Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 361–373 Contents .docx

Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 361–373
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Vocational Behavior
j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / jvb
Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life
satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures
c
Jarrod M. Haar a,1, Marcello Russo b,⁎,1, Albert Suñe c,
Ariane Ollier-Malaterre d
a School of Management, Massey University, Private Bag
102904, North Shore City, New Zealand
b Department of Management, KEDGE Business School, 680
Cours de la Liberation, 33405 Talence cedex, Bordeaux, France
Department of Management, Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya, Etseiat, C. Colom 11, 08222 Terrassa, Barcelona,
Spain
d Organisation and Human Resources Department, École des
Sciences de la Gestion, Université du Québec A Montréal, 315,
rue Sainte-Catherine Est, local R-3490, Montréal,
Québec H2X 3X2, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.M. Haar), m
(A. Ollier-Malaterre).
Denotes shared first authorship.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.010
0001-8791/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 22 May 2014
Available online 7 September 2014
This study investigates the effects of work–life balance (WLB)
on several individual outcomes
across cultures. Using a sample of 1416 employees from seven
distinct populations – Malaysian,
Chinese, New Zealand Maori, New Zealand European, Spanish,
French, and Italian – SEM analysis
showed that WLB was positively related to job and life
satisfaction and negatively related to anx-
iety and depression across the seven cultures.
Individualism/collectivism and gender egalitarian-
ism moderated these relationships. High levels of WLB were
more positively associated with job
and life satisfaction for individuals in individualistic cultures,
compared with individuals in collec-
tivistic cultures. High levels of WLB were more positively
associated with job and life satisfaction
and more negatively associated with anxiety for individuals in
gender egalitarian cultures. Overall,
we find strong support for WLB being beneficial for employees
from various cultures and for cul-
ture as a moderator of these relationships.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Work–life balance
Collectivism
Gender egalitarianism

Cross-cultural
Job satisfaction
Well-being
1. Introduction
Work–life balance (WLB) is a central concern in everyday
discourses (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011; Greenhaus, Collins, &
Shaw, 2003;
Guest, 2002; Kossek, Valcour, & Lirio, 2014; Maertz & Boyar,
2011). However, despite its popularity, WLB remains one of the
least stud-
ied concepts in work–life research (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011).
Valcour (2007) noted that it is “a concept whose popular usage
has
outplaced its theoretical development” (p. 1513). A reason for
this is the field's struggle to agree on a common definition of
WLB
(Greenhaus & Allen, 2011). Another reason is that research on
the positive individual outcomes of WLB has been relatively
slow to
accumulate (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011; Maertz & Boyar, 2011).
In addition, most of the current studies focus on work–family
balance,
without considering individuals' broader lives including
community, leisure, church, sport and other activities (Hall,
Kossek, Briscoe,
Pichler, & Lee, 2013). In this study we work with a relatively
consensual definition of WLB as being an individual's
assessment of how
well her or his multiple life roles are balanced (e.g. Greenhaus
& Allen, 2011; Haar, 2013; Kossek et al., 2014). We aim to
contribute to
WLB research at solidifying the concept of WLB by examining
its relationship with four important individual outcomes: job
satisfac-
tion, life satisfaction, anxiety, and depression.

Furthermore, we know very little about the impact of cultures
on the relationship between WLB and individual outcomes. A
recent
review of cross-national work–life research has identified only
two cross-cultural studies focusing on WLB compared with 29
focusing
[email protected] (M. Russo), [email protected] (A. Suñe),
[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08
.010&domain=pdf
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02516888
www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
362 J.M. Haar et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014)
361–373
on conflict and nine on enrichment; the only cultural dimension
examined in these studies was gender egalitarianism (Ollier-
Malaterre, 2014). This is a clear shortcoming of current
research given that numerous calls have been issued to broaden
the scope
and ambition of work–life research by conducting cross-national
studies that consider the impact of multiple cultural dimensions
(Greenhaus & Allen, 2011; Kossek, Baltes, & Matthews, 2011;
Ollier-Malaterre, Valcour, den Dulk, & Kossek, 2013;
Poelmans, 2005).
In this paper we address this gap by testing whether the
relationships between WLB, job satisfaction, life satisfaction,

anxiety, and de-
pression are moderated by two important cultural dimensions:
(1) individualism/collectivism (I/C) and (2) gender
egalitarianism
(GE). Based on a sample of 1416 employees from seven distinct
cultures – Malaysian, Chinese, New Zealand Maori, New
Zealand
European, Spanish, French, and Italian, we find strong support
for direct effects of WLB across all of the study's samples. We
also
find moderating effects of I/C and GE on these relationships.
Our study makes three important contributions to the literature.
First, we contribute to establish WLB as a solid construct that
sheds light on major individual outcomes, thereby encouraging
future research on WLB as a way to better understand a
complex
work–life interface, and encouraging practitioners to assess
their employees' WLB as part of their HR efforts. Second, our
study is
unique in the burgeoning body of cross-cultural research on the
work–life interface (for a review, see Ollier-Malaterre, 2014)
since
it is the first, to our knowledge, to focus on WLB rather than
work–family conflict or work–family enrichment and to have
collected
evidence that two dimensions of national culture, i.e. I/C and
GE, moderate the relationships between WLB and individual
outcomes.
The finding that WLB has beneficial outcomes for individuals
across seven distinct cultures lends further support to the
construct of
WLB. Third, our study provides evidence that work–life
concepts that originated in Western cultures are generalizable
beyond these
cultures — we do so by including cultures of growing interest in

the literature (e.g. Malaysia and China) as well as understudied
cul-
tures (e.g. New Zealand European and Maori).
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. Work–life balance
Consistent with recent theoretical advancements (e.g. Frone,
2003; Greenhaus & Allen, 2011; Haar, 2013; Kossek et al.,
2014), we
conceptualize WLB as an individual's perceptions of how well
his or her life roles are balanced. This conceptualization of
individuals
subjectively gauging balance between the work and the rest of
their life (Guest, 2002) is in contrast with prevailing views that
considered balance to be equivalent to low role conflict
(Duxbury & Higgins, 2001), to high role enrichment (Frone,
2003) or to an
equal division of time and attention amongst the several roles
that compose an individual's life system (Marks & MacDermid,
1996). Our definition is grounded in the perception-centred
approach that considers work–life balance to be a holistic
concept, unique
for each person and that depends upon his or her life values,
priorities and goals (Kossek et al., 2014).
With a few exceptions (see Hill, Yang, Hawkins, & Ferris,
2004; Lyness & Judiesch, 2014), cross-national research has
mostly neglected
work–life balance. However, there is general consensus amongst
scholars that work–life balance is highly valued by nearly all
employees
(Kossek et al., 2014) and it has important implications on
people's well-being and work productivity all over the world
(Lyness &

Judiesch, 2014). Interestingly, research conducted by IBM has
shown that people's nationality does not translate in differences
in the
expressed desire for work–life balance (Hill et al., 2004).
Regarding the effects of WLB, extant research shows that
people who perceive
balance between their work and life roles tend to be more
satisfied of their life and report better physical and mental
health (Brough et al.,
2014; Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009; Ferguson,
Carlson, Zivnuska, & Whitten, 2012; Greenhaus et al., 2003;
Haar, 2013; Lunau,
Bambra, Eikemo, Van der Wel, & Dragano, 2014). Building on
these premises, in this article we hypothesize, for two reasons,
that WLB
will be positively related to job and life satisfaction and
negatively related to mental health universally for all
employees.
First, we believe that individuals who experience WLB may be
more satisfied of their job and life “because they are
participating in
role activities that are salient to them” (Greenhaus et al., 2003;
p. 515). Second, we believe that balanced individuals may be
mentally
healthier because they experience a sense of harmony in life and
optimal psychophysiological conditions which enable them to
meet
the long-term demands of work and nonwork roles (Greenhaus
et al., 2003). This may lead them to be less apprehensive about
their
abilities to conciliate work and nonwork commitments and also
less prone to develop ruminating thoughts about the lack of
balance
in life that can deplete their physical and mental resources
(Rothbard, 2001). Accordingly, we hypothesize that the benefits

of WLB
will be universal across all country cultures.
H1. WLB will be positively related to job satisfaction across
cultures.
H2. WLB will be positively related to life satisfaction across
cultures.
H3. WLB will be negatively related to anxiety across cultures.
H4. WLB will be negatively related to depression across
cultures.
2.2. Moderating effects of individualism/collectivism
I/C is the cultural dimension that has received the “lion's share
of attention as a predictor of cultural variation” (Brewer &
Chen, 2007,
p. 133). This dimension is also a powerful moderator of
employee cross-cultural studies (Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2002),
including work–
family studies (Hill et al., 2004; Spector et al., 2004, 2007). I/C
reflects whether people view themselves as independent
(individualists)
361–373
or are tightly linked to others as part of groups (collectivists)
(Triandis, 1995). We follow House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman,
and Gupta
(2004), where in-group collectivism is defined as “the degree to
which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in
their or-

