Content uploaded by Suzan Lewis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Suzan Lewis on Jul 28, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
BIROn - Birkbeck Institutional Research Online
Lewis, S. and Beauregard, T. Alexandra (2018) The meanings of work-
life balance: a cultural perspective. In: Shockley, K. and Shen, W. and
Johnson, R. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of the global work-family
interface. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 720-732. ISBN 9781108235556.
Downloaded from:
Usage Guidelines:
Please refer to usage guidelines at or alternatively
contact lib-eprints@bbk.ac.uk.
1
The Meanings of Work-Life Balance
Suzan Lewis
T. Alexandra Beauregard
Please cite as:
Lewis, S., & Beauregard, T. A. (2018). The meanings of work-life balance: A cultural
perspective. In R. Johnson, W. Shen, & K. M. Shockley (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of the global work-family interface (pp. 720-732).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Introduction
The popularity of the term “work-life balance” (WLB) belies its lack of an
established definition in the research literature. WLB is both a social construct (i.e., a
notion that is ‘constructed’ through social practice and which may or may not
represent objective reality) and a discourse. It tends to be either a) defined as an
individual experience or aspiration, with particular focus on time-squeezed white
collar workers, or b) used as an adjective to describe workplace policies or practices
(e.g., flexible work arrangements) or public policies (e.g., parental leave) that purport
to enhance these individual experiences (i.e., WLB policies, practices, or supports).
Both these uses of the WLB term tend to underemphasize diverse
understandings of the components of work, life, and balance. They also position WLB
as a matter of individual choice and responsibility with regard to establishing
priorities and organizing schedules. This neglects structural, cultural, and practical
constraints on individuals’ agency (Caproni, 2004; Lewis, Gambles, & Rapoport,
2007), which impact individuals’ sense of entitlement and capability to achieve some
form of “balance” in practice (Hobson, 2014). In this chapter, entitlement is defined
not in the negative way in which it is used in the managerialist academic literature to
refer to unreasonable expectations (see Chatrakul Na Ayudhya & Smithson, 2016),
but rather as a set of beliefs and feelings about what supportive practices it is fair and
2
reasonable to expect from employers (and governments) (Chatrakul Na Ayudhya &
Smithson, 2016; Herman & Lewis, 2012; Lewis & Smithson, 2001). These
expectations, which are influenced by perceptions of what is normative, feasible, and
socially acceptable, are highly context dependent and may influence understandings
of “balance” in relation to work and the rest of life.
Although WLB is increasingly used in research in diverse contexts, given that
WLB is a social construct that originated in the industrialized West, the relevance of
the WLB discourse within broader social and cultural contexts has been questioned
(Lewis et al., 2007; Rajan-Rankin, 2016). It is not clear whether and how the
interpretation of WLB and use of WLB practices vary across time and place, within
and across countries, nor how this can be assessed in culture-sensitive ways. Thus, the
purpose of this chapter is to reflect on the often contested meanings and
understandings of WLB in a range of contexts, drawing on and integrating two
streams of literature: work-family interface research and critical management and
organizational studies. First, we provide an overview of the term ‘work-life balance’
and its contested definitions in the two literatures. We then theorize understandings of
WLB as shaped by intersecting layers of context: global, national (noting diversity
within as well as across national contexts), organizational, and temporal. Finally, we
address gaps and limitations in extant research, and speak to questions about the
future of work-life balance in an increasingly connected and globalized world.
What is Work-Life Balance?
There is no single understanding or use of the term WLB. Rather, multiple and
overlapping WLB discourses within organizations and among academic researchers
are dynamic and shift across time and place (Lewis et al., 2007; Lewis, Anderson,
Lyonette, Payne, & Wood, 2016a; Lewis, Anderson, Lyonette, Payne, & Wood,
3
2016b). Work-family interface scholars tend to define WLB at an individual level.
Some explicitly focus on work-family balance. For example, Grzywacz and Carlson
(2007) discuss the “accomplishment of role-related expectations that are negotiated
and shared between an individual and his/her role-related partners in the work and
family domains” (p. 458). Other scholars define the “life” domain more broadly
(Lewis et al., 2016a; Lewis et al., 2016b). For instance, Haar, Russo, Suñe, and Ollier-
Malaterre (2014) characterize WLB as an individual’s assessment of how well
multiple life roles are balanced. Nevertheless, the majority of the work-life interface
literature treats, at least implicitly, the “life” domain as being interchangeable with
that of “family,” particularly as represented by caregiving responsibilities for
dependent children (Özbilgin, Beauregard, Tatli, & Bell, 2011).
