Mediator role of resilience in the relationship between social support and work life balance

ABSTRACT

Objective

In this study, we examined the mediating role of resilience in the relationship between social support and work–life balance.

Method

Questionnaires administered face-to-face were completed by 434 volunteer participants working in the service sector in the Kocaeli province of Turkey who were recruited through convenience sampling. Structural Equation Model was performed on the collected data. Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 21 and AMOS 22.

Results

Findings showed that resilience had a mediating role in the relationship between social support and work–life balance, and the three variables were positively related to each other.

Conclusions

Social support primarily affects the resilience levels of individuals, which, in turn, affects work–life balance. The increase in the level of social support of individuals also increases their resilience, and this positive change in the level of resilience positively affects work-life balance. The findings of the study are discussed on the basis of the relevant literature.KEY POINTSWhat is already known about this topic:

(1) Recent changes in organisations and employee demographics have made work–life balance more important.

(2) Ensuring work–life balance is important for both organisations and individuals.

(3) Both personal and social determinants play an important role in ensuring work–life balance.

What this topic adds:

(1) There are few studies showing the effect of resilience on the relationship between social support and work–life balance.

(2) Social support is considered one of the protective factors of resilience.

(3) Resilience is considered a personality trait that is effective in maintaining work–life balance.

KEYWORDS:

• Social support
• resilience
• work–life balance
• mediator effect
• structural equation model
• Turkey

People experience various difficulties throughout their lives, with one of the major difficulties being ensuring work–life balance. Work–life balance is an important issue as it is related to both the quality of working life and general quality of life (Guest, 2002). Before the Industrial Revolution, the life of individuals was adequately divided into work, rest, and leisure activities. The time and energy distribution between work and life were based on the day-night cycle and periodic demands. With the Industrial Revolution, the transition to mechanisation and increasing automation transformed organisations as well as the organisation of work so that the time and energy demands of work life increased. This situation has caused conflict between organisational and employee goals and blurred the boundary between work and non-work life; consequently, work–life balance has become an important social policy issue (Brough et al., 2014; Guest, 2002).

There are many studies on the antecedents and consequences of work–life balance, which is defined as having enough time and energy to meet the requirements of work and non-work life (Dizaho & Othman, 2013; Guest, 2002; Haar et al., 2019). According to Guest (2002) and Haar et al. (2019), antecedents of work–life balance focus on work and life domains, such as work demands, home demands, or family demands, working hours, social support, personality, and gender. Allen et al. (2000) examined the results of work–life balance in three groups as work-related outcomes (job satisfaction, turnover intention, absenteeism, etc.), non-work related outcomes (marital, family, and life satisfaction), and stress-related outcomes (psychological strain and burnout). Therefore, this and other studies have proven that work-life imbalance can have negative consequences, such as stress, dissatisfaction with life and work, employee turnover, sadness, and alcohol and drug use (Duxbury & Higgins, 2001; Frone et al., 1992; Guest, 2002; Haar et al., 2014; Lunau et al., 2014). These negative consequences can affect both individuals and organisations adversely.

Thus, ensuring work–life balance reduces stress in both work and non-work life; improves physical and mental health; establishes better relationships, both in the workplace and in one’s private life; increases the well-being, happiness, and efficiency of the employees, and creates a healthy organisation. Social support and resilience are two factors that may be associated with the level of work–life balance perceived by individuals and are the thrust of this study.

An important resource in dealing with stress or difficulties is social support. In times of crises and difficulties, individuals feel the need to trust and lean upon their family members and friends for support. Thus, the social support available to the individual in their environment has an impact on the health and compliance of the individual (Yılmaz et al., 2008).

Resilience is the other important factor that helps in dealing with stressful and difficult situations that individuals face in their work and non-work life. Resilience is the ability to withstand the negative consequences of stressful changes and remain decisive and alive in the face of difficulties in life (Hobfoll, 2012, p. 127). Resilience can help achieve work–life balance by reducing the level of imbalance between work and non-work life.

Despite the importance of the issue, there are a limited number of studies exploring the relationship between social support, resilience, and work-life balance. In this context, the purpose of the study was to determine whether resilience has a mediating role in the relationship between social support and work–life balance.