ganizations or families” (p. 30). In essence, in individualistic
cultures people tend to prioritize personal interests over
common goals,
whereas in collectivistic cultures people tend to prioritize
common goals, including family ones, over personal needs.
A recent review of cross-cultural work–life research found no
studies linking I/C and WLB (Ollier-Malaterre, 2014). However,
there
is considerable research showing that work–family conflict is
less detrimental to individuals in collectivistic than in
individualistic cul-
tures (Lu, Gilmour, Kao, & Huang, 2006; Lu et al., 2010;
Spector et al., 2004, 2007; Yang, Chen, Choi, & Zou, 2000).
This can be explained
by the presence of different appraisal mechanisms in different
cultures (Aycan, 2008). In collectivistic cultures, work is
viewed as a
way of supporting a family (Redding, 1993; Redding & Wong,
1986) such that people tend to deem work–family conflict as an
inev-
itable life experience to promote wealth and financial stability
for the family (Aryee, Luk, Leung, & Lo, 1999; Spector et al.,
2007). In-
stead, in individualistic cultures work is generally viewed as an
individual achievement that contributes to self-actualization and
that
is incompatible with family roles (Spector et al., 2004, 2007);
therefore people deem work–family conflict to be problematic
and a
threat to personal health and well-being (Aycan, 2008). Drawing
on these assumptions, we expect WLB to be less strongly
related
to positive outcomes in collectivistic than in individualistic
cultures. We reason that achieving balance should be more
pivotal for peo-

ple in individualistic cultures, as it is considered more essential
in individualistic societies to live one's life to the fullest and to
recover
from the stress and strains associated with work roles (Spector
et al., 2004, 2007). Instead, people in collectivistic cultures
tend to per-
ceive role imbalance in a less problematic way as they view it
as an inevitable cost in promoting family well-being (Aryee et
al., 1999).
From this we can infer that individuals in individualistic
cultures will benefit more from experiencing greater WLB as
achieving WLB is
more of a focus in their cultures and thus will weigh more
towards their satisfaction and mental health. Accordingly,
H5. Individualism/collectivism will moderate the relationship
between WLB and individual outcomes, such that:
H5. The positive relationship between WLB and (a) job
satisfaction and (b) life satisfaction will be stronger in countries
higher in
individualism.
H5. The negative relationship between WLB and (c) anxiety and
(d) depression will be stronger in countries higher in
individualism.
2.3. Moderating effects of gender egalitarianism
GE reflects the presence of “beliefs [in the society] about
whether members' biological sex should determine the roles that
they
play in their homes, business organizations, and communities”
(House et al., 2004, p. 347). Low GE cultures are characterized
by be-
liefs in the traditional gendered division of labour, which depict

men as breadwinners and women as caregivers and homemakers
(Wood & Eagly, 2002). Notably, extant research has shown that
in high GE cultures there is less adhesion to traditional gender
pat-
terns and it is considered personally and socially acceptable that
both women and men pursue their own life goals and struggle to
guarantee the desired level of involvement in both work and
non-work roles (Lyness & Judiesch, 2014).
Research on the influence of GE on the work–life interface is
still at a very early stage and cross-national research in
particular is
very scarce (Lyness & Judiesch, 2014; Lyness & Kropf, 2005).
Lyness and Judiesch (2008) found a GE moderated relationship,
with
managers' self-rating of WLB more positively related to peer's
and supervisor's advancement potential rating for female
managers
in high gender egalitarian cultures and for men managers in low
gender egalitarian cultures. In this paper, we hypothesize that
WLB will be associated with higher job and life satisfaction and
lower anxiety and depression for individuals living in high GE
cultures
than for those living in low GE cultures. We contend that living
in cultures where both men's and women's work and non-work
role
involvement is encouraged and considered socially acceptable
can amplify the beneficial effects of WLB (Corrigall & Konrad,
2006).
Conversely, in low GE cultures we believe that achieving WLB
may be less beneficial as traditional gender role prescriptions
are pre-
vailing and may instil in the population the expectations that
men should prioritize work over the family and women should
do the
opposite. Thus, experiencing WLB might not be perceived as

beneficial as it might be in high GE cultures because it is
inconsistent with
societal expectations about gender division of labour.
Accordingly,
H6. Gender egalitarianism will moderate the relationship
between WLB and individual outcomes, such that:
H6. The positive relationship between WLB and (a) job
satisfaction and (b) life satisfaction will be stronger in countries
higher in
GE.
H6. The negative relationship between WLB and (c) anxiety and
(d) depression will be stronger in countries higher in GE.
Fig. 1 illustrates our general structural model.
3. Method
3.1. Samples and procedures
Data were collected from six countries (New Zealand, Spain,
France, Italy, Malaysia and China) and included seven samples.
Two
separate samples were collected from New Zealand: Maori
(indigenous people of New Zealand) and New Zealand
European, the
361–373
Fig. 1. General study model: Outcomes of WLB across cultures.
largest population group (equivalent to Caucasians in the US).

Table 1 illustrates the descriptive data of the seven samples as
well as of
the combined sample. The authors personally collected data
from four countries including both samples from New Zealand,
while two
research assistants native of China and Malaysia collected data
from these countries. We used our networks to generate the
largest
number of employees from a broad range of organizations.
Then, following basic principles of snowball sampling
(Biernacki &
Waldford, 1981), we asked recruited participants to recommend
participation in the research to their contacts. The necessary
require-
ment to be included in the sample was being engaged in a full-
time job. All surveys where English is not the first language
were trans-
lated into the native language (e.g., French, Italian, Mandarin)
and then back-translated to minimize translation error (Brislin,
1980).
Overall, the combined sample includes 1416 employees of
whom 546 come from collectivistic cultures (Maori, Malaysia
and
China). The average age was 37.6 years, gender was fairly
evenly split (55% female) and the majority were married (70%)
and parents
(61%).
Table 1
Overall study demographics.
Country Demographics Sector
N Age (years) Gender (female) Married Parent Private Public
Not-for-profit

New Zealand
New Zealand Maori
France
Italy
Spain
Malaysia
China
366
335
139
238
127
110
101
34.3
38.9
39.2
44.0
39.7
32.1
31.4
55%
63%
62%
43%
50%
48%
63%
70%
67%
80%
69%

78%
75%
47%
51%
69%
74%
60%
66%
63%
43%
56%
22%
74%
63%
62%
4%
45%
40%
70%
22%
35%
36%
96%
38%
4%
8%
4%
2%
2%
0%

17%
Total sample
Collectivistic:
Average age
Gender
Married
Parents
Industry:
1416
Maori, Malaysia and China (n = 546)
37.6 years (SD = 11.5 years)
55% female
70%
61%
46.8% Private
48.5% Public
4.6% Not-for-profit
361–373
3.2. Measures
All samples used the same items, and except where noted, all
items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree). Items were averaged to produce composite
indicators, with higher scores indicating higher values of the
given mea-
sure. All measures achieved adequate reliability within each
country sample (all α N .70). We thus combined the seven
samples to test
our hypotheses (with alphas reported in Table 3).

3.2.1. WLB
WLB was measured using a 3-item measure by Haar (2013). A
sample item is “I manage to balance the demands of my work
and
personal/family life well”. As this measure is still new, we
conducted factor analysis (principal components, varimax
rotation) for each
distinct population and on the combined sample. The three items
loaded onto a single factor universally across all seven samples
with
eigenvalues greater than 1; accounting for sizeable amounts of
the variance and achieving adequate reliability in all samples as
shown
in Table 2.
3.2.2. Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using 3-items by Judge, Bono,
Erez, and Locke (2005). A sample question is “Most days I am
enthu-
siastic about my work”.
3.2.3. Life satisfaction
Life satisfaction was measured using the 5-item scale by
Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985). A sample question
is “In most
ways my life is close to ideal”.
3.2.4. Anxiety and depression
Anxiety and depression were assessed using 6-items by Axtell
et al. (2002). This measure has been shown to have good
psychomet-
ric properties (Haar, 2013; Spell & Arnold, 2007). The items

were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = all the time).
Presented
with three adjectives for each measure, respondents were asked
to indicate how often each adjective applied to them while they
were
at work.
3.2.5. Collectivism
Collectivism was assessed by coding cultures using GLOBE
scores for in-group collectivism (House et al., 2004). This
approach is
superior to the typical dichotomous approach often used in the
work–family literature (e.g. Spector et al., 2004), as it offers a
range
of scores that better reflect cultural variations across countries.
New Zealand (European) was rated the most individualistic
(3.67),
and China the most collectivistic (5.8). One issue we came
across was that the GLOBE study does not list New Zealand
Maori as a sep-
arate culture than the rest of the New Zealand population.
Indeed, while making up 14% of the population, it is grouped
into New
Zealand culture as a whole. Since Maori have been found to
have a strong collectivistic culture (Brougham & Haar, 2013;
Haar,
Roche, & Taylor, 2012) and prior research has widely
documented that is distinct from the individualistic New
Zealand European
(Haar & Brougham, 2011; Podsiadlowski & Fox, 2011), we
decided to use for this particular ethnic group the same score as
in
China (5.8). This score aligns with the GLOBE collectivism
score for the Southern Asia cluster (Gupta, Surie, Javidan, &
Chhokar,