The concept of balance is itself problematic. The term was initially understood
by researchers as signifying low levels of conflict between work and non-work
demands (see Wayne, Butts, Casper, & Allen, 2016, for a review). However, the word
“balance” implies a goal of equal participation in work and non-work activities and
overlooks the diverse ways in which individuals manage occupancy of multiple roles,
not all of which involve balance (Clark, 2000; Gambles et al., 2006; Hobson, 2014).
For instance, Rajan-Rankin (2016) argues that the messy reality of family and
community life and the blurring of boundaries she found in her research on Indian call
centers cannot be accounted for by Western discourses of WLB idealized as tidy,
segmented lives. A growing critical literature argues that these definitions imply a
false dichotomy, as work (paid and unpaid) is part of life rather than a separate
element to be balanced with life (Bloom, 2016; Fleetwood, 2007; Gambles et al.,
2006; Lewis et al, 2007).
4
Given the difficulties in determining the meaning of WLB as an individual
experience, the use of the term to describe workplace policies or practices is also
highly problematic. Specifically, it is often unclear what such policies are designed to
achieve. These WLB policies and practices are also often labelled as “family-
friendly.” However, this labelling within the WLB discourse has been criticized for
implying gender neutrality when considerable research has established that women
remain disproportionately responsible for caregiving in addition to the demands of
paid work (Lewis et al., 2007; Smithson & Stokoe, 2005). Women are more likely
than men to use WLB practices and to have a low sense of entitlement to advance in
their careers if they do so (Herman & Lewis, 2012).
Critics also argue that referring to workplace policies as “WLB” implies an
employee-led focus, or “favors” granted to employees, which can mask the employer
benefits of such policies and practices (Fleetwood, 2007; Gatrell & Cooper, 2008;
Lewis et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2016a; Özbilgin et al., 2011; Smithson & Stokoe,
2005). The emphasis on individual choices and outcomes in understandings of WLB
has also been criticized for camouflaging the general shift in responsibility for well-
being from state to individual effected by neoliberalism, a form of capitalism in which
state-provided services (e.g., state-funded childcare centers) are replaced with market-
based alternatives (e.g., organizational voucher schemes through which parents are
offered some financial support for their choice of privately-operated daycare)
(Fleetwood, 2007). While purporting to empower individual workers, neoliberalism is
acknowledged by scholars as increasing the power of business and corporations to
determine public policies and setting regulatory frameworks that are advantageous to
themselves rather than to workers (Fleetwood, 2007; Harvey, 2005).
5
According to Fleetwood (2007), Western WLB discourses have increased in
recent years because they help to legitimize employer-driven flexible working
practices that are presented as offering employees greater choice and freedom, but
which often manifest themselves in employee-unfriendly ways. For example, research
has found that access to available practices can be inconsistent within organizations
and fuel employee perceptions of unfairness (Beauregard, 2014). Additionally,
managers and professionals using flexible working practices often experience work
intensification in the form of longer hours and greater work effort, professional
isolation and fewer networking opportunities, a reputation among peers and superiors
for being less committed to the organization, increased work-family conflict, and
reduced prospects for career advancement (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley,
2015; Beauregard, 2011; Leslie, Manchester, Park, & Mehng, 2012; Kelliher &
Anderson, 2010). As such, so-called WLB policies can actually obstruct the
achievement of individual experiences of work-life balance rather than facilitate it.
The reason why many WLB policies may fail to lead actual experiences of
WLB on the part of workers may be because these policies are rarely accompanied by
changes to workplace structures, cultures, and practices, which continue to be based
on outdated assumptions about ideal workers and the way that work should be carried
out (Lewis et al., 2007). Specifically, employers continue to view those individuals
who value work above all else and have fewer non-work obligations as the ideal
worker (Dumas & Sanchez-Burks, 2015). Thus, the attainment of WLB has thus been
depicted by critical management scholars as “an eternally unfinished journey of self-
discovery” (Bloom, 2016, p. 596), in which individuals’ modern-day identity is
structured by the simultaneous desire and inability to achieve equilibrium between
work and non-work roles.
