Next Article in Journal
Sustainability Management through Corporate Social Responsibility Activities in the Life Insurance Industry: Lessons from the Success Story of Kyobo Life Insurance in Korea
Next Article in Special Issue
Fostering Employees’ Job Performance through Sustainable Human Resources Management and Trust in Leaders—A Mediation Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
The Preference of Inter-Organizational Trust on Corporate Benefit-Seeking Behaviors: A Mechanisms-Based and Policy-Capturing Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
CSR Communication Matters! An Examination of CSR, Organisational Pride, and Task-Related Pro-Environmental Behaviour Nexus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/su151511631
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Work-Life Balance and Employee Satisfaction during COVID-19 Pandemic

by
Claudiu George Bocean
1,*,
Luminita Popescu
1,
Anca Antoaneta Varzaru
2,
Costin Daniel Avram
2 and
Anica Iancu
1
1
Department of Management, Marketing and Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Craiova, 13 AI Cuza Street, 200585 Craiova, Romania
2
Department of Economics, Accounting and International Business, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Craiova, 13 AI Cuza Street, 200585 Craiova, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(15), 11631; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511631
Submission received: 1 July 2023 / Revised: 20 July 2023 / Accepted: 26 July 2023 / Published: 27 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Towards Sustainable HRM: Types, Factors, Drivers and Outcomes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The concept of work-life balance derives from the vision that professional life and personal life are two elements that balance each other synergistically in the development of an individual. Work-life balance can positively and negatively influence employees’ performance through employee satisfaction. Using the structural equation modeling (SEM) method (partial least squares), we empirically analyzed the work-life balance of a sample of 452 employees in Romania. The study highlights that work-life equilibrium or disequilibrium significantly affects professional and personal satisfaction, influencing employee motivation and turnover intention. Following the empirical study, we found that a state of balance between professional and personal life generates satisfaction, a higher degree of motivation, increased performance, and reduced employee turnover.

1. Introduction

Human labor is the basis of the evolution of civilization. Intellectual or physical, the work undertaken by man supported and allowed the evolution of society to the current level, characterized by complexity in all its aspects: economic, social, and political. If the purpose of the work was mainly to ensure the survival of individuals at the dawn of human civilization, now the concept includes more than a human activity to ensure livelihood. Work is an essential activity that allows people to capitalize on their intellectual or physical potential, as well as the experience gained by them, which influences their social status, contentment or happiness, identity, social relationships, daily schedule, and behavior. On the other hand, in the last half-century, people manifested increased interest in the quality of their personal life and time allocated to relaxation, family, or other activities outside the workplace.
Given that the two aspects complete the human being, it is understandable why concerns about studying the ways and conditions in which professional life and personal life can be balanced are contemporary concerns in academia and management practice.
Work-life balance (WLB) is a balance between the two components of an individual in the workforce: work-related and leisure time spent on domestic and recreational activities. Such a balance is achieved by mitigating the conflicts between the two fields [1]. WLB is associated with involvement in work and housework or recreational activities, as well as satisfaction with their roles. Understood in this way, WLB includes three elements: a balance of time, a balance of commitment, and a balance of satisfaction resulting from the fulfillment of all these roles. Greenhaus, Collins, and Shaw saw this balance on three levels: the balance of physical time allocated to the two areas, the balance between the degrees of involvement in the two roles assumed, and the balance between the degrees of satisfaction concerning the two roles assumed by the individual [2]. A balanced situation between professional and private life refers to how an employee reconciles the two areas (professional and private) regarding allocated physical time and the degree of involvement in the two areas. The balance between the allocated time and the degree of involvement leads to satisfaction concerning professional and personal life.
WLB occurs when professional life does not invade family life and family life does not interfere with career. Therefore, WLB is an optimal mix of professional work and other life areas, including family, household, health, social activities, and hobbies [3]. On the basis of these considerations, WLB is not only identified with a proportionate division of physical time spent in the professional and private spheres. In order to perform the WLB, the actual time allocated to work performed for an employer must be taken into account (which includes the time spent working at work, the time spent in traffic to work and back, and the time worked at home after working hours).
Achieving a harmonious balance between professional and personal life has long been recognized as crucial to individual wellbeing and organizational effectiveness. Effectively managing work and personal commitments has become essential for employees and organizations, directly impacting employee performance and satisfaction. Numerous studies have explored the relationship between work-life balance and employee outcomes, highlighting its potential to positively or negatively influence factors such as employee satisfaction, motivation, and turnover intention [4,5,6,7,8]. However, it is imperative to conduct empirical investigations examining specific contexts and utilize robust analytical methods to comprehensively understand this complex relationship.
This study analyzes the relationship linking WLB, personal and professional satisfaction, motivation, and employee turnover due to this state of equilibrium. The study’s findings shed light on the significant impact of work-life equilibrium or disequilibrium on employee satisfaction, motivation, and turnover intention, contributing original insights to the existing literature. The research highlights the importance of achieving a state of balance between professional and personal life, presenting original evidence that such balance leads to increased performance, motivation, and reduced employee turnover. Focusing on a sample of 452 employees in Romania, the paper provides original empirical data that enrich the understanding of work-life balance in a distinct cultural context.
The structure of the paper contains five sections. The Section 1 introduces the research topic, while Section 2 reviews the literature. The Section 3 proposes the research methodology, and the Section 4, Section 5 and Section 6 describe the research results, discussions, and conclusions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Work-Life Balance

