Support for the Work-Life Balance in Europe: The Impact of State, Workplace and Family Support on Work-Life Balance Satisfaction

Abstract

This article studies the relevance of different types of support for satisfaction with work life balance. More specifically, it investigates the relevance of state, instrumental and emotional workplace and family support, based on a survey of 7867 service-sector workers in eight European countries. The article starts by mapping available state, workplace and family support in order to determine which source dominates in which country and whether these sources match Esping-Andersen's welfare regime typology. The impact of the different support sources is then examined. Findings indicate that support for employee work-life balance satisfaction has a direct and moderating effect. Finally, results show that emotional support and instrumental support in the workplace have a complementary relationship. Whereas emotional family support has a positive impact on work-life balance satisfaction, instrumental family support does not.

Full text

Corresponding author:
Anja-Kristin Abendroth, Utrecht University, Sociology/ICS, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, Netherlands.
Email: A.K.Abendroth@uu.nl
Work, employment and society
1–23
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0950017011398892
wes.sagepub.com
Support for the work-life
balance in Europe: the
impact of state, workplace
and family support on
work-life balance satisfaction
Anja Abendroth
University Utrecht
Laura den Dulk
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Abstract
This article studies the relevance of different types of support for work-life balance satisfaction.
More specifically, it investigates the relevance of state, instrumental and emotional workplace and
family support, based on a survey of 7867 service-sector workers in eight European countries.
The article starts by mapping available state, workplace and family support in order to determine
which source dominates in which country and whether these sources match Esping-Andersen’s
welfare regime typology. The impact of the different support sources is then examined. Findings
indicate that support for employee work-life balance satisfaction has a direct and moderating
effect. Finally, results show that emotional support and instrumental support in the workplace
have a complementary relationship. Whereas emotional family support has a positive impact on
work-life balance satisfaction, instrumental family support does not.
Keywords
Europe, service sector, work-life balance satisfaction, work-life support
Introduction
There has been growing interest in Europe in the problems involved in combining work
and family, or – more broadly – in integrating working life and private life. Research
shows that employees who have trouble balancing work and personal life perform less
effectively. Conflicts and tensions between the demands at work and tasks at home have
Article

2 Work, employment and society
a disheartening effect on employees and increase their risk of health problems; they may
also lead to declining birth rates, the continued discrimination against women in the
labour market and constraints on well-being and quality of life (Allen et al., 2000;
OECD, 2001).
Europe has different welfare state regimes in which work-life balance support var-
ies. Research has noted differences between both government and workplace support
across countries (Den Dulk and Van Doorne-Huiskes, 2007; OECD, 2007). While there
has been an increase in public provision all over Europe, the most extensive national
work-life policies can still be found in Scandinavian countries. Regarding employer
support, research shows that the public sector and large organisations are taking the
lead. In other European countries, work-life balance support is seen as a private respon-
sibility, with people depending mainly on help from relatives or friends. The article
starts by mapping the level of work-life balance support across eight different European
countries. Support available at the national, workplace and family or private-life levels
is considered. Second, the article examines how available support impacts overall sat-
isfaction with the way the work-life balance is managed in the countries studied; a
distinction is made between instrumental and emotional support at the various levels
(Behson, 2005; House, 1981).
This article contributes to existing literature in three different ways. First, research
on the work-life interface has so far focused mainly on predictors and consequences of
work-family conflict. Here a more positive approach is taken. The aim of the present
study is to consider how to maximise satisfaction with the work-life balance, specifi-
cally by investigating the role of support. Several studies allude to this relationship
(Carlson and Perrewé, 1999; Roxburgh, 1999; Van Daalen et al., 2006; Warren and
Johnson, 1995), but most have focused on only one aspect of support: support from
the spouse and/or organisational support. Studies rarely include informal help from
relatives and friends or paid domestic help, even though people often use a combination
of formal and informal support (Knijn, 2003). Second, there is little research on sup-
port and work-life balance that considers resources at different levels in a single design.
One exception is a study by Aycan and Eskin (2005), who analysed the impact of
spousal support, organisational support and level of satisfaction with day care and/or
home-based childcare on work-life conflict for a Turkish sample. Third, cross-national
research is limited in this field (Poelmans, 2005).
The present study makes use of data taken from the EU project Quality of Life in a
Changing Europe. The data were collected from service-sector workers in eight European
countries: Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, the UK, Portugal, Germany, Bulgaria and
Hungary.
Theory
Satisfaction with work-life balance
The term ‘work-life balance’ is widely used in the press, in public discussion, and by
organisations attempting to be ‘family friendly’ (Greenhaus et al., 2003; OECD, 2001).
An examination of the literature soon reveals that definitions of ‘work-life balance’ tend

Abendroth and Dulk 3
to focus on the interface between work and private life (Resch, 2003). For many authors,
the term refers to a harmonious interface between different life domains (Frone, 2003).
The most common definition is ‘… a lack of conflict or interference between work and
family roles’ (Frone, 2003: 145). There is a large body of literature examining the predic-
tors and outcomes of work-family conflict based on the definition given by Greenhaus
and Beutell (1985: 77): ‘a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the
work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect’. This definition
stresses the bidirectional relationship. Family can interfere with work and work can
interfere with private life. Recently, work-family enrichment and work-life facilitation
concepts have stressed positive interdependencies, noting that work can also benefit
private life and vice versa (Greenhaus and Powell, 2006; Grzywacz and Marks, 2000).
Some scholars criticise the concept of balance and prefer the concept of work and
personal life integration or interaction (e.g. Warhurst et al., 2008). They argue that the
term work-life balance implies that work and life are distinct spheres and that time
should be split equally between work and private life. Rapoport et al. (2002) point out
that people may have differing priorities in that regard, and that the aim is not always an
even balance between the two. However, Campbell Clark (2000) notes that not everyone
wants to integrate the domains of work and family/personal life. On the contrary, some
people balance their work and personal life by keeping the two strictly separate.
This article focuses on overall satisfaction with the work-life balance rather than
examining the cross-domain transfers of experiences (Valcour, 2007). Based on Valcour’s
concept (2007), satisfaction with the work-life balance is defined as ‘an overall level of
contentment resulting from an assessment of one’s degree of success at meeting work
and family role demands’ (Valcour, 2007: 1512). This more positive understanding
follows the example of ‘positive psychology’ and the shifting focus in public health from
curative approaches to health promotion (Frone, 2003; Hurrelmann, 2003). By focusing
on overall satisfaction with the way work and personal life are managed, the facts that the
significance of work or family life differs between individuals and that private life
encompasses more than the family role alone are taken into account.
Work-life balance support in different European countries
Any satisfactory definition of support must answer the question ‘Who gives what to
whom regarding which problems?’ (House, 1981: 22). The problem investigated in
this article is how to achieve a high level of satisfaction with one’s work-life balance.
Sources of support can range from informal (family and friends) to professionals or
semi-professionals who offer special services (House, 1981). Similarly, Esping-Andersen
(1990) shows that sources of support, or in his words sources of welfare, can come from
the state, market or family. These various sources of support can also be identified within
the work-life balance context. Sources of support can be found at the private level (family
and friends), the workplace level and the national level. For example, at the national level
public policies such as publicly funded childcare, statutory leave provisions or policies
regarding flexible working practices are sources of support (Kovacheva et al., 2007;
Saraceno et al., 2005). Workplaces may supplement state provisions by offering working
arrangements such as control over working hours and work tasks or working from home