2002), which provides an overall score for the six countries that
make up the cluster. As such, we suggest that this provides a
useful
proxy for a collectivistic culture that aligns well with Maori
(Brougham & Haar, 2013). Furthermore, we tested our model
without in-
cluding the Maori sample and we found no noticeable
differences in our results. Therefore, we suggest that including
the Maori sam-
ple does not distort our overall findings and provides an
additional rich new population to explore.
3.2.6. Gender egalitarianism
Gender egalitarianism was assessed by coding cultures using the
GLOBE scores (House et al., 2004). China was rated the least
gen-
der egalitarian (3.68) with Italy the highest (4.88). As with
collectivism, this approach is superior to the dichotomous
approach but
Table 2
Results of exploratory factor analysis for WLB.
Responses were coded 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
Factor loadings for each country
NZ NZ Maori France Italy Spain Malaysia China Combined
1. I am satisfied with my WLB, enjoying both roles .847 .906
.875 .873 .801 .912 .907 .874
2. Nowadays, I seem to enjoy every part of my life equally well
.866 .904 .842 .870 .841 .882 .809 .875
3. I manage to balance the demands of my work and .821 .883
.910 .800 .886 .916 .867 .860
personal/family life well

Number of items in measure All analyses confirmed a one factor
3-item measure
Eigenvalues 2.141 2.471 2.304 2.159 2.134 2.450 2.230 2.267
Percentage variance 71.4% 80.6% 76.8% 72.0% 71.1% 81.7%
74.3% 75.6%
Cronbach's alpha .80 .88 .85 .80 .80 .89 .83 .84
361–373
similarly, does not have a score for Maori. We followed the
same logic outlined above for collectivism and used the same
score as in
China.
3.2.7. Control variables
In line with prior research (Carlson et al., 2009), we included
gender (coded as 1 = female and 0 = male) and work–family
conflict
as covariates in our analyses. We used 6-items from the scale by
Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) to measure work-to-
family
conflict (WFC) and family-to-work conflict (FWC). A sample
item for WFC is “I have to miss family activities due to the
amount of
time I must spend on work responsibilities” and a sample item
for FWC is “The time I spend on family responsibilities often
interfere
with my work responsibilities”.
3.3. Measurement models
To confirm the separate dimensions of the various study's

measures in the combined sample, a CFA was run in SEM using
AMOS
20.0. We followed Williams, Vandenberg, and Edwards (2009)
recommendations regarding the goodness-of-fit measures: (1)
the
comparative fit index (CFI ≥ .95), (2) the root-mean-square
error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ .08), and (3) the standardized
root
mean residual (SRMR ≤ .10). The hypothesized measurement
model included seven distinct factors: WLB, WFC, FWC, job
satisfaction,
life satisfaction, anxiety and depression, and resulted in a good
fit to the data, meeting all minimum requirements: χ2 (209) =
771.0
(p = .000), CFI = .97, RMSEA = 0.05 and SRMR = 0.04. The
goodness of the hypothesized model was also confirmed by
testing al-
ternative models as advocated by Hair, Black, Babin, and
Anderson (2010). Overall, the hypothesized measurement model
did fit the
data better than all the alternative models (results available
from authors), which resulted in all alternative models being a
significant-
ly poorer fit (p b .001). This confirmed WLB to be a distinct
construct from WFC and FWC.
Multi-group analysis CFA was conducted to establish
measurement invariance between the seven samples (Bou &
Satorra, 2010).
While SEM model comparisons typically test chi-squared
differences, this heavy reliance has been criticized (Schmitt &
Kuljanin,
2008). This is because large samples and complex models are
highly susceptible to significant changes in the chi-squared
value.
Cheung and Rensvold (2000) offered a number of alternative

goodness-of-fit measures and we focus on the RMSEA because
Meade
and Kroustalis (2006) show that this measure is not affected by
model complexity. Our model showed measurement equivalence
as the difference in RMSEA between the seven samples;
constrained and unconstrained models were very small at .002
(0.022 versus
0.024), which is below the critical value established by Cheung
and Rensvold (2000). As such, this gives us confidence that
the com-
bined sample has metric invariance and can be analysed as a
combined sample.
3.4. Analysis
Hypotheses were tested using SEM in AMOS v.20 to assess the
direct (Hypotheses 1–4) and potential moderating effects of I/C
(Hypotheses 5) and GE (Hypotheses 6), due to SEM being found
to be superior to regression analysis (Cheng, 2001; Iacobucci,
Saldanha, & Deng, 2007). Aligned with recommendations by
Aiken and West (1991), the interaction terms were z-scored.
Because
the size of the structural models became overly complex when
we included both moderators in the models, we ran two sets of
mod-
eration models for I/C and GE, respectively. For moderation
analyses in SEM, all three z-scored WLB items were multiplied
by the sin-
gle GLOBE variable (I/C or GE score) to create a new variable
in each model: (1) the interaction of WLB × I/C, and (2) the
interaction of
WLB × GE.
4. Results
4.1. Correlations

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the study
variables in the combined sample are shown in Table 3.
The four outcome variables were all significantly correlated to
each other (all p b .01) in the expected directions. WLB, WFC
and
FWC were also correlated (all p b .01). In addition, I/C was
significantly correlated to WLB (r = .08, p b .01), anxiety and
depression
(both r = − .14, p b .01), while GE was significantly correlated
to WLB (r = − .09, p b .01), job satisfaction (r = .18, p b .01),
anxiety
(r = .34, p b .01) and depression (r = .15, p b .01). Furthermore,
I/C and GE were significantly correlated to each other (r = −
.38,
p b .01).
4.2. Structural models
The two moderated SEM models included an additional
interaction term to the measurement model: (1) WLB × I/C, and
(2) WLB × GE. Consequently, both models were larger than the
original measurement model. Despite this, the moderated
structural
models still resulted in a good fit to the data, meeting all
minimum requirements for I/C (model 1): χ2 (307) = 970.4 (p =
.000),
CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04 and SRMR = 0.03, and for GE
(model 2): χ2 (307) = 1145.1 (p = .000), CFI = 0.96, RMSEA =
0.04
and SRMR = 0.04. Table 4 highlights the significant direct and
moderation effects from both models.
Aligned with the recommendations of Grace and Bollen (2005),
unstandardized regression coefficients are presented in our

tables. Table 4 shows that WLB was significantly related to job
satisfaction (path coefficient = .50, p b .001) and life
satisfaction (path
coefficient = .52, p b .001), supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2.
WLB was also significantly linked with anxiety (path
coefficient = − .37,
367
9
J.M. Haar et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014)
361–373
Table 3
Means, standard deviations and correlations of model variables.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Work–life balance 3.4 .84 .84
2. Work–family conflict 2.9 1.0 − .40⁎⁎ .87
3. Family–work conflict 2.3 .79 − .15⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .77
4. Collectivism 4.9 .85 .08⁎⁎ .00 .10⁎⁎ –
5. Gender egalitarianism 4.2 .46 − .09⁎⁎ .02 − .05⁎ − .38⁎⁎ –
6. Job satisfaction 3.6 .72 .36⁎⁎ − .15⁎⁎ − .13⁎⁎ − .02 .18⁎⁎ .79
7. Life satisfaction 3.4 .74 .47⁎⁎ − .18⁎⁎ − .09⁎⁎ .03 − .05
.43⁎⁎ .83
8. Anxiety 2.7 1.0 − .34⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .12⁎⁎ − .14⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ − .27⁎⁎ −
.36⁎⁎ .88
9. Depression 2.4 .92 − .34⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎ .09⁎⁎ − .14⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎ −
.42⁎⁎ − .39⁎⁎ .63⁎⁎ .87
N = 1416 (Cronbach's alpha is reported on diagonal line in
italics).

⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
p b .001), and depression (path coefficient = − .38, p b .001),
supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4. Furthermore, we re-analysed the
data
separately for all seven samples and these confirmed the effects
held in all country samples (see Table 5). Importantly, these
effects
were found after controlling for WFC and FWC.
Model 1 explored I/C as a moderator, and it was directly and
significantly related to both anxiety and depression (both path
coef-
ficients = − .10, p b .001). Significant interaction effects were
found between WLB and I/C towards job satisfaction (path
coeffi-
cient = − .12, p b .01) and life satisfaction (path coefficient = −
.11, p b .01). Model 2 explored GE as a moderator, and it was
directly and significantly related to job satisfaction (path
coefficient = .08, p b .001), anxiety (path coefficient = .29, p b
.001), and
depression (path coefficient = .10, p b .001). Significant
interaction effects were found between WLB and GE towards
job satisfaction
(path coefficient = .05, p b .05), life satisfaction (path
coefficient = .10, p b .001), and anxiety (path coefficient = −
.09, p b .01).
4.3. Interaction plots
To provide a better understanding of the interaction effects,
plots are presented in Figs. 2 to 4.
The interactions for I/C on job and life satisfaction (Fig. 2) are
almost identical and are thus reported together. They show that
there

are significant differences between respondent groups, with
respondents living in individualistic cultures reporting higher
levels of
satisfaction (both job and life) at low levels of WLB compared
to respondents living in collectivistic cultures. At high levels of
WLB,
respondents living in individualistic cultures reported stable
levels of job and life satisfaction, while respondents living in
collectivistic
cultures reported significantly less job and life satisfaction, in
line with our expectations. Overall, employees living in
individualistic
cultures reported significantly higher job and life satisfaction as
expected, supporting Hypotheses 5a and 5b. Results provided no
sup-
port for Hypotheses 5c and 5d.
The interactions for GE on job and life satisfaction (Fig. 3) are
almost identical and again, we represent them together. They
show
that there are significant differences between respondent
groups, with respondents living in high gender egalitarian
cultures
reporting higher levels of job and life satisfaction at low levels
of WLB compared to respondents living in less GE cultures. At
high
levels of WLB, all respondents reported higher levels of job and
life satisfaction, but respondents in high GE cultures reported
signif-
icantly higher levels of job satisfaction and life satisfaction
than those living in less GE cultures. Overall, employees living
in GE cultures
reported significantly higher levels of job satisfaction and life
satisfaction. Fig. 4 shows there are no significant differences
towards
anxiety at low levels of WLB between respondent groups at low