6
Comparative Research on Work-Life Balance
These definitional problems may be one factor explaining why WLB is one of
the least frequently studied concepts in the work-life interface literature (Greenhaus &
Allen, 2011), and why there are fewer cross-cultural studies on work-life balance
compared to those on conflict and enrichment (Ollier-Malaterre, 2014; Ollier-
Malaterre & Foucreault, 2016). There is some evidence suggesting that WLB is
valued by employees across many national contexts (Hill, Yang, Hawkins, & Ferris,
2004; Kossek, Valcour, & Lirio, 2014). However, the value of WLB may be
moderated by national culture—highlighting the need to include cultural dimensions
in research using cross-national designs (Haar et al., 2014).
Some limited comparative research has examined differences in the provision
of so-called policies and practices to support WLB (Chandra, 2012). However, WLB
is a Western construct and although it is increasingly emerging in a wider range of
national contexts in employee and employer discourses as well as in organizational
research (e.g., Abubaker & Bagley, 2016; Atsumi, 2007; Chandra, 2012), the majority
of the WLB research literature remains focused on Western contexts and largely
neglects the contested and culture-sensitive nature of the WLB concept. There are
issues relating to both interpretation of WLB in diverse contexts and also how to take
account of intersections between layers of contexts that shape these interpretations.
Surveys assessing individual experiences of WLB include items such as, “I manage to
balance the demands of my work and personal life/family well” (Haar et al., 2014).
Interpretations of balance and judgments about doing this “well” are highly
subjective, and we cannot rule out the possibility that these are related to contextual
social expectations, norms, and comparisons that impact personal expectations and
sense of entitlement to invest differently in work and family or personal life.
7
It is important for research to reflect on and take into account the possibilities
of diverse interpretations of WLB and the layers of context in which they are rooted.
Both quantitative and qualitative research have a role in providing more nuanced
accounts of meanings and experiences of WLB. In relation to mostly quantitative
research, Ollier-Malaterre and Foucreault (2016) argue that the inclusion of “more
structural and cultural factors (is) a step towards capturing the polycontextuality (Von
Glinow, Shapiro, & Brett, 2004) of country-level contexts - that is, the interactions of
multiple layers of context” (p. 4). Qualitative researchers argue for more in-depth
qualitative case studies to draw out intersections of multiple layers of context in
comparative cross-national research (Nilsen, Brannen, & Lewis, 2013). Case studies
are particularly useful for understanding processes whereby conceptual
understandings of constructs such as WLB shift across time as well as place (Lewis et
al., 2016a; Tatli, Vassilopoulou, Al Ariss, & Özbilgin, 2012). Below, we discuss some
of the intersecting layers of context that can shape diverse understandings of the
construct of WLB.
Contexts Shaping the Meanings of Work-Life Balance
Global context
At the broadest layer of context, it has been argued that understandings of
WLB are influenced by the spread of neo-liberal values that prioritize profit over
personal lives (Fleetwood, 2007; Gambles et al., 2006). These understandings are also
influenced by directives, such as those set by the International Labour Organization
(ILO) and European Union (EU), which increasingly use the WLB terminology to
replace family-friendly discourses, and by the responses of for-profit organizations,
especially multinational companies. This may contribute to or be a consequence of
8
international recognition of the term WLB, but it assumes common understandings of
its meanings.
Global processes intersect with national contexts, influencing the ways in
which WLB is interpreted and used at different times (Lewis et al., 2016a). Taking
India as an example, a qualitative study by Gambles et al. (2006) noted that the
opening of the economy in India in 1991 brought more exposure to global
competitiveness and opportunities for economic growth, coupled with increasingly
demanding workloads and long working hours for ‘new economy’ workers (Lewis et
al., 2007, p. 363). The term WLB entered the Indian vocabulary when used by global
corporations in their multinational staff surveys (Lewis et al., 2007). It resonated with
their workers, but was not used by the majority of the Indian population whose work
and family struggles were of a different nature; some just strove to earn a livelihood
and others were concerned with the societal costs of the developing economy and the
impact of Westernized work practices on cultural values (e.g., time spent with one’s
extended family and caring for one’s parents in their old age).
More recent research from India highlights the complexity of the WLB
discourse in global call centers, where global processes intersect with Indian culture.
For example, male IT workers offered the opportunity to work from home abandoned
this practice within two weeks, citing the mockery of neighbors and the shame of their
wives in having a husband who did not spend his days in an office and was, therefore,
assumed to be unemployed (Rajan-Rankin, 2016). In contrast, the WLB discourse
became familiar much earlier in the United Kingdom. It was introduced in policy
discourses in the 1990s and was widely discussed in the media, although this did not
guarantee consensus or stability of interpretation (Gambles et al., 2006; Lewis et al.,
2016a).
