Master Thesis
Poor Work-Life Balance and Subjective Well-Being: Moderating Role of
Need for Achievement and Income Level
Name of Author: Anita Arthur
Student Number: 10651969
Date of Submission: 3
rdJuly, 2014
Study Programme: MSc. in Business Studies
Track: Leadership and Management
Name of Institution: University of Amsterdam
Name of Supervisor: Dr Claire Ashton-James
Contents 1. Abstract ... 4 2. Introduction ... 5 3. Literature Review... 9 3.1. Work-Life Balance... 9 3.2. Subjective Well-Being ... 11
3.3. The Relationship between Poor Work-Life Balance and Subjective Well-Being ... 12
3.4. Income Level ... 14
3.5. Need for Achievement ... 17
Figure 1: Conceptual Model ... 19
4. Data and Sample ... 20
4.1. Sample and Procedure... 20
4.2. Measures ... 21 4.3. Data Analysis ... 23 5. Results ... 24 6. Discussion ... 26 6.1. Discussion of results ... 26 Table 1: ... 27 Table 2: ... 28
6.2. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ... 30
Figure 2 ... 30
7. Conclusion ... 32 2
8. References ... 34
9. Appendix ... 45
9.1. Appendix 1: Formula for Computing Balance... 45
9.2. Appendix 2: Invitation to Survey ... 46
9.3. Appendix 3: Questionnaire ... 47
1. Abstract
The issue of balancing work and life has resulted in a lot of anxiety among employees and employers alike. This study explored the impact of personal and organizational factors on the relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being. Specifically, it examined the relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being and whether income and need for achievement moderates the relationship. It was expected that there would be a negative relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective being. Also, individuals on a higher income were expected to have a higher subjective well-being than individuals on a lower income regardless of experiencing a poor work-life balance. Again, individuals with a high need for achievement and experiencing a poor work-life balance were expected to have a higher subjective well-being than individuals with a low need for achievement. Overall, the result suggested that poor work-life balance is not significantly related to subjective well-being. However, poor work-life balance is related to a higher subjective well-being for people high in need for achievement. Also, contrary to expectation, result indicated that income does not ameliorate the impact of poor work-life balance on subjective well-being. A discussion of these findings is provided with some explanations given for the unexpected results. Finally, limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are detailed.
2. Introduction
Work and non-work are two distinct domains of life that are lived quite separately from each other, requiring different activities to be performed at different place and time. However, what happens in one domain can have an adverse impact on the other (Guest, 2002). Balancing work and non-work roles has become an issue of concern to society,
organisations and individuals, as a result of the increasing numbers of single parents,women
in employment, and dual income couples (Byron, 2005; Guest, 2002; Michel, Mitchelson, Kotrba, LeBreton, & Baltes, 2009; Seiger & Wiese, 2009; Wong & Ko, 2009). Also, economic development manifested in changes in the nature of work has been cited as a reason for the concerns regarding balancing work and non-work roles (Lewis, Gambles, & Rapoport, 2007). The changes in the nature of work is characterised by longer hours of work, organisational downsizing, restructuring, advances in technology, increase in global competition and trends, which has led to increase in the demand of work for many people, leaving them with more intensive and extensive work to deal with (Guest, 2002; Lewis et al., 2007; Valcour & Hunter, 2005).
Additionally, increasing numbers of employees are confronted with difficulties in combining work and life roles (Geurts & Demerouti, 2003), which has substantial impact on well-being (McMillan, Morris, & Atchley, 2011). The difficulties stems from longer working hours and growth of evening and weekend jobs leaving less time and energy for quality family and life activities (Guest, 2002). For example, Lockwood (2003) found that over 70% of employees, reports having a poor balance between their work and personal lives. This research also indicated that 90% of working adults reports spending less time with their families. Everyone wish for more time to spend with family, for personal endeavours, vacation, leisure, as well as to complete projects at work (Williams, 2002). In essence, time has become the scarcest commodity for most people. Dealing with longer hours and more
intensive work demands comes at the expense of non-work life. The dominant nature of work roles results in a limited time and involvement in non-work roles, indicating an imbalance between the two domains of life (Guest, 2002; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004; Valcour, 2007). As the demand for work and life roles gets intense, the tendency for an individual to overlook the other has consistently put strain on businesses and individuals to ensure a balance in order to achieve employee and organisational well-being. In effect, people are consciously putting in efforts to achieve a balance between work and non-work life (Greenhaus & Foley, 2007).
Nonetheless, since these events occur at different times and place, requiring performance of different activities, balancing them in the most efficient and effective manner has more often than not remained fruitless for individuals. On the other hand, organisations are putting in efforts to help employees ensure a balance by providing work-life policies and programmes such as flexible work options, specialised leave policies and dependent care benefits, which have been suggested, increases organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and reduced absenteeism (McDonald, Brown, & Bradley, 2005). Again, these efforts have proved futile or are being underutilised by employees especially men and career oriented individuals who feel reluctant to use them for fear of being seen as uncommitted to their organisations (Burke, 2004; McDonald et al., 2005). Since both individuals and organisations are finding it difficult, achieving a balance between work and non-work thus raises a heightened concern for employers and employees (Burke, 2004).
These concerns have led to an increase in research to examine whether work-life balance has any crucial benefits for organisations and individuals. Studies have shown that work-life balance is indirectly related to subjective well-being of an individual. One of these studies revealed that need fulfilment mediates the relationship between work-life balance and subjective well-being (Gröpel & Kuhl, 2009). It indicated that an individual will perceive the time available for work and non-work roles as positively related to their well-being only if
their needs are fulfilled within that time. With regards to the benefit of work-life balance to organisations, studies have indicated that work and non-work balance is positively related to organisational commitment and job satisfaction (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009).
Even though earlier researchers have given some insight on several aspects of work and non-work life, there are still gaps in the field that needs to be explored to gain a better understanding of the work and non-work literature. First and foremost, majority of the literature in the work and non-work domain are concerned with work-family conflict (Allen et al., 2000; Eby et al., 2005), work-life conflict (Russell, O'Connell, & McGinnity, 2009; Seiger & Wiese, 2009) and work-family balance (Greenhaus et al., 2003; Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001). These studies equated family to life or non-work role, yet family is just an aspect of life beyond the boundaries of work (Guest, 2002). Restricting the concept to work and family have triggered backlash in work places especially among individuals without family responsibilities (Haar & Spell, 2003; Lewis et al., 2007). Therefore, Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw (2003), in their research on work-family balance and quality of life, suggested a broader concept of work-life balance to be studied in order to provide an insight into the impact of balancing diverse roles such as work, leisure, and family on well-being.
Secondly, Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw (2003) urged researchers to undertake studies to examine the moderators of the relationship between work-family balance and its outcome variables. This is suggestive of the fact that imbalance may have more consequences on the quality of life for some individuals than others. Additionally, Clarke, Koch, & Hill (2004) noted that little research has been conducted on the impact of income in the work-life domain. However, not much effort has been put in place to respond to these calls.
The purpose of this study is to address these gaps by using the broader concept of work-life balance, which comprises balancing work, family and social work-life roles, and how it relates
with subjective well-being. The issue of work-life balance and subjective well-being should be of utmost importance to both organisations and employees because improving employee well-being can result in positive organisational attitudes (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). However, since employees and organisations are faced with the challenge of ensuring a balance, this study will identify an element directly under the control of an employee and another element under the control of employers that can reduce the impact of a poor work-life balance on subjective well-being. Specifically, this study will examine the role of need for achievement and income level in moderating the relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being.
Addressing these issues will make an important contribution to the study of poor work-life balance and subjective well-being, by identifying need for achievement and income level as moderators in the relationship, adding to theoretical knowledge in the field. In a practical standpoint, this research will help identify conditions under which employee’s subjective well-being will not deteriorate regardless of experiencing poor work-life balance. Employees can benefit from this study by coping with their poor work-life balance from a need for achievement perspective. Organisations and employers will also benefit from this study because well-being of an employee is paramount to their performance, commitment as well as their intentions to leave the organisation (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). Thus, employees and employers will further understand how they can manage the poor or lack of balance in their work and life roles and subsequently improve their well-being.
To achieve the aim of this research, the study is structured as follows; the next section gives an overview of the meaning of work-life balance and subjective well-being. This will be followed by the relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being, then the moderators and hypothesis will be presented. Subsequently, the method used in this
research and the result will be specified. Thereafter, a discussion of the findings, limitations, recommendations for future research and the conclusion will be detailed.
3. Literature Review
This chapter begins with an overview of work-life balance and subjective well-being. Specifically, defining and explaining what the terms means to different scholars and how it will be conceptualised in this research. The expected relationship between the variables will be established and finally, the factors that might moderate the relationship will be introduced.
3.1. Work-Life Balance
The term balance has been conceptualised differently by different scholars using multiple and inconsistent definitions (McMillan et al., 2011; Reiter, 2007). Some scholars have defined it as a lack or low level of conflict between work and life roles (Frone, 2003), but conflict has been viewed as an antecedent of balance (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011). As noted by Ferguson et al. (2012), conflict is basically concerned with how work and life roles impact each other, whereas balance is focused on how individuals manage multiple roles effectively and efficiently. As a result, balance is not necessarily a lower level of conflict. Hill et al. (2001, p.49), also defined balance as “the degree to which an individual is able to simultaneously balance the temporal, emotional and behavioural demands of both paid work and family responsibilities”. Another definition of balance by Clark (2001, p.349), is the “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home with a minimum of role conflict”. Yet again, others have defined balance in terms of giving equal priority or full engagement to work and life roles (Greenhaus et al., 2003; Marks & MacDermid, 1996).
These diverse definitions put the concept of work-life balance in an objective and a subjective perspective (Reiter, 2007). Voydanoff (2005), noted that the “inconsistent notion of balance in previous research creates confusion in the literature” (p. 825). Reasons for the
inconsistency in the definition of balance can be attributed to the fact that work and life roles overlap and interact with each other without a clear cut and they have a spill over effect on each other (Taylor, 2002). Also, conceiving balance in terms of individual’s perception or values may account for the reason why there is no consensus on the term balance. This is because what one perceives as balance may be perceived as imbalance by another individual (Odle-Dusseau, Britt, & Bobko, 2012).
This research takes on the definition of Greenhaus et al. (2003), who defined balance as the extent to which an individual is equally engaged in his or her work role and non-work role. Becoming equally engaged in the performance of every activity in one’s domain involves commitment of time and psychological involvement. Greenhaus et al. (2003), identified time balance as devoting equal amount of time to work and non-work role and involvement balance as devoting equal level of psychological involvement to work and non-work roles. As a result, balance in the present study is viewed as independent of an individual’s desire or values. Rather, it focuses on equal commitment of both time and involvement in work and life roles, taking on a more objective view of balance. This direction will enable a clear view of the actual balance experienced by an individual. Thus, to have a work-life balance means putting in equal levels of time and involvement in each role, and not devoting more or less attention and time to any particular domain (Greenhaus et al., 2003). In contrast, experiencing a poor work-life balance denotes allocating more time and energy to work role than non-work role. In effect, giving more priority to work in terms of time and energy is suggestive of an imbalance between the roles, irrespective of the fact that division of the level of commitments to any of the roles is consistent with personal values (Greenhaus et al., 2003).
It is believed that the number of hours of work and time commitment to non-work roles partly determines the ability to obtain a balance in both roles (Adkins & Premeaux, 2012;
Valcour, 2007). Devoting longer hours to work will mean a decrease in the number of hours available to perform non-work roles. This is because, time is a limited resource that cannot be extended at will (Valcour, 2007). Similarly, committing more energy and being more involved in work roles decreases the energy available to perform life roles. Also, the level of energy is reduced when longer hours are devoted to work leading to less energy available for non-work roles (Valcour, 2007). For that reason, a limited non-work time and involvement may force employees to engage in non-work activities such as personal phone calls, sending private mails to friends and family during work time due to the desire to ensure a balance across roles (Adkins & Premeaux, 2012). Even if work and non-work roles are engaged in simultaneously, for example by fulfilling work obligations at home, there will still be the tendency to commit more energy and attention to one role than the other due to “inconsistency of expectation” between the roles (Adkins & Premeaux, 2012). Therefore, an effort to ensure that time and energy are allocated equally between the two roles is very often unsuccessful, suggesting that individuals have to deal with a poor work-life balance.
3.2. Subjective Well-Being
Subjective well-being has been described as a broad phenomenon that includes people’s emotional or affective responses (e.g. stress, joy, anxiety and happiness), domain satisfactions (e.g. work, family, leisure) and global judgement of life satisfaction (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). This encompasses individual’s assessment of overall quality of life as favourable and the degree to which most needs, goals and wishes have been fulfilled (Frisch, 2000). A component of subjective well-being, life satisfaction, involves the long term and global assessment of one’s quality of life, instead of evaluation of the individual domains of one’s life (Diener et al., 1999). It therefore involves a total assessment of quality of work life, quality of non-work life and feeling of self-worth (Erdogan, Bauer, Truxillo, & Mansfield,
2012). The reason for the total assessment is that, individuals have different standards for ascertaining the quality of life for specific areas of life (Pavot & Diener, 1993). The second component of subjective well-being is the emotional or affective responses, which involves the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect (Diener et al., 1999). Positive affect reflects pleasant moods and emotions, while negative affect reflects unpleasant mood and emotions. Thus, emotional response is said to be an individual’s experience of a balance between positive and negative affect (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002). Overall, the assessment of quality of life is determined by the individual and therefore, in more subjective terms (Keyes et al., 2002).
3.3. The Relationship between Poor Work-Life Balance and Subjective Well-Being Various studies have found that work-life balance of an individual is one of the factors which affect a person’s satisfaction with life. For example, Ferguson, Carlson, Zivnuska, & Whitten (2012), indicated that work-family balance is positively related to satisfaction at work and non-work domains. Marks & MacDermid (1996) also noted that individuals who ensure a balance between work and life roles experience less stress and are less depressed because they recognise each role as equally important and become fully engaged in both roles. It is rational to say that since they do not prioritise roles, they apportion their time and energy between these roles effectively and efficiently. Full engagement in both roles in terms of equal apportionment of time and involvement is believed to reduce conflict, stress and depression and subsequently lead to individual well-being (Greenhaus et al., 2003). Furthermore, it has been argued that full engagement in multiple roles prevents the individual from experiencing negative effects related to any one role (Barnett & Hyde, 2001).
On the other hand, there is a basic assumption that managing multiple roles in the most effective way is difficult and leads to stressful situation (Geurts & Demerouti, 2003). When
work demands in terms of time and psychological involvement dominates life roles, individuals experience a poor balance (Guest, 2002). Individuals perceiving an absence of balance in their work and life roles increase their desire to achieve a balance which is suggestive of life dissatisfaction (Allen et al., 2000). Specifically, a poor balance due to longer hours and involvement in work roles at the expense of time and involvement in life roles may result in feeling disappointed and guilty about one’s inability to participate in family as well as other social life activities, which is suggestive of life dissatisfaction (Brough, O'Driscoll, & Kalliath, 2005). Again, it has been suggested that poor work-life balance leads to conflict between work and life roles, which in turn increases stress level, reduces quality of life and decreases effectiveness at work (Kofodimos, 1993 cited from Greenhaus et al., 2003). The increase in stress can be attributed to the constant reminder that one is not giving equal attention and time to both roles (Greenhaus et al., 2003).
Furthermore, the work and non-work conflict theory suggest that a lack of balance leads to increased conflict (ten Brummelhuis & Van Der Lippe, 2010), which in turn results in stress, burnouts, depression, and job dissatisfaction, all of which reduces individual experience of a favourable subjective well-being (Allen et al., 2000). Likewise, empirical evidence suggests that imbalance pertaining to more time and involvement in work roles than life roles leads to negative outcomes such as lower positive well-being (Grant-Vallone & Donaldson, 2001), heightened life stress (Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk, & Beutell, 1996) and life dissatisfaction (Gröpel & Kuhl, 2009). Moreover, high levels of anxiety among managerial and professional women have been suggested to be the effect of a poor balance (Beatty, 1996). Livingston & Judge (2008) also found that egalitarian individuals felt guilty when
work roles dominate life roles. Additionally, working longer hours which leads to less time
for non-work life has been found to have detrimental effects such as job stress and mental strain (Ng & Feldman, 2008).
In the same way, a poor balance is said to be related to mood, anxiety and substance dependence disorders (Frone, 2000). Higgins, Duxbury, & Lyons (2010), found that the inability to balance time and energy between work and non-work role leads to role overload and consequently results in stress related outcomes such as anxiety, fatigue and burnout. Furthermore, the study of Kinnunen, Geurts, & Mauno (2004), found that a lack of balance results in job dissatisfaction, parental distress, psychological symptoms and marital dissatisfaction, all of which are important dimensions relevant for assessing subjective well-being. Consequently, a poor work-life balance is negatively related to quality of work, family life and different aspect of an individual’s life and thus results in a low life satisfaction (Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992). Therefore, based on the forgoing research, it is expected that in general, poor work-life balance will be associated with less subjective well-being. Hypothesis 1: Poor work-life balance will be negatively related to subjective well-being. Although multiple studies have found a significant relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being, it is important that we examine the relationship again due to the numerous meaning attached to the word balance, meaning different things to different researchers. And also, due to the narrow view of work and life in previous literatures, which equated life roles to just family. This will thus, facilitate an in-depth understanding of the relationship. The next session introduces the role of the moderators in the expected relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being.
3.4. Income Level
Income is the amount of money an individual receives for engaging in an activity or providing a service. It is said to be a fundamental aspect of human life, where people spend considerable amount of time in earning and spending it (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002). The pursuit of income has also been described as a powerful motivational force that drives people
to expend energy and attention to realise it (Myers, 2000). Research has found that income is
positively related to life satisfaction (Diener & Oishi, 2000).From an economic perspective,
as a person gains income, he gains purchasing power, which provides him the ability to afford goods, increase his consumption and thereby lead to improved well-being (Howell & Howell, 2008). Therefore, income can lead a person to be able to access material goods, pleasurable experiences, better healthcare and increased security, which leads to a higher life satisfaction (Lucas, Dyrenforth, & Diener, 2008). Even though it might be argued that working longer hours and forfeiting time for life activities might be unhealthy, individuals believe that health can be “purchased” with the income that will be earned and thus diminish the potential adverse effect (Golden & Wiens-Tuers, 2006).
The levels of well-being for individuals differ for high income earners and low income earners, with individuals on a high income being happier than low income earners (Lucas & Schimmack, 2009). Smith, Langa, Kabeto, & Ubel (2005), stated that high income earners compared to low income earners experience events as less stressful because lack of money is a potential stressor which can make an individual more vulnerable in the occurrence of negative events. They noted that income is related to well-being through the ability to buffer the outcome of negative life events. Receiving higher income for longer hours of work, resulting in poor work-life balance may help an individual afford the services of house cleaning, restaurant meals and laundry services which will in turn reduce the number of hours need to perform non-work roles (Valcour, 2007).
Additionally, studies have shown that higher income has a positive effect on an individual’s happiness (Ball & Chernova, 2008), mental well-being (Gardner & Oswald, 2007), life satisfaction and general well-being (Boyce & Wood, 2011; Frijters, Haisken-DeNew, & Shields, 2004). Higher income also signals career success which is essential for a person’s evaluation of subjective well-being (Pereira & Coelho, 2013). On the other hand, the
presence of low income which is indicative of an inability to afford the basic need of life can
lead to life dissatisfaction (Boes & Winkelmann, 2010). Again, low income has been
associated with low emotional well-being and life evaluation (Kahneman & Deaton, 2010). Based on the social comparison theory which states that people have the tendency to compare themselves with others (Festinger, 1954), it can be argued that obtaining a higher income relative to others doing similar jobs is likely to enhance one’s perception of satisfaction and happiness regardless of their current state of work-life imbalance. Being rewarded high income can also be seen as recognition for one’s commitment to the organisation and that will translate into individual happiness and positive emotions. On the other hand, an individual who work longer hours and thus experience poor work-life balance due to reduction in the time and energy available for non-work but earn a lower income relative to others will feel that their efforts have not been adequately rewarded and will experience distress which reduces the individual’s subjective well-being.
It is worth noting that studies linking income to subjective well-being have found a weak relationship between them (Knabe & Rätzel, 2010). With suggestions that money does not matter when it comes to individual well-being and that individual’s intuition about money ensuring happiness is far from the truth (Lucas & Dyrenforth, 2006). This is also indicative of the fact that those on high income are not much happier than those on low income. However, Lucas & Schimmack (2009) found that the weak correlation between income and well-being can translate into strong differences between the well-being of low income earners and high income earners, even though the correlation between income and life satisfaction was quite small. Boes & Winkelmann (2010) also noted that even though income has a weak relationship with life satisfaction it reduces life dissatisfaction significantly. Thus providing support for the intuition that high income earners are much happier than the poor and average income earners. With this assertion, it is expected that when people put in great amount of
energy and time to work resulting in an imbalance between work and life roles, the receipt of a high income will have a buffering effect on well-being. Therefore, it is hypothesised that; Hypothesis 2: The relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being will be moderated by income level. Specifically, an individual on a high income will have a higher subjective well-being in response to a poor work-life balance than an individual on a low income.
3.5. Need for Achievement
Need for achievement is the persistent desire in an individual to become better and to improve one’s skills while successfully interacting with one’s environment, with this desire varying among different individuals (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). Individuals with a need to achieve are keen to exceed their previous achievements or the achievements of others and improve their skills (Brunstein & Heckhausen, 2008). They become intrinsically motivated in performing task and find personal achievement as rewarding and important as they gain self–satisfaction (Nash, 1985). Such individuals seek and overcome challenges for the inherent enjoyment of the activity and the pride at having
demonstrated competence(Mills, 2011).
Empirical evidence suggests that individuals with high need for achievement take calculated risk in order to achieve excellence and they immerse themselves in performing activities (Liu, Liu, & Wu, 2010). It can be argued that because they take personal responsibility to achieve goals without any form of delegation, they will experience a poor balance in work and life roles. However, finding satisfaction in their own accomplishment will lead to their well-being. Individuals with a need for achievement will also have a tendency to engage in longer hours of work to ensure that “not only does the work gets done, but gets done properly”, which will mean a reduction in the number of hours for their
work activities (Feldman, 2002). Besides, taking up increasing number of challenging assignments makes their working hours longer because they require enough time to deal with the task (Feldman, 2002). Consequently, such individuals will be satisfied as long as they achieve professionalism through accomplishing their goal regardless of the time and energy needed to make it worthwhile.
Need for achievement is seen as a promoter of positive affect which foster resilience in the face of work pressures, manifested in strong demand for time and energy (McClelland, 1985). This attribute of resilience enables an individual with a high need for achievement to prevent the effect of burnout (Moneta, 2011). Achievement of a personal and meaningful goal is a source of psychological well-being for individuals with a high need for achievement (Emmons, 1996). When they engage in a task that provides an opportunity to satisfy a need, it results in positive emotions of being happy and pleased which contributes to their subjective well-being (Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Grässman, 1998; Schüler, Sheldon, & Fröhlich, 2010). They however turn to be dissatisfied if such opportunity does not exist. Furthermore, need for achievement has been found to be positively related to individual’s status, wealth, professional fulfilment and contribution to society (Parker & Chusmir, 1991), all of which are important for individual’s evaluation of life satisfaction. On the contrary, individuals with a low need for achievement do not experience positive emotions when striving for and attaining achievement goals (Schüler et al., 2010). Individuals with low need for achievement experience lower positive moods (Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, and Tenglund, 2005).
To conclude, subjective well-being arises from specific characteristics of individual personal striving (Brunstein, 1993). While individuals high in need for achievement will experience events as less stressful when seeking and performing challenging goals at work despite having to deal with poor work-life balance, individuals low in need for achievement
on the other hand, will experience higher stress when encountered with same situation. Therefore, stressful life events such as poor work-life balance will impair an individual’s emotional well-being and life satisfaction only when that individual is not able to cope with these events (Baumann, Kaschel, & Kuhl, 2005). This will mean that individuals with a high need for achievement will gain higher subjective well-being in their quest to achieve an important and challenging goal at work, irrespective of facing a poor work-life balance. Therefore, it is hypothesised that;
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being will be moderated by need for achievement. Specifically, an individual with a high need for achievement will have a higher subjective well-being in response to a poor work-life balance than an individual with a low need for achievement.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
H2 H1 H3 Subjective Well-Being Poor Work-Life Balance Need for Achievement Income Level 19
4. Data and Sample
4.1. Sample and Procedure
This research was conducted by means of a survey. Participants for this research, which included both full time and part time employees, were recruited from the researcher’s contacts in the Netherlands. Participants were asked to assist in the data collection by contacting other employees who were willing to participate in the study. All participants were assured that their participation in this study was anonymous and confidential. No incentives were provided because participation was voluntary. These respondents were gathered from the health, financial, education and the hotel sectors in order to achieve a representative sample. In contrast with traditional research on work and non-work balance, the respondents only needed to be employed individuals regardless of their marital status and the number of children they have. Since the survey was developed online, an electronic mail with a link to the survey on qualtrics was sent to respondents, requesting for their participation in the survey (See appendix 2 for the invitation letter). The survey remained accessible to participants for six weeks. Thereafter, the raw data was exported to SPSS version 20 for analysis.
This process yielded 244 responses. Surveys which were started but not completed were deleted from the analysis. Also, responses which clearly indicated an error were deleted. That is, respondents who indicated a total weekly work and non-work time which was more than the number of hours in a week was deleted because these responses were required to test the hypothesis. After the data was cleaned, the number of useable responses for the analysis was 199.
Respondents in this study included 38.2% female and 61.8% males with an average age of 43.5 years. Also, 60.8% reported having at least one or more children at home and 72.9%
were married or living with a partner. Again, 46.7% reported they were in managerial or professional positions and 72.4% were in full time employment. From the demographic analysis it can be concluded that the sample size is more diverse and representative of different categories of employees needed to answer the research question.
4.2. Measures
The survey comprised demographic and control variables (namely; age, gender, marital status, number of children, level of employment and employment type), predictive variables (namely; work-life balance, need for achievement and income) as well as the dependent variable (subjective well-being). The measures used in this study were developed from existing research. For an overview of the survey, see appendix 3.
This study took into account several control and demographic variables. Individual characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, number of children, employment type, and level of employment were considered. These items were considered because earlier studies suggest that these variables affect the ability to manage work and life roles.
Poor work-life balance was operationalised as a situation where time and involvement in work roles dominates time and involvement in life roles. Time balance was assessed with four open ended questions. The items included: “How many hours do you work in a week including overtime?”, “How many hours in a week do you perform company activities at home?”, “How many hours do you spend with family and friends in a week?” and “How many hours in a week do you have for personal activities e.g. leisure?” The first two items were summed to ascertain the total working hours in a week. And the last two items were summed to ascertain the total hours for non-work roles in a week.
Involvement balance on the other hand, included six items. To assess involvement in work and life, three items from Lodahl & Kejnar (1965) job involvement scale was used to
assess work involvement. These three items were also used to assess involvement in life roles by substituting non-work life for work. These set of items were used earlier by Greenhaus et al. (2003) to operationalise involvement balance. The items included: “The most things that happen to me involve my present work”, “I am very much involved personally in my work”, “To me, my work is only a small part of who I am”, “The most things that happen to me involve my non-work life”, “I am very much involved personally in my non-work life” and “To me, my non-work life is only a small part of who I am”. The items were assessed on a five point scale of 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 5 = “Strongly Agree”. The items had internal consistencies of α = .57 for the work involvement measure and α = .55 for life involvement measure.
Need for achievement was measured with four items developed by Liu et al. (2010). Sample item included “I would like to seek satisfaction from accomplishing a difficult task”. These items were assessed on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree”. Responses for the items were averaged to ascertain the total need for achievement score. The internal consistencies of the scale was α = .74.
Income was assessed with both subjective and objective measures. It included six items in total. The subjective measure was administered with four items developed by Heneman & Schwab (1985). A sample item was “How satisfied are you with your take home pay”. The answer categories ranged from 1= “Very Dissatisfied” to 5 = “Very Satisfied”. In addition, an item from Sweeney, McFarlin, & Inderrieden (1990) income measure was included. The sample item was “How fair is what you earn on your job in comparison with others doing same type of work that you do?” This was measured on a scale of 1 = Not Very Fair to 5 =
“Very Fair”. These five items had a good internal consistencies of α = .89. Objective income
on the other hand was measured as an open ended question which asked respondents to state their monthly pay (net pay). Refer to appendix 3 for overview of the survey.
Subjective well-being was measured with five items from the life satisfaction scale developed by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin (1985). A sample item was “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”. Items were measured on a scale of 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree”. The responses for the five items were averaged to ascertain the total
subjective well-being score. The internal consistencies for the scale was α = .86.
4.3. Data Analysis
The data analysis comprised of a descriptive analysis of the demographic variables, quantitative analysis including missing value replacement, reliability testing, scale means computation, correlation and a hierarchical regression analysis. Surveys with incomplete data were treated as missing data. It was realised that there were missing data for two items whose frequencies of missing data was 2.0% and 9.5% which represented less than 10% of missing data for each item so hotdeck was used to impute those values. After this was done, the two counter indicative items in the study were recoded (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1). The items were “To me, my work is only a small part of who I am” and “To me, my non-work life is only a small part of who I am”.
Furthermore, the averages of each of these items; need for achievement, subjective well-being and the subjective measure of income was obtained in order to perform the various statistical analyses. As noted earlier, poor work-life balance was operationalised as apportioning more time and involvement in work than life roles. In order to ascertain a measure suitable for statistical analysis, a balance coefficient was determined from the raw data. This is because time and involvement was operationalised differently with time being an open ended question and involvement being a scale measure. The balance coefficient developed by Janis and Fadner (1965) was used to calculate the coefficient of work-life balance. This formula for measuring balance was also used by (Greenhaus et al., 2003). See
appendix 1 for the formula. The coefficient ranges from -1 to +1. Time and involvement balance were positively correlated (r = .202**, p< .01). The coefficient of the time balance and involvement balance were summed to give the total work-life balance score. For example, if a participant spends a total of 46 hours a week for work related activity and a total of 23 hours in a week for life activities, then their time coefficient will be 0.22. If that same participant’s involvement score for work roles was 10 and involvement score for life roles was 9, then the involvement balance coefficient will be 0.03. Therefore, work-life balance coefficient will be 0.25 (that is 0.22 + 0.03). This indicates a poor balance manifested in greater time and involvement in work than in non-work. Therefore, positive coefficients suggest a poor balance resulting from greater time and involvement in work roles than in life roles which is the focus of this present study. On the other hand, a negative score indicates a greater time and involvement in life roles and a zero coefficient indicates an equal time and involvement between work and life roles.
A hierarchical moderated regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. Subjective well-being was regressed on the control variables in the first step. This is important because prior research suggest that these variables affect the relationship between work-life balance and subjective well-being (Gröpel & Kuhl, 2009). Work-life balance coefficient was entered in the second step, and then the moderators were entered in the third step. Finally, the interaction terms (For example, need for achievement by work-life balance) was entered in the fourth step.
5. Results
Table 1 presents the mean, standard deviation, reliabilities and correlations. Surprisingly, there was no significant correlation between work-life balance and subjective well-being. Subjective well-being was positively correlated with need for achievement (r = .44, p <.01)
and subjective income (r = .39, p < .01) but not with the objective income. Work-life balance correlated with objective income (r = .20, p < 0.01).
Table 2 presents the result of the hierarchical regression analysis predicting subjective well-being. Hypothesis 1 predicted that poor work-life balance will be negatively related with subjective well-being. The second step was used to test this hypothesis. Findings revealed
that, there was no significant relationship (β = -.030, ns). This indicates that individuals with
a poor work-life balance did not have a lesser subjective well-being than individuals with a work-life balance. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that income will moderate the relationship between work-life balance and subjective well-being. This was tested in the fourth step. The interaction between poor work-life balance and objective income predicting subjective well-being was
statistically insignificant (β = -.100, ns). Similarly, even though subjective income was
positively related to subjective well-being (β = .348, p< 0.01), the interaction between poor
work-life balance and subjective income predicting subjective well-being was not supported (β = .070, ns). This implies that income, whether objective or subjective does not ameliorate the effect of poor work-life on subjective well-being. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that need for achievement will moderate the relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being. Such that individuals with a high need for achievement will experience a higher subjective well-being than individuals with a low need for achievement although they have a poor work-life balance. The hypothesis was tested in
the fourth step. The hypothesis was statistically significant (β = -.199, p < 0.01). Need for
achievement moderated the relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported. An interaction plot is shown in figure 3 to facilitate a better understanding of the interaction. Individuals with high need for
achievement had a higher subjective well-being than individuals with a low need for achievement, regardless of experiencing poor work life balance.
6. Discussion
6.1. Discussion of results
The objective of this study was to improve understanding of the relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being, and to examine if need for achievement and income will moderate the relationship. Operationalising poor work-life balance objectively, the result indicated that poor work-life balance was not significantly related to subjective well-being. It implies that individuals whether balanced or experiencing a poor balance were not different in terms of their level of subjective well-being. Even though this result is unexpected and inconsistent with earlier research, it worth acknowledging that most of the earlier studies in the field, with one notable exception, Greenhaus et al 2003, operationalised work and non-work balance in terms of individuals’ perception of balance. This suggests that objective and subjective balance may relate to individual’s well-being differently.
Another reason for the findings in this study is that, perhaps people in the Netherlands have differing priorities when it comes to work and life roles. In part the result can be attributed to the fact that the poor work-life balance experienced is based on individuals’ choice to apportion time and energy in a particular manner and therefore does not make such individuals more or less happier than balance individuals. An alternative explanation may be that, cultural differences in terms of beliefs, attitudes and values attributed to work, family, community life participation, leisure and social life roles in general may affect how individuals’ work and life relates to their well-being. Therefore, cultural values may draw
Table 1: Mean, Standard Deviation, Reliabilities and Correlations Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Age 43.53 10.95 - 2. Gender 1.38 0.49 -.15* - 3. Marital Status 2.53 1.92 -.22** .11 - 4. Number of Children 2.22 1.20 .18** -.11 -.37** -
5. Work Life Balance 0.11 0.34 .16* -.06 -.06 .09 -
6. Work Life Balance² 0.13 0.18 -.09 -.10 .12 -.01 .42** -
7. Need for Achievement 5.48 0.84 -.03 -.12 .05 .12 .05 -.07 (.74)
8. Objective Income 1950.46 1051.73 .10 -.32** -.15* .10 .20** .06 -.06 -
9. Subjective Income 3.20 0.75 .08 -.09 -.15* .10 -.11 -.02 .12 .28** (.89)
10. Subjective Well-Being 4.93 1.05 -.04 -.09 -.05 .09 -.03 -.12 .44** .83 .39** (.86)
Note: N = 199, Values in parenthesis are the reliabilities *Correlation is significant at p <.05 (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at p <.01 (2-tailed)
Table 2: Hierarchical moderated regression analysis predicting Subjective Well-being
Steps Predictor Variables β ΔR² Sig
1 Age -.071 .362
Gender -.092 .230
Marital Status -.023 .779
Number of Children .083 .019 .310
2 Work Life Balance -.030 .001 .699
3 Need for Achievement .398 .000
Income (Objective) -.046 .521
Income (Subjective) .348 .293 .000
4 Work Life Balance × Need for achievement -.199 .003
Work Life Balance × Income (Objective) -.100 .161
Work Life Balance × Income (Subjective) .070 .047 .285
Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported for the step indicated N = 199
emphasis to either domain, as a result, subjective evaluation of balance maybe more important to some individuals than an absolute measure of balance.
Also, the results indicated that objective income does not moderate the relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being. This means that low income earners and high income earners do not differ in their level of subjective well-being when faced with a poor work-life balance. The result also showed a positive relation between subjective income and subjective well-being but the interaction between poor work-life balance and subjective income predicting well-being was not statistically supported. This means that even though being satisfied with your income relates to well-being, when encountered with a poor work-life balance, individuals who are satisfied with their income do not have a higher subjective well-being than individuals who are dissatisfied with their income.
Some explanations for these results may be that experiencing a poor balance and having a higher income can enable a person to pay others to undertake domestic chores, however, it does not give the individual the time and energy to spend the higher incomes on activities such as leisure, entertainment and to personally get involve and enjoy life as one may wish. This may mean that people need time to spend those incomes as well. A higher income might actually increase the individual’s desire to be more involved in life activities and therefore his or her subjective well-being will not improve since work is dominating life roles. Again, high income earners were not different from low income earners probably because the cost of the imbalance to the individual is far greater than the income received.
Finally, the result revealed that need for achievement moderates the relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being. Specifically, when individuals experience more time and involvement in their work role than non-work role, suggesting a poor work-life balance, their desire to make some accomplishment and achievement provides a buffering
Figure 2: Need for achievement as a moderator between poor work life balance and subjective well-being.
consequence on their subjective well-being. This is in support of the hypothesis suggesting that when individuals have a high need for achievement, the impact of a poor work-life balance will be more favourable than an individual with a low need for achievement.
6.2. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
As with most studies, this study is not without limitations. To begin with, this study was
based on a cross-sectional design which limits the ability to draw causal inferences with regards to the hypothesised relationships. The long-term effects of poor work-life balance and subjective well-being are unknown. A longitudinal study is needed to help establish the sequence of event in the individual’s life with regards to poor work-life balance and subjective well-being and thus produce stronger evidence of the exact relationship.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Balance Poor Balance
S u b ject iv e W el l-B ei n g
Work life Balance
High Need for Achievement Low Need for Achievement
In addition, the work-life balance measures used in this research had internal consistency below the recommended standard. More reliable objective measures should be developed to operationalise work-life balance. Again, the controversies and problematic nature of defining and measuring balance may have prevented a clearer understanding of the research in this field. As noted by Reiter (2007) the problem of defining balance has simply been accepted and then ignored. Therefore, given the increasing concerns regarding improving employee well-being, future research in this field may explore further by using both subjective and objective indicators to define and operationalise balance to help gain some understanding of how it relates to subjective well-being. A combined perspective may have produced different results, but that is not to say that these results are incorrect because it gives an extended insight on the objective view of the work-life balance literature.
Furthermore, the method of data collection which relied on initial participants to recruit other respondents might have resulted in respondents with similar characteristics and who are like-minded. Also, the sample used in this study leads to homogeneous composition of mainly individuals living in the Netherlands, which limits generalisation of the results to other nations. Future research should use a more diverse sample, cross country in nature, to analysis how these issues differ in various regions. It is most likely that this relationship will change from country to country, reflecting cultural values and setting.
Also, the study relied on self-reported data of working hours, which might have resulted in common data bias. Although this possibility cannot be ruled out, it has been noted that individuals’ are the only viable source of information about the number of hours they engage in work related activities at the work setting and outside the normal working hours (Ng and Feldman 2008). This makes self-reported data on working hours the preferred option in most studies.
7. Conclusion
Work-life balance is an important issue in the employment relationship. However, studies have indicated that employees are increasingly finding it difficult to maintain a balance between the work and life domains. This study examined the impact of poor work-life balance on subjective well-being and whether need for achievement and income will moderate the relationship. Even though the results showed that work-life balanced and poor work-life balanced individuals were not different in terms of the level of subjective well-being, it also indicated that individuals high in need for achievement had a higher subjective well-being compared to individuals low in need for achievement.
This research provides some important implications for practice. As it has been acknowledged in various researches, improved subjective well-being has important benefits for individuals and organizations. Addressing work-life issues can therefore help organizations enhance well-being of employees and subsequently lead to organizational performance. Accordingly, this research can help individuals and organizations to make decisions on how to improve well-being regardless of a poor work-life balance. It is particularly important to assist policy makers to make informed decision on the type of employees to employ as the need to achieve an improved subjective well-being irrespective of an inability to ensure a balance between work and non-work roles becomes intense.
Finally, this research makes key contributions to the work and non-work literature. In most cases, studies in the work and non-work literature were conducted drawing samples from white collar employees in mainly managerial positions. This research used both managerial and non-managerial samples from a wide range of industries. Again, it moved from the traditional work and non-work research to include individuals who were single, married, divorced and in a committed relationship, with or without children living with them. Another important aspect of this study is that a broader concept of work-life balance was
used to facilitate understanding of how managing diverse roles impact well-being. Also, it took into account a factor at the individual and organizational level that can ameliorate the relationship between poor work-life balance and subjective well-being. Thus, a more positive approach of how to maximise well-being in the face of a poor work-life balance was taken in this research.
8. References
Adkins, C. L., & Premeaux, S. F. (2012). Spending time: The impact of hours worked on work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 380-389.
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(2), 278.
Ball, R., & Chernova, K. (2008). Absolute income, relative income, and happiness. Social Indicators Research, 88(3), 497-529.
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. American Psychologist, 56(10), 781.
Baumann, N., Kaschel, R., & Kuhl, J. (2005). Striving for unwanted goals: Stress-dependent discrepancies between explicit and implicit achievement motives reduce subjective well-being and increase psychosomatic symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89(5), 781.
Beatty, C. A. (1996). The stress of managerial and professional women: Is the price too high? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(3), 233-251.
Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance
practices and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19(1), 9-22.
Boes, S., & Winkelmann, R. (2010). The effect of income on general life satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 95(1), 111-128.
Boyce, C. J., & Wood, A. M. (2011). Personality and the marginal utility of income: Personality interacts with increases in household income to determine life satisfaction. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 78(1), 183-191.
Brough, P., O'Driscoll, M. P., & Kalliath, T. J. (2005). The ability of ‘family
friendly’organizational resources to predict work–family conflict and job and family satisfaction. Stress and Health, 21(4), 223-234.
Brunstein, J., & Heckhausen, H. (2008). Achievement motivation.
Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 1061.
Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grässman, R. (1998). Personal goals and emotional well-being: The moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 494.
Burke, R. J. (2004). Work and family integration. Equal Opportunities International, 23(1/2), 1-5.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 169-198.
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Zivnuska, S. (2009). Is work—family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Human Relations, 62(10), 1459-1486.
Clark, S. C. (2001). Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 348-365.
Clarke, M. C., Koch, L. C., & Hill, E. J. (2004). The Work‐Family interface: Differentiating balance and fit. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 33(2), 121-140.
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119-169.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276.
Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Money and happiness: Income and subjective well-being across nations. Culture and Subjective Well-Being, , 185-218.
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(1), 124-197.
Eisenberger, R.Jones, J. R. Stinglhamber, F. Shanock, L. and Tenglund, A. (2005). Flow experiences at work: For high need achievers alone?26, 755–775.
Emmons, R. A. (1996). Striving and feeling: Personal goals and subjective well-being.
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., & Mansfield, L. R. (2012). Whistle while you work A review of the life satisfaction literature. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1038-1083.
Feldman, D. C. (2002). Managers' propensity to work longer hours: A multilevel analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 12(3), 339-357.
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.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Frijters, P., Haisken-DeNew, J. P., & Shields, M. A. (2004). Money does matter! evidence from increasing real income and life satisfaction in east germany following reunification. The American Economic Review, 94(3), 730-740.
Frisch, M. B. (2000). Improving mental and physical health care through quality of life therapy and assessment. Advances in quality of life theory and research (pp. 207-241) Springer.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. in J. C. quick & L. E. tetrick (eds.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.: Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162).
Frone, M. R. (2000). Work–family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 888.
Gardner, J., & Oswald, A. J. (2007). Money and mental wellbeing: A longitudinal study of medium-sized lottery wins. Journal of Health Economics, 26(1), 49-60.
Geurts, S. A., & Demerouti, E. (2003). Work/non-work interface: A review of theories and findings. The Handbook of Work and Health Psychology, 2, 279-312.
Golden, L., & Wiens-Tuers, B. (2006). To your happiness? extra hours of labor supply and worker well-being. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(2), 382-397.
Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Consequences of work-family conflict on employee well-being over time. Work & Stress, 15(3), 214-226.
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.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Foley, S. (2007). The intersection of work and family lives. Handbook of Career Studies, , 131-152.
Greenhaus, J., & Allen, T. (2011). Work-family balance: A review and extension of the literature. Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, , 165-183.
Gröpel, P., & Kuhl, J. (2009). Work–life balance and subjective well‐being: The mediating
role of need fulfilment. British Journal of Psychology, 100(2), 365-375.
Guest, D. E. (2002). Perspectives on the study of work-life balance. Social Science Information, 41(2), 255-279.
Haar, J., & Spell, C. S. (2003). Where is the justice? examining work-family backlash in new zealand: The potential for employee resentment. New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 28(1), 59-74.
Heneman III, H. G., & Schwab, D. P. (1985). Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional nature and measurement. International Journal of Psychology, 20(1), 129-141.
Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). Coping with overload and stress: Men
and women in Dual‐Earner families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(4), 847-859.
Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992). Work-family conflict in the dual-career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(1), 51-75.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week: The positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance*. Family Relations, 50(1), 49-58.
Howell, R. T., & Howell, C. J. (2008). The relation of economic status to subjective well-being in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 536.
Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. (2004). Understanding changes in american working time: A synthesis. Fighting for Time: Shifting Boundaries of Work and Social Life, , 25-45.
Janis, I. L., & Fadner, R. (1965). The coefficient of imbalance. In H. Lasswell & N. Leites et al. (Eds.), Language of politics (pp. 153–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(38), 16489-16493.
Keyes, C. L., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007.
Kinnunen*, U., Geurts, S., & Mauno, S. (2004). Work-to-family conflict and its relationship with satisfaction and well-being: A one-year longitudinal study on gender differences. Work & Stress, 18(1), 1-22.
Knabe, A., & Rätzel, S. (2010). Income, happiness, and the disutility of labour. Economics Letters, 107(1), 77-79.
Kofodimos, J. R. (1993). Balancing act: How managers can integrate successful careers and fulfilling personal lives. Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, S., Gambles, R., & Rapoport, R. (2007). The constraints of a ‘work–life
balance’approach: An international perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(3), 360-373.
Liu, Y., Liu, J., & Wu, L. (2010). Are you willing and able? roles of motivation, power, and politics in career growth. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1432-1460.
Livingston, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Emotional responses to work-family conflict: An examination of gender role orientation among working men and women.
Lockwood, N.R. (2003). Work/life balance: Challenges and solutions. Society for Human Resource Management: Research Quarterly, 2:1-12.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejnar, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 24.
Lucas, R. E., & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2006). Does the existence of social relationships matter for subjective well-being?
Lucas, R. E., Dyrenforth, P. S., & Diener, E. (2008). Four myths about subjective well‐being.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 2001-2015.
Lucas, R. E., & Schimmack, U. (2009). Income and well-being: How big is the gap between the rich and the poor? Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 75-78.
Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, , 417-432.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McDonald, P., Brown, K., & Bradley, L. (2005). Explanations for the provision-utilisation gap in work-life policy. Women in Management Review, 20(1), 37-55.
McMillan, H. S., Morris, M. L., & Atchley, E. K. (2011). Constructs of the work/life interface: A synthesis of the literature and introduction of the concept of work/life harmony. Human Resource Development Review, 10(1), 6-25.
Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Kotrba, L. M., LeBreton, J. M., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). A comparative test of work-family conflict models and critical examination of work-family linkages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(2), 199-218.
Mills, M. J. (2011). Associations among achievement measures and their collective
prediction of work involvement. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 360-364.
Moneta, G. B. (2011). Need for achievement, burnout, and intention to leave: Testing an occupational model in educational settings. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 274-278.
Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55(1), 56.
Nash, M. N. (1985). Making people productive Jossey-Bass.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). Long work hours: A social identity perspective on
meta‐analysis data. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 853-880.
Odle-Dusseau, H. N., Britt, T. W., & Bobko, P. (2012). Work–Family balance, well-being, and organizational outcomes: Investigating actual versus desired work/family time discrepancies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(3), 331-343.
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(3), 275-300.
Parker, B., & Chusmir, L. H. (1991). Motivation needs and their relationship to life success. Human Relations, 44(12), 1301-1312.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164.
Pereira, M. C., & Coelho, F. (2013). Work hours and well being: An investigation of moderator effects. Social Indicators Research, 111(1), 235-253.
Reiter, N. (2007). Work life balance: What DO you mean? the ethical ideology underpinning appropriate application. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 273-294.
Russell, H., O'Connell, P. J., & McGinnity, F. (2009). The impact of flexible working arrangements on work–life conflict and work pressure in ireland. Gender, Work & Organization, 16(1), 73-97.
Schüler, J., Sheldon, K. M., & Fröhlich, S. M. (2010). Implicit need for achievement moderates the relationship between competence need satisfaction and subsequent motivation. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 1-12.
