Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Life Balance While Working from Home: A Review of the Research Conducted During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Work-Life Balance

Several decades have passed since the intersection of work, and life roles have become recognized as a key area of study within multiple disciplines (e.g., management and organizational studies, industrial relations, psychology, sociology, social work, family studies), resulting in a large body of empirical evidence (e.g., Allen, 2012; French & Johnson, 2016). As this area of research has matured over time, various terms have emerged to describe the interface between work and life roles (see reviews of the literature such as Beigi et al., 2019). Research consistently demonstrates that the management of work and family roles can be a challenge. However, combining work and life roles also provides benefits and opportunities for enrichment. In this review, we use the term WLB as an umbrella term to include all research involving the juxtaposition of multiple conceptualizations of the work-life interface.

A central focus of WLB scholarship has been the exploration of antecedents and outcomes. Reviews of past research have synthesized the empirical research and suggested models that show work and life factors variables that predict balance and its outcomes (e.g., Allen, 2012; Brough & Kalliath, 2009; Greenhaus & Allen, 2011; Jain & Nair, 2013; Kalliath & Brough, 2008; Sirgy & Lee, 2018). Although these reviews have categorized predictors of balance in slightly different ways, they all include work and nonwork factors. For example, long work hours has been associated with less perceived balance and quality time with children has been positively related to perceived balance (e.g., Allen, 2012). As far as WLB outcomes, a diverse range of outcomes have been associated with WLB, including work (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment) and nonwork (e.g., family satisfaction and life satisfaction) outcomes (e.g., Sirgy & Lee, 2018). Some have criticized the WLB scholarship because of a narrow focus on nuclear family roles (Allen, 2012; Beigi et al., 2019) or a dominant quantitative methodology approach (Beigi & Shirmohammadi, 2017), thus constraining research and theory. Although such debates are important dialogue for the field, they are outside of the scope of this review.

WLB While Working from Home

Work from home involves individual workers performing tasks from home, away from their primary offices, using electronic media to interact with others inside and outside the organization (Spreitzer et al., 2017). Since Work from home places work and family domains in the same physical space, many researchers have been interested in examining WLB among employees working from home. Existing research that has examined the WLB of employees working from home reveals two themes: (1) work from home positively influences WLB through increased flexibility, and (2) work from home negatively impacts WLB through blurred work-family boundaries and increased managerial control.

First, researchers have argued that Work from home inherently provides flexibility and control over when and where to work, which could be considered a valuable resource to meet family responsibilities. Studies have provided evidence that perceived control could positively relate to employee WLB (e.g., Hill et al., 2010). Also, control over work time, with flexibility in allocating time for different work and nonwork activities, has been shown to have beneficial effects for employees; this aspect of control is not an inherent component of work from home but sometimes accompanies it (e.g., Valcour, 2007). Studies on work from home that concern women’s experiences (Smithson & Stokoe, 2005) suggest that flexible work scheduling allows mothers to maintain their total full workload after childbirth (Chung & van der Horst, 2018); however, due to pre-existing views on gender roles and gender normative views towards men’s and women’s roles and responsibilities (Blair-Loy, 2001), flexible working hours can potentially reinforce traditional gender roles in workplaces and households (Smithson & Stokoe, 2005).

Second, scholars have assumed that Work from home can weaken the boundary between work and home domains, which may require boundary management to deal with family interruptions (Makarius & Larson, 2017). Employees who work from home part-time were found to make more work-to-family transitions (i.e., interruptions of work activities to deal with family demands during work hours) on work from home days, which was related to lower work-to-family conflict but higher family-to-work conflict on days they worked from home (Delanoeije et al., 2019). Other researchers have argued that while working away from traditional workplaces can give employees a greater sense of independence (Sewell & Taskin, 2015), it simultaneously generates new surveillance mechanisms (Valsecchi, 2006). Popular representations of flexible work often depict it as “technologically feasible, flexible and autonomous, desirable and perhaps even inevitable, family- and community friendly, and more” (Bryant, 2000: p. 22). However, the common images of autonomy give unrealistic pictures of the control exercised over employees working from home (Valsecchi, 2006). While the above body of literature has portrayed the advantages and disadvantages of work from home, it rarely taps into mechanisms beyond flexibility, control, and work-home boundaries. We address this gap by drawing on COR theory and outlining resource loss and gain dynamics.