9
National context
Following calls over many years for more attention to context in the work and
family literature (e.g., Lewis, Izraeli, & Hootsman, 1992), increasing attention has
been paid to the national layer of context in work-family and work-life research,
although exploration of layers of contextual influences and their intersections remains
relatively limited (Lewis, Brannen, & Nilsen, 2009; Nilsen et al., 2013). National
contexts are usually compared in terms of structural differences (e.g., public policy
support and laws) or cultural factors (e.g., values and norms). The latter are usually
examined in terms of dimensions such as individualism-collectivism or gender
egalitarianism, based on those identified by Hofstede (1980), Trompenaars and
Hampden-Turner (1998), and Project GLOBE (House, Javidan, & Dorfman, 2001).
More rarely, both structural and cultural variables are examined (Ollier-Materre &
Foucreault, 2016), which is important as these are likely related. For example,
countries higher in gender egalitarianism are more likely to introduce policies to
support working families than those lower in gender egalitarianism (Brandth &
Kvande, 2015; Haas & Hwang, 2008).
Cultural differences between and within national contexts can impact
interpretations of WLB. For example, individuals in many Asian societies are defined
by their relationship to family members, and extended families are strong institutions
maintained by obligations such as regular visits, financial support, and caregiving
(Joplin, Francesco, Shaffer, & Lau, 2003; Tingvold, Middelthon, Allen, & Hauff,
2012; Zhan & Montgomery, 2003). In collectivistic cultures such as these, work tends
to be viewed as a way of supporting and advancing the family; conflict between these
two domains is perceived as an unavoidable byproduct of promoting the family’s
financial stability, and is thus experienced by individuals as being less harmful (Lu et
10
al., 2010; Spector et al., 2007). Hence the notion of WLB may less meaningful,
except perhaps for workers employed by multinational corporations (Hill et al., 2004)
or in countries such as Japan, where the term is used in government policies aimed at
increasing the low birthrate (Atsumi, 2007; Gambles et al., 2006; Lewis et al., 2007).
In contrast, studies of managers and professionals in the United States indicate
that extended kin ties are relatively weak, and parents’ jobs and children’s activities
are prioritized over contact with extended family members (Gerstel, 2011; Lareau,
2011). In the individualistic cultures present in many Western nations, work is more
often viewed as an achievement by and for the individual that is irreconcilable with
family responsibilities (Spector et al., 2007). Thus, although research has shown that
individuals across the world express a desire for WLB (Hill et al., 2004) and WLB
has significant implications for individuals’ well-being and work productivity (Lyness
& Judiesch, 2014), the experience of WLB differs among cultural contexts according
to the way in which work and family are positioned relative to one another. As an
example, a cross-cultural study by Haar et al. (2014) found that higher levels of WLB
were more strongly and positively associated with job and life satisfaction for
individuals in individualistic cultures, where engagement in work is more often
viewed as being primarily for personal achievement and advancement, compared to
those in collectivistic cultures, where the purpose of working is more frequently
conceptualized as being for the promotion of the family.
Most of the extant cross-cultural research on the work-life interface can be
more accurately termed cross-national; little of it takes into account the diversity of
cultures, both geographic and ethnic, that exists within many countries. The
experience or meaning of WLB may be different for ethnic minorities whose cultural
values related to family are at odds with the mainstream cultural norms surrounding
11
work. This mismatch may produce increased difficulties in combining work and
family roles, and thereby in achieving “balance.” For example, ethnic Pakistani and
Bangladeshi women in the United Kingdom are expected to undertake considerable
household duties and caregiving responsibilities for both immediate and extended
family members, while simultaneously fulfilling work demands and career ambitions
(Dale, 2005; Kamenou, 2008; Khoker & Beauregard, 2014). This tension between
collectivistic family values and individualistic work expectations creates a sense of
WLB as being unattainable, compared to individuals whose caregiving commitments
do not extend beyond the nuclear family unit. Similarly, a comparative qualitative
study of work and family in five European states found fundamental social class
differences in experiences of and sense of entitlement to policies and practices that
support WLB (Nilsen et al., 2013).
Organizational context
Workplaces constitute another important context that intersects with other
layers of context, contributing to within- and between-country differences in
interpretations of WLB. Most research on WLB focuses on middle-class, relatively
privileged, knowledge workers, who are mostly employed in large organizations and
struggle to make time for non-work activities in the face of demanding workloads.
Research suggests that knowledge workers in the global economy or in the same
multinational company understand and experience WLB in similar ways cross-
nationally (Hill et al., 2004). This raises the possibility that the concept of WLB as a
personal experience may be more similar cross-nationally for workers with similar
backgrounds or life circumstances than it is across diverse workers within countries.