For this purpose, first, a conceptual framework for the concepts of social support, resilience, and work–life balance will be drawn, and the theoretical background behind the relationship of the three concepts with each other will be revealed. Later, the methods and findings of the research will be explained.

Conceptual framework

Social support

Although there is no general consensus on the definition of social support, it is generally considered to be the aid provided by the people around an individual who is stressed or vulnerable (Ardahan, 2006). While Cohen and Wills (1985) define social support as an individual’s belief or perception of the availability of social resources, Aronson et al. (2002) define social support as a person’s perception of the presence of other important and private individuals who are sensitive, understanding, and help the individual in coping with stress. According to Karasek and Theorell, social support includes beneficial social interactions with managers and colleagues in the organisation (as cited in Yürür & Sarıkaya, 2011).

The major sources of social support include family members, friends, and romantic partners (Marcinkus et al., 2007) in an individual’s private life and colleagues and managers in work life (Yürür & Sarıkaya, 2011).

Resilience

Resilience explores how and why some individuals can withstand the problems they face. Behavioural sciences have suggested and developed the concept of “resilience” to recognize, define, and measure the ability of individuals to work through troublesome situations and to be able to realize and develop their skills, despite unfavourable environmental conditions and risk factors (Riley, 2012).

There are various definitions of resilience in the literature. Accordingly, resilience is:

• The power of individuals to recover themselves in the face of difficult life experiences and the ability to return to the skills and behaviours that existed before the stressful event (Garmezy, 1991).

• The process of dealing with stress sources, change, difficulties, or opportunities, resulting in identification, strengthening and enrichment of strength characteristics or protective factors (Richardson, 2002, p. 308).

• “A measure of stress coping ability and, as such, could be an important target of treatment in anxiety, depression, and stress reactions” (Connor & Davidson, 2003, p. 76).

A common thread in these definitions is that resilience is a personality trait that reduces the negative effects of stress and supports compatibility (Riley, 2012).

Risk factors and protective factors have the potential to influence an individual’s level of resilience. Risk factors are individual or environmental factors that increase the possibility of facing a negative situation or cause an existing problem to continue and affect people negatively. Some of the risk factors that knock out individuals’ vitality include poverty, divorce, disaster, unemployment, social insufficiency, and work-life imbalance. Protective factors facilitate the individual’s constructive response in the face of negative experiences; reduce, soften, or eliminate the effect of risk factors; improve the individual’s competencies; and benefit the adaptation process. These factors may include a healthy body and appropriate physical development, a well-functioning family system, awareness and development of special talents, ability to establish good interpersonal relationships, having hopes and expectations, family loyalty, involvement in social activities, and the presence of close friends. The presence of protective factors serves to mitigate the detrimental influence of risk factors and helps individuals cope with problems and difficulties by helping them strengthen the behaviours, attitudes, and knowledge that will contribute to the resilience of the individual by reducing the negative effects of the existing problem (Richardson, 2002).

Work–life balance

The concept of work–life balance reflects a state where there is no conflict between individual’s work and non-work roles.

Hill et al. (2001) define work–life balance as the balancing of the emotional, behavioural, and time demands of work, personal and family responsibilities. In addition, Crooker et al. (2002, p. 389) describe work–life balance as a state of stability, which is characterized by balancing the complexity of life and dynamism of an individual through environmental and personal resources, such as family, society, employer, profession, geography, knowledge, economy, personality and values. Kanwar et al. (2009, p. 3) define work–life balance as a state of equilibrium where the demands of one’s work and personal life are equal. Byrne (2005, p. 127), when speaking about work–life balance, introduces the concept of “balanced wheel of life” and states that individuals try to establish a good balance between the eight dimensions of life that are work, family, self, finances, hobbies, social, health, and spiritual.

According to Hilderbrandt (2006), objective work–life balance can be evaluated as health and success in work and non-work life, while the subjective work–life balance can be evaluated as satisfaction with work and non-work life (as cited in Korkmaz & Erdoğan, 2014). According to Guest (2002, pp. 263–264), subjective work–life balance is the perceived balance between work and the rest of life, while objective work–life balance refers to obtaining satisfaction and being functional in work and non-work life with minimum role conflict.