or high GE. At high levels of WLB, all respondents report lower
anxiety
Table 4
Final structural model results (combined data).
Outcomes
Job satisfaction Life satisfaction Anxiety Depression
Model 1:
Work–life balance .50⁎⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎⁎ − .37⁎⁎⁎ − .38⁎⁎⁎
Collectivism .00 − .02 − .10⁎⁎⁎ − .10⁎⁎⁎
Work–life balance × collectivism − .12⁎⁎⁎ − .11⁎⁎⁎ .06 .05
Total R2 .25 .33 .18 .18
Model 2:
Gender egalitarianism .08⁎⁎⁎ − .02 .29⁎⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎⁎
Work–life balance × gender egalitarianism .05⁎ .10⁎⁎⁎ − .09⁎⁎
− .02
Total R2 .25 .33 .28 .18
Unstandardized regression weights, only main effects are
shown. We controlled for gender, work–family conflict and
family–work conflict directly on the DVs, and
these three control variables covary on WLB. Similarly, all four
DVs covary.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

361–373
Table 5
Direct effects structural model results (individual samples).
Outcomes
New Zealand Maori: New Zealand European France Italy Spain
Malaysia China
Job satisfaction
Work–life balance
Total R2
.26⁎⁎⁎
.13
.67⁎⁎⁎
.42
.58⁎⁎⁎
.22
.57⁎⁎⁎
.72
.48⁎⁎⁎
.15
.55⁎⁎⁎
.41
.59⁎⁎⁎
.40

Life satisfaction
Work–life balance
Total R2
.21⁎⁎⁎
.12
.66⁎⁎⁎
.39
.65⁎⁎⁎
.58
.73⁎⁎⁎
.40
.49⁎⁎⁎
.36
.34⁎⁎⁎
.32
.66⁎⁎⁎
.47
Anxiety
Work–life balance
Total R2
− .17⁎⁎⁎
.09
− .40⁎⁎⁎

.26
− .26⁎
.16
− .39⁎⁎⁎
.19
− .34⁎⁎⁎
.24
− .42⁎⁎
.26
− .19†
.12
Depression
Work–life balance
Total R2
− .25⁎⁎⁎
.11
− .46⁎⁎⁎
.23
− .39⁎⁎
.10
− .37⁎⁎⁎
.21
− .32⁎⁎
.12

− .64⁎⁎
.33
− .34⁎⁎
.15
Unstandardized regression weights, only main effects are
shown. We controlled for gender, work–family conflict and
family–work conflict directly on the DVs, and
these three control variables covary on WLB. Similarly, all four
DVs covary.
† p b 0.1.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
although those respondents in high GE cultures reported a
steeper decrease compared to respondents in low GE cultures.
These find-
ings support Hypotheses 6a, 6b, and 6c.
Overall, the structural model accounted for moderate amounts
of variance for all outcomes, and these were identical between
the
two moderation models for most outcomes: job satisfaction (R2
= .25), life satisfaction (R2 = .33), and depression (R2 = .18).
Only
towards anxiety were there major differences in variance, with
the GE model accounting for far greater variance (R2 = .28)
than the I/
C model (R2 = .18).
4.4. Supplementary analyses
Finally, an ANOVA test was conducted to examine the reported

levels of WLB between the seven samples. Although the
ANOVA
test is important to know that at least two groups differ, it does
not identify the groups that actually differ. Therefore, we run a
mul-
tigroup mean comparison between all distinct populations to
identify the pattern of differences in our results by using the
Fisher's
Least Significant Difference (LSD) and Student–Newman–Keuls
tests as post-hoc analyses. The LSD test indicates which group
config-
urations significantly differ from one another, whereas the
Student–Newman–Keuls is a sequential test designed to indicate
which groups are significantly different from all the others. It
orders mean scores from the lowest to the highest and compares
pairs of groups for significant differences. Overall, the F-tests
(results available from authors) revealed the presence of a
significant
difference for WLB across sample between at least two distinct
populations. The Student–Newman–Keuls test revealed that the
only significant difference existed between the Spanish and
Italian samples, with Spanish respondents reported significantly
higher
levels of WLB (M = 3.47, s.d. = 0.76) than the Italian
respondents (M = 3.24, s.d. = 0.79). Notably, the Maori sample
(M = 3.56,
4
3.5
3
2.5
2

1.5
Jo
b
an
d
Li
fe
S
at
is
fa
ct
io
n
Individualism
Collectivism
Low Work-Life Balance High Work-Life Balance
Fig. 2. Interaction between WLB and I/C on Job and Life
satisfaction.
image of Fig.�2
361–373

5
4.5
Low Gender
Egalitarianism
High Gender
Egalitarianism
Jo
b
an
d
L
ife
S
at
is
fa
ct
io
n
4

3.5
3
Fig. 3. Interaction between WLB and Gender egalitarianism on
Job and Life satisfaction.
s.d. = 0.94) reported significantly higher levels of WLB than the
samples from Italy (p b .000), New Zealand (p b .000), France
(p b .01), Malaysia (p b .05), but not China (p = .052).
5. Discussion and conclusions
The present study investigated the outcomes of WLB on job
satisfaction, life satisfaction, anxiety and depression across
seven
distinct cultures. More specifically, we explored whether
individualism/collectivism (I/C) and gender egalitarianism (GE)
moderated
the relationship between WLB and these four outcomes. We
found strong and consistent support across all cultures for WLB
to be as-
sociated with outcomes in the expected directions, albeit with
some differences related to variations in national culture.
Regarding I/C,
as expected, we found that high levels of WLB were more
positively associated with job and life satisfaction for
individuals in individ-
ualistic cultures, compared with those in collectivistic cultures.
As such, we provide the first or one of the first empirical
evidence that
the outcomes of WLB can be better understood by including I/C
in the analysis. A possible explanation for this result is linked
to the
importance that WLB has in individualistic cultures where it is
a critical component influencing individuals' subjective
assessment

of the overall quality of their work and life experiences
(Spector et al., 2004, 2007). Furthermore, in individualistic
cultures
individuals generally have full responsibility for achieving
WLB. Therefore, it is possible that, once achieved, WLB may
lead to higher
feelings of satisfaction in life due to contentment linked to this
achievement. Notably, I/C did not significantly moderate the
relation-
ship between WLB and anxiety or depression. This is an
interesting finding that can be understood in light of the broader
network and
greater level of social/family support usually experienced by
individuals in collectivistic cultures that may help them to cope
better
with life adversities (Powell, Francesco, & Ling, 2009).
Regarding GE, we found that the beneficial effects of WLB on
job and life satisfaction were most salient for individuals living
in
highly gender egalitarian cultures. This suggests that people in
high GE cultures tend to be more satisfied with their job and
life
when experiencing high WLB than people in low GE cultures.
This result is remarkable as this is the first study that
documents the
presence of differentiated outcomes of WLB across cultures that
vary in their levels of GE. A possible explanation for this result
is
that in high GE cultures there is less adhesion to traditional
gender role beliefs and therefore both women and men can
perceive
equal opportunities to pursue personal and professional life
goals (House et al., 2004). Importantly, in such cultures there is
higher
3

2.5
Low Gender
Egalitarianism
High Gender
Egalitarianism
A
nx
ie
ty
2
1.5
1
Fig. 4. Interaction between WLB and Gender egalitarianism on
Anxiety.
361–373
social approval and more tolerance towards the individual's
desire to balance work and non-work roles according to
personal life
preferences and values without having to sacrifice one domain

over the others (Corrigall & Konrad, 2006; Lyness & Kropf,
2005).
As a result, individuals may feel more satisfied when
experiencing WLB as it is consistent with both personal and
societal values
and beliefs.
GE also moderated the relationship between WLB and anxiety.
The negative relationship between WLB and anxiety was
stronger
for those living in high GE cultures. This implies that achieving
WLB in high GE cultures is likely to enhance the beneficial
effects of role
balance on mental health. In line with our knowledge that
individuals tend to internalize societal gender norms of the
country they
live in (Eagly & Wood, 2012), this finding indicates that there
may be less mental pressure and anxiety for those achieving
greater
WLB in high GE cultures, indicating the presence of higher
acknowledgement of benefits associated with greater role
balance. It is
also important to note that the low levels of anxiety for people
living in high GE cultures may depend on the fact that in such
cultures,
people are more likely to engage in activities that are functional
to experience detachment from work and replenish mental and
phys-
ical energies (Larson, Verma, & Dworkin, 2001).
5.1. Theoretical contributions
The present study contributes to the emerging WLB literature in
several ways. The present study makes significant contributions
to
the work–life literature. First, we strengthen research on WLB
by establishing its relationship with positive outcomes for