4 Work, employment and society
(Den Dulk, 2001; OECD, 2001). At the private level, the partner or friends can help with
household duties and childcare as well as offer emotional support, for example talking
over work problems (Shaffer et al., 2005; Van Daalen et al., 2006).
Regarding the availability of support from these different sources, welfare state clas-
sifications (Anttonen and Sipilä, 1996; Blossfeld and Drobnič, 2001; Esping-Andersen,
1990, 1999) suggest that the state is the main provider of support in social democratic
countries such as Sweden and Finland and in former socialist countries such as Bulgaria
and Hungary, although in the latter state provision has declined since the transition to a
market economy (Wall, 2007). In conservative welfare states (Germany) and southern
European countries (Spain, Portugal), it is the family that provides support, and in liberal
countries (UK), the market is considered the main provider of work-life balance support.
This article first maps the level of work-life balance support across eight European
countries and examines which support source (state, workplace, family/private life)
dominates. It then analyses the impact of these different support sources on work-life
balance satisfaction.
Impact of work-life balance support
Opinions vary in the literature as to the impact of social support. A resources-and-
demands theoretical framework reveals both a direct and a buffering effect (Demerouti
et al., 2001; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).
House (1981) shows that support can enhance health and well-being directly, regard-
less of stress levels. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) support this idea by showing that job
resources have a direct negative effect on burnout and a direct positive effect on job
engagement. The assumption that support has a direct effect proposes that everybody
benefits from high levels of support (House, 1981).
In addition, the resources-and-demands approach suggests that resources can also
help people cope with demands (Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).
Job demands may consist of long hours, shift work, frequent travel or job pressure.
Examples of private-life demands are care responsibilities for older relatives and chil-
dren. These demands are not necessarily negative when adequate resources exist to
meet them (Moen and Chermack, 2005; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). ‘Social support
could mitigate or buffer the effect of potentially stressful objective situations (such as
a boring job, heavy workloads, unemployment) by causing people initially to perceive
the situation as less threatening or stressful’ (House, 1981: 37–38). Schaufeli and
Bakker (2004) therefore expected to find a negative relationship between demands and
resources in their study, since job resources potentially reduce job demands.
Transferring this idea to the work-life balance context, evidence for this relationship
can be found in prior studies. Regarding workplace support, for example, Valcour (2007)
showed that working hours have a negative impact on satisfaction with the work-family
balance and that job complexity and job control have positive impacts. However, other
studies have focused mainly on the impact of workplace and family characteristics on
perceived work-family conflict, rather than satisfaction with the work-life balance.
For instance, research indicates that work-family policies are negatively related to the
work-to-family conflict (Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Thompson et al., 1999). Allen

Abendroth and Dulk 5
(2001) suggested that the availability of family supportive benefits might be indirectly
related to work-life conflict through the perceived family supportiveness of the organisa-
tion. Her results indicate that workers who perceived the organisation as less family
supportive experienced more work-life conflict and less job satisfaction than employees
who perceived their organisation as more family supportive.
Prominent in the research on private-life support are studies on spousal support.
Existing studies show both a direct and a buffering effect of spousal support on work-
family conflict (e.g. Matsui et al., 1995; Van Daalen et al., 2006). Other sources of
support, such as help from grandparents, friends, neighbours and paid domestic help,
are a less frequent topic of research.
Regarding state support, several studies map instrumental support on a national level,
that is, the level and nature of public work-life policies: childcare facilities, leave arrange-
ments and policies regarding working hours (Den Dulk, 2001; Kovacheva et al., 2007;
Saraceno et al., 2005). However, less is known about their impact on work-life balance
satisfaction.
In conclusion, the following hypotheses are formulated on the impact of national,
workplace and private-life support:
1. (Hypothesis 1) The greater the support at the national, workplace and private
level, the higher the level of work-life balance satisfaction.
2. (Hypothesis 2) Support at the national, workplace and private level moderates the
negative relationship between work and household demands and work-life bal-
ance satisfaction.
The difference between emotional and instrumental support
Besides distinguishing between different sources of support, the existing literature also
differentiates between instrumental and emotional support in the private domain and
the workplace. Employer work-life policies can be seen as instrumental support in the
workplace. Emotional support, on the other hand, can come from the supervisor as well
as from colleagues when they show empathy for the employee’s work-life balance
situation. In the private domain, emotional support may come from the spouse, friends,
neighbours and relatives. Instrumental support is, for example, paid domestic help. At
the national level, instrumental support encompasses public work-life policies aimed
at creating a successful work-life balance. Emotional support, however, is harder to
identify at the country level, because it concerns people one interacts with directly.
The distinction between emotional and instrumental support raises questions about
the relationship between them. Research findings suggest that instrumental support in
the workplace is not enough to achieve a successful work-life balance (Den Dulk and
Peper, 2007; Lyness and Kropf, 2005; Warren and Johnson, 1995). Supervisor and col-
league support is crucial for the actual take-up of workplace policies and for managing
work and personal life. Behson (2005) found that emotional support explains more
variance in work-life conflict than work-family benefits. However, there is no evidence
that this finding is also true for work-life balance satisfaction. Moreover, emotional
support alone is probably insufficient as well. Arrangements such as childcare or leave

