Content uploaded by Yuyang Fan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yuyang Fan on May 05, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Received: August Revised: March Accepted: March
DOI: ./ijmr.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A process-oriented, multilevel, multidimensional
conceptual framework of work–life balance support:
A multidisciplinary systematic literature review and future
research agenda
Yuyang Fan Kristina Potočnik Sara Chaudhry
Business School, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh EH JS, UK
Correspondence
YuyangFan, Business School, University
of Edinburgh, Buccleuch Place, Edin-
burgh EH JS, UK.
Email: Yuyang.Fan@ed.ac.uk
Abstract
Work–life balance is shaped not only by how individuals manage their personal
demands and resources, but also by stressors and work–life balance support
mechanisms from external environment encompassing multilevel social sys-
tems. Our systematic literature review focuses particularly on the role of work–
life balance support, drawing on journal articles and book chapters published
between and across five research disciplines, including management,
applied psychology, industrial relations, family studies and sociology. We make
four major contributions to the literature, including: () conceptualizing work–
life balance support from a process-oriented perspective pertinent to a virtuous
cycle of resource investment and return, drawing on the conservation of resources
theory and the personal resource allocation framework; () adopting a multilevel
approach that construes the interactions in terms of resource changes between
individuals’ work–life experiences and their surrounding social systems nested
at multiple levels, applying the socio-ecological systems theory; () proposing a
multidimensional typology that differentiates the role of actual existence versus
subjective perception of support mechanisms as inspired by social support lit-
erature; and () advocating a pluralist,multi-stakeholder approach to compre-
hending and reconciling multiple stakeholders’ shared and competing interests
around provision/utilization of support mechanisms based on insights from mul-
tidisciplinary literature. Our process-oriented, multilevel and multidimensional
framework conceptualizes the critical role of work–life balance support in iter-
ative interactions between individuals and their multilevel social environment
through resource changes and reality–perception transformation. This concep-
tual framework also underscores the importance of pluralist thinking, context
specification and cost-effectiveness analysis for future research.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
© The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Int J Manag Rev. ;–. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijmr 1
2FAN .
INTRODUCTION
Work–life balance is defined as an individual’s perceived
optimum allocation of personal resources that helps in
coping with stressors and guarantees effective functioning
of both work and non-work roles (Grawitch et al., ).
Work–life balance research in the s initially focused
on the division of labour (between male breadwinners and
female carers) and associated tensions around separating
work and personal lives (Gatrell et al., ; Naithani,
). Increased female workforce participation from the
s (Snooks, ) exacerbated these tensions between
work commitments and family responsibilities, resulting
in both governmental and organizational family-friendly
interventions (Lockwood, ). More recently, two addi-
tional work–life balance challenges have emerged. First,
technological advancements are blurring work and non-
work roles (Kumar & Janakiram, ) because informa-
tion technology enables free communication irrespective
of time and space (Adisa et al., ). Second, ageing soci-
eties have resulted in heavier workloads and care burdens
for the working population (Khallash & Kruse, ).
Many work–life challenges (e.g. motherhood penalties
and delayed retirement) are embedded in societal prob-
lems (e.g. gender inequality and ageing societies) and
the broader social environment and, therefore, cannot be
solved through individual efforts alone; requiring exten-
sive environmental support (Spinks, )fromfamily
members (Halbesleben et al., ), organizations (Jang,
) and governments (Fagnani & Letablier, ). We
combine the concepts of work–life balance (Grawitch et al.,
) and social support (French et al., ; Muñoz-Laboy
et al., ) to define work–life balance support as perceived
or actual and tangible or intangible external resources
invested by other people or social systems that expand indi-
viduals’ personal resources or optimize personal resource
allocation in fulfilling work and non-work roles.
We argue that work–life balance support mechanisms
benefit not just individuals and their families but also orga-
nizations and society overall (Brough et al., ). Indi-
vidual and family returns may include higher marital and
family satisfaction (Ferguson et al., ), organizations
may observe lower absenteeism (de Menezes & Kelliher,
) and societal returns may include increased labour-
force participation (Brough et al., ). However, the
work–life balance support literature has been criticized for
focusing primarily on individuals and downplaying impli-
cations for families, organizations and societies (Gatrell
et al., ; Ozbilgin et al., ).
Also, limited research addresses the interplay between
actual existence (i.e. structural dimensions) and subjective
perception (i.e. functional dimensions) of work–life bal-
ance support, despite recognition that both dimensions
make a difference to individuals’ work–life experiences
(Lim & Lee, ; Yuile et al., ). Consequently, extant
literature fails to unpack the process through which indi-
viduals make sense of, and effectively utilize, work–life
balance support mechanisms to balance competing work
and life demands, achieve positive work and life outcomes,
and contribute to their families, organizations and wider
society.
Drawing on multidisciplinary research, we address three
gaps by conceptualizing work–life balance support in a ()
process-oriented, () multilevel and () multidimensional
framework, and advance a more holistic research agenda
by exploring the iterative interactions between individuals
and social environments at different levels and distinguish-
ing between perception versus reality.
Our systematic review makes four major theoretical con-
tributions. First, drawing on the conservation of resources
(COR) theory (Hobfoll, ) and the personal resource allo-
cation (PRA) framework (Grawitch et al., ), we pro-
vide new insights into work–life interface from a process-
oriented perspective (see Figures and ) of resource
changes given interactions between individuals and social
environments. We conceptualize work–life balance support
as resource investments by people and social environments
that promote individuals’ expansion or effective allocation
of personal resources to fulfil work and life demands. Con-
sequently, individuals’ enhanced work–life balance brings
other positive returns and enriches future resources for
both individuals and their environments. Iterative work–
life balance support investments and returns form a virtu-
ous cycle of resource accumulation; essential for the effec-
tive functioning of families, organizations and societies.
Second, we undertake a multilevel and systematic
approach (see Figure and Table )bydrawingonthesocio-
ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, ; Pocock
et al., ). We challenge the traditional understanding of
work–life balance as an individual-level phenomenon and
instead, emphasize how the interactions between individ-
uals’ work–life experiences and their environment shape
work–life balance. Theoretically, environmental stressors
necessitate individual acquisition of work–life balance sup-
port at different levels (i.e. micro, workplace and soci-
etal levels) to achieve positive outcomes for both individu-
als and multilevel social systems. Current work–life chal-
lenges cannot be solved through individual effort alone,
given their embeddedness in broader social environments.
Therefore, we claim that minimizing work–life conflict
and enhancing individuals’ quality of life necessitates sys-
tematic changes that combine individual effort with exter-
nal support from families, organizations and governments.
Third, by considering multidisciplinary literature (i.e.
management, applied psychology, industrial relations,
family studies and sociology), we go beyond work–life
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 3
FIGURE 1 A process-oriented, multilevel conceptual framework of work–life balance support
balance as an individual-level phenomenon and posit it
as a societal concern involving multiple stakeholders (e.g.
individuals, employers and governments) situated in mul-
tilevel social environments. Practically, employers’ and
policymakers’ design and implementation of work–life
balance support mechanisms necessitates a systematic and
pluralist consideration of different stakeholder interests.
Therefore, we recommend scholars bridge this research–
practice gap by aligning their investigation of work–life
balance support with key stakeholders’ goals.
Finally, we adapt Cohen and Wills’ () classifica-
tion of social support into a novel multidimensional typol-
ogy (see Table ) that distinguishes between the reality
versus perception of work–life balance support. We pro-
pose that structural dimensions depict the actual existence
and quantity of work–life balance support, while func-
tional dimensions offer a more perceptual and qualita-
tive evaluation. We explore this reality–perception trans-
formation by considering spiral interactions between phys-
ical environments and people’s subjective perceptions (i.e.
4FAN .
TABLE 1 Multilevel conceptualization and operationalization of work–life balance support
Conceptual level Number Percentage Operational level Number Percentage
Micro level .% () Employee/individual (including within
individual)
.%
() Couple .%
() Family .%
Workplace level .% () Team/workgroup .%
() Organization/establishment/facility/
subsidiary/department/manager
.%
Societal level .% () Union .%
() Country .%
Level .% Level .%
Levels .% Levels .%
Levels .% Levels .%
Levels .%
interplay between structural and functional dimensions) of
work–life balance support via three interconnected pro-
cesses: decision-making, realization and subjective feed-
back (see Figure ).
Next, we propose our conceptual framework, high-
lighting the need for a process-oriented, multilevel and
multidimensional conceptualization and investigation
of work–life balance support. Following an overview of
our methodological approach, our findings illustrate how
extant literature has conceptualized and investigated
work–life balance support as well as its antecedents and
outcomes. We conclude with a future research agenda.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION AND
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Building on resource theories, the socio-ecological systems
theory and social support literature as our theoretical foun-
dation, we advance a process-oriented, multilevel, multi-
dimensional conceptual framework of work–life balance
support.
Resource theories: Process of resource
investment and return in support of
work–life balance
We draw on the COR theory (Hobfoll, ; Hobfoll et al.,
) and the PRA framework (Grawitch et al., )since
these theories enable our conceptualization of interac-
tions between individuals’ work–life experiences and their
social surroundings via the circular process of resource
investment and return.
The COR theory rationalizes human instinct to obtain
and preserve resources (i.e. valuable things needed for sur-
vival; Hobfoll et al., ). Resource loss creates stress,
necessitating individuals’ and social systems’ investment
in existing resources to accumulate future resources as
well as protect against/recover from resource loss (Hobfoll
et al., ). Individuals need to invest personal resources
such as time and money to fulfil work and non-work
demands and achieve good work–life outcomes. Other
higher-level social systems, such as families, organiza-
tions, communities and the state, can also invest resources
(i.e. work–life balance support) that enhance individuals’
work–life balance, and generate positive family, organiza-
tional and societal resource returns.
Similar to the Matthew effect (Merton, )of
(dis)advantage accumulation, whereby wealthy peo-
ple get wealthier while the impoverished become poorer
(Bask & Bask, ), the COR theory (Hobfoll et al., )
suggests that individuals with more personal resources
and external work–life balance support are more capable
of achieving positive work and life outcomes and gaining
future resources, forming a virtuous cycle of resource
accumulation. Furthermore, the concept of caravan
passageways highlights environmental conditions that
facilitate or hinder resource accumulation. Supportive
caravan passageways, such as family-friendly corporate
cultures or more inclusive societies that promote gender
equality, facilitate individual access to obtain personal
resources needed for work–life balance. This resource car-
avan passageways principle reinforces the importance of
studying a work–life balance supportive social system that
creates synergies between individuals’ personal resources
and related stakeholders’ work–life balance support and
generates positive returns for all stakeholders.
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 5
TABLE 2 The structure–functionality typology of dimensions of work–life balance support
Typology Dimension Definition and example
Structure (i.e. the
actual existence and
quantity of work–life
balance support)
() Provision ♦Definition: The existence/frequency/number/amount/quantity of a social system or an
individual offering support/aid/help to facilitate work–life balance.
♦Example:
—‘Today, I willingly gave my time to help colleagues who had work-related problems.’ ( =
never to =always)(Linetal.,)
—‘Whether an organization offered the following five practices: workplace childcare,
childcare allowances, career break schemes, maternity leave, and/or paternity leave.’
‘Whether the organization provided these practices above and beyond the existing
statutory requirements.’ ( =yes;=no) (respondents were human resource managers)
(Giardini & Kabst, )
() Utilization ♦Definition: The existence/frequency/number/amount/quantity of
using/utilizing/receiving/adopting a support mechanism to achieve work–life balance.
♦Example:
—‘Respondents were asked to choose the work–life balance practices [from a list of
practices] that they were currently using.’ ( =yes;=no) (Thakur & Bhatnagar, )
() Intervention ♦Definition: The intervention of work–life balance support mechanisms in a laboratory,
field or natural experiment; the process of implementing work–life balance support
mechanisms.
♦Example:
—Vignette experiment: ‘HR benefits provision was manipulated in the recruitment
advertisement presented to the respondents. The company described in the Control
Condition provided standard pay benefits (which is common to all versions of the
survey); the company in the Condition survey offered health care and insurance
benefits in addition to standard pay benefits; and the company in Condition offered
WLBs in addition to standard pay benefits.’ (Firfiray & Mayo, )
—Field experiment: ‘exposure to the STAR intervention [STAR (Support. Transform.
Achieve. Results) a group-randomized field trial of an organizational intervention
designed to promote control over work time and supervisor support for employees’
personal and family life].’ ( =experimental group;=control group) (Moen et al., )
—Natural experiment: ‘Family-friendly law (Act /) approved in Spain in .’ (de la
Rica & Gorjon, )
() Timing ♦Definition: The time point or (life/career/historical) stage at which support is
offered/received/used; the length of time it takes for the individual to use/offer a
support mechanism or the length of time an organization or government takes to
implement a support mechanism; the length of time for a support mechanism to take
effect or cease to be effective.
♦Example:
—‘We collected a more detailed set of information about the benefits we labelled as
family-supportive, including when they had been implemented.’ ‘The way that we do
this is to make a distinction between “new” and “old” benefits. “Old” benefits are
defined as those that have been offered for five or more years as of the survey date.’
(Baughman et al., )
Functionality (i.e. the
perceptual and
qualitive evaluation
of work–life balance
support)
() Perceived
availability
♦Definition: The perception that this support mechanism is
present/available/accessible/approachable/reliable when the participant needs it to
achieve work–life balance.
♦Example:
—Co-workers/supervisor/spouse ‘really tries to help me’; ‘is around when I am in need’;
‘really cares about my feelings’; ‘is a real source of comfort to me.’ ( =strongly disagree
to =strongly agree) (Pluut et al., )
—‘To what extent can you count on your leader/family and friends to help you when you
face difficulties combining work and family?’ ( =not at all to =a great deal)(Nohe&
Sonntag, )
—‘I have a poor support network of other doctors like me.’ ‘I don’t have many friends or
family members in my current work location.’ ( =strongly agree to =strongly
disagree) (Bardoel & Drago, )
(Continues)
6FAN .
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Typology Dimension Definition and example
() Perceived
necessity
♦Definition: The perception that this support mechanism is necessary/requisite/important
for the participant to achieve work–life balance.