COR Theory

We borrow from the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), which provides ways to bring together different strands of research regarding work from home and WLB. It offers a lens to explore how combinations of factors can define the WLB experiences of employees working from home. COR theory puts the concepts of stressors and resources at the center of analysis, which in combination, offer a useful lens to integrate the existing research. Resources have been defined as structural or psychological assets of the individual that may be used to facilitate performance, reduce demands, or generate additional resources (Voydanoff, 2004). The term stressor is used to refer to experiences an individual perceives as taxing or exceeding resources (Taylor & Stanton, 2007). Resource loss leads to stressors and occurs when personal resources are threatened with loss or are lost. In contrast, resource gain occurs when an employee has the required resources to address work and life stressors or can build additional personal resources to do so (Hobfoll, 2011). COR theory also explains that individuals who lose personal resources due to broader life contexts are more vulnerable to further resource loss (Hobfoll, 1989).

The pre-pandemic research addressing work from home and the changes it brings to employees' work and nonwork domains of life points to emergences of resource loss (i.e., stressors) and gain as well. First, some evidence has outlined possible resource losses from working at home, such as the decreased ability of employees to receive help by physically and informally turning to a supervisor or colleagues nearby, or the loss of opportunities to receive feedback from supervisors (Kossek et al., 2006). Studies have shown that employees working from home associated such loss of resources with feelings of social isolation, career stagnation, and work-family conflict (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997). Also, due to less commuting, employees working from home may lose fewer personal resources, such as time, energy, and attention, than those working in an office (Hartig et al., 2007; Wang & Ozbilen, 2020). On days spent working from home, employees are less likely to experience the burden of social interaction at work, which involves the need to invest personal resources, such as time, attention, and effort, in creating and maintaining social relationships at work (Biron & van Veldhoven, 2016). Work from home inherently provides valuable resources, such as relative control and flexibility over where work gets done, which has been found to be positively related to employee perceptions of WLB (e.g., Hill et al., 2010). Control over work time and flexibility in the allocation of time for different work and nonwork activities have been shown to have beneficial effects on employees (Valcour, 2007). We take cues from these studies and draw on COR theory and resource loss and gain dynamics to identify antecedents (i.e., stressors and resources) and outcomes associated with WLB while working from home.

Stressors and WLB while Working from Home

Our review revealed five stressors in the work domain (i.e., perceived work intensity, workspace limitation, technostress, work interdependence, and professional isolation) and three stressors in the nonwork domain (i.e., housework intensity, care work intensity, and emotional demands). According to COR theory, work (or nonwork) stressors result from loss of personal resources such as time and energy. Stressors explained in more detail below reflect changes in work or nonwork demands that were related to diminished WLB (a lack of satisfaction with work and life) while working from home during the pandemic for participants in the reviewed studies.

Resources and WLB While Working from Home

Our review of the studies revealed two resources in the work domain (i.e., job autonomy and organizational support) and two resources in the nonwork domain (i.e., family support and personal adaptability). According to the COR theory, gaining resources would give employees the means to meet their work or nonwork demands. The resources suggesting gain are explained in more detail below.

Outcomes of WLB while Working from Home

As described in the previous sections, the reviewed studies suggested that stressors and resources were associated with WLB of those working from home during the pandemic. Balance or lack of balance, then, influenced employees’ well-being, career, work, and family outcomes. In the following sections, we present a synthesis of the findings regarding such outcomes.

Theoretical Implications

Our integrated model indicates COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2011) as a point of departure to guide future research that intends to examine the dynamics of WLB while working from home. In what follows, we discuss the two vicious and virtuous cycles that were not addressed in the literature but might be useful for future research. We suggest that stressors and resources that impact WLB and other outcomes are dynamically and reciprocally related to each other, thus creating a vicious loss cycle and a virtuous gain cycle, respectively (see Figure 2).