After analyzing the literature, we found that work-life balance (WLB) was conceptualized in the early 1970s, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. This notion has developed in a complementary way with two negative phenomena that affect the workforce: workaholism and burnout [3]. The balance between professional activity and personal life has been investigated from multiple perspectives: employees, employers, and the impact that the state of balance/imbalance can generate in economic and social terms. Far from being a simple theoretical concept [9], WLB is primarily the result of preferences and options clearly expressed by each subject [10,11].
Following the literature research, we found no general agreement regarding a definition of WLB; this concept can be framed in different theoretical frameworks [12]. In role balance theory, WLB is a positive commitment to multiple roles for a satisfying, healthy, and productive life [2]. The person–environment fit theory sees WLB as a state of balance between the resources and requirements of the two fields: professional activity and private life, promoting effective participation in both areas [13]. Liu, Wang, and Zhou [14] showed that WLB has, as a consequence, a high degree of satisfaction which translates into the absence of conflicts between family and professional life. On the basis of these considerations, we can say that the conflict between family and professional life is represented by the frequency and intensity with which the professional plan interferes with the personal plan or vice versa [15]. Both constructs have a bidirectional nature [16]. Additional work requirements may impede the fulfillment of family responsibilities (leading to an imbalance between professional and private life), or family management requirements may limit the ability to perform specific tasks at work (leading to an imbalance between private and professional life) [13]. Wayne, Butts, Casper, and Allen [17] showed that these imbalances between private and professional life significantly predict dissatisfaction (in both the professional and the family fields). JyothiSree and Jyothi [18] considered that WLB balances private activities (housework, recreation, and leisure) and time spent on employees’ professional activities.
Numerous studies have investigated the preferences for managing the time budget allocated to raising and educating children and the family regarding reduced work schedules, which has substantially favored WLB [19,20,21]. WLB has also been investigated in terms of motivation to work [22], responsible to a considerable extent for the coordinates of individual behavior [23,24], and equally for positioning in the organizational context [25].
The exaggerated need for work, a form of work-life imbalance known as workaholism [26,27], has long been debated in the literature from a behavioral perspective [28] or as an intercultural phenomenon (Ramsey & McCorduc, 2005; Burke & Fiksenbaum, 2009) [29,30]. In addition, age dependence on work was also addressed [31], but also from a gender perspective [32,33,34], without determining precisely whether workaholism mainly affects women or men, young people, or the elderly, or whether there is a geographical predisposition [35].
Work-life imbalance affects both professional and personal life [36], and the predisposition to work certainly affects family time [16] while fostering interpersonal conflicts at work [37], worsening marital problems [38], and establishing a weak social relationship outside of working hours [39]. Such a situation can lead to burnout, mental stress, and health problems [40,41].
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought new challenges to WLB amid restrictions that have affected the labor market and economic and social life in all its components. An essential change has undoubtedly been the increase in teleworking, a fact that has been reported all over the world [42,43,44,45,46,47]. In addition, the limitations of interpersonal actions and social distancing [48] have affected WLB, income level, employee satisfaction [49,50], and organizational performance [51].

2.2. The Relationship between WLB and Job Satisfaction

How WLB is achieved can positively and negatively influence employees’ performance through employee satisfaction [52,53,54,55,56]. A disequilibrium between work and personal life can affect satisfaction, productivity, and individual performance [57]. Previous studies have found that achieving WLB positively relates to job satisfaction [55,58]. On the basis of the results of previous research, we propose for our empirical study the following hypothesis regarding the balance between professional and private life:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Work-life equilibrium (WLE) positively influences work and personal satisfaction, while work-life disequilibrium (WLD) negatively influences work and personal satisfaction in the perception of the employees selected for research.
Job satisfaction is defined holistically as a global and multidimensional construct [59,60,61]. For Locke [62], satisfaction is the perceived relationship between what is received by and offered to an individual from the organization. Employees experience a sense of accomplishment if they are appreciated and rewarded, which comes from valuing their work [63]. The phenomenon of labor flexibility (including work at home) is the attempt to provide support and increase the WLB of their employees [64,65]. On the basis of these considerations, we formulated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Work-life equilibrium (WLE) positively affects work motivation in the perception of the employees selected for research.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
The disequilibrium between work and private life (WLD) increases employee turnover, while the equilibrium between work and private life (WLE) reduces employee turnover through increased work satisfaction and motivation in the perception of the employees selected for research.
Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical model of the research.

3. Research Methodology

The empirical analysis we performed in the paper consists of a quantitative approach to understand the relationships linking the measured variables (work-life equilibrium, work-life disequilibrium, work satisfaction, personal satisfaction, motivation, and employee turnover) using the inferential statistical research method. We used primary data (collected through a questionnaire) and secondary data (for literature review). The questionnaire survey was conducted from September 2021 to February 2022 in the Southwest Oltenia region of Romania. The target population of the research constituted employees in this region: 418,368 individuals. A sample of 515 individuals was selected with a level of confidence of 95%, with the margin of error being 4.61%. The response rate of the survey was 87.76%. The participants in this study were 452 employees who worked in Romanian organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The items of the questionnaire are addressed using a Likert scale. According to the methodology described by Dillman, Smyth, and Christian [66], the means of disseminating the questionnaire was the Internet. Table 1 presents the structure of the sample and the descriptive statistics of the demo-socioeconomic variables.
Work-life balance (WLB) was divided into two constructs, work-life equilibrium (WLE) and work-life disequilibrium (WLD), in accordance with the literature [55,58,67]. We also considered, in the composition of the work-life balance evaluation scale, the scale proposed by Hayman [68], composed of 15 items, and the scale of Tetrick and Buffardi [69], which incorporates both directions of the relationship (work–privacy). The satisfaction component of the questionnaire used in the empirical study was constructed by the authors starting from other scales proposed in the literature [55,58]. For job satisfaction, we also took into account, in the questionnaire, the Short Index of Job Satisfaction (SIJS) developed by Brayfield and Rothe [70], a scale applied even today [71]. Therefore, the satisfaction scale was divided into job and personal satisfaction. To the satisfaction scale, we added two related concepts: motivation and performance, which are strengthened by (1) satisfaction and (2) employee turnover, which is generated by dissatisfaction.
To investigate the validity of the hypotheses, we used a quantitative research method: structural equation modeling [72]. The model of structural equations can be expressed as follows:
η = B η + Γ ξ + ζ ,
where η is the vector of endogenous latent variables, ξ is the vector of exogenous latent variables, B is the matrix of regression coefficients that relate the latent endogenous variables to each other, Γ is the matrix of regression coefficients relating endogenous variables to exogenous variables, and ζ is the vector of disturbance terms.
The variables defined in the research are WLE (work-life equilibrium), WLD (work-life disequilibrium), job satisfaction, personal satisfaction, motivation, performance, and employees’ turnover intention. These latent variables (unobservable and endogenous) group the observable (exogenous) variables represented by the questionnaire items. Table 2 shows how to group the variables, illustrating the structure of the questionnaire.