♦Example:
—‘Demand for flexible working arrangements’ ( =very unnecessary to =very necessary)
(Kim et al., )
—‘How valuable is [paid parental leave, flexitime, time off in lieu, childcare subsidy,
unpaid special leave and reimbursements] to you?’ ( =no value to =invaluable) (Haar
& Spell, )
() Expectation ♦Definition: Societal, organizational and family norms/attitudes about providing/using
work–life balance support mechanisms.
♦Example:
—Societal cultures/norms: ‘A man’s job is to earn the money; a woman’s job is to look after
the home and family.’ ( =strongly agree to =strongly disagree) (Thebaud & Pedulla,
)
—Organizational cultures/norms: ‘I feel that the organization respects my desire to
balance work and personal/non-work demands.’ ‘In general, supervisors in this
organization are quite accommodating of personal needs.’( =strongly disagree to =
strongly agree) (McCarthy et al., )
—Workgroup/team norms: ‘Members of the work group who put in long hours have better
possibilities to advance.’ ‘It is more important in the work group to put in long hours
than to do a good job.’ ( =disagree completely to =agree completely) (Allard et al., )
—Family norms: ‘I am willing to share household duties with my partner.’ (own and
partner’s willingness to share household duties) ( =strongly disagree to =strongly
agree) (Krys et al., )
—Perceived responsibility: ‘Who took primary responsibility for improving work–life
balance in your organization?’ ( =senior business leaders;=middle managers;=
employee network, network leaders or every employee) (Vyas et al., )
() Perceived
usefulness
♦Definition: The perception that the support mechanism is
useful/helpful/effective/satisfying/adequate for achieving work–life balance; the
perceived benefits of using/providing this support mechanism.
♦Example:
—‘Work–life balance policies & programs help reduce absenteeism.’ ‘Work–life balance
policies & programs have a positive impact on recruitment and retention.’ ( =strongly
disagree to =strongly agree) (human resource manager rated) (McCarthy et al., )
—‘Parents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with aspects of childcare
arrangements including cost, location, and quality.’ ( =very dissatisfied to =very
satisfied)(Robertsetal.,)
() Perceived
consequence
♦Definition: The perceived negative outcomes of using/providing the support mechanism.
♦Example:
—‘Using family-friendly programs would harm my status at work.’ ‘Using family-friendly
programs would hurt my career progress.’ ( =strongly disagree to =strongly agree)
(Butler et al., )
—‘Supervisors/co-workers make negative comments if someone benefits from tools aimed
at supporting work–family balance.’ ( =disagree to =agree) (Ghislieri et al., )
Applying the COR theory (Hobfoll, ) specifically
to work–life balance research, the PRA framework
(Grawitch et al., ) highlights the virtuous cycle
whereby individuals appraise and allocate personal
resources for handling work–life demands, achieve pos-
itive personal outcomes and acquire future resources
for achieving work–life balance. Personal resources for
achieving a good work–life balance comprise time,
finances, physical and mental attributes (e.g. energy),
knowledge and skills and social status/networks (Fletcher
& Fincham, ;Grawitchetal.,). Demands refer
to tasks or responsibilities that require consumption
of an individual’s personal resources (Grawitch et al.,
). Work–life balance support is distinct from personal
resources because it encompasses external resources
invested by other people and surrounding social sys-
tems (e.g. families, organizations, communities and
the state) aimed at promoting individuals’ effective
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 7
allocation of personal resources to fulfil work and
non-work demands.
In summary, drawing on a process-oriented perspective
from the COR theory (Hobfoll et al., ) and the PRA
framework (Grawitch et al., ), we frame work–life bal-
ance support as a virtuous cycle of resource investment
and return. Individuals invest personal resources to fulfil
demands, achieve positive work–life outcomes and replen-
ish personal resources. Meanwhile, higher-level social sys-
tems invest in work–life balance support, generating posi-
tive family, organizational and societal outcomes. In other
words, higher-level social systems themselves may also
benefit from individuals’ work–life balance. We agree with
Kossek’s (, p. ) claim that work–life balance as an
‘individual-level phenomenon should be bracketed and
understood across multiple levels’. The socio-ecological sys-
tems theory enables us to envision this process of resource
investment and return in terms of work–life balance sup-
port mechanisms in the context of social systems at differ-
ent levels.
Socio-ecological systems theory: A
multilevel support system for work–life
balance
We draw on a multilevel and systematic approach to
addressing individuals’ dynamic interactions with broader
social environments (Golden & Earp, ) from the
socio-ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, )and
its theoretical extensions to work–life balance research
(Pocock et al., ; Voydanoff, ) because it fits our
research purpose of understanding work–life balance as
a societal concern rather than an individual-level phe-
nomenon (Brough et al., ). The socio-ecological sys-
tems theory compares human society to natural ecology
and underlines the dynamic interplay between individuals
and external social systems across multiple levels (Richard
et al., ).
Asocial system refers to a collective entity of interde-
pendent and interactive individuals and surroundings that
share common goals, values and beliefs (Rogers, ).
Typical examples of social systems include families, orga-
nizations, communities and countries. Crucially, different
social systems are related to each other. For example, a
family intersects with an organization when a family mem-
ber is also an employee; this family is also a subset of a
community.
The socio-ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner,
; Pocock et al., ; Voydanoff, ) postulates that
an individual belongs to multiple interactive social sys-
tems nested at multiple levels: () microsystems with which
individuals have direct, interpersonal contact (e.g. fam-
ily and organization); () mesosystems containing intersec-
tions between multiple microsystems (e.g. teleworking);
() exosystems that indirectly influence individuals (e.g.
children’s school); () macrosystems of broad cultural and
social contexts; and () chronosystems encompassing envi-
ronmental changes and transitions across time.
In this paper, we draw on the socio-ecological systems
theory to conceptualize work–life balance support as a mul-
tilevel construct. However, instead of using their classifi-
cation of social systems, we adopt conceptual levels (i.e.
micro,workplace and societal levels) more commonly used
in work–life balance support literature. This aligns with
Abendroth and den Dulk’s () contention that families,
organizations and countries are the most frequently stud-
ied units of social systems that provide work–life balance
support mechanisms to individuals.
Therefore, we categorize social systems into three broad
conceptual levels: () the micro level, comprising family
members and personal social networks, such as friends
and neighbours; () the workplace level, including the
working environment and professional contacts, such as
supervisors and team members; and () the societal level,
defined by geographical and/or psychological boundaries,
such as communities and countries. Additionally, we adapt
the chronosystem proposed by the socio-ecological systems
theory (Bronfenbrenner, )intoatiming dimension that
depicts the temporal or historical aspect of work–life bal-
ance support in our multidimensional typology.
Proposed model: A process-oriented and
multilevel conceptual framework
Drawing on resource theories and the socio-ecological sys-
tems theory, we propose a process-oriented, multilevel con-
ceptual framework of work–life balance support, whereby
an individual’s work–life experiences interact with the
external environment via the process of () drawing work–
life balance support from external social systems to adjust,
expand and/or reallocate personal resources to () cope
with stressors from social systems nested at multiple lev-
els and, subsequently, () bring about positive outcomes to
multilevel social systems. These positive outcomes may fur-
ther () replenish/expand individuals’ resources to () cope
with stressors associated with work–life balance, forming a
virtuous cycle.
We define stressors as objects, events or environmental
conditions that pose actual or potential survival chal-
lenges or opportunities for an individual (Deckers, ).
External stressors are internalized as individuals’ personal
demands that necessitate their consumption of personal
resources.Outcomes include work-related (e.g. job satisfac-
tion and performance), life-related (e.g. family and leisure
8FAN .
satisfaction) and cross-domain (e.g. physical/mental
health and work–life conflict/enrichment/balance)
achievements. For example, utilization of teleworking
arrangements (work–life balance support) provided by the
organization (workplace-level social system) allows parents
(individual) to spend more time (personal resource)taking
care (personal demand) of their children (stressor) in their
family (micro-level social system), subsequently enhancing
the parent–child relationship (outcome and personal
resource).
We propose a process-oriented, multilevel conceptual
framework (see Figure ), which highlights several paths
for further investigation:
. An individual recognizes personal demands in
response to stressors from external social systems.
. An individual draws on work–life balance support
mechanisms from external social systems to adjust,
expand and/or reallocate personal resources.
. Personal demands deplete an individual’s personal
resources.
. Stressors and/or personal demands pose challenges for
survival and hence negatively influence an individual’s
work-related, life-related and cross-domain personal
outcomes.
. An individual consumes personal resources to fulfil
personal demands and respond to external stressors.
Hence, personal resources may moderate the influence
of stressors and/or personal demands on an individual’s
personal outcomes.
. In line with the resource accumulation assumption of
the COR theory (Hobfoll et al., ), we propose that
an individual’s increased personal resources can gener-
ate positive personal outcomes.
. The aggregation of personal resources,personal
demands and personal outcomes of individuals nested
within a social system (e.g. family/organization/
country) may influence this social system and gener-
ate higher-level (e.g. family/organizational/societal)
outcomes.
. Similar to path (), work–life balance support invest-
ments by an external social system may bring positive
outcomes to that system.
. Similar to path (), work–life balance support may mod-
erate the relationship between stressors and/or per-
sonal demands and an individual’s personal outcomes.
Work–life balance support may also moderate the influ-
ence of stressors from a higher-level social system on
higher-level outcomes.
. Positive higher-level family, organizational and social
outcomes may become new sources of work–life bal-
ance support, whereas negative higher-level outcomes
may become new stressors, forming a work–life bal-
ance resource cycle.
. Some antecedents from multilevel social systems
may influence an individual’s perception, utiliza-
tion and provision of work–life balance support,
while other antecedents may influence the provi-
sion of work–life balance support by a certain social
system.
Since this review focuses on work–life balance sup-
port, we systematically synthesized and organized the find-
ings according to paths (), (), (), () and () high-
lighted above. Specifically, we documented the measures
and conceptual levels of work–life balance support mech-
anisms, their antecedents and outcomes and the relation-
ships between these measures. Other paths in this concep-
tual framework have been well theorized in extant work
and are not this review’s focus. For instance, relationships
between stressors, personal demands, personal resources
and personal outcomes, that is, paths (), (), (), (), ()
and (), have been widely theorized and empirically exam-
ined utilizing different occupational stress and coping the-
ories (e.g. Bakker & Demerouti, ; ten Brummelhuis &
Bakker, ).
Furthermore, extant literature suggests that key stake-
holders, for example, the individual, the employer and the
government, may sometimes pursue complementary yet
conflicting goals (Leitner & Wroblewski, ) whereby:
() individuals utilize support mechanisms to meet per-
sonal work and life demands; () employers provide sup-
port mechanisms to maximize profitability and fulfil social
responsibility (Been et al., ; Faria & Machado, );
and () governments offer support mechanisms to achieve
efficiency (e.g. increasing labour supply) and promote
fairness (e.g. gender equality) (Brough et al., ). The
dynamic balance between these varied goals is critical for
both short-term prosperity and long-term sustainability of
all stakeholders. In order to examine the impact of work–
life balance support from a multi-stakeholder perspective,
we classified outcomes in relation to the main goals of
key stakeholders at different levels: () work-related versus
life-related outcomes at the private level; () profitability-
oriented versus social responsibility-oriented outcomes at
the workplace level; and () efficiency-based versus fairness-
based outcomes at the societal level.
Our review draws on multidisciplinary research to
develop a more comprehensive and nuanced understand-
ing of stakeholders’ competing pursuits. Specifically, we
synthesize literature from five research disciplines: ()
management that offers managerial and employee perspec-
tives; () industrial relations that addresses interrelation-
ships between employees, employers, trade unions and
governments; () applied psychology that explores interac-
tions between individuals and their work/non-work envi-
ronment through the psychology lens; () family stud-
ies that focuses on family characteristics, interactions and
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 9
policies; and () sociology that focuses on broader societal
concerns.
In summary, from a process-oriented perspective, we the-
orize ongoing interactions between individuals’ work–life
experiences and surrounding social systems in terms of
a virtuous cycle of resource changes. Furthermore, we
adopt a multilevel approach that unpacks the impact of
work–life balance support via the constructive process of
resource investment and return across multiple levels of
social systems. Our multilevel conceptualization is based on
the level of social system that provides work–life balance
support.
Social support literature: A
multidimensional typology of work–life
balance
Our conceptual framework offers a novel way of unpack-
ing iterative interactions between individuals and their
environment, whereby individuals make sense of the envi-
ronmental reality (e.g. actual presence of stressors and
work–life balance support) through cognitive interpreta-
tion and these subjective perceptions enable individuals
to react to, and transform, the environment. We are par-
ticularly interested in how the dichotomy between actual
existence versus subjective perception of work–life balance
support influences individuals’ work–life balance and gen-
erates relevant outcomes. We draw on the social support
literature to propose a multidimensional typology that dis-
tinguishes between actual existence versus subjective per-
ceptions of work–life balance support.
Social support is defined as actual or perceived, tangi-
ble (e.g. money) and intangible (e.g. love) resources for
stress management (French et al., ) within a person’s
social network, comprising personal (e.g. family members)
and professional (e.g. co-workers) ties (Muñoz-Laboy et al.,
). Our definition of work–life balance support builds
on the social support literature, given the overlap between
social support and work–life balance support addressed in
more detail in our findings.
Cohen and Wills () classified dimensions of social
support according to its structure (i.e. ‘the existence of rela-
tionships’) and functionality (i.e. ‘the extent to which one’s
interpersonal relationships provide particular resources’).
We adapt this classification into a multidimensional typol-
ogy and propose that structural dimensions depict the
actual existence and quantity of work–life balance sup-
port, while functional dimensions signify the perceptual
and qualitive evaluation of work–life balance support.
Furthermore, we split the broad dimensions of sup-
port structure and functionality into more nuanced
sub-dimensions. First, we utilize frequently studied facets
of social support, that is, structural sub-dimensions of
provision,utilization and timing and functional sub-
dimensions of perceived availability,perceived necessity
and perceived usefulness from comprehensive reviews on
social support measurement (Bruhn & Philips, ;Shinn
et al., ;Tardy,). Second, we adapt negative career
consequences and organizational time expectations from
the composite concept of work–family culture (see Thomp-
son et al., )intotwofunctional sub-dimensions,
that is, perceived consequence and expectation.Third,we
propose a new structural sub-dimension—intervention,
which denotes the treatment of work–life balance support
in experimental settings. Operationalized definitions
and examples of specific dimensions in our proposed
structure–functionality typology of work–life balance
support are elaborated in Table .