6 Work, employment and society
also appear to be necessary. It is therefore more likely that the two forms of support
enhance each other’s positive impacts as formulated in the following hypotheses:
1. (Hypothesis 3a) Instrumental and emotional workplace support reinforce each
other’s positive impact on work-life balance satisfaction.
2. (Hypothesis 3b) Instrumental and emotional private-life support reinforce each
other’s positive impact on work-life balance satisfaction.
The conceptual model shown in Figure 1 visualises the hypothesised relationships.
The effect of demands on work-life balance satisfaction is shown by a dotted arrow, as
this relationship is not a central focus of this study. Our study focuses on support.
Demands are included to determine whether support has a moderating effect. Previous
work-life conflict research suggests including the following variables as demands: work
pressure, working time, care responsibilities outside the household and children at home
(Frone, 2003; Moen and Chermack, 2005; Valcour, 2007). In addition, gender is added
as a control variable. Women still bear the main responsibility for domestic work, mak-
ing it harder for them to achieve a satisfactory work-life balance (Rothbard and Dumas,
2006; Valcour, 2007). Findings regarding the effect of gender are not always conclusive,
however (Frone, 2003; Rothbard and Dumas, 2006). Another control variable is education.
Employees with a higher education are often employed in professional and managerial
jobs characterised by greater responsibility and blurring boundaries that may lead to
work-home interference (taking work home and being preoccupied with work at home)
(Milliken and Dunn-Jensen, 2005). Finally, the analysis includes age as a control
Controls: Gender, education, age, sector
Instrumental support
National level: public policies
Workplace level: job control and
flexible work arrangements
Private level: having a partner, paid
and informal help with domestic tasks
Work-life balance satisfaction
Demands
- Working hours
- Work pressure
- Care responsibilities outside the
household
- Children at home
Emotional support
Workplace level: Supervisor and
colleague support
Private-life level: Quality of
relationship with relatives, social life
and absence of conflict with partner
–
–
+
+
+
–
Figure 1. Conceptual model – influence of support factors on work-life balance satisfaction

Abendroth and Dulk 7
variable since previous research has shown that life satisfaction in general increases with
age (Argyle, 2001).
Research method
The data were collected during the EU project Quality of Work and Life in a Changing
Europe among a sample of 7867 service-sector workers in eight European countries
(sample size per country varies from 676 respondents in Sweden to 1373 respondents in
Portugal). The service sector was chosen because it represents a growing sector of the
economy encompassing both professional workers and lower skilled workers. In particu-
lar the latter is important, since existing studies mainly address professional or manage-
rial workers (e.g. Casper et al., 2007). In each country, a national team of researchers1
surveyed employees from a bank/insurance company, a retail company, an IT/telecom
company and a public hospital. In each country similar service-sector organisations were
selected to increase comparability. Large banks/insurance companies were included
because they are often at the forefront regarding supportive work-life policies. They are
highly visible in society and therefore sensitive to institutional pressures to offer work-
life balance support (Den Dulk, 2001). Retail companies (shop chains) were added
because of the high proportion of lower skilled jobs and female workers. IT and telecom
companies are characterised by highly competitive careers and a high proportion of pro-
fessional workers, and large hospitals located in major cities are included as representa-
tives of the public sector. The sample sizes differ somewhat across sectors: 1651
respondents working in hospitals, 2628 respondents in the telecommunications sector,
1670 respondents in the retail sector, and 1918 respondents in the banking/insurance
sector. Sector is therefore added as a control variable. Furthermore, the response rates for
Bulgaria, Finland and Sweden are relatively high and the response rates for Hungary and
the UK relatively low. The response rates lie between 17 percent and 89 percent (Van der
Lippe and Den Dulk, 2008). The questionnaire was developed collaboratively by national
researchers to take account of the diverse national perspectives. It was translated into the
national languages and back-translated to ensure comparability.
Measurement
To measure satisfaction with the work-life balance (WLB), three items from the original
five-item work-life balance satisfaction scale developed by Valcour (2007) were used.
One of the two items on resources to meet work and family demands was selected: ‘how
satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way you divide your time between work and
personal life’. In addition, a selection was made of two out of the three items that
measure respondents’ satisfaction with combining work and personal life: ‘your ability
to meet the needs of your job and the needs of your personal or family life’ and ‘the
opportunity you have to do your job well and yet be able to perform home-related duties
properly’. Possible responses ranged from ‘very satisfied’ to ‘very dissatisfied’ on a
five-point scale (Cronbach’s alpha on the three items is 0.894).
Support on the national level was not included in the data set. Additional informa-
tion about public policies regarding leave arrangements, public childcare and flexible

8 Work, employment and society
work arrangements was used to describe support on this level (see Appendix). Leave
arrangements were classified as highly supportive if the state provides long and well
paid maternity and parental leave and encourages men’s involvement in caring tasks
with paternity leave or special daddy quotas. Finland, Sweden, Bulgaria and Hungary
are rated as highly supportive given their generous leave arrangements. For instance,
in Sweden working parents are entitled to 18 months parental leave paid at 80 percent
of earnings. Regarding childcare, the percentage of children in formal childcare aged 0-2,
childcare costs as the percentage of the family net income, and shortages in available
childcare were used as indicators for high, moderate or low public childcare support.
Sweden and Finland score high on public childcare support while Portugal and the UK
score relatively low. Entitlements regarding flexible working arrangements were
classified as highly supportive if they allowed employees to reduce or enhance working
hours according to family or personal needs. Portugal, Hungary and Bulgaria lack such
entitlements while in the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland legislation offers the most
extensive entitlement to flexibility. Notably, public work-life policies tend to focus on
working parents and less on workers without children or workers who care for elderly
relatives. Exceptions are the flexible work arrangements in Germany and the Netherlands
that apply to all employees instead of only to working parents with young children, as
is the case in Sweden, Finland, Portugal and the UK.
In the analysis, dummy variables were included to show whether the situation in the
various countries had an impact on work-life balance satisfaction and whether differ-
ences between countries occur. This method is an indirect measure of state support, but
the limited number of countries involved ruled out multi-level analysis.
Instrumental support in the workplace was measured by the following variables: use
of flexible starting and finishing times, compressed work week and working from
home (yes/no) in the past 12 months. Flexible work arrangements are treated as sepa-
rate variables in the analysis because they vary in their impact on the combination of
work and personal life (Peters et al., 2009). Moreover, these variables have a rather low
correlation (see correlation matrix in the Appendix) and do not form a reliable scale. In
addition, job control was measured by seven items, five from the scale of Karasek and
Theorell (1990) and two new ones which refer to control over work time and place
(Cronbach’s alpha 0.792).
Emotional support in the workplace was measured by three items referring to supervi-
sor support and three to colleague support, such as ‘I am comfortable discussing my pri-
vate life with my direct superior’ and ‘My colleagues support employees who (temporarily)
want to reduce their working hours for private reasons’. The measuring instrument was
based on the work of Thompson et al. (1999) and Dikkers et al. (2004, 2007). Possible
responses ranged from ‘entirely agree’ (5) to ‘entirely disagree’ (1). Cronbach’s alpha
ranged from 0.696 for supervisor support to 0.747 for colleague support.
Instrumental support at the private level was measured by including information on
paid domestic help and help with domestic tasks by family members, friends or neigh-
bours. Answers ranged from ‘never’ (1) to ‘always (every day)’ (4). In order to condense
the information for analysis purposes, help from relatives and help from friends and
neighbours were combined as informal help. Moreover, having a partner was included
as an indicator of instrumental support at the private level since it allows people to share
domestic tasks.