4. Results

We start from the formulated hypotheses and build a model using the modeling equation of structure, with partial least squares. The model resulting from the definition of the variables, as shown in Table 2, is illustrated in Figure 2.
In order to optimize the model that emphasizes the influences of WLB on professional and personal satisfaction, as well as on the motivation and employees’ turnover intention, we eliminated exogenous variables that had a load of less than 0.7, proceeding according to the methodology described by Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt [73].
Furthermore, to increase the validity and reliability of the model, other items were removed, with the resulting model (Figure 3) having a high degree of validity, reliability, and suitability. The values of 0.053 of the SRMR (standardized root-mean-squared residual) and 0.944 of the NFI (normed fit index) indicate a good fit for the applied model.
The validity and reliability of the model are highlighted in Table 3. According to Hair et al. [73], the model is valid and reliable if the latent variables record values of Cronbach’s alpha over 0.7, composite reliability over 0.8, and average variance extracted over 0.6. Therefore, the applied model had excellent validity and reliability.
Studying path coefficients for the applied model (Table 4), we found that the balance between professional and private life positively and significantly influences both work satisfaction (0.470) and personal satisfaction (0.359). Furthermore, F squared, which illustrates the size effect, records high values (over 0.15), and influences these two variables (0.289 and 0.151, respectively). Furthermore, the disequilibrium between work and private life has a negative but weak influence on personal satisfaction (−0.126) and an average positive influence on work satisfaction (−0.125). These results confirm the validity of hypothesis 1 (H1).
Analyzing the data in Table 4, we also noticed that the equilibrium between professional and private life (WLE) has a positive influence, average in intensity on motivation (0.150), confirming the validity of hypothesis 2 (H2). Furthermore, researching the validity of hypothesis 3 (H3), we found that the disequilibrium between professional life and private life (WLD) influences the intention to leave the organization (path coefficient: 0.138). At the same time, the equilibrium between professional and private life (WLE) exerts an influence in decreasing the employees’ turnover intention through increasing work satisfaction (path coefficient: −0.434) and motivation (path coefficient: −0.101). Table 5 shows the specific indirect effects of WLB on employee turnover.
On the basis of the data presented in Table 4 and Table 5, we can confirm the validity of hypothesis 3 (H3). The disequilibrium between professional and private life (WLD) increases employee turnover intention, while the equilibrium between professional and private life (WLE) decreases turnover through improved job satisfaction and motivation.

5. Discussion

Reviewing the literature, we found a series of papers highlighting the positive influences of WLB on employee satisfaction and motivation, starting from a positive mood that beneficially affects the availability of work (work engagement) on three essential dimensions: force, dedication, and absorption [74]. In addition, WLB increases work commitment which will make work exciting and enjoyable [75], satisfy employees [76], and make them ready for new challenges [77], leading to an improvement in organizational performance [78] and increased loyalty to the organization [79]. Our research shows that WLB benefits job satisfaction, motivation, and employee loyalty, and that companies must take every action to support this work. Bukowska et al. [10] showed that there are several ways in which WLB can be improved: flexible forms of work through different work regimes, granting leave and benefits, providing support for the care of children or the elderly, involvement in social activities of employees, management career, and limiting the extra time worked by an employee.
The COVID-19 crisis is a Black Swan event that has affected all aspects of human society, politically, economically, and individually, severely affecting micro and small enterprises [80,81]. Our research results show that work-life balance has changed significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic and negatively affected job satisfaction, increasing employee turnover. The total amount of work has increased in all countries and regions during the lockdown. Andrew et al. [82] stated that household responsibilities have increased in lockdown, especially among women working from home. However, Sevilla and Smith [83] showed that the distribution of hours spent on households was balanced during the pandemic. Del Boca, Oggero, Profeta, and Rossi [84] found that women’s housework hours have increased sharply, while men have seen increased overtime at work or home. Another worrying consequence of the lockdown imposed to limit the spread of the virus was highlighted in the study conducted by Codagnone et al. [85] in Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The analysis of the questionnaire responses of the more than 10,000 participants aged 18 to 75 showed that the risk of stress, anxiety, and depression caused by economic vulnerabilities and exposure to economic shocks is very high. On the other hand, the conclusion of the study by Beck and Hensher [86] in Australia was that working from home was a positive experience for employees who received help from the employer at a higher level than before the COVID-19 pandemic.
A critical issue needs to be considered on the WLB following the change in the work regime in the pandemic: overwork of employees, leading to dissatisfaction. Eurofound and the International Labor Office [87] have shown that flexible working styles can increase workers’ stress and interfere with privacy. In addition, the flexibility of working time and working from home blurs the boundaries between time spent working and time spent on leisure and hinders the achievement of WLB, leading to a more extended work schedule.
Takami’s research [88] suggested that the increase in overtime and home hours has affected leisure time compared to pre-pandemic levels. A phenomenon noted by Takami [88] was the increase in hours spent on household chores and childcare. This trend has been found in both men and women. This phenomenon has led to changes in the allocation of time spent at home, from recreation hours to household chores. However, these changes in nonworking hours were only temporary; as they returned to regular activity, they tended to return to the original situation.
The results of our research showed that satisfaction does not increase when work involves overtime. The introduction of the work regime at home overlaps with the increasing overtime phenomenon since the boundaries between working and free time are blurred. From the results of our research, maintaining WLB can be achieved if employees are allowed to control their work time autonomously and are not stressed with additional tasks.
A related WLB concept encountered in the literature is integrating professional and private life [89,90]. However, the concept of integration between professional and private life organically concerns the two fields (professional and private). In contrast, WLB views the two areas (professional and private) as two components that need to be balanced, without overlapping [91].
The interface established in an individual’s life between work and family activity has been an object of study of organizational psychology, which traditionally divides an individual’s life into two areas, work and private life, which can influence each other [92]. The scientific work on the balance that is established between the two components, work and private life, fits into two currents of thought: one that shows that a state of balance between the two areas of an individual’s life leads to satisfaction on both plans and, implicitly, a high level of motivation and performance in professional activities [2,93]; the second current of thinking, considers that the two areas are incompatible, with active involvement in both roles leading to stress and tension, giving rise to the conflict between work and private work and family life [94]. In our paper, we aim to reconcile the two currents of thought. The empirical study showed that balancing work and private life could increase personal and professional satisfaction and motivation and decrease employee turnover.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