In summary, our proposed structure–functionality mul-
tidimensional typology highlights the importance of syn-
thesizing the widely studied yet fragmented issue of dif-
ferential impacts of actual existence (i.e. structure) ver-
sus subjective interpretation (i.e. functionality) of work–
life balance support. Specifically, structural dimensions
included () provision, () utilization, () intervention and
() timing. Functional dimensions covered () perceived
availability, () perceived necessity, () expectation, () per-
ceived usefulness and () perceived consequence.
METHODS
Our systematic literature review involved an exhaus-
tive literature search, comprehensive synthesis and crit-
ical appraisal of extant studies according to pre-defined
research questions ‘by adopting a replicable, scientific and
transparent process’ (Tranfield et al., , p. ). We did
not conduct a quantitative meta-analysis that extracts and
analyses data statistically from reviewed studies for two
reasons. First, a third of the articles used qualitative and
mixed methods, rendering a quantitative meta-analysis
impossible. Second, extant quantitative studies encompass
a wide variety of support mechanism, antecedents and out-
comes rather than concentrating on a few frequently used
indicators. Therefore, our systematic review offers a quali-
tative synthesis of extant findings.
Literature search and selection
The literature search was conducted between June
and December . At the outset, all authors agreed
on key search terms and the inclusion criteria, using the
10 FAN .
SPIDER protocol, given its applicability for a narrative
synthesis of quantitative, qualitative and mixed meth-
ods research (Cooke et al., ). The following inclusion
criteria were applied: () sample (S)—people involved in
both paid work and personal/family lives; () phenomenon
of interest (PI)—work–life balance support; () design
(D)—theoretical work, literature reviews and empirical
studies; () evaluation (E)—concepts, antecedents, out-
comes, contexts and other aspects of work–life balance
support; and () research type (R)—quantitative, qualita-
tive and mixed methods.
Additional inclusion criteria included: () restricting the
publication outlet to peer-reviewed journal articles and
scholarly book chapters, given that rigorous and valuable
scholarly work is often published in these outlets (Little-
john & Foss, ); () confining to English as the com-
monly used language in academia; () limiting the range
of publication dates from January (when work–
life balance emerged as an academic discourse) (Naithani,
) to December (the final day of our litera-
ture search) to capture relevant sources; and () focusing
on five research disciplines encompassing different stake-
holder perspectives at multiple levels (e.g. individuals,
employers and governments) in line with our proposed
conceptual framework (see Figure ), including manage-
ment, industrial relations, applied psychology, family stud-
ies and sociology.
Combining the inclusion criteria of sample ‘AN D’ phe-
nomenon of interest, we ran the search on article titles in
the database of the Web of Science Core Collection using
different combinations of search strings (see Figure ). We
focused on searching article titles since they usually con-
tain the most crucial information (e.g. key concepts and
studied measures), which enabled us to identify studies
focused on work–life balance support.
The PRISMA (Moher et al., ) flow chart (see Fig-
ure ) outlines the selection process in line with our pre-
set inclusion criteria. During the identification stage,
results were generated. A total of editorial materials
were excluded for not complying with the design criteria,
while the remaining results were across five research
disciplines of management (), applied psychology (),
family studies (), industrial relations () and sociol-
ogy (). During the screening stage, duplicates were
removed, while retaining records. In the eligibility
stage, full texts of these articles were examined and a
further records were eliminated— records were irrel-
evant according to the SPIDER protocol, texts could
not be accessed, records were in publication outlets not
under consideration (e.g. news/magazine articles and edi-
torial materials) and records lacked critical methodolog-
ical information. A final sample of articles was coded
and analysed.
Literature coding and analysis
The selected articles were coded in an Excel spreadsheet
according to the following pre-determined coding scheme:
bibliographic information, research methods, concepts
and measures of work–life balance support, theories and
key findings. Each article was double-coded by two of the
three authors, with discrepancies resolved through dis-
cussion between all three authors. We documented how
each article conceptualized specific work–life balance sup-
port mechanisms (e.g. supervisor support) as well as their
antecedents,outcomes and contexts.
As mentioned earlier, work–life balance support is
amultilevel,multidimensional construct. Hence, we
documented the conceptual level (i.e. source of support
or level of the social system that provides support) and
the operational level (i.e. unit of measurement or level
of data analysis) of the measures of work–life balance
support mechanisms and their antecedents and outcomes
according to our process-oriented, multilevel conceptual
framework (see Figure ). We recorded conceptual levels
for all types of research, but documented operational levels
only for quantitative research or quantitative elements
of mixed methods research. Outcomes were classified
from the perspectives of individuals’ (i.e. work/life-
related and cross-domain), employers’ (i.e. profitability/
social responsibility-oriented) and governments’ (i.e.
efficiency/fairness-based) major goals.
Moreover, we coded specific dimensions of work–life bal-
ance support mechanisms for both quantitative and quali-
tative research according to our proposed operational defi-
nitions (see Table ). The dimensions were coded based on
the definition of specific work–life balance support mech-
anisms or the sample items/measures. For both quantita-
tive and qualitative research, we also explored whether a
study had examined the timing dimension by employing a
longitudinal design or adopting a life-course or historical
perspective.
In this review, we attempt to systematically synthesize
key findings around the () multilevel and () multidimen-
sional conceptualization and measurement of work–life
balance support and the () antecedents,outcomes and
contexts of work–life balance support in line with our
process-oriented, multilevel and multidimensional con-
ceptual framework.
General description of the sample
literature
Table captures the overarching characteristics of the liter-
ature considered. Figure highlights the growing popular-
ity of research on work–life balance support by discipline.
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 11
FIGURE 2 Literature inclusion criteria and the PRISMA flow chart
CONCEPTUALIZATION, MEASUREMENT
AND EVALUATION OF WORK–LIFE
BALANCE SUPPORT
Given the lack of a comprehensive definition for work–
life balance support, we advance a definition for this
term (see Introduction) by drawing on the PRA frame-
work (Grawitch et al., ) and social support literature
(French et al., ; Muñoz-Laboy et al., ). In this
section, we discuss how extant research has conceptual-
ized and measured work–life balance support as a mul-
tilevel,multidimensional and process-oriented construct
with reference to our proposed conceptual framework
(see Figure ) and structure–functionality typology (see
Table ).
Sources of work–life balance support: A
multilevel construct
We adopted the socio-ecological systems theory’s (Pocock
et al., ) systematic, multilevel approach to examine the
12 FAN .
TABLE 3 Characteristics of the sample literature
Characteristics Details Number Percentage
Publication outlet () Peer-reviewed journal article .%
() Scholarly book chapter .%
Research discipline () Management .%
() Applied psychology .%
() Sociology .%
() Industrial relations .%
() Family studies .%
Methodology () Quantitative .%
() Qualitative .%
() Mixed methods .%
Research design () Cross-sectional .%
() Longitudinal .%
() Literature review .%
() Theoretical .%
() Experimental .%
() Case study .%
() Meta-analysis .%
Geographic area () North America .%
() Europe .%
() Asia .%
() Oceania .%
() South America .%
() Africa .%
() Cross-national but specific countries unknown .%
() Unknown .%
() Not applicable (e.g. literature review and theoretical article) .%
Number of countries/regions
involved
() %
() − .%
() − .%
() − .%
() − .%
() − .%
() − .%
() − .%
() Unknown .%
() Not applicable (e.g. literature review and theoretical article) .%
conceptual (i.e. source) and operational (i.e. unit of mea-
surement/analysis) levels of work–life balance support.
We identified a discrepancy between the multilevel con-
ceptualization versus operationalization of work–life bal-
ance support (see Table ), whereby most research concep-
tualizes work–life balance support at the workplace level,
while measuring and analysing support mechanisms at
the micro level. Individual-level measures were frequently
used to assess a higher-level concept without data aggrega-
tion or multilevel analysis. For instance, some studies mea-
sured organizational-level concepts such as organizational
work–family culture at the employee level, without aggre-
gating the data at the organization level (e.g. de Janasz
et al., ). Moreover, multilevel conceptualization and
operationalization of work–life balance support is under-
considered (e.g. den Dulk et al., ,), with most
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 13
FIGURE 3 Number of publications on work–life balance support (st January –rd December ) [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
extant work conceptualizing and operationalizing work–
life balance support at a single level.
Next, we present how work–life balance support mech-
anisms have been examined at three conceptual levels and
their interplay across levels.
Micro level
Social support was the dominant work–life balance sup-
port mechanism at this level, with a specific focus on
spouses/partners (e.g. Pluut et al., ), some consid-
eration of extended family members (e.g. children, sib-
lings, parents and relatives) (e.g. Fan, )andrarely
friends and neighbours (e.g. Winston et al., ). Both
tangible (e.g. career/childcare/housework assistance) and
intangible (e.g. emotional and informational support)
forms of social support for both work-related and life-
related demands were frequently examined. Several meta-
analyses highlight the positive role of both micro- and
workplace-level social support in abating work–family
conflict and alleviating work/family stressors (French
et al., ; Kossek et al., ; Michel et al., ).
Workplace level
At this level, formal and informal types of work–life bal-
ance support mechanisms emerged. Both workplace social
support (denoting social support from professional net-
works) and organizational culture (referring to family-
supportive or work–family culture) were commonly used
for measuring informal organizational support.
We identified four major categories of formal support
mechanisms at the organizational and team level: () flexi-
ble working arrangements that enable adjustment of work
demands, such as flexible schedules (Fang et al., )
and phased retirement (Hill et al., ); () organiza-
tional interventions that help employees achieve their
work/career goals, such as career development train-
ing(Batt&Valcour,) and virtual office facilities
(Kalysh et al., ); () family-friendly policies that
accommodate employees’ family demands, such as parent-
ing courses (McDonald et al., ), leave arrangements
for dependent care/marriage/bereavement (Moon & Roh,
) and childcare/eldercare services/facilities/subsidies
(Butler et al., ;Wangetal.,); and () employer-
sponsored provisions for other personal demands (e.g.
health, leisure and education), such as pensions and
life/health/medical insurance, canteens, on-site gyms,
tuition reimbursement, travel services and allowances,
recreational and social activities (Kossek et al., ;
Rajan-Rankin & Tomlinson, ).
These formal organizational support mechanisms facil-
itate employees’ fulfilment of life demands by rearranging
work demands (e.g. time, location and workload) (Kossek
& Lautsch, ) through family-friendly or life-friendly
services, facilities and financial benefits (Fritz & van Knip-
penberg, ). In extant literature, the most frequently
14 FAN .
studied formal support mechanisms were flexible work-
ing arrangements and family-friendly policies (especially
for childcare). Butts et al.’s () meta-analysis indicates
that employees’ perceived availability and utilization of
these organizational policies can improve their work–life
balance and generate positive employee outcomes, such
as increased job satisfaction and affective commitment.
Also, Kossek et al.’s () meta-analysis shows that work–
life balance-specific supervisor support and organizational
support have a stronger positive impact on employees’
work–life balance than general support does. However,
support mechanisms for other important life demands (e.g.
eldercare, health, leisure, education and networking) were
under-explored.
Societal level
At this level, work–life balance support mechanisms can
be categorized as () public policies, () public infras-
tructures and services, () private services, () support
from communities and social groups/organizations, ()
national cultures or societal norms about work–life bal-
ance support and () international/transnational orga-
nizations and legislation. The most frequently studied
measures were public policies addressing (a) dependent
care assistance (e.g. maternity/paternity leave and child
benefits), (b) work/employment flexibility (e.g. part-time
employment and statutory flexible working requests) and
(c) social security (e.g. health/unemployment insurance,
housing benefits and pension). Research often presents
Nordic examples as good practice, where it is easier to
maintain good work–life balance than in other coun-
tries on account of their gender egalitarian norms and
abundant state support for childcare/eldercare, employ-
ment and healthcare that encourage both genders to
share work and domestic responsibilities (Leitner &
Wroblewski, ).
Scholars repeatedly highlighted public childcare ser-
vices (e.g. Misra et al., ; Riva, ) but ignored other
public infrastructures and services, such as public elder-
care services (Martin, ), public education systems (Bar-
soum, ), information technology infrastructures (Lad-
kin et al., ) and public transportation (Cook, ).
Also, public health services, sports facilities and recre-
ation infrastructures are indispensable elements of life but
remain blind spots in existing literature. A handful of stud-
ies (e.g. Boye, ; Gronlund & Magnusson, )dis-
cussed welfare state regime typologies that categorize coun-
tries according to their government ideology/disposition
of market liberalism/efficiency versus state intervention-
ism/fairness and/or the primary target of their public poli-
cies and infrastructures for promoting gender equality ver-
sus reinforcing traditional gender roles.
Several studies considered private/marketized childcare
(Crompton, ) and domestic services (Husu, )but
overall, the role of private services in promoting work–
life balance was neglected. Support from communities and
social groups/organizations was under-examined, barring
some work on support from religious communities (Shai,
), trade unions (Berg et al., ), staff associations
(Hyman & Summers, ) and works councils (Hey-
wood & Jirjahn, ). National cultures or societal norms
about work–life balance support were sparingly addressed
in terms of gender egalitarianism (Cogin et al., ), famil-
ism (Riva, ) and work centrality (den Dulk et al.,
). With respect to international/transnational organi-
zations and legislation,onlyOliver() discussed the
need for transnational policies aimed at facilitating scien-
tists’ work–life mobility across the European Union.
Cross-level interplay
Research on the interplay between different levels of work–
life balance support mechanisms was limited and thus, we
lack a systematic understanding of how work–life balance
support is influenced by interactions between multilevel
social systems.
Lin et al. () illustrated the interplay between support
mechanisms at the workplace and micro levels by high-
lighting how the amount of support individuals offered
to their colleagues influenced their provision of support
to their spouses. Several qualitative studies explored the
interplay between the societal and micro levels, underlin-
ing that people relied more on family social support given
a national culture of familism and lack of governmental
support and formal childcare (Annink, ;Grönlund&
Javornik, ).
Scholars paid relatively more attention to the inter-
play between the national and organizational levels. Key
findings highlight that employers are more likely to pro-
vide family-friendly initiatives given limited state sup-
port, a societal norm of considering work–life balance
as an organizational responsibility and high union rep-
resentation (Been et al., ; Budd & Mumford, ).