Abendroth and Dulk 9
Emotional support for the work-life balance at private level was measured by the
questions: ‘Broadly speaking, how do you feel about your social life?’ and ‘How do you
feel about your relationship with your relatives?’ Possible responses ranged from ‘very
good’ (1) to ‘very bad’ (5). The data suggest that the two variables refer to different
constructs since correlation and Cronbach’s alpha are too weak to form a reliable scale.
The variables were recoded to arrive at higher values for high levels of emotional
support. Within the dataset, these questions most closely represented emotional support
in private life, although it should be noted that they do not refer directly to work-life bal-
ance support. Absence of spousal conflicts concerning domestic work was also included
as an indicator for emotional support. In order to include both single respondents and
respondents with a partner, the single respondents were assigned the mean score of the
respondents with a partner on the conflict question.
Relevant data about work and household demands were also included in the analysis
with a question about actual working hours,2 perceived work pressure, having children
or not, and whether people take care of any relatives or friends. Gender, education (using
the ISCED classification), age and sector were included as control variables.
Findings
Satisfaction with work-life balance
The results regarding average work-life balance satisfaction indicate that employees in
the Netherlands have the highest satisfaction rate, with a mean of 10.89. The satisfaction
rate in the social democratic countries is also high, with means of 10.48 for Sweden and
10.27 for Finland. The lowest values are found in Portugal and the UK with a mean of
9.50 and 9.58 respectively. The values for the post-communist countries are only slightly
higher with a mean of 9.73 for Hungary and a mean of 10.07 for Bulgaria. Germany has
a moderate satisfaction rate (10.12). For all countries, the standard deviation ranges
between 2.0 and 3.0. The differences between the countries are significant.
Work-life balance support on the national, workplace and private level
Table 1 shows that the degree of support varies between countries and does not always
correspond with existing welfare regime typologies. A large amount of support on the
national, workplace and private level is typical for service-sector workers in Sweden.
The mean values in Sweden for emotional support in the workplace and private life and
for instrumental workplace support are both high, combined with a high level of state
support. One exception is the low reported use of paid and informal domestic help,
suggesting that Swedish service-sector workers receive little instrumental support at the
private level. Finland has similar levels of support, except for instrumental support in
the workplace. The Finnish service-sector workers in our study gave relatively low
scores for job control and take-up of flexible work arrangements. Dutch service-sector
workers report relatively high levels of support. Together with the Swedish and Finnish
workers, the Dutch workers also have a high average score for work-life balance
satisfaction.

10 Work, employment and society
Table 1. State, workplace, private work-life balance support per country
Support
level
Factors Countries
SE FI DE NL PT BG HU UK
national
level
support
Leave (Length, payment & gender) High High Moderate Low to
moderate
Low to
moderate
High High Low to
moderate
Childcare (Availability, affordability &
coverage)
High High Low to
Moderate
Moderate
to high
Low Moderate Moderate Low
Encouragement of flexible
arrangements (Entitlements)
High High Moderate High Low Low Low Moderate
workplace
level
support
Supervisor support***
(M; R: 3-12)
10.62 10.11 9.29 10.59 9.23 8.69 8.91 9.28
Colleague support*** (M; R: 3-12) 10.95 11.02 9.68 11.20 9.28 9.09 9.30 10.02
Job control*** (M; R: 7–28) 16.57 12.68 15.22 15.35 16.21 14.33 15.83 13.19
Flexible starting and finishing
times (M; R: 1-0)
.72 .33 .56 .31 .39 .34 .38 .37
Compressed work week (M; R: 1-0) .13 .10 .20 .12 .09 .23 .13 .16
Working from home (M; R: 1-0) .26 .10 .15 .14 .11 .06 .15 .15
private
level
support
Quality relationship with
relatives*** (M; R: 1-5)
4.04 3.89 3.73 4.12 4.07 4.11 3.85 3.93
Quality social life***
(M; R: 1-5)
3.90 3.66 3.69 3.86 3.41 3.14 3.20 3.24
Informal help with domestic
tasks*** (M; R: 2-8)
2.18 2.15 2.13 2.23 2.44 2.57 2.39 2.25
Paid help with domestic tasks***
(M; R: 1-4)
1.10 1.03 1.08 1.24 1.71 1.13 1.10 1.13
Absence of conflict with partner
about household tasks*** (M; R: 1-5)
3.65 3.54 3.66 3.87 3.54 3.56 3.87 3.57
Having a partner*** (M; R: 1-0) .74 .77 .74 .80 .72 .67 .79 .77
Note: *** p ≤ 0.001; ** p ≤ 0.01; *p ≤ 0.05.
Abbreviations: M = Mean; R = Range