There is a relationship between the workplace and WLB during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reaching WLB has become much more difficult during the pandemic. One-third of the respondents selected in the empirical study cannot satisfactorily juggle activities in various areas of their lives. Although some workers have experienced new work regimes, such as working from home, flexible programs that allow individual adjustment of work time, and work organization based on tasks and goals regardless of working time, these solutions have not improved the WLB of respondents.
The empirical study analyzed the relationship linking WLB, personal and professional satisfaction, motivation, and employee turnover. The results of testing and validating three hypotheses confirmed that work-life equilibrium has a positive and significant effect on personal and professional satisfaction, generating a high degree of motivation and sustaining performance, while the disequilibrium between work and private life leads to a degree environment of job dissatisfaction and an increasing tendency to drop out. The crisis generated by COVID-19 has threatened the work-life balance in various ways, but measures taken by the government to help enterprises, both financial and legislative, have eased the pandemic.

5.2. Practical Implications

The paper offers some practical implications concerning the effects of WLB on professional and personal satisfaction giving the COVID-19 pandemic. First, organizational leaders need to pay attention to the work satisfaction of their employees, as the degree of satisfaction is affected by an imbalance between work and private life. Stress and pressure generated by overtime or required work in nonstandard regimes (flexible work organization or switching to teleworking) can interfere with WLB, resulting in dissatisfaction, lack of motivation, and an increased tendency to drop out.
As a result of the need for WLB, companies are forced to react in a more and more differentiated and heterogeneous manner concerning working time preferences and life choices for their employees. These considerations apply to employees in a position of power over the company (the labor force available in the labor market is insufficient, or the employees have the skills companies need). Moreover, employees must often be prepared to give up something (usually financial resources) to benefit from free time spent with the family.
Some employers use flexible working time scheduling as a tool for attracting and retaining employees, but also to increase work satisfaction and job productivity. On the other hand, organizations usually use flexible working hours to cover their production needs. This leads to a contradictory situation; although, in principle, flexible working hours can be used to solve family problems, their unpredictable and temporary nature, especially when set at the discretion of supervisors, creates problems in ensuring WLB. Furthermore, although some organizations try to show that the flexibility of working time generated by organizational needs is practiced to support employees in ensuring an efficient balance of time, this flexibility does not always coincide with employees’ wishes. In Romania, the labor market became more flexible during this period. The government has facilitated work from home, including in the public sector. Companies could also change employment contracts regarding working time as a size and flexible schedule. This flexibility has made it easier for small and medium-sized companies to get through the COVID-19 crisis.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

The paper performed a cross-sectional analysis, a reflection of the moment the questionnaire was prepared. Future research must have a longitudinal character that will compare employees’ perceptions. In future research, we will also consider the variable represented by the work regime, distinguishing employees who went into the telework regime, those who worked in hybrid mode, and those who remained in the classic work regime (in physical form). An exciting research direction will be to measure satisfaction and the level of performance and motivation differentiated according to these work regimes.

6. Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly catalyzed substantial transformations in organizational work patterns globally. As governments and health authorities implemented strict measures to contain the spread of the virus, organizations were compelled to adapt swiftly and reconfigure their operational strategies. This unparalleled crisis has forced businesses to revolutionize how work is conducted, presenting challenges and opportunities for maintaining a healthy work-life balance (WLB) amidst turbulence [88].
The present study represents a significant contribution to understanding work-life balance and its profound impact on employee performance. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), we conducted an empirical analysis involving a sample of 452 employees in Romania. This rigorous examination allowed us to explore the intricate relationship between work-life equilibrium or disequilibrium and various critical outcomes, including professional and personal satisfaction, employee motivation, and turnover intention.
The findings of our study provide unequivocal evidence that work-life balance plays a pivotal role in influencing employees’ levels of satisfaction in both their professional and their personal domains. When individuals achieve a balance between these aspects of their lives, they report heightened satisfaction in both areas. Furthermore, our research revealed that work-life balance substantially impacts employee motivation. Employees who perceive a sense of equilibrium between work and personal life exhibit elevated motivation levels, enhancing their performance and productivity. This finding underscores the instrumental role of work-life balance in nurturing employees’ internal drive and fostering their unwavering commitment to work.
Additionally, our study identified a significant association between work-life balance and turnover intention. Employees who experience work-life disequilibrium, characterized by an imbalance between their professional and personal lives, are more likely to contemplate leaving their respective organizations. In contrast, those who attain a balance are more inclined to remain, resulting in a notable reduction in employee turnover. These findings highlight the criticality of prioritizing work-life balance initiatives to retain valuable talent within organizations.
Overall, our study underscores the indispensable role of work-life balance in shaping employee outcomes. The results underscore the importance of cultivating a supportive work environment that effectively empowers employees to balance their professional and personal lives. By recognizing and addressing the challenges associated with work-life balance, organizations can promote employee wellbeing, job satisfaction, and motivation and, ultimately, reduce turnover rates. These insights contribute to a deeper understanding of the relationship between work-life balance and employee wellbeing, providing a foundation for developing effective policies and practices that promote a harmonious integration of work and personal life.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.G.B. and L.P.; methodology, C.G.B.; software, A.A.V.; validation, C.G.B., L.P. and A.A.V.; formal analysis, C.G.B.; investigation, C.D.A. and A.I.; writing—original draft preparation, C.G.B., L.P., A.A.V., C.D.A. and A.I.; writing—review and editing, C.G.B. and L.P.; project administration, C.G.B. and L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Clark, S.C. Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Balance. Hum. Relat. 2000, 53, 747–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Greenhaus, H.J.; Collins, K.M.; Shaw, J.D. The Relation between Work-Family Balance and Quality of Life. J. Vocat. Behav. 2003, 63, 510–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bukowska, U.; Tyranska, M.; Wisniewska, S. The Workplace and Work-Life Balance during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Sklodowska Sect. H-Oeconomia 2021, 55, 19–32. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ferreira, P.; Gomes, S. Work-Life Balance and Work from Home Experience: Perceived Organizational Support and Resilience of European Workers during COVID-19. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kim, J.-H.; Jung, S.-H.; Seok, B.-I.; Choi, H.-J. The Relationship among Four Lifestyles of Workers amid the COVID-19 Pandemic (Work-Life Balance, YOLO, Minimal Life, and Staycation) and Organizational Effectiveness: With a Focus on Four Countries. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Erro-Garcés, A.; Urien, B.; Čyras, G.; Janušauskienė, V.M. Telework in Baltic Countries during the Pandemic: Effects on Wellbeing, Job Satisfaction, and Work-Life Balance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lorber, M.; Dobnik, M. The Importance of Monitoring the Work-Life Quality during the COVID-19 Restrictions for Sustainable Management in Nursing. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nordenmark, M.; Landstad, B.J.; Tjulin, Å.; Vinberg, S. Life Satisfaction among Self-Employed People in Different Welfare Regimes during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Significance of Household Finances and Concerns about Work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hobson, B. The Agency Gap in Work-Life Balance: Applying Sen’s Capabilities Framework within European Contexts. Soc. Politics 2011, 18, 147–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Becker, G.S. A Treatise on the Family, Enlarged ed.; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hogarth, T.; Bosworth, D. Future Horizons for Work—Life Balance. Beyond Current Horizons: Technology, Children, Schools, and Families. Available online: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ier/publications/2009/ch4_hogarthterence_futurehorizonsforworklifebalance20090116.pdf (accessed on 26 October 2021).
  12. Duncan, K.A.; Pettigrew, R.N. The effect of work arrangements on perceptions of work-family balance. Community Work Fam. 2012, 15, 403–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Voydanoff, P. Toward a conceptualization of perceived work-family fit and balance: A demands and resources approach. J. Marriage Fam. 2005, 67, 822–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, P.; Wang, X.; Li, A.; Zhou, L. Predicting work–family balance: A new perspective on person–environment fit. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Grzywacz, J.G.; Carlson, D.S. Conceptualizing work-family balance: Implications for practice and research. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2007, 9, 455–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Frone, M.R. Work-family balance. In Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology; Quick, J.C., Tetrick, L.E., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 143–162. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wayne, J.H.; Butts, M.M.; Casper, W.J.; Allen, T.D. In search of balance: A conceptual and empirical integration of multiple meanings of work-family balance. Pers. Psychol. 2017, 70, 167–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. JyothiSree, V.; Jyothi, P.N. Assessing Work-Life Balance: From Emotional Intelligence and Role Efficacy of Career Women. Adv. Manag. 2012, 5, 332. [Google Scholar]