Also, employees are more likely to utilize organizational
initiatives in the context of gender egalitarian cultures,
extensive national legislation, high unionization levels
and advanced information technology infrastructure (Berg
et al., ,; Ladkin et al., ; Thebaud & Pedulla,
).
Some scholars offered a more holistic view of the cross-
level interplay, indicating a complementary relationship
between these three levels of work–life balance support
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 15
mechanisms in society (e.g. Leitner & Wroblewski, ;
Xiao & Cooke, ). For example, British and American
employees seek more work–life balance support from their
social networks due to the ‘limited and piecemeal’ provi-
sion of national and organizational support (Warren et al.,
, p. ). In contrast, Swedish employees enjoy more
generous state and employer support and rely less on their
personal networks (Crompton, ).
In summary, there was a discrepancy between multi-
level conceptualization versus operationalization, whereby
most research conceptualized work–life balance support
mechanisms at the workplace level but measured and
analysed the mechanisms at the micro level. However,
effective societal-andworkplace-level support mecha-
nisms are indispensable for individuals to cope with
challenging macro-level stressors, given low individ-
ual control over macro contexts (e.g. economic reces-
sions). This conceptualization–operationalization discrep-
ancy may bias research findings, which cannot guide prac-
tice because key stakeholders (e.g. individuals, employ-
ers and governments) in multilevel environments hold
common yet competing interests around work–life bal-
ance support that individual-level analysis fails to capture.
Hence, we advocate investigations on support mechanisms
at the societal and workplace levels, as well as the interplay
across levels, and our conceptual framework adapted from
Bronfenbrenner’s () socio-ecological systems theory
can be particularly useful in supporting such endeavours.
Structure and functionality of work–life
balance support: A multidimensional
construct
Based on our proposed structure–functionality typol-
ogy (see Table ), we found that utilization (.%)
and provision (.%) were the most frequently studied
structural dimensions of work–life balance support, fol-
lowed by timing (.%) and intervention (.%). Inves-
tigation of functional dimensions focused on perceived
availability (.%), expectation (.%), perceived useful-
ness (.%), perceived consequence (.%) and perceived
necessity (.%).
Structural dimensions
Structural dimensions were primarily captured in quan-
titative research with a focus on individuals’ utilization
of organizational initiatives, national policies and child-
care services, as well as the provision of these support
mechanisms by employers and governments. The provi-
sion and utilization of social support from personal net-
works (e.g. family members and co-workers) was seldom
addressed.
Among studies that explored the intervention dimen-
sion, half used a vignette experimental design to examine
jobseekers’, employees’ or managers’ reactions to the provi-
sion of organizational (e.g. family-friendly policies) or soci-
etal (e.g. public opinion support) support mechanisms in
hypothetical scenarios (e.g. den Dulk & de Ruijter, ;
Firfiray & Mayo, ; van Steenbergen et al., ). Four
theoretical articles (e.g. Poelmans et al., ), three field
experiments (e.g. Moen et al., ) and three case stud-
ies (e.g. Gentilesco-Giue & Petrescu, ) conceptualized
the implementation of support initiatives in organizational
settings. Only one study examined the impact of family-
friendly policies enforced by the Spanish government over
the economic cycle through a natural experiment (de la
Rica & Gorjon, ). This stream of studies underlines the
importance of sustaining investments, long-term follow-
ups and timely adjustments in implementing work–life
balance support initiatives to ensure their effectiveness
and avoid backfires.
A few experimental studies considered the timing
dimension by tracking how national or organizational sup-
port interventions took effect over time (e.g. de la Rica &
Gorjon, ; Moen et al., ). Considerable longitudinal
qualitative and/or quantitative research investigated sup-
port mechanisms from other individuals (e.g. Kim & Hol-
lensbe, ), organizations (e.g. Cheng et al., )and
governments (e.g. Bünning & Pollmann-Schult, )over
a period of time (from several days to multiple years). The
long-term evaluation of organizational and societal sup-
port mechanisms is important because it may take years
or more for employers to enjoy returns (e.g. cost reduc-
tion in wages and lower turnover) on their provision of
family-friendly benefits (Baughman et al., ). The daily
diary or experience sampling method that collects longi-
tudinal data at one or multiple time points per day over
several weeks (e.g. Pluut et al., ) recently gained pop-
ularity. It helps capture the subtle, ongoing changes in the
impact of family/workplace social support on individuals’
work–life experiences within a short timeframe (Shock-
ley & Allen, ). Limited but important qualitative work
addressed the variation in the utilization and the effect of
support mechanisms across individuals’ life/career stages
(e.g. Loretto & Vickerstaff, ), between different gener-
ations (e.g. Brandth, ) or over a period of history (e.g.
Thörnqvist, ), highlighting that individuals’ work–life
experiences are constantly being shaped by time-varying
contexts.
16 FAN .
Functional dimensions
Functional dimensions were explored primarily in qual-
itative studies, partially because qualitative work often
reflects more nuanced subjective evaluation on support
mechanisms. The majority of extant research focused on
employees’ perceived availability of organizational initia-
tives and family/workplace social support. The expecta-
tion dimension was addressed predominantly by perceived
organizational support (Gurbuz et al., ) and organiza-
tional cultures such as family-supportive culture (Bayazit
&Bayazit,) and ideal worker image (Mescher et al.,
), occasionally by national/societal norms such as
work centrality (den Dulk et al., ) and familism (Riva,
), and very rarely by family norms around domestic
labour division (Krys et al., ). An under-examined but
critical indicator of the expectation dimension was the per-
ceived shared responsibility between individuals and sur-
rounding social systems (e.g. families, organizations and
the state) for achieving work–life balance, which likely
influenced decisions on both governments’/organizations’
provision and employees’ utilization of support mecha-
nisms (Peper et al., ; Remery et al., ). This indi-
cator also remains central to our proposition that we need
to examine and provide work–life balance support in a
systematic, multilevel framework (see Figure ), as sug-
gested by the socio-ecological systems theory (Pocock et al.,
).
The perceived usefulness dimension was primarily oper-
ationalized as employees’ perceived benefits before or after
using organizational support initiatives (e.g. Vyas et al.,
)and, occasionally, as managers’ or employers’ per-
ceived returns on support provision (e.g. McCarthy et al.,
; Morris et al., ). Similarly, the perceived conse-
quence dimension was largely examined as employees’
perceived career consequences (e.g. lower chance of pro-
motion) after using organizational support mechanisms
(e.g. Cannizzo et al., )and, occasionally, as managers’
or employers’ perceived negative outcomes (e.g. Been
et al., ). Some theoretical articles offered a compre-
hensive overview of the perceived usefulness and perceived
consequence dimensions in relation to employee use of
organizational support (e.g. Bardoel & de Cieri, ;
Beauregard, ; Perrigino et al., ).
The perceived necessity dimension was examined mainly
in terms of employees’ perceived demand for, or job-
seekers’ anticipation of, organizational support initiatives
(Blair-Loy & Wharton, ; Mansour & Tremblay, )
and less often childcare services and public policies (Win-
ston et al., ). Some scholars also conceptualized the
importance of employers’ provision of work–life bene-
fits in response to societal changes in legislation, busi-
ness environments, labour markets and employees’ per-
sonal demands (e.g. Abbott & de Cieri, ; Bretherton,
; Kossek, ; Roberts et al., ). Only Oliver ()
underlined mobile researchers’ demands for European-
level legislation against the international context of flexible
employment across borders.
Interplay between dimensions
Some quantitative research explored the interplay between
different dimensions of work–life balance support. One
research stream focused on the impact of employers’ and
governments’ provision and intervention, as well as individ-
uals’ perceived necessity,perceived availability,expectation,
perceived usefulness and perceived consequence, respec-
tively, on individuals’ utilization of support mechanisms
(e.g. Asiedu-Appiah & Zoogah, ; Dikkers et al., ).
Another research stream concentrated on the impact of
employers’ and employees’ perceived necessity,expectation,
perceived usefulness and perceived consequence, respec-
tively, on employers’ provision of support mechanisms (e.g.
Adame-Sánchez et al., ; Remery et al., ). Some
research touched upon how employers’ and governments’
provision and individuals’ perceived availability and uti-
lization of support mechanisms, respectively, framed the
expectation (e.g. organizational cultures) around support
mechanisms (e.g. Butts et al., ; Parker & Allen, ).
Only a handful of quantitative studies compared the dif-
ferential impacts of the provision,perceived availability,uti-
lization and perceived usefulness of support mechanisms on
individuals’ work and lives (e.g. Jones et al., ; Rajan-
Rankin & Tomlinson, ).
Two key findings emerged. First, there is a provision–
utilization gap whereby organizational/governmental pro-
vision of support mechanisms does not necessarily lead to
individuals’ effective utilization (Rajan-Rankin & Tomlin-
son, ). Second, individuals’ perceived availability and
perceived usefulness may be more important than their
actual utilization of support mechanisms for generating
positive work and life outcomes (Jones et al., ; Muse
et al., ).
Furthermore, some qualitative studies (e.g. Daverth
et al., ; McKee et al., ), literature reviews (e.g.
Dengate, ; Thörnqvist, ) and theoretical articles
(e.g. Martin, ; Poelmans & Beham, ) theorized
the multidimensional interplay in a more nuanced and
comprehensive way, formulating a series of unidirectional
and bidirectional relationships between multiple structural
and functional dimensions of work–life balance support
mechanisms. Based on their findings and our objective
of providing new insights into the interactions between
individuals’ subjective perception and the physical real-
ity of their environment, we conceptualize the interplay
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 17
FIGURE 4 A process-oriented overview of the
interplay between multiple dimensions of work–life
balance support
between multiple dimensions of work–life balance sup-
port mechanisms via three iterative processes—decision-
making,realization and subjective feedback (see Figure ).
Extant research has identified three major pro-
cesses. Decision-making denotes the process of employ-
ers’/managers’ or policymakers’ policy design, planning
and provision based on their subjective interpretation
of the environment (Abbott & de Cieri, ;Adame-
Sánchez et al., ); while for employees, it is the process
by which they judge whether to use specific support mech-
anisms (Blair-Loy & Wharton, ). Realization refers
to the process whereby plans of support mechanisms are
translated into reality (Nord et al., ; Poelmans et al.,
). Subjective feedback depicts the process of how the
provision or utilization of support mechanisms reshapes
people’s subjective perception (McCarthy et al., ;Ryan
& Kossek, ). We summarize the interplay between
multiple dimensions and the connection between these
three processes below.
First, there is a unidirectional causal chain of dimen-
sions, that is, the realization process, flowing from organi-
zations’ or governments’ provision and subsequent inter-
vention of support mechanisms to employees’ perceived
availability and following utilization of support mecha-
nisms (Poelmans et al., ).
Second, some bidirectional relationships have been iden-
tified between elements of this causal chain (i.e. provi-
sion, intervention, perceived availability and utilization)
18 FAN .
and multiple functional dimensions (i.e. expectation and
perceived necessity/usefulness/consequence).
On the one hand, research has articulated the decision-
making process of employers’ or policymakers’ provision,
as well as employees’ utilization of support mechanisms
based on their subjective perception (i.e. expectation and
perceived necessity/usefulness/consequence) tied to the
environmental reality (Been et al., ; McCarthy et al.,
) prior to the realization process.
On the other hand, studies have conceptualized the
subjective feedback process through which employers’ and
governments’ provision and intervention,aswellasindi-
viduals’ perceived availability and utilization of support
mechanisms, transform people’s subjective per-
ception (i.e. expectation and perceived necessity/
usefulness/consequence) of work–life balance sup-
port (Brumley, ; Ryan & Kossek, ; Thörnqvist,
) after the realization process.
Third, subjective feedback reshapes people’s subjec-
tive perception (i.e. expectation and perceived neces-
sity/usefulness/consequence) of work–life balance sup-
port and social environment, and can further improve
employers’/managers’ and governments’ decision-making
and subsequent realization of support mechanisms (Bar-
doel & de Cieri, ; Nord et al., ; Ryan & Kossek,
; Thörnqvist, ). Hence, the sequential processes of
decision-making,realization and subjective feedback form
an iterative spiral with the timing dimension embodied
across all these iterative processes.
In summary, we use structural dimensions versus func-
tional dimensions to conceptualize the objective reality
versus subjective interpretation of work–life balance sup-
port. Building on extant literature, we theorize the multidi-
mensional interplay of work–life balance support in terms
of three iterative major processes, that is, decision-making,
realization and subjective feedback (see Figure ), provid-
ing a comprehensive framework for evaluating the effec-
tiveness of the design, implementation and appraisal of
support mechanisms.
Antecedents, outcomes and contexts of
work–life balance support: A
process-oriented and multi-stakeholder
perspective
In line with our conceptual framework (see Figure ), we
synthesized the antecedents, outcomes and contexts in
consideration of () the process of resource changes, ()
multilevel environment, () multi-stakeholder and multi-
disciplinary perspectives and () multiple dimensions of
work–life balance support.
Antecedents
Limited research examined the antecedents of work–life
balance support, resulting in limited knowledge about
important societal, organizational and personal factors
that shape decisions of employees’ utilization and gov-
ernments’/employers’ provision of specific support mech-
anisms, which are also important for effective policy
design and implementation. Scholars mainly studied the
antecedents of employees’ perceived availability and uti-
lization of support mechanisms in terms of govern-
ments’/employers’ provision of support mechanisms and
individual and family characteristics, such as gender,
occupation, income level and family structure (e.g. sin-
gle/couple, one/two parent and with/without children)
(e.g. Ollier-Malaterre & Andrade, ; Wharton et al.,
).
Extant research on the antecedents of employers’ and
managers’ provision of support mechanisms focused pri-
marily on organizational attributes (e.g. size, industry,
location, culture, board representation and workforce
composition) (e.g. Jenkins et al., ; Mullins & Holmes,
) and occasionally on societal factors (e.g. societal
norms, national legislation, works councils, trade unions
and labour market tightness) (Heywood & Jirjahn, ;
Remery et al., ).
The antecedents of the state’s provision were investigated
or conceptualized in terms of national characteristics, such
as a country’s culture (e.g. gender egalitarianism, paternal-
ism and individualism/collectivism), level of industrializa-
tion and urbanization, ideology (e.g. neoliberalism, capi-
talism and socialism) and governmental/party affiliation,
and international factors such as globalization and Euro-
pean Union legislation (e.g. Barsoum, ; Craig et al.,
;Dona,; Rajan-Rankin & Tomlinson, ).