More research is needed to explore the ways in which WLB is interpreted by
diverse groups in a wider range of workplace contexts, including self-employed
12
(Annink, den Dulk, & Steijn, 2015), working class, and blue collar workers (Warren,
2016). We especially encourage research on those in precarious low-paid work (e.g.,
workers on the zero-hours contracts common in the accommodation and food service
sectors, retail, and residential care). The assumption underpinning research on
workers in high-status jobs is that experiences of WLB relate primarily to having too
much work or work that spills over into personal time, creating the need to balance
this with other activities. However, in many circumstances it is not just the time
squeeze that is the problem, but genuine financial hardship because of too little work
and/or inadequate pay (Warren, 2016). WLB may take on a very different meaning in
such circumstances.
At the organizational layer, discourses of WLB can vary within and between
organizations. Managers and workers may understand WLB differently. For instance,
Mescher, Benschop, and Doorewaard’s (2010) analyses of company websites showed
that there is often a mismatch between explicit employer statements of support for
WLB and more implicit messages framing WLB arrangements as a privilege.
Understandings of WLB as an adjective to describe policies or practices also
vary across intersecting national and organizational contexts. For example, Chandra’s
(2012) comparison of Eastern and Western perspectives on WLB found that among
multinational firms, American companies focused on flexible working practices,
while Indian companies focused on employee assistance programs (EAPs) offering a
range of cultural, recreational, health, and educational services (e.g., fitness centers,
flower arrangement workshops, and yoga classes). In a more context-specific study of
WLB in transnational call centers located in India, Rajan-Rankin (2016) argues that
“while the language, discourses and messages of WLB are outsourced along with the
work, their meanings and implications for call centre workers can be quite different
13
from the flexible working messages being imparted in the Western outsourcing
country” (p. 237). In this setting, WLB discourses and practices served as a symbol of
modernity and neoliberalism, but were located in a context characterized by
paternalistic leadership styles commonly attributed to collectivistic societies.
Qualitative case studies also demonstrate how different meanings of WLB can
exist within workplaces in otherwise very similar contexts. For example, Herman and
Lewis (2012) found that four-day work weeks were offered as a form of WLB support
in the French headquarters of two multinational companies in the same sector, but in
one organization WLB was constructed in terms of flexibility for employed mothers
while in the other it was understood to be more gender neutral, with both men and
women taking up this practice. The difference was explained by the fact that one
company was unionized and had negotiated a collective agreement that included
better conditions (including little income reduction) for the four-day week, which
encouraged men as well as women to make use of this option. Employment relations
thus emerge as a further layer of context in which the meaning of WLB may be
rooted.
Temporal context
Finally, context is not just about place but also time. Management discourses
such as equal opportunities, diversity, and WLB are dynamic and change to reflect
shifting contexts (Fleetwood, 2007; Lewis et al., 2016a; Tatli et al., 2012). Thus
meanings of WLB can shift over time in response to specific events in specific places
(Fleetwood, 2007; Gambles et al., 2006; Lewis et al., 2007, 2016a). This is illustrated
by a recent study of HR professionals’ accounts of WLB practices in the United
Kingdom public sector at a time of stringent government cuts in public funding
following the 2008 global recession. Evidence emerged of a shift in the
14
understandings and use of the term WLB from an earlier focus on offering “choices”
through flexible work arrangements of mutual benefit to employer and employees,
toward a reconstruction of WLB as an organizational tool for saving money. New
policies such as non-voluntary remote working were therefore branded as WLB
polices, masking the cost-saving motivations to support cash-strapped organizations
(Lewis et al., 2016a).
Building on the discursive processes literature that explains how the meanings
of management constructs develop (Lombardo, Meier, & Verloo, 2009, 2010; Tatli et
al., 2012), Lewis et al. (2016a) describe a process whereby the WLB discourse had
first become fixed and embedded in organizations in terms of a mutual benefits
argument following a high profile United Kingdom government WLB campaign
during the 1990s, but in a later context of financial challenges, the meaning of WLB
became strategically stretched to include new practices, shrunk to exclude notions of
employee choice once constructed as central to WLB policies (Eikhof, Warhurst, &
Haunschild, 2007; Gregory & Milner, 2009; Smithson & Stokoe, 2005), and bent to
incorporate the additional goal of explicit cost-savings. Thus WLB discourses were
adapted and reconstructed by specific actors (i.e., HR professionals) in a specific time
and place. HR professionals in this study acknowledged some employee resistance to
changing practices (e.g., non-voluntary home-based work), but further research is
needed to examine whether employees accept or resist new definitions of WLB within
specific contexts.
The Future
This chapter has discussed the problematic nature of meanings of WLB. As
the language used to describe a particular concept influences the ways in which
individuals and organizational actors think about and respond to it (Lewis et al.,
15
2007), this is not a trivial issue. The ways in which individual workers understand
“balance” in relation to work and personal life in diverse contexts influence whether
they see balance as feasible and attainable, the supports that they expect or would
like, and the “choices” they can make.
Similarly, understandings of WLB vary within and across organizations. For
example, if WLB is conceptualized as a health issue with implications for employee
well-being and performance, then it may help to challenge practices that encourage
work to spillover into non-work time. In contrast, if WLB is conceptualized as a
luxury and support for WLB as a favor, then WLB-supportive policies and practices
will be vulnerable, especially in more difficult economic circumstances.
Evidence suggests that WLB may be regarded as a luxury or favor in contexts
where there is a long hours culture, particularly in professional and managerial work
(e.g., Moen, Lam, Ammons, & Kelly, 2013). Interestingly, WLB is also likely to be
regarded as a luxury in smaller businesses with limited resources, which may be
struggling to compete for survival, and in developing country contexts and
subsistence economies. As most WLB research takes place in large organizations and
in industrialized countries, more research is needed to understand whether and how
WLB is interpreted in such contexts. Moreover, most research focuses on high status,
middle class workers. More needs to be known about the meanings and usefulness of
the WLB concept to those working in low paid and insecure work, for whom the main
priority is simply earning enough to get by (Warren, 2016).
Moreover, the concept of WLB is not static. Evidence that meanings of WLB
can change over time within a given context, as discussed in this chapter, suggests,
that future scholarship in this vein is likely to be fruitful. To expand our knowledge of
how individuals in a particular place and time understand WLB, more research is
16
needed into how these meanings develop, and how they impact individuals’ sense of
entitlement to use WLB provisions, such as flexible or reduced working hours
(Herman & Lewis, 2012; Lewis & Smithson, 2001), and their capability for accessing
WLB supports (Hobson, Fahlén, & Takács, 2014) to achieve WLB according to their
perception of this concept.
Theory-building in this regard would have practical benefits. For instance, HR
practitioners could guide the processes of change in meaning of WLB in a more
conscious manner, taking account of employee perspectives, and thereby ensure
greater and more effective employee take-up of WLB practices. Individuals could
examine their understanding of WLB more closely and perhaps challenge employers
whose mixed messages regarding WLB contribute to the maintenance of standard
ways of working and thereby generate little or no improvement in employee
experiences of WLB.
More broadly, the dearth of research investigating the meanings attached to
WLB in cultures outside the Western sphere means that it is reasonable to ask how
and why these meanings might vary cross-culturally. Looking forward, we might also
ask whether cultural differences in the meaning of work and life will gradually
attenuate with increasing globalization and industrialization. With distinctions
between ‘work’ and ‘life’ domains already perceived as artificial in some cultural
contexts (Rajan-Rankin, 2016), an important question for both scholarship and
practice is whether WLB remains a useful term or whether the WLB discourse that
has helped to raise awareness about some paid work and personal life issues now
constitutes a barrier to thinking more widely about the diversity of experiences and
how these might change in the future.
17
References
Abubaker, M., & Bagley, C. (2016). Work-life balance and the needs of female
employees in the telecommunications industry in a developing country: A
critical realist approach to issues in industrial and organizational social
psychology. Comprehensive Psychology, 5, 1-12.
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work–family
conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel
Psychology, 66(2), 345-376.
Annink, A., den Dulk, L., & Steijn, B. (2015). Work-family state support for the self-
employed across Europe. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy,
4(2), 187-208.
Atsumi, N. (2007). Work-life balance strategies for advanced companies. Japan
Labor Review, 4(4), 37-58.
Beauregard, T. A. (2014). Fairness perceptions of work-life balance initiatives:
Effects on counterproductive work behaviour. British Journal of Management,
25(4), 772-789.
Beauregard, T. A. (2011). Corporate work-life balance initiatives: Use and
effectiveness. In S. Kaiser, M. Ringlstetter, M. Pina e Cunha, & D. R. Eikhof
(Eds.), Creating balance? International perspectives on the work-life
integration of professionals (pp. 193-208). Berlin: Springer.