  19. Folbre, N. Who Pays for the Kids: Gender and the Structure of Constraint; Routledge: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fagan, C. Gender and Working Time in Industrialized Countries. In Working Time and Workers’ Preferences in Industrialized Countries, 1st ed.; Messenger, J.C., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 108–146. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee, S.; McCann, D. Working Time Capability: Towards Realizing Individual Choice. In Decent Working Time: New Trends, New Issues; Boulin, J.Y., Lallement, M., Messenger, J.C., Eds.; International Labour Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; pp. 65–91. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_071859.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  22. Tziner, A.; Shkoler, O. Leadership styles, and work attitudes: Does age moderate their relationship? J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2018, 34, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Pinder, C.C. Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed.; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kanfer, R.; Frese, M.; Johnson, R.E. Work-related motivation: A century of progress. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 102, 338–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Latham, G.P.; Pinder, C.C. Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2005, 56, 485–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Oates, W. Confessions of a Workaholic: The Facts about Work Addiction; World Publishing Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  27. Harpaz, I.; Snir, R. Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Hum. Relat. 2003, 56, 291–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Phelps, B.J. Behavioral Perspectives on Personality and Self. Psychol. Rec. 2015, 65, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ramsey, N.; McCorduck, P. Where Are the Women in Information Technology? Available online: https://alejandrobarros.com/wp-content/uploads/old/Where_are_the_Women_in_Information_Technology.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2022).
  30. Burke, R.J.; Fiksenbaum, L. Work Motivations, Work Outcomes, and Health: Passion versus Addiction. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 84, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Russo, J.A.; Waters, L.E. Workaholic worker type differences in work-family conflict: The moderating role of supervisor support and flexible work scheduling. Career Dev. Int. 2006, 11, 418–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Burke, R.J. Workaholism in organizations: Gender differences. Sex Roles 1999, 41, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hobson, B.; Fahlén, S. Competing Scenarios for European Fathers: Applying Sen’s Capabilities and Agency Framework to Work-Family Balance. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2009, 624, 214–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gavrili, G.; Avram, A.; Nicolescu, A.C. Gender Equality and Firm Financial Performance. The Case of Central and Eastern Europe Financial and IT Sectors. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328886127_GENDER_EQUALITY_AND_FIRM_FINANCIAL_PERFORMANCE_THE_CASE_OF_CENTRAL_AND_EASTERN_EUROPE_FINANCIAL_AND_IT_SECTORS (accessed on 23 April 2022).
  35. Aycan, Z.; Kanungo, R.N. Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology: A critical appraisal of the field and future directions. In Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology; Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K., Viswesvaran, C., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2002; Volume 3, pp. 385–408. [Google Scholar]
  36. Guest, D.E. Perspectives on the Study of Work-life Balance. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2002, 41, 255–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mudrack, P.E. Moral Reasoning, and Personality Traits. Psychol. Rep. 2006, 98, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Robinson, B.E.; Flowers, C.; Carroll, J. Work Stress and Marriage: A Theoretical Model Examining the Relationship between Workaholism and Marital Cohesion. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2001, 8, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Oerlemans, W.; Sonnentag, S. Workaholism and daily recovery: A day reconstruction study of leisure activities. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 87–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Andreassen, C.S.; Hetland, J.; Molde, H.; Pallesen, S. “Workaholism” and potential outcomes in well-being and health in a cross-occupational sample. Stress Health 2011, 27, e209–e214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schaufeli, W.B.; Taris, T.W.; Van Rhenen, W. Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 173–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Chen, C.; Dasgupta, S.; Huynh, T.D.; Xia, Y. Were Stay-at-Home Orders during COVID-19 Harmful for Business? The Market’s View. 2020. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3660246_code1886367.pdf?abstractid=3660246&mirid=1 (accessed on 3 April 2022).
  43. Ellder, E. Telework, and daily travel: New evidence from Sweden. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 86, 102777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stănciulescu, E. Telemunca și munca la domiciliu în contextul actual [Teleworking și working from Home in the Current Environment]. CECCAR Bus. Rev. 2020, 10, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Beck, M.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Wei, E. Slowly coming out of COVID-19 restrictions in Australia: Implications for working from home and commuting trips by car and public transport. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 88, 102846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kawashima, T.; Nomura, S.; Tanoue, Y.; Yoneoka, D.; Eguchi, A.; Ng, C.F.S.; Matsuura, K.; Shi, S.; Makiyama, K.; Uryu, S.; et al. Excess All-Cause Deaths during Coronavirus Disease Pandemic, Japan, January–May 2020. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2021, 27, 789–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Nguyen, M.H. Factors influencing home-based telework in Hanoi (Vietnam) during and after the COVID-19 era. Transportation 2021, 48, 3207–3238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Shereen, M.A.; Khan, S.; Kazmi, A.; Bashir, N.; Siddique, R. COVID-19 infection: Emergence, transmission, and characteristics of human coronaviruses. J. Adv. Res. 2020, 24, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dingel, J.I.; Neiman, B. How many jobs can be done at home? J. Public Econ. 2020, 189, 104235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Okubo, T. Telework in the spread of COVID-19. Inf. Econ. Policy 2022, 60, 100987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Boeri, T.; Caiumi, A.; Paccagnella, M. Mitigating the Work-Safety Trade-Off. Available online: https://wol.iza.org/opinions/mitigating-the-work-safety-trade-off (accessed on 16 April 2022).