Abendroth and Dulk 11
Relatively low levels of support are found in the British sample: medium/low support
on the national level, low means for instrumental support in the workplace and for
emotional and instrumental support in private life. In the former socialist countries,
Bulgaria and Hungary, state support has been traditionally generous, although less state
support was found for flexible work arrangements than in the West European countries.
Emotional support from supervisors and colleagues got relatively low scores in Bulgaria
and Hungary. By contrast, emotional and instrumental support in private life received
relatively high scores. In Germany, the values for emotional support in private life are
relatively low. In the other support resources, Germany takes a middle position. In
Portugal, national support receives relatively low marks, but the scores for private
support are relatively high, i.e. support from relatives and friends, with the highest score
for paid domestic help across the eight countries.
Impact of support on satisfaction with work-life balance
To determine the direct and buffering effect of various support types, a hierarchical
regression analysis of all countries was performed (Table 2). Since the regression analysis
was performed on the total sample, it was possible to evaluate national support by includ-
ing country dummies. Sweden was used as a reference category because it provides the
highest level of national support.
First, a baseline model (Model 1) is presented, which includes workplace and house-
hold demands and control variables. As expected, demands are important in explaining
work-life balance satisfaction, in particular job demands.
Model 2 adds instrumental workplace support and Model 3 emotional workplace
support. The findings indicate that instrumental and emotional workplace support
increases the explained variance. In particular, job control and supervisor support posi-
tively impact work-life balance satisfaction. Colleague support also promotes work-life
balance satisfaction, but the effect is reduced once private support is added. Contrary to
our hypothesis, the take-up of flexible work arrangements does not make a significant
impact.
Model 4 includes instrumental private-life support and Model 5 emotional private-life
support. Comparing these two models suggests that emotional support has the greatest
relevance. Adding instrumental private-life support has no significant effect, except for
having a partner. However, the impact of having a partner disappears once emotional
private-life support factors are added. The same applies to colleague support.
Model 6 takes national support into account alongside the other support, demand and
control variables. As can be seen, after including the country dummies the explained
variance increased from .161*** to .331***. The national arrangements in Germany are
significantly less supportive than the arrangements in Sweden. Moreover, the findings
indicate that national arrangements in Finland and Bulgaria contribute more to the work-
life balance satisfaction of service-sector workers than do the arrangements in Sweden.
The table ends with Model 7, which includes significant interaction effects investigat-
ing the buffering effects of support on the significant negative effects of demands. The
results reveal two buffering effects: quality of social life and informal help with domestic
tasks, both of which appear to moderate the impact of work pressure. Moreover, adding

12 Work, employment and society
Table 2. Regression analysis explaining satisfaction with work-life balance (N=5904)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Demands:
Work pressure -.325*** -.310*** -.290*** -.290*** -.248*** -.275*** -.272***
Actual working hours -.154*** -.186*** -.160*** -.156*** -.121*** -.131*** -.130***
Care responsibilities -.031* -.029* -.027* -.025* -.012 -.021 -.021
Children at home -.060*** -.070*** -.068*** -.077*** -.010 -.018 -.017
Instrumental workplace support:
Job control .148*** .123*** .124** .083*** .107*** .106***
Flexible starting and finishing times -.014 -.022 -.022 -.029* -.018 -.019
Compressed work week .012 .010 .010 .009 .002 .002
Working from home -.015 -.023 -.024 -.022 -.024 -.024
Emotional workplace support:
Supervisor support .108*** .107*** .078*** .073*** .073***
Colleague support .063*** .063*** .026* .026 .026
Instrumental private-life support:
Informal help with domestic tasks -.009 -.006 -.018 -.022
Paid help with domestic tasks -.014 -.031* -.011 -.012
Having a partner .036** .007 .005 .005
Emotional private-life support:
Quality of relationship with relatives .098*** .086*** .086***
Quality of social life .289*** .298*** .295***
Absence of conflict with partner about
household tasks
.076*** .078*** .078***
National level support:
Country (Ref. Cat. Sweden)
Finland .066*** .065***
UK .011 .011
Netherlands -.026 -.025
Germany -.052** -.052**

Abendroth and Dulk 13
Table 2. (Continued)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Portugal -.013 -.013
Hungary .017 .016
Bulgaria .102*** .100***
Interaction effects:
Work pressure* Quality of social life .027*
Work pressure* Informal help with
domestic tasks
.026*
Control variables:
Gender: Female -.022 -.007 -.015 -.015 -.036** -.050*** -.049***
Education high .000 -.015 -.015 -.012 -.013 -.041** -.042**
Age .099*** .082*** .087*** .082*** .066*** .075*** .073***
Sector (Ref. Cat. Telecommunication)
Retail .008 .002 .002 .005 .006 .005 .007
Hospital .042** .033* .039** .041** .030* .041** .041**
Bank .006 .005 .008 .011 -.007 .000 .000
Expl. variance
(Adjusted R²)
.161*** .178*** .198*** .199*** .314*** .330*** .331***
Notes: *** p ≤ 0.001; ** p ≤ 0.01; *p ≤ 0.05
Abbreviations: Ref. Cat. = Reference Category.
Continuous variables were centred around the mean

14 Work, employment and society
support variables reduces the negative impact of job pressure, working hours, care
responsibilities and children at home. Significant effects are found for the control varia-
bles gender, education, age and the hospital sector. The latter suggests that service-sector
workers in the public sector are more satisfied with their work-life balance than workers
in the private sector, such as IT/telecommunications. This finding corresponds to research
showing that the public sector is in general more supportive of work-life balance issues
than the private sector (Den Dulk, 2001).
To conclude, support appears to be important in explaining satisfaction with work-
life balance. Adding support variables in the regression model increased the explained
variance and direct positive effects of support on satisfaction with work-life balance
were found. Moreover, support was revealed to have a buffering effect with respect to
the negative impact of job demands on work-life balance satisfaction. This finding
provides evidence for Hypothesis 1, which predicted a direct effect for the different
support options, and Hypothesis 2, which predicted a moderating effect. Comparing
emotional and instrumental support in the workplace and in private life shows that
both impact positively on work-life balance satisfaction except for flexible work
arrangements and informal or paid household help, suggesting that both instrumental
and emotional support are needed for higher work-life balance satisfaction. In the case
of private-life support, however, findings are less straightforward. Only emotional
support increases the explained variance substantially and positively influences work-
life balance satisfaction, a finding that runs contrary to Hypothesis 3b. No significant
interaction effects were found between emotional and instrumental support in private
life or the workplace, indicating that instrumental and emotional support do not tend
to reinforce each other. Rather, emotional support and instrumental support in the
workplace appear to have a complementary relationship.
Discussion and concluding remarks
This article examines the impact of different sources of work-life balance support on
work-life balance satisfaction among service-sector workers in eight European coun-
tries. The findings indicate that the countries under study differ in the support available
from different sources (state, workplace, private life). As expected for a southern
European country, service-sector workers in Portugal report a relatively high level of
private-life support and moderate state and workplace support. Within the UK, a liberal
welfare state, service-sector workers do not report high levels of workplace support, as
might be expected based on the welfare state typology of Esping-Andersen (1990, 1999).
In Germany, an example of the conservative welfare state regime, workers reported a
fairly low level of family support. The Scandinavian countries score high marks on state
support, but the level of reported workplace and family support is also relatively high.
The same is true for Dutch service-sector workers. Hence, the Netherlands appears to
resemble the Scandinavian countries more than the other conservative welfare state in
this study (Germany). A closer look at the results for the social democratic countries and
the Netherlands supports the idea that state support can stimulate workplace support
(Den Dulk, 2001). The state can sensitise employers to the topic of work-life balance and
encourage them to offer support as well. However, the post-communist countries in this