Work–life balance is achieved by harmonizing the individual’s work, family, and personal needs and demands. When the goals, needs, and demands of any one of these three areas do not require reducing the time allocated to other areas, “balance” occurs (Doğrul & Tekeli, 2010).

There are multiple studies on the antecedents of work–life balance (Allen et al., 2000; Brough et al., 2014; Guest, 2002; Haar et al., 2019). The antecedents or determinants and consequences of work–life balance have been described in detail in Guest’s work–life balance model (2002) (Table 1).

Table 1. Guest’s work–life balance model

Determinants	Nature of Balance	Consequences
Organisational Factors Demands of work Culture of work Demands of home Culture of home	Subjective Indicators Balance – emphasis equally on home and work Balance – home central Balance – work central Spillover and/or interference of work to home Spillover and/or interference of home to work	Work satisfaction Life satisfaction Mental/health well-being Stress/illness Performance at work Performance at home Impact on others at work Impact on others at home
Individual Factors Work orientation Personality Energy Personal control and coping Gender Age Life and career stage	Objective Indicators Hours of Work Free time Family roles

Guest (2002, p. 265) Nature, causes and consequences of work–life balance.

According to Guest’s model, the antecedents of work–life balance can be categorised into organisational and individual factors. Organisational factors are demands of work, demands of home, culture of work, and culture of home. Demands of work can be too low or high. Culture of work refers to organisational culture, which may support work–life balance through flexible working hours and family-friendly policies or could hamper balance by condoning or expecting long and irregular working hours. Demands of home refer to commitments and obligations outside work. These consist of family, community, or leisure activities. The culture of the home includes the expectations of those at home about commitments and obligations, such as the allocation of family duties. Individual factors in this model include personality, energy, locus of control, gender, age, life and career stages, all of which affect the perception of work–life balance. For instance, while gender affects the level of demands, personality traits, such as locus of control and resilience affect the ability to cope with the pressure of competing demands (Brough et al., 2014; Guest, 2002, p. 266).

Theoretical framework: relationship between social support, resilience, and work–life balance

An examination of the antecedents of Guest’s (2002) model reveals that social support can be considered one of the determinants of work and home culture, and resilience can be considered a personality trait, which is one of the individual determinants. In this context, social support can be regarded as an important resource in helping individuals satisfy their roles both in work and non-work life and achieve balance by reducing negative effects (O’Driscoll et al., 2003). The “buffering hypothesis” suggested by Cohen and Wills (1985) states that social support protects individuals from the effects of negative events and increases positive effects, such as enhanced well-being and mental health. In this context, the work–life imbalance is a situation that causes negative results in the life of the individual, and social support can be considered an important factor in reducing the effects of this negative situation, protecting the individual against these effects or ensuring work–life balance.

Support from family members is an important source of social support. This support can take the form of helping the individual in daily tasks or making the individual feel that they are cared for. For example, when individuals experience an imbalance between work and non-work life, family members can provide support by helping them. Conversely, individuals who cannot receive support from family members will find it more difficult to achieve work–life balance in the process of achieving both work and non-work life goals and aspirations (Russo et al., 2016, pp. 175–176). Manager support and colleagues’ support also protects employees from the tensions they experience and reduce the impact of concurrent responsibilities (such as those of the family) and activities. Managers who support their employees cannot mitigate the non-work life responsibilities of the employees, but they can help their employees maintain a work–life balance by easing the employees’ professional responsibilities. Likewise, such support from colleagues can help an employee maintains a work–life balance. For example, a colleague can fulfil the work responsibilities of another employee, in case the latter is unable to do so due to personal problems (Wong et al., 2017).

The above examples show how social support acts as protection against work-related psychological demands and risk factors; this protective role further helps to balance the relationship between work and non-work life. Specifically, social support in work life helps lower levels of psychological tension and work stress and contributes to work–life balance (James et al., 2011, p. 335; Kumari & Sangwan, 2015, p. 176).

