Multidimensional work-nonwork balance: are balanced employees productive at work and satisfied with life?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Hypothesized model. FSS = supervisor work-nonwork support. WNW = work-nonwork.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for Study 1.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Age	30.34	8.00
2. Gender	0.38	0.49	.02
3. Relationship status	0.74	0.44	.24	.08
4. FSS	3.41	.67	.03	.08	.13
5. WNW balance satisfaction	3.57	.68	.12	.03	.14	.37*
6. WNW balance effectiveness	3.78	.57	−0.04	.14	.06	.39*	.54*
7. Life satisfaction, Time 2	3.38	.95	.02	.16	.20*	.37*	.32*	.43*
8. Job performance, Time 2	3.85	.64	.02	.14	.03	.05	.00	.20*	.25*

Note. N = 146. FSS = Supervisor work-nonwork support. WNW = Work-nonwork. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Relationship status: 0 = single, 1 = in a relationship. *p < 0.05.

Table 2. Unstandardized regression coefficients with confidence intervals estimating mediation for life satisfaction and job performance for Study 1.

Variables	WNWB satisfaction			WNWB effectiveness			Life satisfaction			Job Performance
	B	SE	p	B	SE	p	B	SE	p	B	SE	p
1. Age	.01	.01	.26	−0.00	.01	.48	−0.00	.01	.82	.00	.01	.60
2. Gender	−0.01	.11	.92	.12	.09	.17	.18	.14	.20	.13	.11	.22
3. Relationship status	.10	.12	.41	.01	.10	.89	.31	.16	.06	.03	.12	.81
4. FSS	.36	.08	.00	.33	.06	.00	.30	.11	.01	−0.02	.08	.84
5. WNW balance satisfaction							.08	.12	.52	−0.14	.09	.13
6. WNW balance effectiveness							.49	.15	.00	.31	.11	.01
	Effect				Boot SE				CI
Life satisfaction
1. Indirect effect of WNW balance satisfaction	.03				.05				−0.066;.139
2. Indirect effect of WNW balance effectiveness	.16				.07				.031;.318
Job performance
1. Indirect effect of WNW balance satisfaction	−0.05				.03				−0.125;.013
2. Indirect effect of WNW balance effectiveness	.10				.05				.023;.202

Note. N = 146. FSS = Supervisor work-nonwork support. WNW = Work-nonwork. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Relationship status: 0 = single, 1 = in a relationship. Findings obtained via bootstrapping with 20,000 repetitions, 95% CI. CIs that do not include zero show significant mediation.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for Study 2.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Company	1.28	0.45
2. Age	42.85	9.45	.25*
3. Gender	0.72	.45	.28*	.05
4. Relationship status	0.79	0.41	.04	−0.01	−0.02
5. FSS	3.67	.71	.38*	.01	.11	.07
6. WNWB balance satisfaction	3.57	.87	.37*	−0.03	.20*	.05	.41*
7. WNWB balance effectiveness	3.54	.70	.34*	.03	.10	.18*	.38*	.75*
8. Life satisfaction, Time 2	3.82	.72	.23*	−0.02	.06	.16	.24*	.43*	.45*
9. Job performance, Time 2	3.68	.64	.46*	.22*	.15	.08	.51*	.15	.06	.16

Note. Ns ranged from 103 to 142. FSS = Supervisor work-nonwork support. WNW = Work-nonwork. Company:1 = Company 1 (pharmaceutical company), 2 = Company 2 (geriatric company). Gender: 0 = male, 1 female. Relationship status: 0 = single, 1 = in a relationship.p < .05.

Table 4. Unstandardized regression coefficients with confidence intervals estimating mediation for life satisfaction and job performance for Study 2.

Variables	WNWB satisfaction			WNWB effectiveness			Life satisfaction			Job Performance
	B	SE	p	B	SE	p	B	SE	p	B	SE	p
1. Company	.36	.21	.09	.34	.16	.04	.07	.17	.67	.48	.15	.00
2. Age	−0.01	.01	.42	−0.01	.01	.90	−0.00	.01	.52	.01	.01	.35
3. Gender	.29	.19	.13	.14	.15	.33	.03	.15	.86	.05	.13	.71
4. Relationship status	.07	.19	.69	.25	.15	.10	.17	.16	.31	.14	.14	.28
5. FSS	.42	.12	.00	.28	.09	.00	.00	.10	.98	.35	.08	.00
6. WNW balance satisfaction							.15	.11	.15	.02	.09	.84
7. WNWB balance effectiveness							.33	.14	.02	−0.22	.11	.06
	Effect				Boot SE				CI
Life satisfaction
1. Indirect effect of WNW balance satisfaction	.06				.05				−0.021;.162
2. Indirect effect of WNW balance effectiveness	.09				.05				.008;.197
Job performance
1. Indirect effect of WNW balance satisfaction	.01				.04				−0.078;.086
2. Indirect effect of WNW balance effectiveness	−0.06				.04				−0.156;.006

Note. N = 111 (life satisfaction) and N = 103 (job performance). FSS = Supervisor work-nonwork support. WNW = Work-nonwork. Company: 1 = Company 1 (pharmaceutical company; fulltime), 2 = Company 2 (geriatric company, part-time). Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Relationship status: 0 = single, 1 = in a relationship. Findings obtained via bootstrapping with 20,000 repetitions, 95% CI. CIs that do not include zero show significant mediation.

Table

Study variables	Measure	Present study	Published paper
FSS	9 items; Thomas & Ganster (1995)	x
WNW balance effectiveness	6 items; Carlson et al. (2009)	x
WNW balance satisfaction	5 items; Valcour (2007)	x
Life satisfaction	5 items; Diener et al. (1985)	x
Job performance	11 items; Tsui et al. (1997)	x
Authentic leadership	16 items; Walumbwa et al. (2008) ^5		x
PCoA	7 items; Grandey et al. (2013)^6		x
Health	12 items; Ware et al. (1996)^7		x
Neuroticism	3 items; Judge et al. (2003)^8		x
Control variables
Company type	Pharmaceutical company, geriatric company	x	x
Follower gender	Male, female	x	x
Follower age	In years	x	x
Relationship status	Single, in a relationship	x
Positive and negative affect	10 items; Thompson (2007)^9		x

Note. FSS = Supervisor Work-nonwork support. WNW = Work-nonwork. PCoA = Perceptions of climate of authenticity.

Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Zivnuska, S. (2009). Is work—family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Human Relations; Studies towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 62(10), 1459–1486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709336500

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1512–1523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1512

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089–1121. https://doi.org/10.5465/256928

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in figshare at https://doi.org/10.15131/shef.data.20626719. The embargo that has been placed on the data will be lifted upon publication of the article using this data.