Abendroth and Dulk 15
study, with their strong tradition of state support, do not show a similar pattern. Workplace
support in Bulgaria and Hungary is relatively modest. There, the transition to a market
economy has been accompanied by job insecurity and unemployment, which may limit
employer support expectations (Kovacheva et al., 2007). Due to the limited number of
organisations in this study and the focus on the service sector, only tentative conclusions
can be drawn regarding the relationship between different levels of support. Future
research should elaborate on the finding that the variation in support does not always
follow Esping-Andersen’s welfare regime typology (1990, 1999) by extending the
number of workplaces and sectors within countries.
The results suggest that support has a direct and buffering effect on work-life balance
satisfaction. In the workplace, job control and supervisor support appear to be crucial. In
private life, emotional support, i.e. having a good relationship with family and friends
and little or no spousal conflict regarding domestic chores, has a positive impact on
work-life balance satisfaction. This study’s findings also indicate that instrumental and
emotional workplace support appear to have a complementary relationship and that both
are needed for a high level of work-life balance satisfaction.
Nevertheless, not all types of support appear to have a positive impact on work-life
balance satisfaction. To begin with, although flexible work arrangements are increas-
ingly put forward as potential solutions for work-family conflicts (Warhurst et al., 2008),
they were found to have not a positive but rather a possible negative impact. Research
indicates that the impact of flexible work arrangements depends very much on the degree
of employee control over working time and place. Hence, not flexibility as such but the
degree of control increases people’s ability to manage work and family demands suc-
cessfully, in line with the positive impact of job control found in this and previous stud-
ies. An additional argument put forward in the debate on the impact of flexible work
arrangements is that flexibility may result in blurred boundaries, making it harder to free
oneself from work (Peters et al., 2009).
Second, the findings indicate a possible negative relationship between informal and
paid household help and work-life balance satisfaction. Causality might be an explana-
tion for this finding. Domestic chores may be considered an individual responsibility and
receiving help with them inappropriate. Hence, people may turn to family and friends or
hire domestic help when work-life balance problems occur rather than viewing it as a
possible resource to manage work and personal life. In order to increase our knowledge
of the role of instrumental support in the private domain, longitudinal research is needed.
Emotional support in the private domain appears to be highly relevant. Both a direct
effect and a buffering effect for work pressure were found. However, the method used to
measure emotional support from relatives and friends can be improved. Future research
should develop more refined measures for such support. Future research should also
consider more fine-grained measures for national instrumental support for different
groups of employees. National policies tend to focus on working parents and one may
question whether these policies also form a proxy for work-life support for workers with-
out children.
In conclusion, the findings of this study suggest that the state, the employer and the
family all contribute to employee satisfaction with the work-life balance and to help
employees deal with the demands placed on them in different life domains. Moreover,

16 Work, employment and society
the results indicate that support options should be evaluated for their specific usefulness
and implemented with caution.
Acknowledgements
The research has been funded by the European Commission Sixth Framework Programme Project
‘Quality of Life in a Changing Europe’ (Quality, 028945).
Notes
1 Utrecht University – Tanja van der Lippe, Laura den Dulk, Anneke van Doorne-Huiskes, Joop
Schippers and Els van Kampen; University of Hamburg – Sonja Drobnič, Barbara Beham,
Roland Verwiebe and Patrick Präg; CIES-Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology –
Maria das Dores Guerreiro and Eduardo Rodrigues; University of Jyväskylä – Jouko Nätti,
Timo Anttila and Sakari Taipale; Central European University – Eva Fodor and Dorottya
Redai; New Europe Centre for Regional Studies – Siyka Kovacheva and Stanimir Kabaivanov;
Göteborg University – Margareta Bäck-Wiklund, Linda Lane and Stephan Szücs; Middlesex
University – Suzan Lewis, Annabelle Mark, David Etherington and Mick Brookes.
2 Actual working hours were not available in Finland and contractual hours were used instead.
References
Allen TD (2001) Family supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 58(3): 414–435.
Allen TD, Herst DEL, Bruck CS, et al. (2000) Consequences associated with work-to-family
conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
5(2): 278–308.
Anttonen A and Sipilä J (1996) European social care services: is it possible to identify models?
Journal of European Social Policy 6(2): 82–100.
Argyle M (2001) The Psychology of Happiness. London: Routledge.
Aycan Z and Eskin M (2005) Relative contributions of childcare, spousal support and organiza-
tional support in reducing work-family conflict for men and women: the case of Turkey. Sex
Roles 53(7/8): 453–471.
Behson SJ (2005) The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational work-family
support. Journal of Vocational Behavior 66(3): 487–500.
Blossfeld HP and Drobnič S (2001) Careers of Couples in Contemporary Societies: From Male
Breadwinner to Dual Earner Families. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campbell Clark S (2000) Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance. Human
Relations 53(6): 747–770.
Carlson DS and Perrewé PL (1999) The role of social support in the stressor-strain relationship: an
examination of work-family conflict. Journal of Management 25(4): 513–540.
Casper WJ, Eby LT, Bordeaux C, et al. (2007) A review of research methods in IO/OB work-family
research. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(1): 28–43.
Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, et al. (2001) The job demands-resources model of
burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 499–512.
Dikkers J, Geurts S, den Dulk L, Peper B and Kompier MAJ (2004) Relations among work-
home culture, the utilization of work-home arrangements, and work-home interference.
International Journal of Stress Management 11(4): 323–345.
Dikkers J, Geurts SAE, den Dulk L, Peper B, Taris TW and Kompier MAJ (2007) Dimensions
of work-home culture and their relations with the use of work-home arrangements and work-
home interactions. Work and Stress 21(2): 155–172.