Accordingly, based on the above theories concerning the relationship between personal social support, manager support, colleagues’ support and work–life balance, we propose the following hypotheses:

H1: Personal social support is related to work–life balance.

H2: Manager support is related to work–life balance.

H3: Colleagues’ support is related to work–life balance.

The “conservation of resources theory” is a model that can help in understanding the relationship between social support, resilience, and work–life balance. This theory was developed by Hobfoll (1989) and is based on how people respond to and resist major changes and stress. Hobfoll emphasizes two things about resilience. First, resilience is the ability of individuals to withstand the negative consequences of stressful and even traumatic changes. Second, individuals can remain decisive even in the face of significant difficulties in their lives (Hobfoll, 2012, p. 127). Hobfoll defines sources of resilience as objects valued by individuals (such as a home or a car), personal characteristics (such as resilience and appearance), situations (such as a good marriage and social support), and energies (time, money, knowledge; Hobfoll, 1989). According to this theory, resilience is first and foremost, a feature of personal, social, material, and energy-rich environments; provides access to these resources; provides security and protection against resource loss; and promotes resource growth (Hobfoll, 2012, p. 176).

According to Hobfoll’s theory, social support is an important and valuable resource, and individuals with more social support can deal with environmental demands more easily than those with comparatively less support (Hobfoll, 1989). An effective bond with family, strong support from family and friends, and manager support increase the level of resilience, thus enabling the individual to cope with negative situations and develop a positive perspective (Garmezy, 1991, p. 417; James et al., 2011, p. 335).

Accordingly, based on the theory concerning the relationship between personal social support, manager support, colleagues’ support, resilience, and work–life balance we propose the following hypotheses:

H4: Personal social support is related to resilience.

H5: Manager support is related to resilience.

H6: Colleagues’ support is related to resilience.

H7: Resilience is related to work–life balance.

In light of these above reviews, it is possible to say that both social support and resilience may affect work–life balance. In addition, it can be said that social support is an effective factor in increasing resilience. In this context, based on the idea that resilience may have a mediating role in the relationship between social support and work–life balance, we lastly propose the following hypotheses:

H8: Resilience mediates (affects) the relationship between personal social support and work–life balance.

H9: Resilience mediates (affects) the relationship between manager support and work–life balance.

H10: Resilience mediates (affects) the relationship between colleagues’ support and work–life balance.

Accordingly, the model of this research was designed as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Study’s research model

Method

Sample

The study aimed to determine whether resilience has a mediating role in the relationship between social support and work–life balance. The study sample consisted of 434 participants, recruited through convenience sampling, who were working in the service sector in the Kocaeli province of Turkey.

The socio-demographic characteristics of the sample appear in Table 2.

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample

	N	%		N	%
Gender Female Male	218 216	50.2 49.8	Marital Status Married Single	197 237	45.4 54.6
Age 18–25 26–33 34–41 42–49 50 +	108 144 85 62 30	24.9 34.3 19.6 14.3 6.9	Occupation Managers Professionals Assistant professionals Office and customer service workers Service and sales workers Unqualified workers	39 161 41 44 109 40	9 37.1 9.4 10.1 25.1 9.3
Education Level Under High School High School/Vocational High School Undergraduate Postgraduate	21 90 288 35	4.9 20.7 66.4 8.1	Years Worked Less than 1 1-5 6-10 10 +	76 181 76 101	17.5 41.7 17.5 23.2
Total	434	100		434	100

Data collection tools

To collect data, the following questionnaires were administered face-to-face to those who agreed to participate:

Perceived social support scale

This scale, developed by Zimet et al. (1988), is a 7-point Likert scale that was translated into Turkish and subjected to a reliability test. Its score ranges between ‘1ʹ (strongly disagree) and ‘7ʹ (strongly agree).

Perceived manager support scale and perceived colleague support scale

This scale is an 11-question Perceived Manager Support Scale and a 9-question Perceived Colleague Support Scale, developed by Giray and Şahin (2012). Both of these are 5-point Likert scales, with scores ranging between ‘1ʹ (strongly disagree) and ‘5ʹ (strongly agree).