Outcomes
Different research disciplines emphasized different out-
comes of work–life balance support mechanisms.Manage-
ment literature primarily focused on the impact of orga-
nizational policies on employees’ work-related outcomes
and sometimes on organizational outcomes. Applied psy-
chology literature mainly addressed the impact of work-
place and family social support on employees’ wellbe-
ing. Industrial relations literature stressed the societal out-
comes of national policies and unions, as well as the
impact of organizational policies on organizations and
employees. Family studies literature showed a broader
interest in the impact of national and organizational
policies and workplace/family social support on societal
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 19
outcomes and working parents’ wellbeing and parenting
outcomes. These themes were also evident in sociology lit-
erature, albeit involving broader social contexts such as the
cross-national comparison or historical development.
Most research across these disciplines examined micro-
level outcomes. Support mechanisms generally generated
positive micro-level outcomes, with very few studies high-
lighting the mixed impact of organizational family-friendly
policies on individuals’ personal resources for achieving
work–life balance, such as the length and sovereignty of
working time (e.g. Hildebrandt, ;Hilletal.,),
parenting time (e.g. Reimer, ) and wages (e.g. Fang
et al., ). Scholars focused primarily on cross-domain
outcomes associated with individuals’ wellbeing (e.g.
work–family conflict/enrichment, depression and cardio-
vascular health) (e.g. Berkman et al., )andwork-
related outcomes conducive to achieving organizational
profitability, such as work performance, job satisfaction
and turnover intentions (e.g. Cook, ; Moon & Roh,
). Less attention was paid to life-related outcomes for
individuals (e.g. family performance and parenting activ-
ities) (Estes, ;LasHerasetal.,) and their sig-
nificant others (e.g. children’s wellbeing and partner’s
parental satisfaction) (Matias et al., ; Millar et al.,
). Life-related outcomes beyond family lives, such as
leisure (Lin et al., ) and friendship (Pedersen & Lewis,
), were also ignored.
Workplace-level outcomes were examined less fre-
quently, and findings were mixed. Scholars paid more
attention to profitability-oriented outcomes, principally:
() economic returns, such as organizational/team perfor-
mance/profitability/efficiency/productivity, share price
and wage reduction (Arthur, ;Baughmanetal.,
; Morris et al., )and()human capital, such
as customer satisfaction, service quality and employee
retention/turnover/motivation/morale/absenteeism/
commitment (Cogin et al., ; Morris et al., ;
Okechukwu et al., ). However, social responsibility-
oriented outcomes, such as gender/motherhood pay
gap (Fuller & Hirsh, ), perceived fairness/backlash
of family-friendly benefits (Beauregard, ;Wilkin-
son et al., ) and public image (Morris et al., ),
remained under-explored. Furthermore, limited research
assessed the actual/estimated costs of employer-sponsored
support, such as healthcare costs (Morris et al., ). No
cost–benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted
on organizational support initiatives, with the exception
of Baughman et al.’s ()andDragoetal.’s()
implication that employers could potentially offset partial
costs of family-friendly benefits through wage reduction.
Very few studies examined societal-level outcomes and
revealed intricate results. Emphasis was placed on fairness-
based outcomes. The state and workplace support pro-
moted the awareness of gender equality but controver-
sially reinforced the gendered division of domestic labour
and occupational segregation (Gronlund & Magnusson,
; Singley & Hynes, ). National family policies
bridged the happiness gap between parents and non-
parents (Glass et al., ), but might be ineffective to
alleviate child poverty (van Mechelen & Bradshaw, ),
gender/motherhood-related pay gap (Budig et al., )
and the gender, educational and urban–rural inequalities
in policy use and work–life experiences (Fuller & Hirsh,
; Glauber & Young, ) due to problematic policy
design. Scholars also revealed generally positive efficiency-
based outcomes associated with the national economic
competitiveness (Earle et al., ) and the maximization
of current or future labour supply (Brough et al., ),
such as maternal employment rates (Turki, ), moth-
ers’ labour force persistence (Baird & Burge, ), unem-
ployment rates (Earle et al., ), fertility rates and child-
bearing intentions (Fahlen, ). However, the costs of
state support, such as public spending on family benefits
(Turki, ), were rarely documented, rendering a cost-
effectiveness evaluation impossible.
Extant research underplayed mutual and/or compet-
ing interests between multiple stakeholders and failed
to align its stance (i.e. employer/employee/policymaker
perspective) with key stakeholders’ actual interests or
demands, distancing research from practice. Such a
research–practice gap may result in inefficient national
and organizational investments in work–life balance sup-
port, rendering a lose–lose situation for employees, fam-
ilies, employers, governments and other stakeholders.
Very few researchers explicitly highlighted that employee-
led organizational support mechanisms were more effec-
tive than employer-driven ones (e.g. Ollier-Malaterre &
Andrade, ). Most work is underpinned by the tacit
assumption that organizational provision of support mech-
anisms is for the benefit of employees; but in fact, employ-
ers usually prioritize their business goals, labour market
pressures and legal forces over employees’ actual demands
and preferences for support mechanisms (de Menezes &
Kelliher, ; den Dulk, ; McDonald et al., ).
Similarly, public policies such as maternity protection and
child benefits are designed to facilitate individuals’ work–
life balance and thereby promote gender equality, increase
labour supply and sustain long-term economic prosperity
(Brough et al., ; Bünning & Pollmann-Schult, ),
but problematic policy design and implementation may
backfire.
Generally, outcomes were frequently measured as self-
reported subjective perceptions (e.g. work–family con-
flict and job satisfaction) rather than objective or mul-
tisource assessments (e.g. share price and supervisor-
rated performance). Scholars also focused more on
20 FAN .
individual experiences rather than organizational and soci-
etal outcomes. Specifically, researchers considered more:
() work-related than life-related outcomes at the micro
level; () profitability-oriented than social responsibility-
oriented outcomes at the workplace level; and () fairness-
based than efficiency-based outcomes at the societal level.
Due to a lack of workplace- and societal-level examina-
tion and objective and multisource assessments, extant
research evidence on the effectiveness of work–life bal-
ance support mechanisms may be inaccurate, biased and
incomprehensive to provide useful and feasible guidance
for practice, particularly at the workplace and societal
levels.
Contexts
Extant research was largely conducted in industrialized
or post-industrialized, economically developed, capital-
ist countries in Europe and North America. Therefore,
populations subsisting in diverse cultural, economic and
political contexts in the Global South were largely under-
represented. This narrow focus of extant work on research
contexts limited its theoretical implications and practical
impacts for broad and diverse populations.
Social and historical contexts were under-explored and
the international level was considered mainly with respect
to globalization, economic recessions and international
migration (e.g. Been et al., ; Krys et al., ). Political
and social stability was the default societal setting in the
existing work. However, large swathes of the global popu-
lation do not live in affluent and peaceful societies. Hence,
more research is needed to understand how to better sup-
port people’s work and lives, particularly their recovery
from turbulent and complicated societal contexts, such as
wars, political and social unrest, economic uncertainty,
disease outbreaks and natural disasters.
Extant literature on organizational, family and personal
contexts primarily studied the impact of national and orga-
nizational support for juggling working and parenting on
middle-class, heterosexual, dual-earner parents in man-
agerial or professional jobs. Limited research attention was
paid to low-income workers (Kossek & Lautsch, ),
elderly employees (Loretto & Vickerstaff, ), immi-
grants (Rudolph et al., ), single parents (Konrad &
Yan g , ), single and/or childless people (Skinner &
Pocock, ), disabled people, LGBTQ+groups and reli-
gious groups. Also, research primarily focused on child-
care support but downplayed support for other impor-
tant components of life, such as dependent care for the
elderly/disabled/sick, housework, healthcare, education,
recreation, networking and philanthropy.
A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR WORK–LIFE
BALANCE SUPPORT
Based on extant literature, our conceptual framework
highlights two major research avenues in work–life bal-
ance support.
First, a multilevel and process-oriented investiga-
tion of the spiral process of interactions between indi-
viduals and their environment through resource changes,
specifically highlighting the: () influence of stressors and
work–life balance support from multilevel social environ-
ments on individuals’ personal resources; () impact of indi-
viduals’ investment of personal resources and employers’
and governments’ investment in work–life balance sup-
port on multilevel environments, that is, personal, fam-
ily, organizational and societal outcomes; and () effect
of these personal, family, organizational and societal out-
comes on resource expansion, accumulation or replen-
ishment. For example, following Bronfenbrenner’s ()
socio-ecological systems framework, scholars can explore
how the level of industrialization (societal contexts)
shapes work and family demands and public/private child-
care/eldercare services (support mechanisms), which in
turn influence individuals’ time allocation for work, fam-
ily and leisure (personal resources) and subsequent per-
sonal, family, organizational and societal outcomes longi-
tudinally in one country or horizontally across multiple
countries.
Second, a multidimensional and process-oriented
investigation of three iterative processes of interactions
between individuals’ subjective perception (i.e. functional
dimensions) and physical environment (i.e. structural
dimensions) of work–life balance support, as follows: ()
the decision-making process of evaluating the environ-
ment (e.g. analysing environmental stressors and individ-
uals’ corresponding personal demands) and planning sub-
sequent utilization or provision of work–life balance sup-
port mechanisms; () the realization process of translat-
ing plans of support mechanisms into the environmental
reality (i.e. provision →intervention →perceived avail-
ability →utilization); and () the subjective feedback pro-
cess of reshaping individuals’ subjective perceptions of
the environment and providing new information for the
next iteration of decision-making process. For instance,
researchers can compare the similarities and differences
in the decision-making, implementation and effectiveness
evaluation processes of national and organizational work–
life balance support provision in liberal (e.g. the USA) ver-
sus socialist (e.g. China) economies.
Our review identifies some major gaps in the extant
work–life balance support literature. From a multilevel
perspective, as recommended by Bronfenbrenner’s ()
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 21
socio-ecological systems theory, there is limited exam-
ination of higher-level factors, such as societal- and
workplace-level support mechanisms and their family,
organizational and societal antecedents and outcomes.
Also, little attention has been paid to broader societal
and historical contexts. From a multi-stakeholder perspec-
tive, there is a lack of systematic consideration of differ-
ent stakeholders’ (i.e. individuals, employers and govern-
ments) shared and competing interests. The narrow focus
of extant research on micro/individual-level analysis lim-
its its scope and capacity for guiding societal and orga-
nizational practice concerning broad, diverse populations
holding vastly different interests.
From a process-oriented perspective, there is insufficient
understanding of the long-term impact and sustainability
of work–life balance support mechanisms. From a mul-
tidimensional perspective, limited research has addressed
the iterative, bidirectional interactions between individ-
uals’ objective and subjective work–life experiences and
their social environment. The predominance of static, one-
off analysis using cross-sectional designs fails to capture
how the iterative interactions between reality and percep-
tion shape the effectiveness of work–life balance support
mechanisms from perspectives of different stakeholders in
the long term, which holds critical implications for gov-
ernments’ and organizations’ effective design, implemen-
tation and improvement of their support mechanisms.
We propose three major research directions in terms of
() cost-effectiveness analysis, () pluralist thinking and ()
context specification to address these gaps.
Cost-effectiveness analysis. Extant literature rarely
compared the costs and returns of work–life balance sup-
port mechanisms and hence, we have limited insight on
their cost-effectiveness. Therefore, we recommend a cost-
effectiveness, or equivalent, assessment of key stakeholder
interests in future research.
Scholars should consider individuals’ costs in terms
of their investment of personal resources (e.g. time and
money) and returns in terms of the degree of fulfilment of
work/life demands and other work/life-related and cross-
domain personal outcomes. Additionally, future research
could capture governments’ and employers’ interests by
weighing their costs (i.e. investments) of providing and
implementing work–life balance support mechanisms (e.g.
expenditures and human resources) and returns encom-
passing profitability- and social responsibility-oriented
organizational outcomes and efficiency- and fairness-based
societal outcomes. However, it should be noted that not all
costs and returns canbequantifiedormonetizedonacom-
parable scale and hence, some functional dimensions of
work–life balance support mechanisms (i.e. perceived use-
fulness/consequence) can be used as proxy measures to
estimate their cost-effectiveness.
Moreover, cost-effectiveness concerns remain central to
the interactions between individuals’ objective and sub-
jective work–life experiences characterized by three iter-
ative processes—decision-making, realization and subjec-
tive feedback. By incorporating sensemaking, decision-
making and stress and coping literature into work–life
balance support research (e.g. Golden, ;Powell&
Greenhaus, ; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, ), schol-
ars can investigate whether employers’ and policymakers’
needs assessment, policy design, implementation and sub-
sequent outcomes are aligned with their business and soci-
etal goals, and whether individuals’ needs assessment, uti-
lization and associated personal outcomes of work–life bal-
ance support mechanisms successfully meet their work–
life demands. More investigation on the iterative processes
is needed, particularly on how employers/policymakers
adjust and refine their decisions and subsequent imple-
mentation of support mechanisms when their intervention
is not aligned with their goals and/or employees’/citizens’
needs.
Pluralist thinking. We recommend a pluralist
approach to work–life balance support that not only
acknowledges the diversity of goals and interests across
different stakeholders but also emphasizes the synergy of
shared goals and reconciliation of competing interests in
order to maximize the overall benefits for all stakeholders
involved (Gomez et al., ).
As previously mentioned, each stakeholder seeks long-
term sustainability by balancing competing goals (e.g. indi-
viduals balancing work vs. life demands). Therefore, we
suggest that scholars bridge the research–practice gap by
aligning their investigation of the impact and effective-
ness of work–life balance support with stakeholders’ actual
demands, interests and/or goals. Following our recom-
mended pluralist approach, scholars should also recognize
that shared and competing interests within and between
stakeholders across different levels of social environment
systematically influence the effectiveness of work–life bal-
ance support mechanisms. Two typical scenarios and rele-
vant examples are given below.
Some support mechanisms may enable a win–win situ-
ation by achieving the mutual interests of multiple stake-
holders. For instance, family-friendly practices may allow
employers to strengthen employer branding, improve pro-
ductivity and reduce costs (e.g. lower entry-level wages and
fewer labour conflicts) and facilitate individuals’ work–life
reconciliation (Baughman et al., ; Faria & Machado,
).
However, other support mechanisms may fail to rec-
oncile the conflicting interests of multiple stakeholders by
achieving partial goals or one-sided interests. For example,
the government legislates delayed retirement to increase
the current labour supply and reduce social welfare
22 FAN .
expenditures (e.g. pensions), which can decrease grand-
parental childcare and maternal labour force participation
(Belan et al., ;Duetal.,).
Context specification. Consistent with previous liter-
ature reviews (Gatrell et al., ; Ozbilgin et al., ),
we found that current work largely focused on working
parents through a Western lens, especially professional
mothers situated in economically developed and industri-
alized countries. However, a majority of the global popu-
lation works and lives in vastly different contexts. Schol-
ars need to carefully consider the extent to which work–
life balance support themes studied in Western countries
can be applied in other countries and contexts. European
countries enforce generous family benefits and delayed
retirement to increase female and elderly people’s work-
force participation and secure future labour supply given
the ageing crisis. However, these public policies are not
applicable in many Global South countries with large, pre-
dominantly young, unemployed and under-educated pop-
ulations. The policy priorities of these countries may be
improving the quality rather than the quantity of labour
supply by offering better educational and job opportuni-
ties.
Work–life balance support scholars need to explicitly
consider the different priorities and objectives of stake-
holders in specific contexts (accounting for variations
in populations and associated family, organizational and
societal/national dynamics), with cautious generalization
across contexts. Below, we give specific recommendations
to achieve context specificity with respect to individuals,
organizations and countries.
First, individuals have different work and/or life prior-
ities and demands at different stages of life/career and in
different family and community contexts. More research
is needed on support mechanisms aimed at helping indi-
viduals from non-traditional families (e.g. singles, homo-
sexual couples and dual earners without children) at the
early/middle/late stage of their life/career and situated
in social/religious/ethnical communities with unique cul-
tural norms, traditions and rituals.
Second, employers’ provision and employees’ utiliza-
tion of support mechanisms vary substantially across dif-
ferent organizational contexts. These differentials in orga-
nizational contexts need to be unpacked in terms of the
size, workforce composition (e.g. gender and age), indus-
try (e.g. manufacturing and technology), sector (i.e. pub-
lic/private), degree of unionization and business/industry
lifecycle.
Finally, the provision and utilization of work–life bal-
ance support mechanisms are also influenced by a coun-
try’s social, economic, political, cultural and historical con-
texts. Some important contextual factors are the level of
industrialization and urbanization, the level of economic
development, political ideologies and regimes, cultures,
infrastructures and public security. National contexts are
also shaped by a country’s role in the global economy,
relative national power and geopolitical influence, and
the idiosyncrasies of international environment (e.g. eco-
nomic recessions and wars). More importantly, a coun-
try’s national context needs to be considered longitudinally
along its own historical development and horizontally in
comparison to other countries. Future research can uti-
lize a series of recommended national-level structural, eco-
nomic, social and cultural measures (e.g. den Dulk et al.,
; Kossek, ; Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault, ;
Ollier-Malaterre et al., ; Trefalt et al., ).
The temporal context (i.e. timing dimension) is also
critical for the effectiveness of work–life balance support
mechanisms, because key stakeholders prioritize different
interests and goals over time. We have a series of recom-
mendations for addressing temporal contexts.
First, we recommend a short-term longitudinal design
(i.e. daily diary method) to examine the impact of social
support from professional and personal networks on indi-
viduals’ fluctuant personal resources (e.g. energy) and per-
sonal outcomes (e.g. health).
Second, a long-term longitudinal design (e.g. natu-
ral/field experiments lasting several months/years) is rec-
ommended to track the impact of organizational and
national support mechanisms that may take longer to gen-
erate a return.
Third, the psychological life-span theory and the socio-
logical life-course theory (Shanahan & Porfelli, ), as
well as life history interviews (Jessee, ), can be applied
to capture changes in individuals’ work–life experiences
across different life stages and across generations.
Fourth, life history interviews and ethnographic
approaches (Singh & Dickson, ) can help track
systematic changes of work–life balance support (e.g.
both institutional and cultural changes) in organizational
settings over the business lifecycle or in national/societal
settings across different periods of history.
CONCLUSION
We synthesized extant findings in line with our proposed
conceptual framework that unpacks the critical role of
work–life balance support in iterative interactions between
individuals’ objective and subjective work–life experiences
and their multilevel social environments through resource
changes and reality–perception transformation.
Our review contributes to work–life balance research
by providing a multilevel, multidimensional, process-
oriented framework for systematically analysing how ()
the interplay between individuals and multilevel social
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 23
environments, () the interactions between individuals’
objective and subjective work–life experiences and ()
multiple stakeholders’ shared and competing interests
shape the effectiveness of work–life balance support mech-
anisms. As such, we challenge and expand the traditional
understanding of work–life balance as an individual-level
phenomenon into a societal concern that necessitates sys-
tematic support from a wider range of stakeholders, such
as families, organizations, trade unions, governments,
communities, public and private services. To conclude,
our conceptual framework and research agenda pave the
way for multilevel, multidimensional and process-oriented
investigation of work–life balance support in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We highly appreciate the editors and reviewers for a very
constructive review process. Furthermore, we would like
to extend our sincere gratitude to the participants at the
conferences for their valuable comments. Previous ver-
sions of this paper were presented at the European Asso-
ciation of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP)
Congress (Turin, ), the Academy of Management
(AOM) Annual Meeting (Boston, MA, ) and honoured
with the ‘Best Full Paper Award (Human Resource Man-
agement track)’ at the British Academy of Management
(BAM) Conference (Birmingham, ).
ORCID
Yuyang Fan https://orcid.org/---
Kristina Potočnik https://orcid.org/---
Sara Chaudhry https://orcid.org/---
REFERENCES
Abbott, J. & de Cieri, H. (). Influences on the provision of
work–life benefits: Management and employee perspectives. Jour-
nal of Management & Organization, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./jmo.....
Abendroth, A.-K. & den Dulk, L. (). Support for the work–
life balance in Europe: The impact of state, workplace and fam-
ily support on work–life balance satisfaction. Work, Employ-
ment and Society, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
.
Adame-Sánchez, C., Caplliure, E.-M. & Miquel-Romero, M.-J. ().
Paving the way for coopetition: Drivers for work–life balance pol-
icy implementation. Review of Managerial Science,,–.
Adisa, T.A., Gbadamosi, G. & Osabutey, E.L.C. (). What hap-
pened to the border? The role of mobile information technology
devices on employees’ work–life balance. Personnel Review,,
–. Available at: https://doi.org/./PR---.
Allard, K., Haas, L. & Hwang, C.P. (). Family-supportive organi-
zational culture and fathers’ experiences of work–family conflict
in Sweden. Gender, Work and Organization, , –. Available
at: https://doi.org/./j.-...x.
Annink, A. (). From social support to capabilities for the work–
life balance of independent professionals. Journal of Management
& Organization, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
jmo...
Arthur, M.M. (). Share price reactions to work–family initiatives:
An institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal,,
–. Available at: https://doi.org/./.
Asiedu-Appiah, F. & Zoogah, D.B. (). Awareness and usage of
work–life balance policies, cognitive engagement and perceived
organizational support: A multi-level analysis. Africa Journal
of Management, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
...
Baird, C.L. & Burge, S.W. (). Family-friendly benefits and
full-time working mothers’ labor force persistence. Community,
Work & Family, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
...
Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (). The job demands–resources
model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, , –
. Available at: https://doi.org/./.
Bardoel, A. & de Cieri, H. (). Policy deployment across borders:
A framework for work–life initiatives in multinational enterprises.
In: Poelmans, S. A. Y. & Caligiuri, P. (Eds), Harmonizing work,
family, and personal life: From policy to practice. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, pp. –.
Bardoel, E.A. & Drago, R. (). Does the quality of information
technology support affect work–life balance? A study of Aus-
tralian physicians. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
...
Barsoum, G. (). “Women, work and family”: Educated women’s
employment decisions and social policies in Egypt. Gender, Work
& Organization, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
gwao..
Bask, M. & Bask, M. (). Cumulative (dis)advantage and the
Matthew effect in life-course analysis. PLoS One,,e.
Batt, R. & Valcour, P.M. (). Human resources practices as pre-
dictors of work–family outcomes and employee turnover. Indus-
trial Relations, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
-X..
Baughman, R., DiNardi, D. & Holtz-Eakin, D. (). Productivity
and wage effects of “family-friendly” fringe benefits. International
Journal of Manpower, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/.
/.
Bayazit, Z.E. & Bayazit, M. (). How do flexible work arrange-
ments alleviate work–family conflict? The roles of flexibility ideals
and family-supportive cultures. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/
./...
Beauregard, T.A. (). Corporate work–life balance initiatives: Use
and effectiveness. In: Kaiser, S., Ringlstetter, M.J., Eikhof, D.R. &
Pina e Cunha, M. (Eds), Creating balance? International perspec-
tives on the work–life integration of professionals. Berlin: Springer,
pp. –.
Been, W., den Dulk, L. & van der Lippe, T. (). Dutch topmanagers
and work–life arrangements in times of economic crisis. Com-
munity, Work & Family, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/.
/...
Been, W., den Dulk, L. & van der Lippe, T. (). A business
case or social responsibility? How top managers’ support for
24 FAN .
work–life arrangements relates to the national context. Commu-
nity, Work & Family, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/.
/...
Belan, P., Messe, P.-J. & Wolff, F.-C. (). Postponing retirement
age and labor force participation: The role of family transfers.
Recherches Economiques de Louvain, , –.
Berg, P., Kossek, E.E., Baird, M. & Block, R.N. (). Collective bar-
gaining and public policy: Pathways to work–family policy adop-
tion in Australia and the United States. European Management
Journal, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./j.emj.
...
Berg, P., Kossek, E.E., Misra, K. & Belman, D. (). Work–life
flexibility policies: Do unions affect employee access and use?
Industrial & Labor Relations Review, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./.
Berkman, L.F., Buxton, O., Ertel, K. & Okechukwu, C. (). Man-
agers’ practices related to work–family balance predict employee
cardiovascular risk and sleep duration in extended care settings.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, , –. Available
at: https://doi.org/./a.
Blair-Loy, M. & Wharton, A.S. (). Employees’ use of work–family
policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces,,–
. Available at: https://doi.org/./sof...
Blair-Loy, M. & Wharton, A.S. (). Organizational commitment
and constraints on work–family policy use: Corporate flexibil-
ity policies in a global firm. Sociological Perspectives, , –.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./sop.....
Boye, K. (). Work and well-being in a comparative perspective—
the role of family policy. European Sociological Review,,–.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./esr/jcp.
Brandth, B. (). The co-location of home and work in two
generations of farmers: What effects on fathering practices?
Families, Relationships and Societies,,–.Availableat:
https://doi.org/./_.
Bretherton, T. (). Work and family policy: Spoilt for choice or
spoilt by choice? Journal of Management & Organization,,–
.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (). The ecology of human development: Exper-
iments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (). Ecology of the family as a context for
human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psy-
chology, , –.
Brough, P., Holt, J., Bauld, R., Biggs, A. & Ryan, C. (). The ability
of work–life balance policies to influence key social/organisational
issues. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,,–
.
Bruhn, J. & Philips, B. (). Measuring social support: A synthesis
of current approaches. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,,–.
Brumley, K.M. (). “It was like a revolution”: Women’s percep-
tions of work–family practices at a Mexican multinational corpo-
ration. Journal of Family Issues, , –. Available at: https:
//doi.org/.//.
Budd, J.W. & Mumford, K.A. (). Family-friendly work prac-
tices in Britain: Availability and perceived accessibility. Human
Resource Management, , –.
Budig, M.J., Misra, J. & Boeckmann, I. (). Work–family policy
trade-offs for mothers? Unpacking the cross-national variation in
motherhood earnings penalties. Work & Occupations,,–.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./.
Bünning, M. & Pollmann-Schult, M. (). Family policies and
fathers’ working hours: Cross-national differences in the paternal
labour supply. Work, Employment & Society, , –.
Butler, A., Gasser, M. & Smart, L. (). A social–cognitive perspec-
tive on using family-friendly benefits. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior,,–.Availableat:https://doi.org/./S-()
-.
Butts, M.M., Casper, W.J. & Yang, T.S. (). How important are
work–family support policies? A meta-analytic investigation of
their effects on employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
, –. Available at: https://doi.org/./a.
Cannizzo, F., Mauri, C. & Osbaldiston, N. (). Moral barriers
between work/life balance policy and practice in academia.
Journal of Cultural Economy, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./...
Cheng, T., Mauno, S. & Lee, C. (). Do job control, support, and
optimism help job insecure employees? A three-wave study of
buffering effects on job satisfaction, vigor and work–family enrich-
ment. Social Indicators Research, , –. Available at: https:
//doi.org/./s---.
Cogin, J.A., Sanders, K. & Williamson, I.O. (). Work–life support
practices and customer satisfaction: The role of TMT composition
and country culture. Human Resource Management,,–.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./hrm..
Cohen, S. & Wills, T.A. (). Stress,social support, and the buffering
hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin,,–.
Cook, A. (). Public policies to help dual-earner families meet the
demands of the work world. Industrial & Labor Relations Review,
, –. Available at: https://doi.org/./.
Cook, A. (). Connecting work–family policies to supportive work
environments. Group & Organization Management, , –.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./.
Cooke, A., Smith, D. & Booth, A. (). Beyond PICO: The SPI-
DER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health
Research, , –.
Craig, L., Mullan, K. & Blaxland, M. (). Parenthood, policy
and work–family time in Australia –. Work, Employ-
ment & Society, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
.
Crompton, R. (). Employment, flexible working and the family.
British Journal of Sociology, , –. Available at: https://doi.
org/./.
Crompton, R. (). Employment and the family: The reconfigura-
tion of work and family life in contemporary societies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Daverth, G., Hyde, P. & Cassell, C. (). Uptake of organisational
work–life balance opportunities: The context of support. Inter-
national Journal of Human Resource Management,,–.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./...
de Janasz, S., Behson, S.J., Jonsen, K. & Lankau, M.J. (). Dual
sources of support for dual roles: How mentoring and work–family
culture influence work–family conflict and job attitudes. Inter-
national Journal of Human Resource Management, , –.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./...
de la Rica, S. & Gorjon, L. (). The impact of family-friendly poli-
cies in Spain and their use throughout the business cycle. IZA
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 25
Journal of European Labor Studies, , p. . Available at: https:
//doi.org/./s---.
de Menezes, L.M. & Kelliher, C. (). Flexible working and perfor-
mance: A systematic review of the evidence for a business case.
International Journal of Management Reviews, , –.
Deckers, L. (). Motivation: Biological, psychological, and environ-
mental, th edn. New York: Routledge.
den Dulk, L. (). Workplace work–family arrangements: A study
and explanatory framework of differences between organizational
provisions in different welfare states. In: Poelmans, S.A.Y. (Ed.),
Work and family: An international research perspective.Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. –.
den Dulk, L. & de Ruijter, J. (). Managing work–life policies:
Disruption versus dependency arguments. Explaining manage-
rial attitudes towards employee utilization of work–life policies.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, , –
. Available at: https://doi.org/./.
den Dulk, L., Groeneveld, S., Ollier-Malaterre, A. & Valcour, M.
(). National context in work–life research: A multi-level cross-
national analysis of the adoption of workplace work–life arrange-
ments in Europe. European Management Journal, , –.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./j.emj....
den Dulk, L., Peters, P. & Poutsma, E. (). Variations in adoption
of workplace work–family arrangements in Europe: The influence
of welfare-state regime and organizational characteristics. Inter-
national Journal of Human Resource Management, , –.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./...
Dengate, J.L. (). How does family policy “work”? Job context,
flexibility, and maternity leave policy. Sociology Compass, , –
. Available at: https://doi.org/./soc..
Dikkers, J.S.E., Geurts, S.A.E., den Dulk, L., Peper, B., Taris, T.W. &
Kompier, M.A.J. (). Dimensions of work–home culture and
their relations with the use of work–home arrangements and
work–home interaction. Work & Stress, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./.
Dona, A. (). Using the EU to promote gender equality policy in a
traditional context: Reconciliation of work and family life in Italy.
In: Lombardo, E. & Forest, M. (Eds), Europeanization of gender
equality policies: A discursive-sociological approach. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. –.
Drago, R., Costanza, D., Caplan, R., Brubaker, T., Cloud, D., Harris,
N., et al. (). The willingness-to-pay for work/family policies:
A study of teachers. Industrial & Labor Relations Review,,–.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./.
Du, F., Dong, X. & Zhang, Y. (). Grandparent-provided child-
care and labor force participation of mothers with preschool chil-
dren in urban China. China Population and Development Stud-
ies,,–.Availableat:https://doi.org/./s--
-.
Earle, A., Mokomane, Z. & Heymann, J. ().International perspec-
tives on work–family policies: Lessons from the world’s most com-
petitive economies. Future of Children, , –.
Estes, S.B. (). Work–family arrangements and parenting: Are
“family-friendly” arrangements related to mothers’ involvement
in children’s lives? Sociological Perspectives, , –. Available
at: https://doi.org/./sop.....
Fagnani, J. & Letablier, M.T. (). Work and family life bal-
ance: The impact of the -hour laws in France. Work, Employ-
ment and Society, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
.
Fahlen, S. (). Capabilities and childbearing intentions in Europe:
The association between work–family reconciliation policies, eco-
nomic uncertainties and women’s fertility plans. European Soci-
eties, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./.
..
Fan, C.C. (). Flexible work, flexible household: Labor migration
and rural families in China. In: Keister, L. (Ed.), Work and orga-
nizations in China after thirty years of transition. Bingley: Emerald
Group, pp. –.
Fang, T., Lee, B., Timming, A.R. & Fan, D. (). The effects of work–
life benefits on employment outcomes in Canada: A multivariate
analysis. Relations Industrielles (Industrial Relations), , –.
Faria, A. & Machado, C.F. (). Work–family conciliation policies:
Answering to corporate social responsibility—a case study. In:
Machado, C. & Davim, J.P. (Eds), Corporate social responsibility in
management and engineering. London: River Publishing, pp. –
.
Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Zivnuska, S. & Whitten, D. (). Sup-
port at work and home: The path to satisfaction through bal-
ance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./j.jvb....
Firfiray, S. & Mayo, M. (). The lure of work–life benefits: Per-
ceived person–organization fit as a mechanism explaining job
seeker attraction to organizations. Human Resource Management,
, –. Available at: https://doi.org/./hrm..
Fletcher, G.J.O. & Fincham, F.D. (Eds) (). Cognition in close rela-
tionships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
French, K.A., Dumani, S., Allen, T.D. & Shockley, K.M. (). A
meta-analysis of work–family conflict and social support. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
bul.
Fritz, C. & van Knippenberg, D. (). Gender and leadership aspi-
ration: The impact of work–life initiatives. Human Resource Man-
agement, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./hrm.
.
Fuller, S. & Hirsh, C.E. (). “Family-friendly” jobs and mother-
hood pay penalties: The impact of flexible work arrangements
across the educational spectrum. Work&Occupations, , –.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./.
Gatrell, C.J., Burnett, S.B., Cooper, C.L. & Sparrow, P. (). Work–
life balance and parenthood: A comparative review of defini-
tions, equity and enrichment. International Journal of Manage-
ment Reviews, , –.
Gentilesco-Giue, J. & Petrescu, O. (). Case study —work–
life, flexibility, and mobility: Ensuring global support of flexibil-
ity within IBM’s on-demand company. In: Poelmans, S.A.Y. &
Caligiuri, P. (Eds), Harmonizing work, family, and personal life:
From policy to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. –.
Ghislieri, C., Gatti, P., Molino, M. & Cortese, C.G. (). Work–
family conflict and enrichment in nurses: Between job demands,
perceived organisational support and work–family backlash. Jour-
nal of Nursing Management, , –. Available at: https://doi.
org/./jonm..
Giardini, A. & Kabst, R. (). Effects of work–family human
resource practices: A longitudinal perspective. International
26 FAN .
Journal of Human Resource Management, , –. Available
at: https://doi.org/./.
Glass, J., Simon, R.W. & Andersson, M.A. (). Parenthood and
happiness: Effects of work–family reconciliation policies in
OECD countries. American Journal of Sociology,,–.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./.
Glauber, R. & Young, J.R. (). On the fringe: Family-friendly
benefits and the rural–urban gap among working women. Jour-
nal of Family and Economic Issues, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./s---z.
Golden, A.G. (). Employee families and organizations as mutu-
ally enacted environments: A sensemaking approach to work–
life interrelationships. Management Communication Quarterly,,
–.
Golden, S.D. & Earp, J.A.L. (). Social ecological approaches to
individuals and their contexts: Twenty years of “health education
& behavior” health promotion interventions. Health Education &
Behavior,,–.
Gomez, R., Budd, J. & Meltz, N. (). Why a balance is best: The
pluralist industrial relations paradigms of balancing competing
interests. In: Kaufman, B.E. (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives on work
and the employment relationship. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, pp. –.
Grawitch, M.J., Barber, L.K. & Justice, L. (). Rethinking the
work–life interface: It’s not about balance, it’s about resource allo-
cation. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being,,–.
Grönlund, A. & Javornik, J. () Great expectations. Dual-earner
policies and the management of work–family conflict: the exam-
ples of Sweden and Slovenia. Families, Relationships and Societies,
(), –. https://doi.org/./x
Gronlund, A. & Magnusson, C. (). Family-friendly policies and
women’s wages—is there a trade-off? Skill investments, occu-
pational segregation and the gender pay gap in Germany, Swe-
den and the UK. European Societies, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./..
Gurbuz, S., Turunc, O. & Celik, M. (). The impact of perceived
organizational support on work–family conflict: Does role over-
load have a mediating role? Economic and Industrial Democracy,
, –. Available at: https://doi.org/.//
Haar, J.M. & Spell, C.S. (). Programme knowledge and value
of work–family practices and organizational commitment. Inter-
national Journal of Human Resource Management,,–.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./.
Halbesleben, J.R.B., Wheeler, A.R. & Rossi, A.N.A.M. (). The
costs and benefits of working with one’s spouse: A two-sample
examination of spousal support, work–family conflict, and emo-
tional exhaustion in work-linked relationships. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/.
/job..
Heywood, J.S. & Jirjahn, U. (). Family-friendly practices and
worker representation in Germany. Industrial Relations, , –
. Available at: https://doi.org/./j.-X...x.
Hildebrandt, E. (). Balance between work and life—new cor-
porate impositions through flexible working time or opportunity
for time sovereignty? European Societies, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./.
Hill, E.J., Carroll, S.J., Jones, B.L., Buswell, L.A., Fackrell, T.A. &
Galovan, A.M. (). Temporal workplace flexibility and associ-
ated work–life outcomes for professionals. In: Kaiser, S., Ringlstet-
ter, M.J., Eikhof, D.R., & Pina e Cunha, M. (Eds), Creating balance?
International perspectives on the work–life integration of profession-
als. Berlin: Springer, pp. –.
Hill, E.J., Erickson, J.J., Holmes, E.K. & Ferris, M. (). Workplace
flexibility, work hours, and work–life conflict: Finding an extra
day or two. Journal of Family Psychology, , –. Available
at: https://doi.org/./a.
Hobfoll, S.E. (). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at con-
ceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, , –. Available
at: https://doi.org/.//-X....
Hobfoll, S.E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P. & Westman, M. ().
Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The real-
ity of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organi-
zational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,,–.
Husu, L. (). Women’s work-related and family-related discrimi-
nation and support in academia. In: Segal, M.T. & Demos, V. (Ed.),
Gender realities: Local and global. Bingley: Emerald Group, pp.
–.
Hyman, J. & Summers, J.(). Lacking balance? Work–life employ-
ment practices in the modern economy. Personnel Review,,–
. Available at: https://doi.org/./.
Jang, S.J. (). The relationships of flexible work schedules,
workplace support, supervisory support, work–life balance,
and the well-being of working parents. JournalofSocialSer-
vice Research, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
.
Jenkins, S., Bhanugopan, R. & Lockhart, P. (). A framework
for optimizing work–life balance practices in Australia: Perceived
options for employee support. Journal of Employment Counseling,
, –. Available at: https://doi.org/./joec..
Jessee, E. (). The life history interview. In: Liamputtong, P. (Ed.),
Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Singapore:
Springer, pp. –.
Jones, B.L., Scoville, D.P., Hill, E.J., Childs, G., Leishman, J.M. &
Nally, K.S. (). Perceived versus used workplace flexibility in
Singapore: Predicting work–family fit. Journal of Family Psychol-
ogy, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./a.
Kalysh, K., Kulik, C.T. & Perera, S. (). Help or hindrance? Work–
life practices and women in management. Leadership Quarterly,
, –. Available at: https://doi.org/./j.leaqua...
.
Khallash, S. & Kruse, M. (). The future of work and work–life
balance . Futures, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/
./j.futures....
Kim, H., Kim, Y. & Kim, D.-L. (). Negative work–family/family–
work spillover and demand for flexible work arrangements: The
moderating roles of parenthood and gender. International Jour-
nal of Human Resource Management, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./...
Kim, S. & Hollensbe, E. (). When work comes home: Technology-
related pressure and home support. Human Resource Develop-
ment International, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/.
/...
Konrad, A.M. & Yang, Y. (). Is using work–life interface benefits
a career-limiting move? An examination of women, men, lone par-
ents, and parents with partners. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./job..
Kossek, E.E. (). Work and family in America: Growing tensions
between employment policy and a transformed workforce. In:
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 27
Lawler, E.E. & O’Toole, J. (Eds), America at work: Choices and
challenges. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. –.
Kossek, E.E. (). Capturing social and cultural influences: Relat-
ing individual work–life experiences to context. Community, Work
&Family, , –.
Kossek, E.E. & Lautsch, B.A. (). Work–life flexibility for whom?
Occupational status and work–life inequality in upper, middle,
and lower level jobs. Academy of Management Annals,,–.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./annals..
Kossek, E.E., Lautsch, B.A. & Eaton, S.C. (). Telecommuting,
control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and
practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/.
/j.jvb....
Kossek, E.E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T. & Hammer, L.B. (). Work-
place social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis
clarifying the influence of general and work–family-specific super-
visor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology,,–
. Available at: https://doi.org/./j.-...x.
WORKPLACE.
Krys, K., Swidrak, J., Kwiatkowska, A., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N. &
Vedoy, G. (). The role of organizational and spouse support
in solving work–life conflict among migrants. International Jour-
nal of Stress Management, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/.
/str.
Kumar, G.V. & Janakiram, B. (). Theories of work life balance—a
conceptual review. International Research Journal of Management
and Commerce,,–.
Ladkin, A., Willis, C., Jain, J., Clayton, W. & Marouda, M. ().
Business travellers’ connections to home: ICTs supporting work–
life balance. New Technology, Work and Employment,,–.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./ntwe..
Las Heras, M., Rofcanin, Y., Bal, P.M. & Stollberger, J. ().
How do flexibility ideals relate to work performance? Explor-
ing the roles of family performance and organizational context.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./job..
Leitner, A. & Wroblewski, A. (). Welfare states and work–life bal-
ance c—can good practices be transferred from the Nordic coun-
tries to conservative welfare states? European Societies,,–.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./.
Lim, S. & Lee, A. (). Work and nonwork outcomes of work-
place incivility: Does family support help? Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
a.
Lin, J.-H., Wong, J.-Y. & Ho, C. (). Promoting frontline
employees’ quality of life: Leisure benefit systems and work-to-
leisure conflicts. Tourism Management, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./j.tourman....
Lin, K.J., Ilies, R., Pluut, H. & Pan, S.-Y. (). You are a helpful co-
worker, but do you support your spouse? A resource-based work–
family model of helping and support provision. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./j.obhdp....
Littlejohn, S.W. & Foss, K.A. (Eds) (). Encyclopedia of communi-
cation theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lockwood, N.R. (). Work/life balance: Challenges and solutions.
SHRM Research Quarterly,,–.
Loretto, W. & Vickerstaff, S. (). Gender, age and flexible working
in later life. Work, Employment, and Society, , –. Available
at: https://doi.org/./.
Mansour, S. & Tremblay, D.-G. (). Work–family conflict/family–
work conflict, job stress, burnout and intention to leave in the hotel
industry in Quebec (Canada): Moderating role of need for family
friendly practices as “resource passageways”. International Jour-
nal of Human Resource Management, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./...