individuals,
which holds after controlling for work–family conflict. This
supports the insightfulness of the perception-centred approach
character-
izing WLB research. It extends prior work conceptualizing WLB
as a holistic construct (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011; Kossek et al.,
2014)
being different than work–family conflict and enrichment
(Carlson et al., 2009; Greenhaus & Allen, 2011; Valcour, 2007).
We believe
that this will help to encourage future research on WLB, and
this is important because WLB, as a concept distinct from
work–life con-
flict and work–life enrichment (Valcour, 2007), has the
potential to shed light on the complexity of the work–life
interface. Our study
also emphasizes the importance to focus on work–life balance
rather than on work–family balance, as the former term reflects
more
truthfully the myriads of personal life situations and role
involvement decisions that nowadays characterize the
contemporary society
(Hall et al., 2013). This is consistent with major trends in work–
life research emphasizing WLB to be a broad issue relevant for
all
working people (Haar, 2013; Kossek et al., 2014).
Second, this is one of the first studies that explores the
outcomes of WLB across several countries and considers the
influence of
two distinct cultural dimensions, namely
individualism/collectivism and gender egalitarianism. This is
important as we compare
countries that present noticeable differences with regard to their
values, assumptions, norms, and belief systems about the gender
roles. Thus, our paper enriches comparative work–life research

at the individual level and contributes to bridge the macro–
micro
gap between country-level contexts and individual-level
variables (Bamberger, 2008; Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013).
Moreover,
while a couple of studies have explored the relationship
between WLB and GE (e.g., Lyness & Judiesch, 2014), this is
the first study,
to our knowledge, that considers the moderating role of I/C on
the positive effects generated by WLB. This is noteworthy given
that
I/C represents one of the most studied dimension in cross-
cultural research (Brewer & Chen, 2007) and is an important
boundary con-
dition of our model explaining why people living in different
countries perceive the benefits of WLB to greater or lesser
extent. Fol-
lowing recent recommendations in cross-cultural research (e.g.,
Taras, Rowney, & Steel, 2009), we used GLOBE scores for I/C
and
GE as these are reliable and objective instruments for
quantifying cultural differences (House et al., 2004).
Third, we tested WLB effects in some settings of growing
interest in the literature (e.g. Malaysia and China) and in some
understudied settings (e.g. New Zealand European and Maori).
Thus, this article contributes to establish the generalizability of
work–life concepts and measures developed in Western
countries to other regions of the world (Kossek & Ollier-
Malaterre, 2013;
Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013; Powell et al., 2009). This is
important given that WLB has considerable implications for
people all around
the world (Hill et al., 2004; Lyness & Judiesch, 2014). Our
finding that the direct effects of WLB hold across all of the
study's samples

aligns with research pointing out the universal benefit of the
work–life interface (Hill et al., 2004; Poelmans et al., 2003;
Shaffer, Joplin,
& Hsu, 2011; Spector et al., 2004, 2007). However, our finding
that two dimensions of national culture (I/C and GE) moderate
the re-
lationships between WLB and individual outcomes highlights
the need to include cultural dimensions in research designs.
5.2. Practical implications
Our findings imply that achieving WLB may hold the key to
greater job and life satisfaction, and diminished mental health
issues, and this may hold in many countries. This has important
implications for organizations that should make sure to assess
their employees' WLB in addition to measuring their work–life
conflict. Organizations should invest in promoting WLB by
implementing work–life policies, such as flexible working
hours, and by embracing a supportive work culture that
encourages em-
ployees to use the work–life policies that are available in the
organization (Allen, 2001; Eaton, 2003; Hammer, Kossek,
Anger,
Bodner, & Zimmerman, 2011). In addition, encouraging
employees to recognize and celebrate their success in balancing
roles
(when achieved) and to elongate the time frame upon which
they to gauge their work–life balance (Marsh, 2010) is also
critical to
foster greater benefits through understanding the potential
changing nature of WLB. This may be particularly important in
individu-
alistic cultures and in high gender egalitarian cultures where
work–life balance seems to be especially beneficial. Moreover,
this can
also prevent – especially in individualistic cultures – employees
become frustrated when experiencing temporary situations of

role
imbalance.
361–373
5.3. Limitations, future research and conclusions
While the present study encompasses seven distinct samples
across six countries, a limitation is the cross-sectional, self-
report na-
ture of the data, although this approach is common in other
work–family cross-cultural studies (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011;
Spector
et al., 2007). To alleviate this limitation we conducted higher
order statistical approaches (i.e., CFA) using SEM to confirm
the distinct
nature of our measures. Furthermore, Kenny (2008) suggests
that SEM does somewhat mitigate the potential bias related to
the
presence of common method variance. Similarly, testing for
moderation effects also reduces the chances for common method
variance
(Evans, 1985). In addition, as advocated by Haar (2013), a self-
report approach is needed to accurately tap the perception-
centred na-
ture of WLB. While additional secondary source data (e.g.,
supervisor, partner) would be preferable, it was prohibitively
difficult to
gain such data across a wide range of countries and individuals.
As such, the data collected here are similar to that undertaken in
other cross-cultural studies, but the CFA and structural analysis
run in our study provide some unique statistical contributions,
and
the moderation analyses also help offset such limitations.

The present study has implications for future studies, especially
cross-cultural studies in the work–life research areas. We hope
that it will encourage research based on the concept of WLB,
which is an important concept shedding light in job and life
satisfaction
as well as mental health, and which is more generalizable across
cultures than what its Western origin presumed. While our study
used robust scores for I/C and GE, it has been noted that
individual-level allocentrism and idiocentrism may make some
individuals
more sensitive to cultural contexts than others (Triandis, Leung,
Villareal, & Clack, 1985; Wang, Lawler, Walumbwa, & Shi,
2004).
Therefore future studies should strive to measure both culture-
level and individual-level of I/C and GE. Furthermore, there is
to
date no research investigating the role that other cultural
dimensions may play in the relationship between WLB and
outcomes. In
particular, we encourage researchers to include in future studies
the four other dimensions identified in a recent review as
extensively
impacting work–life conflict, enrichment and balance (Ollier-
Malaterre, 2014): i.e. power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
humane
orientation (House et al., 2004) and specificity/diffusion
(Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). This area of research
is almost
void and opens avenues for many fruitful studies.
In conclusion, the present study emphasizes the crucial role that
WLB plays in promoting greater job and life satisfaction and
better
mental health across employees in different cultures. It also
points out that culture, in this study I/C and GE, moderates

these relation-
ships. Taken together, the findings of this study offer a fresh
and nuanced picture on similarities and differences across
cultures, which
we hope will encourage future studies in the growing field of
comparative work–life research.
Acknowledgments
We thank Tammy Allen and other conference attendees for their
helpful feedback on an earlier version of this paper presented at
the International Center for Work and Family 2013 conference.
We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers who gave us
insight-
ful suggestions.
References
Aiken, L. G., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The
role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58(3), 414–435.
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors,
interrole conflict, and well-being: The moderating influence of
spousal support and coping behaviors among
employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 54(2), 259–278.
Axtell, C., Wall, T., Stride, C., Pepper, K., Clegg, C., Gardner,
P., et al. (2002). Familiarity breeds content: The impact of
exposure to change on employee openness and
well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 75, 217–231.
Aycan, Z. (2008). Cross-cultural perspectives to work–family

conflict. In K. Korabik, D. Lero, & D. Whitehead (Eds.),
Handbook of work–family integration (pp. 359–371).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bamberger, P. (2008). Beyond contextualization: Using context
theories to narrow the micro–macro gap in management
research. Academy of Management Journal,
51(5), 839–846.
Biernacki, P., & Waldford, D. (1981). Snowball sampling:
Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling.
Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141–163.
Bou, J. C., & Satorra, A. (2010). A multigroup structural
equation approach: A demonstration by testing variation of firm
profitability across EU samples. Organizational
Research Methods, 13(4), 738–766.
Brewer, B. M., & Chen, Y. R. (2007). Where (who) are
collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of
individualism and collectivism. Psychological
Review, 114(1), 133–151.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral
and written materials. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology.
Methodology, vol. 2. (pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brough, P., Timms, C., O'Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T., Siu, O.,
Sit, C., et al. (2014). Work–life balance: A longitudinal
evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New
Zealand workers. International Journal of Human Resource
Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.899262.
Brougham, D., & Haar, J. (2013). Collectivism, cultural identity
and employee wellbeing: A study of New Zealand Maori. Social
Indicators Research, 114(3), 1143–1160.

Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Zivnuska, S. (2009). Is
work–family balance more than conflict and enrichment?
Human Relations, 62(10), 1459–1486.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K., & Williams, L. J. (2000).
Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional
measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 56, 249–276.
Cheng, E. (2001). SEM being more effective than multiple
regression in parsimonious model testing for management
development research. The Journal of
Management Development, 20, 650–667.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme
and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using
SEM. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
31, 187–212.
Corrigall, E. A., & Konrad, A. M. (2006). The relationship of
job attribute preferences to employment, hours of paid work,
and family responsibilities: An analysis com-
paring women and men. Sex Roles, 54, 95–111.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985).
The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2001). Work–life balance in the
new millennium: Where are we? Where do we need to go?
CPRN discussion paper no. W/21. Ottawa:
Canadian Policy Research Networks, Inc.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0001-8791(14)00111-0/rf0005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.899262
361–373
Eagly, A. H., &Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P.
A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology, vol. 2.
(pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eaton, S. (2003). If you can use them: Flexibility policies,
organizational commitment, and perceived performance.
Industrial Relations, 42(2), 145–267.
Evans, M. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of
correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 36(3), 305–323.
Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Zivnuska, S., & Whitten, D. (2012).
Support at work and home: The path to satisfaction through
balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2),
299–307.
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.
Grace, J. B., & Bollen, K. A. (2005). Interpreting the results
from multiple regression and structural equation models.
Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 86,
283–295.
Greenhaus, J., & Allen, T. (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.). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
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(3), 510–531.
Guest, D. E. (2002). Perspectives on the study of work–life
balance. Social Science Information, 41, 255–279.
Gupta, V., Surie, G., Javidan, M., & Chhokar, J. (2002).
Southern Asia cluster: Where the old meets the new? Journal of

World Business, 37(1), 16–27.
Haar, J. M. (2013). Testing a new measure of WLB: A study of
parent and non-parent employees from New Zealand.
International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24(17/18), 3305–3324.
Haar, J., & Brougham, D. (2011). Outcomes of cultural
satisfaction at work: A study of New Zealand Maori. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 461–475.
Haar, J. M., Roche, M., & Taylor, D. (2012). Work–family
conflict and turnover intentions of indigenous employees: The
importance of the whanau/family for Maori.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(12),
2546–2560.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E.
(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New York: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Hall, D. T., Kossek, E. E., Briscoe, J. P., Pichler, S., & Lee, M.
D. (2013). Nonwork orientations relative to career: A
multidimensional measure. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 83(3), 539–550.
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., &
Zimmerman, K. (2011). Clarifying work–family intervention
processes: The roles of work–family conflict and
family supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 134–150.
Hill, E., Yang, C., Hawkins, A., & Ferris, M. (2004). A cross-
cultural test of the work–family interface in 48 countries.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(5),
1300–1316.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., &
Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations:

The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, Z. (2007). A meditation
on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models
perform better than regressions. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 17, 139–153.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core
self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-
concordance and goal attainment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257–268.
Kenny, D. A. (2008). Reflections on mediation. Organizational
Research Methods, 11(2), 353–358.
Kossek, E. E., Baltes, B. B., & Matthews, R. A. (2011). How
work–family research can finally have an impact in the
workplace. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 352–369.
Kossek, E. E., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2013). Work–family
policies: Linking national contexts, organizational practice and
people for multi-level change. In S. A. Y.
Poelmans, J. H. Greenhaus, & M. Las Heras Maestro (Eds.),
Expanding the boundaries of work–family research: A vision for
the future (pp. 3–30). United Kingdom:
Palgrave.
Kossek, E. E., Valcour, M., & Lirio, P. (2014). The sustainable
workforce: Organizational strategies for promoting work–life
balance and well-being. In C. Cooper, & P.
Chen (Eds.), Work and wellbeing (pp. 295–318). Oxford, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Larson, R., Verma, S., & Dworkin, J. (2001). Men's work and

family lives in India: The daily organization of time and
emotion. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(2),
206–224.
Lu, L., Cooper, C. L., Kao, S. -F., Chang, T. -T., Allen, T. D.,
Lapierre, L. M., et al. (2010). Cross-cultural differences on
work-to-family conflict and role satisfaction: A
Taiwanese–British comparison. Human Resource Management,
49(1), 67–85.
Lu, L., Gilmour, R., Kao, S. F., & Huang, M. T. (2006). A
cross-cultural study of work/family demands, work/family
conflict and wellbeing: The Taiwanese vs. British.
Career Development International, 11, 9–27.
Lunau, T., Bambra, C., Eikemo, T. A., Van der Wel, K. A., &
Dragano, N. (2014). A balancing act? Work–life balance, health
and well-being in European welfare states.
European Journal of Public Health.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku010.
Lyness, K. S., & Judiesch, M. K. (2008). Can a manager have a
life and a career? International and multisource perspectives on
work–life balance and career advance-
ment potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 789–805.
Lyness, K. S., & Judiesch, M. K. (2014). Gender egalitarianism
and work–life balance for managers: Multisource perspectives
in 36 countries. Applied Psychology, 63(1),
96–129.
Lyness, K. S., & Kropf, M. B. (2005). The relationships of
national gender equality and organizational support with work–
family balance: A study of European managers.
Human Relations, 58, 33–60.

Maertz, C. P., & Boyar, S. L. (2011). Work–family conflict,
enrichment, and balance under ‘levels’ and ‘episode’
approaches. Journal of Management, 37(1), 68–98.
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.
Marsh, N. (2010, May). Nigel Marsh: How to make work–life
balance work [video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.ted.com/talks/nigel_marsh_how_to_make_work_
life_balance_work#t-3923
Meade, A. W., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2006). Problems with item
partialing for confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement
invariance. Organizational Research
Methods, 9, 369–403.
Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Cross-national work–life research:
A review at the individual level. In T. D. Allen, & L. E. Eby
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of work and family.
Ollier-Malaterre, A., Valcour, M., den Dulk, L., & Kossek, E.
E. (2013). Theorizing national context to develop comparative
work–life research: Building bricks and re-
search agenda. European Management Journal, 31(5), 433–447.
Podsiadlowski, A., & Fox, S. (2011). Collectivist value
orientations among four ethnic groups: Collectivism in the New
Zealand context. New Zealand Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 40(1), 5–18.
Poelmans, S. (2005). Work and family. An international
research perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Allen, T. D.,
O'Driscoll, M., & Sanchez, J. I. (2003). A cross-national
comparative study of work/family demands and resources.

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(3), 275–
288.
Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Ling, Y. (2009). Towards
culture-sensitive theories of the work–family interface. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 597–616.
Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2002). Employee attitudes
and behavioral intentions: A test of the main and moderating
effects of individualism–collectivism orien-
tations. Human Relations, 55(9), 1071–1096.
Redding, S. G. (1993). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New
York: de Gruyter.
Redding, S. G., & Wong, G. Y. Y. (1986). The psychology of
Chinese organizational behaviour. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The
psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 267–295).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics
of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46(4), 655–684.
Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance:
Review of practice and implications. Human Resource
Management Review, 18(4), 210–222.
Shaffer, M. A., Joplin, J. R. W., & Hsu, Y. S. (2011).
Expanding the boundaries of work–family research: A review
and agenda for future research. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, 11(2), 221–268.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku010
https://www.ted.com/talks/nigel_marsh_how_to_make_work_lif
e_balance_work#t-3923
https://www.ted.com/talks/nigel_marsh_how_to_make_work_lif
e_balance_work#t-3923

361–373
Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Lapierre, L.
M., Cooper, C. L., O'Driscoll, M., et al. (2007). Cross-national
differences in relationships of work demands, job
satisfaction, and turnover intentions with work–family conflict.
Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 805–835.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S. A., 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 versus the
Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 119–142.
Spell, C. S., & Arnold, T. J. (2007). A multi-level analysis of
organizational justice climate, structure, and employee mental
health. Journal of Management, 33(5),
724–751.
Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of
measuring culture: Approaches, challenges, limitations and
suggestions based on the analysis of 112 instru-
ments for quantifying culture. Journal of International
Management, 15(4), 357–373.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. L.
(1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent
and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in
Personality, 19(4), 395–415.

Trompenaars, A., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the
waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the
relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work–
family balance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(6), 1512–1523.
Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Shi, K. (2004).
Work–family conflict and job withdrawal intentions: The
moderating effect of cultural differences.
International Journal of Stress Management, 11(4), 392–412.
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12
Structural equation modelling in management research: A guide
for improved analysis. The Academy of
Management Annals, 3(1), 543–604.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of
the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of
sex differences. Psychological Bulletin,
128(5), 699–727.
Yang, N., Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Zou, Y. (2000). Sources of
work–family conflict: A Sino-US comparison of the effects of
work and family demands. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(1), 113–123.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0001-8791(14)00111-
0/rf0380Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life
satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures1.
Introduction2. Theoretical background and hypotheses2.1.
Work–life balance2.2. Moderating effects of
individualism/collectivism2.3. Moderating effects of gender
egalitarianism3. Method3.1. Samples and procedures3.2.
Measures3.2.1. WLB3.2.2. Job satisfaction3.2.3. Life
satisfaction3.2.4. Anxiety and depression3.2.5.
Collectivism3.2.6. Gender egalitarianism3.2.7. Control
variables3.3. Measurement models3.4. Analysis4. Results4.1.
Correlations4.2. Structural models4.3. Interaction plots4.4.
Supplementary analyses5. Discussion and conclusions5.1.
Theoretical contributions5.2. Practical implications5.3.
Limitations, future research and
conclusionsAcknowledgmentsReferences