Resilience scale

This scale is a 5-point Likert type and a 25-question Resilience Scale, developed by Connor and Davidson (2003) and was translated into Turkish. The scale is rated between ‘0ʹ (not true at all) and ‘4ʹ (almost always true).

Work–life balance scale

This 5-point Likert scale has been developed by Brough et al. (2014) and was translated into Turkish by us. Its scores range between ‘1ʹ (strongly disagree) and ‘5ʹ (strongly agree).

Process and analysis

The collected data were analysed with IBM SPSS 21 and AMOS 22. Cronbach’s Alpha values were calculated to determine the reliability of the scales used (Table 3).

Table 3. Reliability analysis of scales

Scales	Cronbach’s Alpha
Personal Social Support	0.879
Manager Support	0.944
Colleague Support	0.891
Resilience	0.872
Work–Life Balance	0.879

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to examine the factor structure of the indicators used for variables. Accordingly, model fit was evaluated based on the values of the chi-square goodness of fit statistic (χ2, χ2/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR). Measures of goodness of fit of model are χ2: 2915.601; χ2/df: 1.909; CFI: .90; RMSEA: .046; and SRMR: .049. Results of the CFA suggested that the measurement model had an acceptable fit.

Structural Equation Model (SEM) was carried out to test hypotheses and whether resilience has a mediating role in the effect of social support on achieving work–life balance.

The model demonstrates adequate fit for most of the goodness of fit measures (χ2: 7016.401; χ2/df: 2.339; CFI: .953; RMSEA: .056 and SRMR: .0395).

Results

Hypotheses were tested using structural equation model. Figure 2 summarizes the values for all paths. First, findings showed that personal social support [β = .292, p < .01], manager support [β = .550, p < .01] and colleagues’ support [β = .193, p < .01] affect work–life balance significantly and positively. Hence, H1, H2, and H3 were supported. Second, findings showed that personal social support [β = .315, p < .01], manager support [β = .212, p < .01] and colleagues’ support [β = 109, p < .01] affect resilience significantly and positively. Hence, H4, H5, and H6 were supported. Third, findings showed that resilience affects work–life balance significantly and positively [β = .225, p < .01]. Hence, H7 was supported.

Figure 2. Structural equation model

Lastly, the mediating role of resilience in the relationship between personal social support manager support, colleagues’ support and work–life balance was analysed through the bootstrapping method. The total effect value of personal social support on work–life balance is statistically significant (β = .363, p < 01). Standardized direct effect value of personal social support on work–life balance is β = .292, p < .01, and standardized indirect effect value of personal social support on work–life balance through resilience is β = .71, p < 01.

The significance of the standardized indirect effect value was checked through bootstrap %95 confidence interval. It can be stated that the standardized indirect effect value of personal social support on work–life balance through resilience is significant because this interval does not include zero value (β = .71, %95 CI [.40,.106]). Findings revealed that resilience mediates the relationship between personal social support and work–life balance. Hence, H8 was supported. For the second independent variable, manager support, the total effect value of manager support on work–life balance is statistically significant (β = .598, p < 01). Standardized direct effect value of manager support on work–life balance is β = .550, p < 01 and standardized indirect effect value of manager support on work–life balance through resilience is β = .48, p < 01. The significance of the standardized indirect effect value was checked through bootstrap %95 confidence interval. It can be stated that the standardized indirect effect of manager support on work–life balance through resilience is significant because this interval value does not include zero value (β = .48, %95 CI [.24, .078]). Findings revealed that resilience mediates the relationship between manager support and work–life balance. Hence, H9 was supported.

Lastly, the total effect value of colleagues’ support on work-life balance is statistically significant (β = .217, p < 01). Standardized direct effect value of colleagues’ support on work–life balance is β = .193, p < 01 and standardized indirect effect value of colleagues’ support on work–life balance through resilience is β = .25, p < 01. The significance of the standardized indirect effect value was checked through bootstrap %95 confidence interval. It can be stated that the standardized indirect effect of colleagues’ support on work–life balance through resilience is significant because this interval does not include zero value (β = 25, %95 CI [.005, .047]). Findings revealed that resilience mediates the relationship between colleagues’ support and work–life balance. Hence, H10 was supported. Consequently, the hypothesized mediation model was accepted. Also, the mediation effect described represents partial mediation because the relationship between personal social support, manager support, and colleagues’ support and the work–life balance remains significant with the resilience (mediator) included in the model.