Abendroth and Dulk 17
Den Dulk L (2001) Work-Family Arrangements in Organisations: A Cross-National Study in the
Netherlands, Italy, the United Kingdom and Sweden. Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
Den Dulk L and Peper B (2007) Working parents’ use of work-life policies. Sociologia, Problemas
e Práticas 53: 51–70.
Den Dulk L and Van Doorne-Huiskes A (2007) Social policy in Europe: its impact on families and
work. In: Crompton R et al. (eds) Women, Men, Work and Family in Europe. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 35–57.
Esping-Andersen G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.
Esping-Andersen G (1999) Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Frone MR (2003) Work-family balance. In: Quick JC and Tetrick LE (eds) Handbook of
Occupational Health Psychology. Washington, DC: APA, 143–162.
Greenhaus JH and Beutell NJ (1985) Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy
of Management Review 10(1): 76–88.
Greenhaus JH and Powell GN (2006) When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family
enrichment. Academy of Management Review 31(1): 72–92.
Greenhaus JH, Collins KM and Shaw JD (2003) The relation between work-family balance and
quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior 63(3): 510–531.
Grzywacz JG and Marks NF (2000) Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: an ecological
perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5(1): 111–126.
House JS (1981) Work Stress and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hurrelmann K (2003) Gesundheitssoziologie. Weinheim and München: Juventa.
Karasek R and Theorell T (1990) Health Work-Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of
Working Life. New York: Basic Books.
Knijn T (2003) Verzorgingsstaten, zorgsystemen en zorgpakketten. Mogelijkheden voor de com-Mogelijkheden voor de com-
binatie van zorg en arbeid in vergelijkend perspectief. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken
19(1): 53–66.
Kovacheva S, Kabaivanov S and Andreev T (2007) Comparative Report on the Institutional
Context of Work and Quality of Life. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.
Lyness KS and Kropf MB (2005) The relationships of national gender equality and organisational
support with work-family balance: a study of European managers. Human Relations 58(1):
33–60.
Matsui T, Ohsawa T, and Onglatco ML (1995) Work-family conflict and the stress-buffering effects
of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese married working women. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 47(2): 178–192.
Milliken FJ and Dunn-Jensen LM (2005) The changing time demands of managerial and profes-
sional work: implications for managing the work-life boundary. In: Kossek EE and Lambert
SJ (eds) Work and Life Integration, Organizational, Cultural, and Individual Perspectives.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 43–60.
Moen P and Chermack K (2005) Gender disparities in health: strategic selection, careers, and
cycles of control. Journals of Gerontology 60B(Special Issue II): 99–108.
Moss P (ed.) (2009) International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2009.
Employment Relations Research Series 102. London: BIS. Available (consulted 31 January
2011) at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file52778.pdf
OECD (2001) Balancing work and family life: helping parents into paid employment. In: OECD
Employment Outlook 2001. Paris: OECD, 29–166.
OECD (2007) Babies and Bosses, Reconciling Work and Family Life. A Synthesis of Findings for
OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.

18 Work, employment and society
Peters P, Den Dulk L, and Van der Lippe T (2009) The effects of time-spatial flexibility and new
working conditions on employees’ work-life balance: the Dutch case. Community, Work and
Family 12(3): 279–298.
Plantenga J and Remery C (2005) Reconciliation of Work and Private Life: A Comparative Review
of Thirty European Countries. Luxembourg: EC.
Poelmans SAY (2005) Work and Family: An International Research Perspective. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rapoport R, Bailyn L, Fletcher JK, et al. (2002) Beyond Work-Family Balance. Advancing Gender
Equity and Workplace Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Resch M (2003) Work-Life Balance: neue Wege der Vereinbarkeit von Berufs- und Privatleben?
GfA Herbstkonferenz 29. und 30. September 2003. Aachen/Stuttgart: Ergonomia Verlag.
Rothbard NP and Dumas TL (2006) Research perspectives: managing the work-home interface. In:
Jones F et al. (eds) Work-Life Balance: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Psychology
Press, 71–89.
Roxburgh S (1999) Exploring the work and family relationship: gender differences in the influence
of parenthood and social support on job satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues 20(6): 771–788.
Saraceno C, Olagnero M, and Torrioni P (2005) First European Quality of Life Survey: Families,
Work and Social Networks. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions.
Schaufeli WB and Bakker AB (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(3):
293–315.
Shaffer MA, Joplin JRW, Francesco AM, et al. (2005) Easing the pain: a cross-cultural study of
support resources and their influence on work-family conflict. In: Poelmans SAY (ed.) Work
and Family; An International Research Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thomas LT and Ganster DC (1995) Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family
conflict and strain: a control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 80(1): 6–15.
Thompson CA, Beauvais LL, and Lyness KS (1999) When work-family benefits are not enough:
the influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and
work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior 54(3): 392–415.
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.
Van Daalen G, Willemsen TM, and Sanders K (2006) Reducing work-family conflict through
different sources of social support. Journal of Vocational Behavior 69(3): 462–476.
Van der Lippe T and Den Dulk L (2008) Fourth Consolidated Report on Cross National
Comparison. Deliverable [Report] 2.4. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Wall K (2007) Leave policy models and the articulation of work and family in Europe:
a comparative perspective: In: Moss P and Wall K (eds) International Review of Leave
Policies and Related Research 2007. London: Department of Trade and Industry, 25–43.
Warhurst C, Eikhof DR, and Haunschild A (2008) Work Less, Live More? Critical Analysis of the
Work-Life Boundary. Houndsmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Warren JA and Johnson PJ (1995) The impact of workplace support on work-family role strain.
Family Relations 44(2): 163–169.