  52. Chung, H.; van der Lippe, T. Flexible Working, Work-Life Balance, and Gender Equality: Introduction. Soc. Indic. Res. 2020, 151, 365–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Lopez-Igual, P.; Rodríguez-Modroño, P. Who Is Teleworking and Where from? Exploring the Main Determinants of Telework in Europe. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kramer, A.; Kramer, K.Z. The Potential Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Occupational Status, Work from Home, and Occupational Mobility. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 119, 103442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Irawanto, D.W.; Novianti, K.R.; Roz, K. Work from Home: Measuring Satisfaction between Work-Life Balance and Work Stress during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia. Economies 2021, 9, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Marx, C.K.; Reimann, M.; Diewald, M. Do Work-Life Measures Really Matter? The Impact of Flexible Working Hours and Home-Based Teleworking in Preventing Voluntary Employee Exits. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Konrad, A.M.; Mangel, R. The Impact of Work-Life Programs on Firm Productivity. Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 1225–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jackson, L.T.B.; Fransman, E.I. Flexi Work, Financial Well-Being, Work-Life Balance and Their Effects on Subjective Experiences of Productivity and Job Satisfaction of Females in an Institution of Higher Learning. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2018, 21, a1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Lund, D.B. Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2003, 18, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Judge, T.A.; Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. Job attitudes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 341–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Judge, T.A.; Weiss, H.W.; Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D.; Hulin, C.L. Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A century of continuity and change. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 102, 356–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Locke, E.A. Job satisfaction and job performance: A theoretical analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1970, 5, 484–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Clark, A.E. Job Satisfaction in Britain. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 1996, 34, 189–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Song, Y.; Gao, J. Does Telework Stress Employees Out? A Study on Working at Home and Subjective Well-Being for Wage/Salary Workers. J. Happiness Stud. 2019, 21, 2649–2668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Belzunegui-Eraso, A.; Erro-Garces, A. Teleworking in the Context of the COVID-19 Crisis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.D.; Christian, L.M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  67. Fisher, G.G.; Bulger, C.A.; Smith, C.S. Beyond work and family: A measure of work/nonwork interference and enhancement. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2009, 14, 441–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Hayman, J. Psychometric assessment of an instrument designed to measure work-life balance. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2005, 13, 85–91. [Google Scholar]
  69. Tetrick, L.E.; Buffardi, L.C. Measurement issues in research on the work-home interface. In Work-Life Balance: A Psychological Perspective; Jones, F., Burke, R.J., Westman, M., Eds.; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2006; pp. 90–114. [Google Scholar]
  70. Brayfield, A.H.; Rothe, H.F. An index of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 1951, 35, 307–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sinval, J.; Maroco, J. Short index of job satisfaction: Validity evidence from Portugal and Brazil. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Kaplan, D. Structural Equation Modeling. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; Neil, J., Smelser, P., Baltes, B., Eds.; Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 15215–15222. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.A. Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  74. Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-Romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. van Beek, I.; Hu, Q.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Taris, T.W.; Schreurs, B.H.J. For Fun, Love, or Money: What Drives Workaholic, Engaged, and Burned-Out Employees at Work? Appl. Psychol. 2011, 61, 30–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Nijhuis, N.; van Beek, I.; Taris, T.; Schaufeli, W. De motivatie en prestatie van werkverslaafde, bevlogen en opgebrande werknemers [The motivation and performance of workaholic, engaged, and burned-out workers]. Gedrag Organ. 2012, 25, 325–346. [Google Scholar]
  77. Bakker, A.; Albrecht, S.; Leiter, M. Key questions regarding work engagement. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2011, 20, 4–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bakker, A.B.; Bal, P.M. Weekly Work Engagement and Performance: A Study among Starting Teachers. J. Occup. Psychol. 2010, 83, 189–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Saks, A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006, 21, 600–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Cowling, M.; Brown, R.; Rocha, A. Did you save some cash for a rainy COVID-19 day? The crisis and SMEs. Int. Small Bus. J. 2020, 38, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Hitka, M.; Štarchoň, P.; Caha, Z.; Lorincová, S.; Sedliačiková, M. The global health pandemic and its impact on the motivation of employees in micro and small enterprises: A case study in the Slovak Republic. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraz. 2022, 35, 458–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Andrew, A.; Cattan, S.; Dias, M.S.; Farquharson, C.; Kraftman, L.; Krutikova, S.; Phimister, A.; Sevilla, A. How Are Mothers and Fathers Balancing Work and Family under Lockdown? IFS Briefing Note; BN290; Institute for Fiscal Studies: London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN290-Mothers-and-fathers-balancing-work-and-life-under-lockdown.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  83. Sevilla, A.; Smith, S. Baby Steps: The Gender Division of Childcare during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2020, 36, S169–S186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Del Boca, D.; Oggero, N.; Profeta, P.; Rossi, M.C. Women’s Work, Housework, and Childcare, before and during COVID-19. Rev. Econ. Househ. 2020, 18, 1001–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Codagnone, C.; Bogliacino, F.; Gómez, C.; Charris, R.; Montealegre, F.; Liva, G.; Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F.; Folkvord, F.; Veltri, G.A. Assessing concerns for the economic consequence of the COVID-19 response and mental health problems associated with economic vulnerability and negative economic shock in Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0240876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Beck, M.J.; Hensher, D.A. Insights into the impact of COVID-19 on household travel and activities in Australia—The early days of easing restrictions. Transp. Policy 2020, 99, 95–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Eurofound and the International Labour Office. Working Anytime, Anywhere: The Effects on the World of Work; Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg and the International Labour Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; Available online: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2017/workinganytime-anywhere-the-effects-on-the-world-of-work (accessed on 25 September 2022).
  88. Takami, T. Working from Home and Work-Life Balance during COVID-19: The Latest Changes and Challenges in Japan. Available online: https://www.jil.go.jp/english/jli/documents/2021/033-03.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2022).