Bloom, P. (2016). Work as the contemporary limit of life: Capitalism, the death drive,
and the lethal fantasy of ‘work–life balance’. Organization, 23(4), 588-606.
Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (2015). Parental leave and classed fathering practices in
Norway. In Eydal, G. B., & Rostgaard, T. (Eds.), Fatherhood in the Nordic
18
welfare states: Comparing care policies and practices (pp. 121-140). Bristol,
UK: Policy Press.
Caproni, P. J. (2004). Work/life balance: You can’t get there from here. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 40(2), 208-218.
Chandra, V. (2012). Work–life balance: Eastern and western perspectives.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(5), 1040-1056.
Chatrakul Na Ayudhya, U., & Smithson, J. (2016). Entitled or misunderstood?
Towards the repositioning of the sense of entitlement concept in the
generational difference debate. Community, Work & Family, 19(2), 213-226.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family
balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747-770.
Dale, A. (2005). Combining family and employment: Evidence from Pakistani and
Bangladeshi women. In D. M. Houston (Ed.), Work-life balance in the 21st
century (pp. 230-245). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dumas, T. L., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2015). The professional, the personal, and the
ideal worker: Pressures and objectives shaping the boundary between life
domains. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 803-843.
Eikhof, D. R., Warhurst, C., & Haunschild, A. (2007). Introduction: What work?
What life? What balance? Critical reflections on the work-life balance debate.
Employee Relations, 29(4), 325-333.
Fleetwood, S. (2007). Why work–life balance now? International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18(3), 387-400.
Gambles, R., Lewis, S., & Rapoport, R. (2006). The myth of work-life balance: The
challenge of our time for men, women and societies. Chichester, UK: John
Wiley & Sons.
19
Gatrell, C. J., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). Work-life balance: Working for whom?
European Journal of International Management, 2(1), 71-86.
Gerstel, N. (2011). Rethinking families and community: The color, class, and
centrality of extended kin ties. Sociological Forum, 26(1), 1-20.
Greenhaus, J., & Allen, T. D. (2011). Work-family balance: A review and extension
of the literature. In J. C. Quick and L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of
occupational health psychology (2nd edition) (pp. 165-183). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Gregory, A., & Milner, S. (2009). Editorial: Work–life balance: A matter of choice?
Gender, Work & Organization, 16(1), 1-13.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Carlson, D. S. (2007). Conceptualizing work-family balance:
Implications for practice and research. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 9(4), 455-471.
Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work–
life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study
across seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 361-373.
Haas, L., & Hwang, C. P. (2008). The impact of taking parental leave on fathers’
participation in childcare and relationships with children: Lessons from
Sweden. Community, Work and Family, 11(1), 85-104.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herman, C., & Lewis, S. (2012). Entitled to a sustainable career? Motherhood in
science, engineering, and technology. Journal of Social Issues, 68(4), 767-
789.
20
Hill, E., Yang, C., Hawkins, A., & Ferris, M. (2004). A cross-cultural test of the
work-family interface in 48 countries. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
66(5), 1300–1316.
Hobson, B. (Ed.). (2014). Worklife balance: The agency and capabilities gap. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Hobson, B., Fahlén, S., & Takács, J. (2014). A sense of entitlement? Agency and
capabilities in Sweden and Hungary. Worklife Balance. The Agency &
Capabilities Gap, 57-91
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories
apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.
House, R., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: An
introduction. Applied Psychology, 50(4), 489-505.
Joplin, J. R. W., Francesco, A. M., Shaffer, M., & Lau, T. (2003). The macro-
environment and work-family conflict: Development of a cross-cultural
comparative framework. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 3, 305-328.
Kamenou, N. (2008). Reconsidering work-life balance debates: Challenging limited
understandings of the ‘life’ component in the context of ethnic minority
women’s experiences. British Journal of Management, 19, 99-109.
Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working
practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63(1), 83-106.
Khokher, S. Y., & Beauregard, T. A. (2014). Work-family attitudes and behaviours
among newly immigrant Pakistani expatriates: The role of organizational
family-friendly policies. Community, Work & Family, 17(2), 142-162.
21
Kossek, E. E., Valcour, M., & Lirio, P. (2014). The sustainable workforce:
Organizational strategies for promoting work-life balance and well-being. In
C. Cooper & P. Chen (Eds.), Work and wellbeing (pp. 295–318). Oxford, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Oakland, CA:
University of California Press.
Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T. Y., & Mehng, S. A. (2012). Flexible work
practices: A source of career premiums or penalties? Academy of Management
Journal, 55(6), 1407-1428.
Lewis, S., Anderson, D., Lyonette, C., Payne, N., & Wood, S. (2016a). Public sector
austerity cuts in the UK and the changing discourse of work–life balance.
Work, Employment and Society. doi:10.1177/0950017016638994.
Lewis, S., Anderson, D., Lyonette, C., Payne, N., & Wood, S. (2016b). Work-life
balance in times of recession, austerity and beyond. New York: Routledge.
Lewis, S., Brannen, J., & Nilsen, A. (2009). Work, families and organisations in
transition: European perspectives. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Lewis, S., Gambles, R., & Rapoport, R. (2007). The constraints of a ‘work–life
balance’ approach: An international perspective. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 18(3), 360-373.
Lewis, S., Izraeli, D. N., & Hootsman, H. (1992). Towards balanced lives and gender
equality. Dual earner families: International perspectives. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Lombardo, E., Meier, P., & Verloo, M. (Eds.). (2009). The discursive politics of
gender equality: Stretching, bending and policy-making. London: Routledge.
22
Lombardo, E., Meier, P., & Verloo, M. (2010). Discursive dynamics in gender
equality politics: What about ‘feminist taboos’? European Journal of Women's
Studies, 17(2), 105-123.
Lu, L., Cooper, C. L., Kao, S.-F., Chang, T.-T., Allen, T. D., Lapierre, L. M.,
O'Driscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Sanchez, J. I., & Spector, P. E. (2010).
Cross-cultural differences on work-to-family conflict and role satisfaction: A
Taiwanese-British comparison. Human Resource Management, 49(1), 67–85.
Lyness, K. S., & Judiesch, M. K. (2014). Gender egalitarianism and work–life
balance for managers: Multisource perspectives in 36 countries. Applied
Psychology, 63(1), 96-129.
Mescher, S., Benschop, Y., & Doorewaard, H. (2010). Representations of work–life
balance support. Human Relations, 63(1), 21-39.
Moen, P., Lam, J., Ammons, S., & Kelly, E. L. (2013). Time work by overworked
professionals: Strategies in response to the stress of higher status. Work and
Occupations, 40(2), 79-114.
Nilsen, A., Brannen, J., & Lewis, S. (2013). Transitions to parenthood in Europe.
Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2016). Cross-national work-life research: A review at the
individual level. In T. D. Allen, & L. E. Eby (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of
Work and Family (Chapter 23). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ollier-Malaterre, A., & Foucreault, A. (2016). Cross-national work-life research:
Cultural and structural impacts for individuals and organizations. Journal of
Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206316655873.
23
Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., Tatli, A., & Bell, M. P. (2011). Work–life,
diversity and intersectionality: A critical review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 177-198.
Rajan-Rankin, S. (2016). Paternalism and the paradox of work–life balance:
Discourse and practice. Community, Work & Family, 19(2), 227-241.
Smithson, J., & Stokoe, E. H. (2005). Discourses of work–life balance: Negotiating
‘genderblind’ terms in organizations. Gender, Work & Organization, 12(2),
147-168.
Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Lapierre, L. M., Cooper, C. L.,
O'Driscoll, M., et al. (2007). Cross-national differences in relationships of
work demands, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions with work–family
conflict. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 805–835.
Tatli, A., Vassilopoulou, J., Al Ariss, A., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2012). The role of
regulatory and temporal context in the construction of diversity discourses:
The case of the UK, France and Germany. European Journal of Industrial
Relations, 18(4), 293-308.
Tingvold, L., Middelthon, A. L., Allen, J., & Hauff, E. (2012). Parents and children
only? Acculturation and the influence of extended family members among
Vietnamese refugees. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(2),
260-270.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture:
Understanding diversity in global business. London: Nicholas Brealey
Publishing.
Warren, T. (2016). Work–life balance and class: In search of working-class work-
lives. In Lewis, S., Anderson, D., Lyonette, C., Payne, N., & Wood, S., Work-
24
life balance in times of recession, austerity and beyond (pp 112-131). New
York: Routledge.
Wayne, J. H., Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Allen, T. D. (2016). In search of
balance: An empirical integration of multiple meanings of work-family
balance. Personnel Psychology. doi: 10.1111/peps.12132.
Zhan, H. J., & Montgomery, R. J. V. (2003). Gender and elder care in China: The
influence of filial piety and structural constraints. Gender & Society, 17, 209-
229.