September 13, 2021
The Honorable Jerome Powell
Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20551
Dear Chairman Powell:
I write to urge the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (the
Fed) to take immediate action in response to
the repeated, ongoing, and inexcusable failure of Wells Fargo &
Company (Wells Fargo) to eliminate
abusive and unlawful practices that have cost consumers
hundreds of millions of dollars.1 Under Janet
Yellen’s leadership, the Fed placed Wells Fargo under an asset
cap in 2018 due to its “widespread

consumer abuses and other compliance breakdowns.”2 In the
more than three years since then, numerous
additional revelations have surfaced about Wells Fargo’s
continued unethical and anti-consumer
conduct. These new revelations have once again made clear that
continuing to allow this giant bank with
a broken culture to conduct business in its current form poses
substantial risks to consumers and the
financial system.3 For this reason, the Fed should use its
longstanding authority under the Bank Holding
Company Act to revoke Wells Fargo’s status as a financial
holding company (FHC) and require that it
separate its bank subsidiary from its other financial activities.45
Wells Fargo is an irredeemable repeat
offender; the Fed must act.
Last week, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
issued a consent order regarding Wells
Fargo Bank’s ongoing problems related to mortgage
foreclosures and the bank’s failure to comply with
past consent orders issued by the agency.6 Among other things,
the order noted, “The Bank’s inadequate
1 The Hill, “Wells Fargo to pay $250M fine for mortgage

oversight lapses,” Sylvan Lane, September 9, 2021,
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/571626-wells-fargo-to-pay-
250m-fine-for-mortgage-oversight-lapses.
2 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
“Responding to widespread consumer abuses and compliance
breakdowns by Wells Fargo, Federal Reserve restricts Wells’
growth until firm improves governance and controls.
Concurrent with Fed action, Wells to replace three directors by
April, one by year end,” February 2, 2018,
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/enforc
ement20180202a.htm.
3 Wells Fargo is a $1.9 trillion dollar institution and the fourth-
largest financial holding company in the United States. It is the
parent company of dozens of subsidiaries that encompass
multiple business lines. Securities and Exchange Commission,
“Form 10-K Wells Fargo & Company, Exhibit 21, Subsidiaries
of the Parent,” February 23, 2021,
https://sec.report/Document/0000072971-21-000197/wfc-
1231x2020xex21.htm.
4 12 U.S. Code § 1843(m)(4).
5 American Banker, “Fed should force Wells Fargo into being a
simpler bank,” Jeremy Kress, October 26, 2018,
https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/fed-should-force-
wells-fargo-into-being-a-simpler-bank.
6 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, “OCC Assesses
$250 Million Civil Money Penalty, Issues Cease and Desist
Order Against Wells Fargo,” September 9, 2021,

https://www.ots.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-
releases/2021/nr-occ-2021-
95.html.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/571626-wells-fargo-to-pay-
250m-fine-for-mortgage-oversight-lapses
ement20180202a.htm
https://sec.report/Document/0000072971-21-000197/wfc-
1231x2020xex21.htm
wells-fargo-into-being-a-simpler-bank
releases/2021/nr-occ-2021-95.html
releases/2021/nr-occ-2021-95.html
2
controls, insufficient independent oversight, and ineffective
governance related to loss mitigation
activities have caused the Bank’s failure to timely detect,
prevent, and quantify inaccurate loan
modification decisions and impaired the Bank’s ability to fully
and timely remediate harmed
customers.”7 In other words, Wells Fargo has both failed to
establish an effective program to prevent
customers from foreclosing on their homes and has been unable
to compensate consumers harmed by

the bank’s previous abusive practices.
This latest consent order comes after nearly two decades of
scandals, which have resulted in multiple
enforcement orders issued by financial regulators, including the
OCC, the Fed, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC).
The bank was immersed in scandal in 2016 when investigations
revealed that, beginning in “2002
…employees used fraud to meet impossible sales goals. They
opened millions of accounts in customers’
names without their knowledge, signed unwitting account
holders up for credit cards and bill payment
programs, created fake personal identification numbers, forged
signatures and even secretly transferred
customers’ money.”8 Ultimately, this behavior, which revealed
“complete failure of leadership at
multiple levels within the bank,” resulted in a $3 billion
settlement with the DOJ and SEC.9
Since 2016, numerous other examples of abusive and unlawful
behavior by Wells Fargo have come to

light, including activity that occurred following the imposition
of the Fed’s asset cap in February 2018.
As the COVID-19 pandemic raged, an investigation by my staff
during the summer of 2020 revealed
that Wells Fargo had placed as many as 1,600 customers into
forbearance on their mortgages without
their consent, potentially affecting their ability to refinance
mortgages, their credit reports, and consumer
bankruptcy plans.10
Other examples of Wells Fargo’s misconduct include the
following:
repossessed vehicles belonging to 450
members of the military in violation of the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (SCRA).11 And
a second set of different SCRA violations came to light in a
September 2016 settlement with
the Department of Justice (DOJ) that brought the total number
of servicemembers eligible for
relief to 860.12
,000
people who took out car loans

from Wells Fargo were charged for auto insurance they did not
need … push[ing] roughly
274,000 Wells Fargo customers into delinquency and result[ing]
in almost 25,000 wrongful
7 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, “In the Matter of
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.” Consent Order, 2021,
https://www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2021-
035.pdf.
8 New York Times, “The Price of Wells Fargo’s Fake Account
Scandal Grows by $3 Billion,” Emily Flitter, February 21,
2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/business/wells-
fargo-settlement.html.
9 Id.
10 Letter from Senators Warren and Schatz to Wells Fargo CEO
Charles Scharf, July 29, 2020,
https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.07.29%20L
etter%20to%20Wells%20Fargo%20on%20Forbearance%20
Filings.pdf.
11 Department of Justice, “Justice Department Obtains $5.4
Million in Additional Relief to Compensate Servicemembers for
Unlawful Repossessions by Wells Fargo Dealer Services,” press
release, November 14, 2017,
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-obtains-54-
million-additional-relief-compensate-servicemembers-
unlawful.

12 Id.
https://www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2021-035.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/business/wells-fargo-
settlement.html
etter%20to%20Wells%20Fargo%20on%20Forbearance%20Filin
gs.pdf
etter%20to%20Wells%20Fargo%20on%20Forbearance%20Filin
gs.pdf
million-additional-relief-compensate-servicemembers-unlawful
million-additional-relief-compensate-servicemembers-unlawful
3
vehicle repossessions.”13 Active-duty servicemembers were
among those harmed.14 Wells
Fargo signed settlements with 50 states and Washington,
D.C.,15 the OCC, and the CFPB16 to
resolve those claims.
internal controls related to the Bank
Secrecy Act (BSA) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules in
the Wholesale Banking
Group. The consent order noted that “the Bank has failed to

make acceptable substantial
progress toward correcting previously identified BSA/AML
problems that were previously
brought to its attention.”17
Group reportedly changed
information on business customers’ documents without
authorization in 2017 and 2018,18
resulting in a DOJ investigation to determine whether “there is
a pattern of unethical and
potentially fraudulent employee behavior tied to management
pressure.”19
ch 2018 that the bank’s wealth
management business was under
investigation to determine if the bank made “inappropriate
referrals or recommendations,
including with respect to rollovers for 401(k) plan participants,
certain alternative
investments, or referrals of brokerage customers to the
company’s investment and fiduciary
services business.” 20

were harmed by the company’s
misdeeds. In 2018 the company sent out 38,000 “erroneous
communications to customers
that it forced to buy unneeded auto insurance.”21 It “sent
refunds to people who weren’t the
bank’s customers; notified those who were harmed of incorrect
amounts to be paid; and told
people of coming refunds even though they had never gotten the
insurance.”22 It did not
promptly provide refunds to “as many as 110,000 customers
who were charged improper fees
to extend interest-rate commitments they received from Wells
Fargo on their mortgages.”23
And it created a refund request process that required customers
“to agree to a refund through
the mail before sending them money,” despite its own estimates
that “half or fewer” of
13 New York Times, “Wells Fargo Forced Unwanted Auto
Insurance on Borrowers,” Gretchen Morgenson, July 27, 2017,
unwanted-auto-insurance.html.
14 Id.
15 American Banker, “Wells Fargo to pay state regulators
$575M over phony accounts, other scandals,” Rachel

Witkowski,
December 28, 2018,
https://www.americanbanker.com/news/wells-fargo-to-pay-
state-regulators-575m-over-phony-accounts-
other-scandals.
16 CNN Business, “Wells Fargo fined $1 billion for insurance
and mortgage abuses,” Donna Borak, April 20, 2018,
https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/20/news/companies/wells-fargo-
regulators-auto-lending-fine/index.html.
17 Id.
18 Wall Street Journal, “Wells Fargo Employees Altered
Information on Business Customers’ Documents,” Emily Glazer,
May 17, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/wells-fargo-
employees-altered-information-on-business-customers-
documents-
1526564170.
19 Wall Street Journal, “Justice Department Probing Wells
Fargo’s Wholesale Banking Unit,” Emily Glazer, September 6,
2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-probing-
wells-fargos-wholesale-banking-unit-1536244490.
20 Securities and Exchange Commission, Form 10-Q, Quarterly
Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 for the quarterly period ended May 31,
2018, Wells Fargo & Company,
https://www08.wellsfargomedia.com/assets/pdf/about/investor-
relations/sec-filings/2018/first-quarter-10q.pdf.
21 Wall Street Journal, “Wells Fargo Fumbles Efforts to Repay
Aggrieved Customers,” Gretchen Morgenson and Emily

Glazer, February 10, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/wells-
fargo-struggles-to-repay-aggrieved-customers-1518295023.
22 Id.
23 Id.
unwanted-auto-insurance.html
state-regulators-575m-over-phony-accounts-other-scandals
state-regulators-575m-over-phony-accounts-other-scandals
https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/20/news/companies/wells-fargo-
regulators-auto-lending-fine/index.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wells-fargo-employees-altered-
information-on-business-customers-documents-1526564170
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wells-fargo-employees-altered-
information-on-business-customers-documents-1526564170
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-probing-wells-
fargos-wholesale-banking-unit-1536244490
relations/sec-filings/2018/first-quarter-10q.pdf
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wells-fargo-struggles-to-repay-
aggrieved-customers-1518295023
4
affected customers would take the necessary steps to secure a
refund.24 In September 2018,
the OCC rejected Wells Fargo’s plan for remunerating
customers pushed into unneeded auto
insurance, finding that the bank was not doing enough “to

ensure it has found and
compensated every affected driver.”25
Wholesale Banking division of Wells
Fargo “routinely falsified clients’ signatures and otherwise
doctored paperwork,” beginning
in 2016, to comply with a legal settlement with the OCC related
to violations of anti-money
laundering laws.26
stances of Wells
Fargo closing customers’
accounts without authorization and subsequently charging
overdraft fees.27
Fargo’s investment adviser and
broker dealer business lines for recommending certain
investment products to retail clients
from February 2012 through September 2019 “without having
adequate compliance policies
and procedures and without providing financial advisors proper
training and supervision” of

these products.28
In addition to these scandals and the over $5 billion in penalties
the bank has been fined to date,29 Wells
Fargo has had to fire two Chief Executive Officers and multiple
other senior executives.30
The severity and frequency of the actions listed above indicate
that additional fines and consent orders,
and changes in governance at Wells Fargo have been unable to
address the bank’s longstanding
problems and its inability to meet regulatory requirements and
treat its consumers honestly and fairly. I
strongly supported the Fed taking the unprecedented step of
imposing an asset cap in 2018,31 but it is
clear that even with such a cap in place, Wells Fargo is simply
ungovernable. I am therefore once again
asking the Fed to further limit Wells Fargo’s ability to continue
harming its consumers and undermining
the safety and integrity of our banking system.
24 Id.
25 Reuters, “Exclusive: U.S. regulators reject Wells Fargo’s
plan to repay customers - sources,” Patrick Rucker, September

11, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-
insurance-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-regulators-reject-wells-
fargos-
plan-to-repay-customers-sources-idUSKCN1LR2LG.
26 The Capitol Forum, "Wells Fargo: Employees Doctored
Signatures, Raising Possibility of Federal Penalties," February
14,
2019. https://thecapitolforum.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/Wells-Fargo-2019.02.14.pdf.
27 New York Times, “Wells Fargo Closed Their Accounts, but
the Fees Continued to Mount,” Emily Flitter, August 16, 2019,
overdraft-fees.html.
28 Securities and Exchange Commission, Consent Order,
February 27, 2020,
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2020/34-
88295.pdf.
29 Los Angeles Times, “Regulators are unhappy with how
slowly Wells Fargo is repaying ripped-off consumers,” Hannah
Levitt, August 31, 2021,
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-31/regulators-
are-unhappy-with-how-slowly-
wells-fargo-is-repaying-ripped-off-consumers.
30 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
“Responding to widespread consumer abuses and compliance
breakdowns by Wells Fargo, Federal Reserve restricts Wells'
growth until firm improves governance and controls.
Concurrent with Fed action, Wells to replace three directors by

April, one by year end,” February 02, 2018,
ement20180202a.htm.
31 Warren Statement on Fed Chair Yellen’s Regulatory Actions
Against Wells Fargo, February 02, 2018,
https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/warren-statement-on-fed-chair-yellens-regulatory-
actions-against-
wells-fargo.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-insurance-
exclusive/exclusive-u-s-regulators-reject-wells-fargos-plan-to-
repay-customers-sources-idUSKCN1LR2LG
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-insurance-
exclusive/exclusive-u-s-regulators-reject-wells-fargos-plan-to-
repay-customers-sources-idUSKCN1LR2LG
https://thecapitolforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Wells-
Fargo-2019.02.14.pdf
overdraft-fees.html
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2020/34-88295.pdf
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2020/34-88295.pdf
are-unhappy-with-how-slowly-wells-fargo-is-repaying-ripped-
off-consumers
are-unhappy-with-how-slowly-wells-fargo-is-repaying-ripped-
off-consumers
ement20180202a.htm
actions-against-wells-fargo

actions-against-wells-fargo
5
Under the Bank Holding Company Act, financial holding
companies (FHCs) like Wells Fargo are
required to be “well capitalized” and “well managed.”32 When
an FHC or one of its depository
subsidiaries fails to meet these requirements, the Fed is required
to provide notice to the FHC and give
the institution on opportunity to correct its deficiencies.33 If
the holding company fails to correct its
deficiencies within 180 days, the Fed may require the FHC to
“divest control of any subsidiary
depository institution,” or, if the FHC instead chooses, “to
cease to engage in any activity” that is not
permissible for a bank holding company.34 This Fed authority
ensures that the size and complexity of a
company does not interfere with its ability to provide safe, fair,
and transparent core banking services to
its customers.35
In order to remain “well managed,” an FHC must earn at least

satisfactory scores on its CAMELS
(Capital adequacy, Asset quality, Management, Earnings,
Liquidity, and Sensitivity)36 composite and
management ratings used by banking supervisors.37 These
scores are confidential. But past reporting has
indicated that Wells Fargo’s CAMELS rating was downgraded
in 2017,38 and it is inconceivable that
Wells Fargo could have earned an upgraded CAMELS score
given the sheer number and ongoing nature
of scandalous and unlawful behavior at the bank since then.
The Fed must therefore act to protect consumers and the
integrity of the banking and financial system
and revoke Wells Fargo’s status as an FHC. The Fed should
move quickly to require the company to
“spin off or sell its investment bank and other nonbanking
activities,”39 and do so in a way that ensures
customers can continue to have access to banking services
without disruption or inconvenience.
This matter is of urgent importance. Earlier this year, media
outlets reported that Wells Fargo is actively
working to expand its investment bank, despite the firm’s asset
cap.40 Wells Fargo executives are

seeking to compete with other giant Wall Street banks by,
among other things, “lending to hedge funds
looking to ramp up bets”41—the same activity that triggered
$10 billion in losses among megabanks
earlier this year.42 Given Wells Fargo’s woefully inadequate
internal controls, the firm cannot be trusted
to conduct such risky activities in a safe and sound manner. In
addition, I am concerned that Wells
Fargo’s senior executives are focused on expanding risky
investment banking activities instead of
remediating consumer harms and improving lax internal
controls. The Fed should immediately revoke
Wells Fargo’s FHC status to ensure that its leaders focus all of
their attention on fixing the bank’s
numerous, chronic risk-management deficiencies.
32 12 U.S. Code § 1843(l)(1)(C).
33 12 U.S. Code § 1843(m)(4).
34 Id.
35 Minnesota Law Review, “Solving Banking’s ‘Too Big To
Manage Problem,” Jeremy Kress, March 20, 2019,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3348593.
36 12 USC § 1841(o)(9).
37 Id.
38 Wall Street Journal, “Wells Fargo Earns New Ire from Bank
Overseers,” Emily Glazer, January 5, 2018,

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wells-fargo-earns-new-ire-from-
bank-overseers-1515187163.
39 American Banker, “Fed should force Wells Fargo into being
a simpler bank,” Jeremy Kress, October 26, 2018,
wells-fargo-into-being-a-simpler-bank.
40 Bloomberg, “Wells Fargo to Expand Investment Bank as
Scharf Sets Strategy,” Hannah Levitt, January 4, 2021,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-04/wells-
fargo-to-expand-investment-bank-in-scharf-s-strategy-shift.
41 Id.
42 Wall Street Journal, “Archegos Hit Tops $10 Billion After
UBS, Nomura Losses,” Margot Patrick and Quentin Webb,
April 27, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-takes-
surprise-774-million-archegos-hit-11619501547.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3348593
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wells-fargo-earns-new-ire-from-
bank-overseers-1515187163
wells-fargo-into-being-a-simpler-bank
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-04/wells-
fargo-to-expand-investment-bank-in-scharf-s-strategy-shift
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-takes-surprise-774-million-
archegos-hit-11619501547
6
Every new report of scandal and ongoing noncompliance by
Wells Fargo represents a giant financial

institution squeezing consumers to pad profits for its
executives. The Fed must revoke Wells Fargo’s
FHC status and order the company to develop a plan to ensure
that the 65 million customers that
currently rely on Wells Fargo’s consumer banking and lending
services are protected through the
transition.43 Every single day that Wells Fargo continues to
maintain these depository accounts is a day
that millions of customers remain at risk of additional
negligence and willful fraud. The only way these
consumers and their bank accounts can be kept safe is through
another institution—one whose business
model is not dependent on swindling customers for every last
penny they can get. The Fed has the power
to put consumers first, and it must use it. By invoking its full
authority to protect consumers and the
financial system and requiring Wells Fargo to separate its
consumer-facing banking arm from the rest of
its financial activities, the Fed can ensure that Wells Fargo
faces appropriate consequences for its
longstanding ungovernable behavior.
Sincerely,

___________________________
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Chair, Senate Banking Committee, Subcommittee on Economic
Policy
43 Wells Fargo & Company 2020 Annual Report,
relations/annual-reports/2020-annual-report.pdf.
relations/annual-reports/2020-annual-report.pdf
relations/annual-reports/2020-annual-report.pdf

Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 361–373 Contents .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 361–373 Contents .docx

Similar to Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 361–373 Contents .docx (20)

More from LaticiaGrissomzz

More from LaticiaGrissomzz (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 361–373 Contents .docx