  89. Abele, A.E.; Volmer, J. Dual-Career Couples: Specific Challenges for Work-Life Integration. In Creating Balance? International Perspectives on the Work-Life Integration of Professionals; Kaiser, S., Ringlstetter, M.J., Eikhof, D.R., Pina e Cunha, M., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 173–189. [Google Scholar]
  90. Wepfer, A.G.; Allen, T.D.; Brauchli, R.; Jenny, G.J.; Bauer, G.F. Work-Life Boundaries and Well-Being: Does Work-to-Life Integration Impair Well-Being Through Lack of Recovery? J. Bus. Psychol. 2018, 33, 727–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Kumar, S. Work-Life-Integration through Flexible Work Arrangements: A Holistic Approach to Work-Life Balance. J. Maharaja Agrasen Coll. High. Educ. 2017, 4, 1–8. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3379084_code2541941.pdf?abstractid=3379084&mirid=1 (accessed on 7 April 2022).
  92. Netermeyer, R.G.; Boles, J.; Mcmurrian, R.C. Development and validation of work-family and family-work conflict scales. J. Appl. Psychol. 1996, 81, 400–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Greenhaus, J.; Powell, G.N. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006, 31, 72–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Amstad, F.T.; Meier, T.; Laurenz, L.M.; Fasel, U.; Elfering, A.; Semmer, N. A meta-analysis of work-family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2011, 16, 151–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Sustainability 15 11631 g001 550
Figure 1. The conceptual model. Source: Authors’ conception developed on the basis of literature review.
Figure 1. The conceptual model. Source: Authors’ conception developed on the basis of literature review.
Sustainability 15 11631 g001
Sustainability 15 11631 g002 550
Figure 2. The initial model built using SEM-PLS. Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of collected data using Smart PLS v.3.
Figure 2. The initial model built using SEM-PLS. Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of collected data using Smart PLS v.3.
Sustainability 15 11631 g002
Sustainability 15 11631 g003 550
Figure 3. The applied model built using SEM-PLS. Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of collected data using Smart PLS v.3.
Figure 3. The applied model built using SEM-PLS. Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of collected data using Smart PLS v.3.
Sustainability 15 11631 g003
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Answer OptionsFrequencies
(Percentage)
GenderMale41.0
Female59.0
Age20–30 years10.1
31–45 years old43.3
46–55 years old34.7
Over 55 years11.9
Education levelHigh school18.3
Bachelor35.1
Master39.6
PhD7.1
PositionManagerial16.4
Execution83.6
Source: Developed by authors on the basis of collected data.
Table
Table 2. Description of the variables within the research model.
Table 2. Description of the variables within the research model.
Latent VariableCodeObservable VariableScale
Work-life equilibriumWLB1I am satisfied with the way I perform my tasks at work.Never, rarely, neutral, often, always
WLB4I have time each week for personal/family activities.
WLB6When I finish my work schedule, I stop thinking about tasks.
WLB7I prioritize my work tasks at work.
WLB8I prioritize the events I have to attend in private.
Work-life disequilibriumWLB2During the pandemic, I exceeded my work schedule.
WLB3When I had difficult tasks or pressing deadlines at work, I also worked in my free time.
WLB5My supervisor contacts me in my spare time for work-related matters.
WLB9During the COVID-19 pandemic, I sacrificed my sleep to spend more time with my family.
WLB10During the COVID-19 pandemic, we worked harder than before.
WLB11During the COVID-19 pandemic, I sacrificed my sleep to fulfill my duties at work.
WLB12During this time, I felt increased pressure/stress at work.
WLB13During this period, I requested more days off than before the pandemic.
Work satisfactionSAN1I am happy to go to work.Total disagreement, partial disagreement, neutral, partial agreement, total agreement
SAN2I feel fulfilled at work.
SAN3Work contributes to my overall happiness.
SAN4At work, I feel inspired and creative.
Personal satisfactionSAN5I am happy with my family.
SAN6I am satisfied with my personal life.
Motivation SAN7How do you assess your level of motivation at work for the period 1 March 2020 so far?Very demotivated, demotivated, neutral, motivated, very motivated
SAN8How do you assess your performance at work for 1 March 2020 so far, compared to the previous period?Dropped a lot, lower, same level, slightly better, excellent
Employees’ turnover intentionSAN9You are considering leaving the organization for a career or a better salary.Constant, often, sometimes, rarely, never
SAN10Would you recommend the organization you work for to others looking for a job?No, yes
Source: Developed by the authors.
Table
Table 3. Validity and reliability of the applied model.
Table 3. Validity and reliability of the applied model.
Cronbach’s AlphaComposite ReliabilityAverage Variance Extracted (AVE)
Employee turnover1.0001.0001.000
Motivation1.0001.0001.000
Personal satisfaction0.8220.9180.849
WLD1.0001.0001.000
WLE1.0001.0001.000
Work satisfaction0.8870.9220.749
Source: Developed by authors on the basis of collected data using Smart PLS v.3.
Table
Table 4. Path coefficients.
Table 4. Path coefficients.
Original Sample (O)t-Statisticsp-ValuesF-Squared
Motivation –> Employee turnover (H3)−0.1832.5850.0100.044
WLD –> Employee turnover (H3)0.1733.7670.0000.080
WLD –> Personal satisfaction (H1)−0.1112.3400.0200.000
WLD –> Work satisfaction (H1)−0.2013.5490.0000.056
WLE –> Motivation (H2)0.1392.4010.0170.054
WLE –> Personal satisfaction (H1)0.4839.0760.0000.432
WLE –> Work satisfaction (H1)0.3275.7000.0000.327
Work satisfaction –> Employee turnover (H3)−0.3975.6640.0000.163
Work satisfaction –> Motivation (H3)0.6389.4850.0000.432
Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of collected data using Smart PLS v.3.
Table
Table 5. Specific indirect effects.
Table 5. Specific indirect effects.
Original Sample (O)t-Statisticsp-Values
WLE –> Work satisfaction –> Motivation –> Employee turnover (H3)−0.0382.3080.021
WLD –> Work satisfaction –> Motivation−0.1283.0020.003
WLE –> Work satisfaction –> Motivation0.2094.6790.000
WLD –> Work satisfaction –> Employee turnover0.0803.2480.001
WLE –> Work satisfaction –> Employee turnover (H3)−0.1303.7160.000
WLE –> Motivation –> Employee turnover (H3)−0.0261.6730.095
Work satisfaction –> Motivation –> Employee turnover−0.1172.5130.012
WLD –> Work satisfaction –> Motivation –> Employee turnover0.0241.8540.064
Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of collected data using Smart PLS v.3.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bocean, C.G.; Popescu, L.; Varzaru, A.A.; Avram, C.D.; Iancu, A. Work-Life Balance and Employee Satisfaction during COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511631

AMA Style

Bocean CG, Popescu L, Varzaru AA, Avram CD, Iancu A. Work-Life Balance and Employee Satisfaction during COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511631

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bocean, Claudiu George, Luminita Popescu, Anca Antoaneta Varzaru, Costin Daniel Avram, and Anica Iancu. 2023. "Work-Life Balance and Employee Satisfaction during COVID-19 Pandemic" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511631

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop