In the intersection of work and personal life, the work–life balance is the equilibrium between the two. There are many aspects of one's personal life that can intersect with work, including family, leisure, and health. A work–life balance is bidirectional; for instance, work can interfere with private life, and private life can interfere with work. This balance or interface can be adverse in nature (e.g., work–life conflict) or can be beneficial (e.g., work–life enrichment) in nature. Recent research has shown that the work-life interface has become more boundary-less, especially for technology-enabled workers.
Dominant theories of the relationship Several theories explain different aspects of the relationship between work and family life. Boundary theory and border theory are the two fundamental theories that researchers have used to study these role conflicts. Other theories are built upon the foundations of these two theories. In the two decades since boundary theory and border theory were first proposed, the rise of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) has drastically altered the work–life interface. Work can now be completed at any time and in any location, meaning that domains are more likely to be blended and boundaries barely exist.
Seven dominant theories have been utilized to explain this relationship on the boundary-border spectrum; These theories are: structural functionalism, segmentation, compensation, supplemental and reactive compensation, role enhancement, spillover, and work enrichment model.Lavassani, K. M., & Movahedi, P. (2014). "Developments in theories and measures of work–family". Contemporary Research on Organization Management and Administration, 2, 6–19.
Structural functionalism The roots of this theory can be traced back to the early 20th century, when industrial revolution was separating economic work from the family home. The 19th century's technological advancements in machinery and manufacturing initiated the separation of work from family. However, it was not until the early 20th century that the first view of work–family theories started to take shape. Structural-functionalism was one of the dominant sociology theories of early 20th century and one of the first to resemble modern work–family theories.
The structural functionalism theory, which emerged following WWII, was largely influenced from the industrial revolution and the changes in the social role of men and women during this period. This theory implies that life is concerned mainly with two separate spheres: productive life which happens in the workplace and affective life which occurs at home. Structural functionalism theory believes in the existence of radical separation between work (institution, workplace, or market) and families. According to this theory, these two (workplace and family) work best "when men and women specialize their activities in separate spheres, women at home doing expressive work and men in the workplace performing instrumental tasks".Kingsbury & Scanzoni, 1993; as cited in MacDermid, 2005:18.
Greedy institutions It has been argued that the work–family conflicts, in particular role conflicts, can be interpreted in terms of Lewis A. Coser's concept of "greedy institutions". These institutions are called "greedy" in the sense that they make all-encompassing demands on the commitment and loyalty of individuals, and tend to discourage involvement in other social spheres.Lewis A. Coser: Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment. The Free Press, New York 1974. Cited after: Jan Currie, Patricia Harris, Bev Thiele: "Sacrifices in Greedy Universities: Are They Gendered?" Gender and Education, 2000, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 269–291. S. 270.Lewis A. Coser: Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment. The Free Press, New York 1974. Cited after R. Burchielli, T. Bartram: "Work–Family Balance or Greedy Organizations?", érudit, 2008, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 108–133, Lewis A. Coser: Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment. The Free Press, New York 1974. Cited after: Asher Cohen, Bernard Susser: "Women Singing, Cadets Leaving: The Extreme Case Syndrome in Religion-Army Relationships", pp. 127 ff. In: Elisheva Rosman-Stollman, Aharon Kampinsky: Civil–Military Relations in Israel: Essays in Honor of Stuart A. Cohen, Lexington Books, 2014, , p. 130. Institutions such as religious orders, sects, academia, top level sports, the military and senior management have been interpreted as greedy institutions. On the other hand, also the family has been interpreted as a greedy institution in consideration of the demands placed on a caretaker.Rosalind Edwards: Mature Women Students: Separating or Connecting Family and Education, Taylor & Francis 1993, , Chapter 4 Greedy Institutions': Straddling the worlds of family and education". pp. 62 ff.Jan Currie, Patricia Harris, Bev Thiele: "Sacrifices in Greedy Universities: Are They Gendered?" Gender and Education, 2000, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 269–291. When a person is involved in two greedy institutions—be it child care and university, or family and the military,M. W. Segal: "The Military and the Family as Greedy Institutions", Armed Forces & Society (1986), Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 9–38, (abstract). or others—task and role conflicts arise.
A 2020 LinkedIn survey based on over 2.9 million responses concluded that employees struggling with work–life balance were 4.4 times more likely to show symptoms of occupational burnout.
Segmentation Based on this theory work and family do not affect each other, since they are segmented and independent from each other. The literature also reports the usage of the terms compartmentalization, independence, separateness, disengagement, neutrality, and detachment to describe this theory.
Compensation Theory In 1979, Piotrkowski argued that according to this theory employees "look to their homes as havens, [and] look to their families as sources of satisfaction lacking in the occupational sphere." What distinguishes compensation theory from the previous theories is that, in compensation theory, for the first time, the positive effect of work to family has been recognized.
Supplemental and reactive compensation Supplemental and reactive compensation theories are two dichotomies of compensation theory which were developed during the late 1980s and the early 1990s. While compensation theory describes the behavior of employees in pursuing an alternative reward in the other sphere, supplemental and reactive compensation theories try to describe the reason behind the work–family compensation behavior of employees.
Role enhancement theory According to this theory, the combination of certain roles has a positive, rather than a negative effect on well-being. This theory states that participation in one role is made better or easier by virtue of participation in the other role. Moreover, this theory acknowledges the negative effect of the work–family relationship, in which, only beyond a certain upper limit may overload and distress occur, however, the central focus of this perspective is mainly on the positive effects of work and family relationship, such as resource enhancement.
The negative effects of spillover Spillover is a process by which an employee's experience in one domain affects their experience in another domain. Theoretically, spillover is perceived to be one of two types: positive or negative. Spillover as the most popular view of relationship between work and family, considers multidimensional aspects of work and family relationship.
According to a 2021 study by Indeed, 53% of on-site workers found it challenging to stop thinking about work in their spare time.
Work enrichment model This theory is one of the recent models for explaining the relationship between work and family. According to this model, experience in one role (work or family) will enhance the quality of life in the other role. In other words, this model tries to explain the positive effects of the work–family relationship.
Work–family conflict
Work and family studies historically focus on studying the conflict between different roles that individuals have in their society, specifically their roles at work, and their roles as a family member.
Work–family conflict is defined as interrole conflict where the participation in one role interfere with the participation in another. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) differentiate three sources for conflict between work and family: "time devoted to the requirements of one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another" (p. 76); "strain from participation in one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another" (p. 76); "specific behaviors required by one role make it difficult to fulfill the requirements of another" (p. 76).
Conceptually, the conflict between work and family is bi-directional. Scholars distinguish between what is termed work-to-family conflict (WFC), and what is termed family-to-work conflict (FWC). This bi-directional view is displayed in the figure on the right.
Accordingly, WFC might occur when experiences at work interfere with family life like extensive, irregular, or inflexible work hours. Family-to-work conflict occurs when experiences in the family interfere with work life. For example, a parent may take time off from work in order to take care of a sick child. Although these two forms of conflict—WFC and FWC—are strongly correlated with each other, more attention has been directed at WFC. This may because family demands are more elastic than the boundaries and responsibilities of the work role. Also, research has found that work roles are more likely to interfere with family roles than family roles are likely to interfere with work role.
Allen, Herst, Bruck, and Sutton (2000) describe in their paper three categories of consequences related to WFC: work-related outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction or job performance), nonwork-related outcomes (e.g., life or family satisfaction), and stress-related outcomes (e.g., depression or substance abuse). For example, WFC has been shown to be negatively related to job satisfaction whereas the association is more pronounced for females.Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Crouter, A. C. (2005). A longitudinal and multi-source test of the work–family conflict and job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 305–323.
The vast majority of studies investigating the consequences of WFC were interrogating samples from Western countries, such as U.S. Therefore, the generalization of their findings is in question. Fortunately, there is also literature studying WFC and its consequences in other cultural contexts, such as TaiwanLu, L., Kao, S. F., Cooper, C. L., Allen, T. D., Lapierre, L. M., O'Driscoll, M., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Sanchez, J. I., & Spector, P. L. (2009). Work resources, work-to-family conflict, and its consequences: A Taiwanese–British cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Stress Management, 16, 25-44. and India.Pal, S., & Saksvik, P. Ø. (2008). Work–family conflict and psychosocial work environment stressors as predictors of job stress in a cross-cultural study. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 22–42. Lu, Kao, Cooper, Allen, Lapierre, O'Driscoll, Poelmans, Sanchez, and Spector (2009) could not find any cultural difference related in work-related and nonwork-related outcomes of WFC when they compared Great Britain and Taiwan. Likewise, Pal and Saksvik (2008) also did not detect specific cultural differences between employees from Norway and India. Nevertheless, more cross-cultural research is needed to understand the cultural dimensions of the WFC construct.