2017
Abstract Based on a thorough review of the literature we
introduce an integrated
conceptualization of work-life balance involving two key
dimensions: engagement in
work life and nonwork life and minimal conflict between social
roles in work and
nonwork life. Based on this conceptualization we review much
of the evidence
concerning the consequences of work-life balance in terms
work-related, nonwork-
related, and stress-related outcomes. We then identify a set of
personal and organiza-
tional antecedents to work-life balance and explain their effects
on work-life balance.
Then we describe a set of theoretical mechanisms linking work-
life balance and overall
life satisfaction. Finally, we discuss future research directions
and policy implications.
Keywords Work-life balance . Work-family conflict . Work-life

2. 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
[email protected]
M. Joseph Sirgy
[email protected]
1 Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute &
State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia, USA
2 School of Business, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11482-017-
9509-8&domain=pdf
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]

3. 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

4. (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

5. 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
T
ab
le
1
V
ar

6. io
us
c
on
ce
pt
ua
liz
at
io
n
of
w
or
k-
lif
e
ba
la
nc
e
T
he
or
et
ic
al
a
pp
ro
ac
he
s
to

7. K
ey
C
ha
ra
ct
er
is
tic
s
in
C
on
ce
pt
ua
liz
at
io
n
of
w
or
k-
lif
e
ba
la
nc
e

8. R
ep
re
se
nt
at
iv
e
au
th
or
s
w
or
k
lif
e
ba
la
nc
e
w
or
k-
lif
e
ba
la
nc
e
R
ol
e

9. en
ga
ge
m
en
t
in
w
or
k
lif
e
an
d
no
n-
w
or
k
lif
e
M
in
im
al
c
on
fl
ic
t
be
tw

10. ee
n
w
or
k
an
d
no
n-
w
or
k
ro
le
s
A
tte
nt
iv
e
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
in
m
ul
tip
le
r

11. ol
es
E
qu
al
t
im
e
an
d
in
vo
lv
em
en
t
ac
ro
ss
m
ul
tip
le
r
ol
es
B
al
an

12. ce
d
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n
ac
ro
ss
lif
e
do
m
ai
ns
B
al
an
ce
i
n
tim
e,
i
nv
ol
ve
m
en

13. t,
an
d
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n
ac
ro
ss
l
if
e
do
m
ai
ns
M
in
im
iz
in
g
ro
le
c
on
fl
ic
t

14. be
tw
ee
n
w
or
k
an
d
fa
m
ily
r
ol
es
R
ol
e
en
ri
ch
m
en
t
w
ith
n
o
ro
le
c

15. on
fl
ic
t
M
an
ag
em
en
t
of
r
es
ou
rc
es
t
o
m
in
im
iz
e
ro
le
c
on
fl
ic
ts

16. T
he
t
en
de
nc
y
to
b
ec
om
e
fu
lly
e
ng
ag
ed
i
n
th
e
pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
of
e
ve
ry

17. r
ol
e
in
o
ne
’s
t
ot
al
r
ol
e
sy
st
em
t
o
ap
pr
oa
ch
e
ac
h
ro
le
a
nd
r
ol
e
pa
rt

18. ne
r
w
ith
a
n
at
tit
ud
e
of
a
tte
nt
iv
en
es
s
an
d
ca
re
E
ng
ag
em
en
t
in
m
ul
tip

19. le
r
ol
es
w
ith
an
ap
pr
ox
im
at
e
eq
ua
l
le
ve
l
of
a
tte
nt
io
n,
t
im
e,
i
nv
ol

20. ve
m
en
t
or
c
om
m
itm
en
t
E
ng
ag
em
en
t
in
w
or
k
an
d
no
nw
or
k
ro
le
s

21. to
p
ro
du
ce
a
n
ou
tc
om
e
of
e
qu
al
a
m
ou
nt
s
of
s
at
is
fa
ct
io
n
in
w
or
k
an
d

22. no
nw
or
k
lif
e
do
m
ai
ns
A
llo
ca
tio
n
of
t
im
e
an
d
ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
en
er

23. gy
i
n
a
ba
la
nc
ed
w
ay
i
n
w
or
k
an
d
no
nw
or
k
lif
e
w
hi
le
d
er
iv
in
g
m
uc

24. h
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n
fr
om
bo
th
w
or
k
an
d
no
n-
w
or
k
lif
e
Sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n
an
d
go

25. od
f
un
ct
io
ni
ng
i
n
w
or
k
an
d
fa
m
ily
r
ol
es
w
ith
m
in
im
um
r
ol
e
co
nf
lic

26. t
A
h
ig
h
de
gr
ee
o
f
ro
le
e
nr
ic
hm
en
t
w
ith
a
l
ow
d
eg
re
e
of
r
ol
e
co
nf

27. lic
t
in
w
or
k
an
d
no
nw
or
k
lif
e
do
m
ai
ns
W
or
k-
lif
e
ba
la
nc
e
is
a
ch
ie

28. ve
d
th
ro
ug
h
ef
fe
ct
iv
e
m
an
ag
em
en
t
of
r
ol
e
co
nf
lic
t-
-c
on
fl
ic
t
or
i
nt
er

29. fe
re
nc
e
re
su
lts
w
he
n
re
so
ur
ce
s
to
m
ee
t
ro
le
d
em
an
d
ar
e
th
re
at
en
ed

30. o
r
lo
st
.
M
ar
ks
(
19
77
);
M
ar
ks
a
nd
M
ac
D
er
m
id
(
19
96
);
S
ie
be
r
(1

31. 97
4)
K
ir
ch
m
ey
er
(
20
00
)
C
la
rk
(
20
00
);
K
ir
ch
m
ey
er
(
20
00
)
G
re

32. en
ha
us
e
t
al
. (
20
03
)
A
lle
n
et
a
l.
(2
00
0)
;
C
la
rk
(
20
00
);
K
ah
n
et
a
l.

33. (1
96
4)
;
G
al
in
sk
y
an
d
Jo
hn
so
n
(1
99
8)
;
Fr
on
e
(2
00
3)
;
G
re
en
ha
us
a
nd

34. Po
w
el
l
(2
00
6)
Fi
sh
er
e
t
al
. (
20
09
);
H
ob
fo
ll
(1
98
9)
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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
Personal
Predictors
Work-Life
Balance
Role
engagement
in work and
nonwork life
Minimal
conflict

38. between
work and
nonwork
roles
Nonwork-
related
outcomes
Organizational
Predictors
Stress-related
outcomes
Work-related
outcomes
Fig. 1 An Integrative Framework of Work-Life Balance
Research
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

39. 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

40. 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
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
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

41. 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

42. 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

43. Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
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

44. 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

45. (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
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
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

46. � 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

47. 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),
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
& 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

48. 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),

49. & 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),

50. Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
& 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

51. 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

52. 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
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
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)–

53. 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

54. 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

55. Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
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

56. (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

57. 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:
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
& 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

58. 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,

59. 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.

60. 2001), which is associated with lower levels of role conflict and
higher levels of
engagement in work and nonwork domains;
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
& 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

61. 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).

62. 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).
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
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

63. 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

64. 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.

65. 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.
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
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

66. 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).

67. 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
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review

68. 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

69. 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

70. 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).
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
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

71. 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

72. 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

73. 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,
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
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

74. 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

75. 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
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
manipulation of perceived importance of life domains (e.g.,
Hsieh 2003; Sirgy 2002).

76. 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

77. 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.

78. 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
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
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

79. 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

80. 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.
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.

81. 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.

82. 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

83. 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.

84. 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.
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review
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

85. 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

86. 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.

87. 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

88. 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.
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
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

89. 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,

90. D. (2008). Getting there from here: research on the effects of
work-life initiatives on work-family conflict
and business outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 2,
305–349.
Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: from
languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.
Kirchmeyer, C. (2000). Work-life initiatives: greed or
benevolence regarding workers' time? Trends in
Organizational Behavior, 7, 79–94.
Konrad, A. M., & Yang, Y. (2012). Is using work-life interface
benefits a career limiting move? An
examination of women, men, lone partners, and parents with
partners. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 33, 1095–1119.
Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A
model of work, family, and interrole conflict: a
construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 32, 198–215.
Korabik, K., Lero, D. S., & Whitehead, D. L. (Eds.). (2008).
Handbook of work-family integration: research,
theory, and best practices. New York: Academic Press.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict,
policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: a
review and directions for organizational behavior–human
resources research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 139–149.
Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: the link between work-

91. 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.
Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review

92. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job
demands and resources as antecedents of work
engagement: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 70, 149–171.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The
psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and
availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 77, 11–37.
McNall, L. A., Masuda, A. D., & Nicklin, J. M. (2010a).
Flexible work arrangements and job satisfaction/
turnover intentions: the mediating role of work-to-family
enrichment. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 144, 61–81.
McNall, L. A., Nicklin, J. M., & Masuda, A. D. (2010b). A
meta-analytic review of the consequences
associated with work–family enrichment. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 25, 381–396.
Michaels, R. E., Cron, W. L., Dubinsky, A. J., &
Joachimsthaler, E. A. (1988). Influence of formalization on
the organizational commitment and work alienation of sales
people and industrial buyers. Journal of
Marketing Research, 25, 376–383.
Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT).
Social Indicators Research, 16, 347–413.
Moen, P., Robison, J., & McClain, D. D. (1995). Caregiving and
women’s well-being: a life course approach.
Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 36, 259–273.
Netemeyre, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996).

93. 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.

94. 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.

95. 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.
Joseph Sirgy M., Lee D.
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

96. 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.

97. 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.
http://dx.doi.org/http://www.dol.govt.nz/PDFs/FirmLevelWLB.p

98. df
http://dx.doi.org/http://www.dol.govt.nz/PDFs/FirmLevelWLB.p
dfWork-Life Balance: an Integrative ReviewAbstractThe
Construct of Work-Life BalanceRole Engagement in Work and
Nonwork LifeMinimal Conflict between Social Roles in Work
and Nonwork LifeConsequences of Work-Life
BalanceAntecedents or Predictors of Work-Life
BalancePersonal PredictorsOrganizational PredictorsTheoretical
Principles Linking Work-Life Balance and Overall Life
SatisfactionThe Principle of Satisfaction LimitsThe Principle of
Satisfaction of the Full Spectrum of Human Developmental
NeedsThe Principle of Role ConflictThe Principle of Positive
Affect SpilloverThe Principle of Role EnrichmentThe Principle
of SegmentationThe Principle of
CompensationConclusionImplications for Future
ResearchManagerial and Policy ImplicationsReferences