Discussion

The deterioration of the balance between work and non-work life has been one of the most prominent issues in the literature in recent years because it negatively impacts both individuals and organisations (Duxbury & Higgins, 2001). Many factors affect work–life balance, such as gender, age, personality, life cycle, and work and non-work life demands. However, when the issue is examined in the context of Guest’s work–life balance model, Cohen and Wills’ Buffering Hypothesis and the Conservation of Resources Theory, two concepts come to the forefront in achieving work–life balance: social support and resilience. In this study, the effect of these two factors has been emphasized. Social support (from family, co-workers, friends, and managers) and resilience (the capacity to cope with and adapt to difficulties) play an important role in contributing to work–life balance, as well as to experiencing the minimal impact of work–life imbalance and combating stressful and difficult situations.

This study aimed to determine the mediating role of resilience in the relationship between social support and work–life balance. The findings confirmed the mediating role played by resilience and showed the variables had a positive relationship with each other. The first important finding of the study was that there is a significant and positive relationship between personal social support, manager support, and colleagues’ support and work–life balance; i.e., as social support increases, it becomes easier to achieve work–life balance. Marcinkus et al. (2007) and Sharma and Parmar (2015) found that personal social support provided, for instance, by a spouse or a friend, is related to work–life balance. Cooperation between spouses, support of the spouse, and support from an individual’s family and friends is effective in ensuring work–life balance by reducing time, demand, and pressure. The support of managers and colleagues has also been positively associated with work–life balance (Marcinkus et al., 2007; Russo et al., 2016; Sharma & Parmar, 2015; Wong et al., 2017; Yahya & Yap Yen Ying, 2014). Thus, the greater the manager and colleagues’ support, the higher the probability of achieving work–life balance.

The second important finding of the study was that there is a significant and positive relationship between personal social support, manager support, and colleagues’ support, and resilience. A positive relationship between personal social support and resilience has also been found in previous studies (Kong et al., 2018; Li et al., 2015; Taş, 2019; Uygun et al., 2020). Essentially, the level of resilience increases as social support increases. In short, it can be said that social support from family, friends, and other persons acts as a protective factor by increasing resilience and protecting people against risk factors.

The study’s findings also established a significant and positive relationship between resilience and work–life balance. Riley (2012), Kim and Windsor (2015), Kumari and Sangwan (2015) also revealed similar findings in their work. In other words, a high level of resilience makes it easier to achieve a work-life balance. Considering that this study was carried out with people working in the service sector, which is a competitive, stressful, and demanding sector involving long working hours, maintaining a work–life balance is difficult for individuals working in this field. A high level of resilience can help such individuals cope with the competitive and stressful environment and help them maintain a work–life balance.

As a result, we can say that social support primarily affects the resilience level of individuals and the level of resilience affects work–life balance. The increase or decrease in the level of social support causes a parallel change in the level of resilience, which then affects the level of work–life balance in a similar way. The higher the social support, the higher the individual’s resilience and the easier it will be for them to achieve work–life balance. In contrast, the inability of the individual to receive social support from work and non-work life will negatively affect the level of resilience and will affect the individual’s ability to adapt and cope with stress and difficulties, leading to work–life imbalance. This will affect the individual’s psychological and physical well-being, performance in work and non-work life, and job and life satisfaction. Thus, it can be concluded that having sources of social support that contribute to resilience in vital ways is important for work–life balance.

This study had a few limitations. First, the research was conducted in the service sector in Kocaeli due to cost and time constraints. Thus, the sample may not be representative of all employees. Second, only the quantitative approach was used in the research, which limited an in-depth examination of the variables under study. Despite these limitations, the study contributes to future research by providing a reliable and generalisable perspective on the mediating effect of resilience. Future studies can employ mixed method researches across different professional sectors and on a large population for more robust findings.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.