Abendroth and Dulk 19
Appendix
Table A. Statutory leave policies in each country
Country Maternity leave Paternity leave Parental leave
Sweden -10 days; paid 80% of
earnings
420 days; (Daddy Quota 60
days); Paid: 330 days 80%
of earnings, 90 days at
flat rate
Finland 105 weekdays, paid
at 43% – 82% of
earnings
18 days; possible to
get 12 days extra;
pay earnings-related
with minimum flat
rate
158 weekdays or care leave
until the child is 3 years
old; pay a combination of
earnings-related and flat
rate
Germany 98 days; fully paid -Since 2007: 12 months
plus 2 extra reserved for
the partner; paid at 67% of
earnings. Unpaid leave
3 years max.
Netherlands 112 days; fully paid 2 days; fully paid Since 2009: 26 weeks per
parent, unpaid (before
13 weeks). Exception: civil
servants receive 75% of
earnings
Portugal 120 days; fully paid 5 days fully paid; 15
optional days fully
paid
3 months unpaid
Bulgaria 315 days, paid at 90%
of earnings
-450 days up to child’s 2nd
birthday, paid at flat rate; plus
6 months for the mother
(unpaid) and 6 months for
the father (unpaid).
Hungary 180 days (6 months)
at 70% of pay
5 days; fully paid 18 months paid 70% of
earnings and 12 months paid
at flat rate
UK 365 days of which
6 weeks at 90% of
earnings, 33 weeks
flat rate.
14 days; paid at flat
rate
91 days unpaid after one year
of employment
Sources: Kovacheva et al. (2007); Den Dulk and Doorne-Huiskes (2007); Moss (2009).

20 Work, employment and society
Table B. Public childcare provision
Country % of children in formal
childcare (aged 0-2)
Childcare costs: %
of family net income
Childcare shortage/coverage
Sweden 65% (2003) 7% Guarantee of municipal
childcare place for children
aged 0-7
Finland 25% (2003) 7% Guarantee of municipal
childcare place for children
aged 1-5 full time and aged
6-12 after school
Germany 9% (2001) 6% Law that children over 3 have
the right to be in a financed
or subsidised childcare facility
Netherlands 22% 25% More or less an equilibrium
between supply and demand
Portugal 22% (2002) 25% Restriction in coverage:
target set to cover 20% of
children under 3
Bulgaria Approx. 10% of 1–3
age group (2003)
No information
available
Decline in number of creches
Hungary 6-8% (2003) 9% Extensive coverage (90%)
of kindergartens for the
age group 3-6; downward
tendency
UK 26% (2003) 27% National childcare strategy
created mainly part-time
places and targeted at 3 and
4 year olds; moving to full
coverage
Sources: Den Dulk and Doorne-Huiskes (2007); Plantenga and Remery (2005).

Abendroth and Dulk 21
Table C. State incentives for flexibility in each country
Country Encouragement of part-time work and flexible working
Sweden Working parents entitled to reduce working hours by 25% on reduced
pay but with the option of returning to full-time employment
Finland Legislation giving parents in full-time jobs the right to work part time;
reduction is compensated financially until the child is 3
Germany Every employee in a firm with at least 15 employees and who has
worked for 6 months has the right to demand a part-time job; the
employer can refuse if the firm is unable to change its work organisation;
part-timer has no right to return to full-time work
Netherlands The Equal Treatment of Full and Part-timers, Working Hours
Adjustment Act: legislation giving all workers the right to reduce or
extend working hours; employer must comply unless contrary to
serious business interest; request possible once every two years
Portugal Employer-led; parents of children up to age 12 are entitled to work part
time and to have flexible working hours
Bulgaria Legislative changes and policy programmes in 1990 meant to encourage
flexibility; changes in Labour Law 2001 gave employees more options
for reducing working hours or working part time; childcare is not
flexible nor are leave policies
Hungary Legislative changes took place in 2005, meant to make part-time work
more desirable for employers
UK State-run work-life balance campaign in 2000; legislation in 2002: right
to request flexible working arrangements for parents of young children
(working hours, days or place of work); employer can refuse for
business reason e.g. additional costs
Sources: Kovacheva et al. (2007); Plantenga and Remery (2005).

22 Work, employment and society
Table D. Correlation Matrix
Work
pressure
Work
hours
Children
at home
Care
responsi-
bilities
Job
control
Flexible
starting
and
finishing
times
Compressed
work week
Working
from
home
Supervisor
support
Colleague
support
Informal
help with
domestic
Tasks
Paid
domestic
help
Partner Quality
of social
life
Quality
relationship
relatives
Absence
of conflict
with
partner
Satisfaction
with work-life
balance
-.340** -.213** -.054** -.043** .113** -.002 .001 -.022 .222** .171** -.052** -.031** .032** .425** .267** .158**
Work
pressure
.214** .048** .077** -.043** -.039** -.008 .028* -.194** -.113** .041** .045** ,020 -.181** -.075** -.042**
Working
hours
.002 .036** .235** .101** .032** .099** -.128** -.159** .084** .139** -.013 -.146** -.024*-.004
Children at
home
.023*.101** .037** -.019 .051** -,014 -.026*-.011 .134** .294** -.122** -.041** -.072**
Care
responsibilities
-.012 -.051** -.014 -.083** -.046** -.043** .040** ,002 -,014 -.076** -.023*.031**
Job control .292** .022 .299** .162** .055** .022 .191** .077** .101** .057** .064**
Flexible
starting and
finishing
.152** .387** .102** .069** -.007 .027* .012 .049** -.018 -.010
Compressed
work week
.359** .034** .032** .027* .006 -.012 .003 .000 .000
Working from
home
.098** .064** -.011 -.009 .022 .034** -,011 -,002
Supervisor
support
.534** -.021 -.016 .036** .183** .101** .034**
Colleague
support
-.017 -.041** .020 .170** .109** .035**
Informal help
Domestic
tasks
.124** -.121** -.033** .019 -.046**
Paid domestic
help
.077** .017 .034** .004
Partner .060** -.002 -.002
Quality of
social life
.396** .137**
Quality of
relationship
with relatives
.134**

Abendroth and Dulk 23
Anja-Kristin Abendroth is a PhD at the Interuniversity Centre of Social Sciences, Utrecht
University, The Netherlands. She received her master’s degree in sociology in 2008 at
the University of Bielefeld in Germany. Her research interests include the work-life bal-
ance and health situation of employees and labour market inequalities between men and
women in Europe.
Laura den Dulk is assistant professor at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department
of Public Administration, The Netherlands. Her main area of expertise is cross-national
research regarding work-life policies in organisations in different welfare state regimes.
Current research interests include the management of work/life policies and the social
quality in European workplaces. Her latest co-edited book is Quality of Life and Work in
Europe (Palgrave, in press). Address: Laura den Dulk, Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Faculty of Social Sciences, Department Public Administration, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR
Rotterdam, Netherlands. E-mail: dendulk@fsw.eur.nl
Date submitted June 2009
Date accepted May 2010