Martin, C. (). Work, family and public policy dynamics in France.
International Review of Sociology (Revue Internationale de Sociolo-
gie), , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./.
..
Matias, M., Ferreira, T., Vieira, J., Cadima, J., Leal, T. & Matos, P.M.
(). Workplace family support, parental satisfaction, and work–
family conflict: Individual and crossover effects among dual-
earner couples. Applied Psychology: An International Review, ,
–. Available at: https://doi.org/./apps..
McCarthy, A., Cleveland, J.N., Hunter, S., Darcy, C. & Grady, G.
(). Employee work–life balance outcomes in Ireland: A multi-
level investigation of supervisory support and perceived organiza-
tional support. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./.
..
McCarthy, A., Darcy, C. & Grady, G. (). Work–life balance pol-
icy and practice: Understanding line manager attitudes and behav-
iors. Human Resource Management Review, , –. Available
at: https://doi.org/./j.hrmr....
McDonald, P., Townsend, K. & Wharton, A. (). The legitima-
tion and reproduction of discourse–practice gaps in work–life bal-
ance. Personnel Review, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/
./.
McKee, L., Mauthner, N. & Maclean, C. (). “Family friendly”
policies and practices in the oil and gas industry: Employers’ per-
spectives. Work, Employment & Society, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./S.
Merton, R.K. (). The Matthew effect in science. Science,,–
.
Mescher, S., Benschop, Y. & Doorewaard, H. (). Representations
of work–life balance support. Human Relations,,–.Avail-
able at: https://doi.org/./.
Michel, J.S., Mitchelson, J.K., Pichler, S. & Cullen, K.L. (). Clar-
ifying relationships among work and family social support, stres-
sors, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior,,
–. Available at: https://doi.org/./j.jvb....
Millar, M., Coen, L., Bradley, C. & Rau, H. (). “Doing the job as a
parent”: Parenting alone, work, and family policy in Ireland. Jour-
nal of Family Issues, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
/.
Misra, J., Moller, S. & Budig, M.J. (). Work–family policies
and poverty for partnered and single women in Europe and
North America. Gender & Society, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./.
Moen, P., Kelly, E.L., Fan, W., Lee, S.-R., Almeida, D., Kossek,
E.E., et al. (). Does a flexibility/support organizational initia-
tive improve high-tech employees’ well-being? Evidence from the
work, family, and health network. American Sociological Review,
, –. Available at: https://doi.org/./.
28 FAN .
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Altman, D., Antes,
G., et al. (). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews
and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine,
, e. Available at: https://doi.org/./journal.pmed.
.
Moon, S.-Y. & Roh, J. (). Balancing work and family in
South Korea’s public organizations: Focusing on family-friendly
policies in elementary school organizations. Public Personnel
Management, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
.
Morris, M.L., Heames, J.T. & McMillan, H.S. (). Human
resource executives’ perceptions and measurement of the strate-
gic impact of work/life initiatives. Human Resource Develop-
ment Quarterly, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
hrdq..
Mullins, F. & Holmes, J. (). Balancing board? The effects of
board independence and capital on firms offering work–family
benefits. Human Resource Management, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./hrm..
Muñoz-Laboy, M., Severson, N., Perry, A. & Guilamo-Ramos, V.
(). Differential impact of types of social support in the men-
tal health of formerly incarcerated Latino men. American Journal
of Men’s Health,,–.
Muse, L., Harris, S.G., Giles, W.F. & Feild, H.S. (). Work–life ben-
efits and positive organizational behavior: Is there a connection?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, , –.
Naithani, P. (). Overview of work–life balance discourse and its
relevance in current economic scenario. Asian Social Science,,
–. Available at: https://doi.org/./ass.vnp.
Nohe, C. & Sonntag, K. (). Work–family conflict, social support,
and turnover intentions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./j.jvb.
...
Nord, W.R., Fox, S., Phoenix, A. & Viano, K. (). Real-world reac-
tions to work–life balance programs: Lessons for effective imple-
mentation. Organizational Dynamics,,–.
Okechukwu, C.A., Kelly, E.L., Bacic, J., DePasquale, N., Hurtado,
D., Kossek, E., et al. (). Supporting employees’ work–family
needs improves health care quality: Longitudinal evidence from
long-term care. Social Science & Medicine, , –. Available
at: https://doi.org/./j.socscimed....
Oliver, E.A. (). Living flexibly? How Europe’s science researchers
manage mobility, fixed-term employment and life outside work.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, , –
. Available at: https://doi.org/./...
Ollier-Malaterre, A. & Andrade, C. (). Not for everyone: Intra-
organisational divides and the stratification of access to work–
life policies. Community, Work & Family, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./...
Ollier-Malaterre, A. & Foucreault, A. (). Cross-national work–life
research: Cultural and structural impacts for individuals and orga-
nizations. Journal of Management, , –.
Ollier-Malaterre, A., Valcour, M., den Dulk, L. & Kossek, E.E. ().
Theorizing national context to develop comparative work–life
research: A review and research agenda. European Management
Journal, , –.
Ozbilgin, M., Beauregard, T.A., Tatli, A. & Bell, M.P. (). Work–
life, diversity and intersectionality: A critical review and research
agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,,–.
Parker, L. & Allen, T.D. (). Work/family benefits: Variables
related to employees’ fairness perceptions. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./jvbe.
..
Pedersen, V.B. & Lewis, S. (). Flexible friends? Flexible work-
ing time arrangements, blurred work–life boundaries and friend-
ship. Work, Employment & Society, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./.
Peper, B., den Dulk, L. & van Doorne-Huiskes, A. (). Work–
family policies in a contradictory culture: A Dutch financial sec-
tor corporation. In: Lewis, S., Brannen, J. & Nilsen, A. (Eds),
Work, families and organisations in transition: European perspec-
tives. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. –.
Perrigino, M.B., Dunford, B.B. & Wilson, K.S. (). Work–family
backlash: The “dark side” of work–life balance (WLB) poli-
cies. Academy of Management Annals, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./annals...
Pluut, H., Ilies, R., Cureu, P.L. & Liu, Y.(). Social support at work
and at home: Dual-buffering effects in the work–family conflict
process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
, –. Available at: https://doi.org/./j.obhdp....
Pocock, B., Williams, P. & Skinner, N. (). Conceptualizing work,
family and community: A socio-ecological systems model, taking
account of power, time, space and life stage. British Journal of
Industrial Relations, , –.
Poelmans, S. & Beham, B. (). The moment of truth: Conceptu-
alizing managerial work–life policy allowance decisions. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, , –. Avail-
able at: https://doi.org/.//.
Poelmans, S.A.Y., Patel, S. & Beham, B. (). Stages in the imple-
mentation of work–life policies. In: Poelmans, S.A.Y. & Caligiuri,
P. (Eds), Harmonizing work, family, and personal life: From policy
to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –.
Powell, G.N. & Greenhaus, J.H. (). Managing incidents of work–
family conflict: A decision-making perspective. Human Relations,
, –.
Rajan-Rankin, S. & Tomlinson, M. (). Do work–family policies
really “work”? Evidence from Indian call centres. In: Poelmans, S.,
Greenhaus, J. & Maestro, M.L.H. (Eds), Expanding the boundaries
of work–family research: A vision for the future.London:Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. –.
Reimer, T. (). Working time arrangements and family time of
fathers: How work organization(s) shape fathers’ opportunities to
engage in childcare. Management Revue, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./----.
Remery, C., van Doorne-Huiskes, A. & Schippers, J. (). Family-
friendly policies in The Netherlands: The tripartite involvement.
Personnel Review,,–.
Richard, L., Gauvin, L. & Raine, K. (). Ecological models revis-
ited: Their uses and evolution in health promotion over two
decades. Annual Review of Public Health,,–.
Riva, E. (). Familialism reoriented: Continuity and change in
work–family policy in Italy. Community Work & Family, , –.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./...
Roberts, G.E., Gianakis, J.A., McCue, C. & Wang, X. ().
Traditional and family-friendly benefits practices in local gov-
ernments: Results from a national survey. Public Personnel
Management, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
.
A PROCESS-ORIENTED, MULTILEVEL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUAL 29
Rogers, E .M. (). Diffusion of innovations, th edn. New York: Free
Press.
Rudolph, C.W., Michel, J.S., Harari, M.B. & Stout, T.J. ().
Perceived social support and work–family conflict: A compari-
son of Hispanic immigrants and non-immigrants. Cross Cultural
Management, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
ccm---.
Ryan, A.M. & Kossek, E.E. (). Work–life policy implementa-
tion: Breaking down or creating barriers to inclusiveness? Human
Resource Management, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/
./hrm..
Shai, D. (). Working women/cloistered men: A family develop-
ment approach to marriage arrangements among ultra-Orthodox
Jews. Journal of Comparative Family Studies,,–.Available
at: https://doi.org/./jcfs....
Shanahan, M.J. & Porfelli, E. (). Integrating the life course and
life-span: Formulating research questions with dual points of
entry. Journal of Vocational Behavior, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./jvbe...
Shinn, M., Lehmann, S. & Wong, N.W. (). Social interaction and
social support. Journal of Social Issues, , –.
Shockley, K.M. & Allen, T.D. (). Episodic work–family conflict,
cardiovascular indicators, and social support: An experience sam-
pling approach. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,,
–. Available at: https://doi.org/./a.
Singh, V. & Dickson, J. (). Ethnographic approaches to the study
of organizations. In: Partington, D. (Ed.), Essential skills for man-
agement research. London: Sage, pp. –.
Singley, S.G. & Hynes, K. (). Transitions to parenthood—work–
family policies, gender, and the couple context. Gender & Society,
, –. Available at: https://doi.org/./.
Skinner, N. & Pocock, B. (). Flexibility and work–life interference
in Australia. Journal of Industrial Relations, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./.
Snooks, G. (). The dynamic society: Exploring the sources of global
change. London: Routledge.
Somech, A. & Drach-Zahavy, A. (). Coping with work–family
conflict: The reciprocal and additive contributions of personal cop-
ing and organizational family-friendly support. Work & Stress,,
–. Available at: https://doi.org/./...
Spinks, N. (). Work–life balance: Achievable goal or pipe dream?
Journal for Quality & Participation, , –.
Tardy, C. (). Social support measurement. American Journal of
Community Psychology, , –.
ten Brummelhuis, L.L. & Bakker, A.B. (). A resource perspective
on the work–home interface: The work–home resources model.
The American Psychologist, , –.
Thakur, S.J. & Bhatnagar, J. (). Mediator analysis of job embed-
dedness: Relationship between work–life balance practices and
turnover intentions. Employee Relations, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./ER---.
Thebaud, S. & Pedulla, D.S. (). Masculinity and the
stalled revolution: How gender ideologies and norms shape
young men’s responses to work–family policies. Gender
& Society, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
.
Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L. & Lyness, K.S. (). When work–
family benefits are not enough: The influence of work–family cul-
ture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work–
family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, , –.
Thörnqvist, C. () Family-friendly labour market policies and
careers in Sweden—and the lack of them. British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling, (), –. http://doi.org/./
.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P. (). Towards a methodol-
ogy for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by
means of systematic review. British Journal of Management,,
–. Available at: https://doi.org/./-..
Trefalt, Š., Drnovšek, M., Svetina-Nabergoj, A. & Adlešič, R.V.
(). Work–life experiences in rapidly changing national con-
texts: Structural misalignment, comparisons and choice overload
as explanatory mechanisms. European Management Journal,,
–.
Turki, S. (). Work–family balance: Origins, practices and statis-
tical portrait from Canada and France. E-Journal of International
and Comparative Labour Studies,,–.Availableat:http://ejcls.
adapt.it/index.php/ejcls_adapt/article/view/.
van Mechelen, N. & Bradshaw, J. (). Child poverty as a govern-
ment priority: Child benefit packages for working families, –
. In: Marx, I. & Nelson, K. (Eds), Minimum income protection
in flux. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. –.
van Steenbergen, E.F., Ellemers, N., Haslam, S.A. & Urlings, F.
(). There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes
it so: Informational support and cognitive appraisal of the
work–family interface. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/.
//.
Voydanoff, P. (). A conceptual model of the work–family inter-
face. In: Korabik, K., Lero, D.S. & Whitehead, D.L. (Eds), Hand-
book of work–family integration: Research, theory, and best prac-
tices. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. –.
Vyas, L., Lee, S.Y. & Chou, K.-L. (). Utilization of family-friendly
policies in Hong Kong. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
...
Wang, P., Lawler, J.J. & Shi, K. (). Implementing family-friendly
employment practices in banking industry: Evidences from some
African and Asian countries. Journal of Occupational and Orga-
nizational Psychology, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/.
//.
Warren, T., Fox, E. & Pascall, G. (). Innovative social policies:
Implications for work–life balance among low-waged women in
England. Gender, Work & Organization, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./j.-...x.
Wharton, A.S., Chivers, S. & Blair-Loy, M. (). Use of formal and
informal work–family policies on the digital assembly line. Work
and Occupations, , –. Available at: https://doi.org/./
.
Wilkinson, K., Tomlinson, J. & Gardiner, J. (). The perceived fair-
ness of work–life balance policies: A UK case study of solo-living
managers and professionals without children. Human Resource
Management Journal,,–.
Winston, P., Coombs, E., Bennett, R., Antelo, L., Landers, P. & Abbott,
M. (). Paid family leave: Supporting work attachment among
lower income mothers. Community, Work & Family,,–.
Avai la bl e at : https://doi.org/./...
30 FAN .
Xiao, Y. & Cooke, F.L. (). Work–life balance in China? Social pol-
icy, employer strategy and individual coping mechanisms. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, , –. Available at: https:
//doi.org/./j.-...x.
Yuile, C., Chang, A., Gudmundsson, A. & Sawang, S. (). The
role of life friendly policies on employees’ work–life balance.
Journal of Management & Organization, , –. Available at:
https://doi.org/./jmo.....
How to cite this article: Fan Y, Potočnik K,
Chaudhry S. A process-oriented, multilevel,
multidimensional conceptual framework of
work–life balance support: A multidisciplinary
systematic literature review and future research
agenda. International Journal of Management
Reviews, ;–.
https://doi.org/./ijmr.