First, the notion of loss cycle based on COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2011) suggests that initial resource loss brings future loss. In other words, being exposed to stressors makes the individuals more vulnerable to experiencing more stress in the future. Based on this notion, we argue that resource loss initiated by work from home may be associated with decreased WLB, which could cause further resource loss as far as well-being, work, career, and family outcomes. In other words, loss of resources while working from home that lead to imbalance can have detrimental effects on employees. Although a few of the studies we reviewed discussed these connections, there is still an urgent need for more research to identify the cyclical mechanisms through which loss of resources in work and nonwork domains while working from home impacts WLB and eventually well-being, work, career, and family outcomes for employees working from home.

Second, COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2011) states that initial resource gain facilitates the possibility of further resource gain. In other words, resources help individuals preserve their personal resources sufficiently to acquire further resources to protect their well-being. Based on this principle, employees working from home who receive resources such as job autonomy and organizational support are more likely to be able to gain further resources such as positive energy and time that lead to WLB and other positive outcomes. Because COR theory notes that resource loss is more potent than gain, loss cycles will be more impactful than gain cycles. Therefore, in the wake of crisis situations such as the pandemic or severe resource loss, individuals and families seek to both repair the damage and to mobilize resources to prevent further loss. Workplaces and organizations can play an important role by providing resources to trigger the gain cycle. Future researchers may examine how negative and unintended well-being, career, work, and family outcomes trigger proactive responses to gain resources. To study the dynamic and cyclical interplay between resources loss and gain, there is a need for theory-grounded longitudinal studies that assess antecedents of WLB over time. Such studies have been absent in the current literature, especially when both stressors and resources associated with working from home are considered.

Finally, using COR theory helped us overcome some limitations of other theories used in studies of WLB and its antecedents and outcomes. We invite future researchers to consider COR theory because it enables incorporating the broader life context of individuals compared to theories that only focus on the job-related context (e.g., job demands-resources model; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Also, as opposed to traditional stress theories concentrating on individual appraisals of stressful situations as the antecedents of stress and WLB, COR theory draws attention to the environmental, social, and cultural bases of demands and stressors. It brings resources to researchers’ attention to explain what people need to acquire or protect to ensure their well-being and distance themselves from stressors. We extend the COR theory by providing a nuanced and contextualized understanding of stressors and resources that emanate from the challenge of achieving WLB while working from home during the pandemic.

Practical Implications

Corresponding with HRD’s commitments to employee and organization performance and well-being (e.g., Fenwick & Bierema 2008; Holton 2002; Kuchinke, 2010; McGuire et al. 2021), our review offers the HRD community insights into the current knowledge that could be utilized to improve remote workers’ WLB. We encourage employers who adopt work from home arrangements to be mindful of the effects of stressors and resources outlined in our review. As work plays an important role in these processes, employers and managers need to identify, understand, and reduce the likelihood of circumstances that lead to perceived work intensity, technostress, and professional isolation. Also, employers and HRD practitioners need to consider workspace at home and the level of interdependence of work tasks when making decisions about work from home assignments and schedules. To take proactive steps toward improving WLB of employees working from home and other outcomes, employers and HRD practitioners may enrich supervisors’ and leaders’ roles, so they can extend job autonomy and provide various types of support, including tangible help with ICT, timely information, relevant work materials, and social support. We recommend interventions, such as financial support for childcare and domestic help to allow employees, especially mothers and parents, to accommodate managing housework and childcare intensity while working from home. Other solutions to help reduce resource loss while working from home include ensuring reasonable workloads, sufficient and designated workspace at home, ICT training and support, adequate tools and access to stable internet, and simple and user-friendly technology and platforms for work from home. Managers and supervisors may also invest in improving communication and take action to ensure work colleagues socialize and connect regularly, and that employees working from home are included in all activities to avoid isolation. Finally, employers and HRD practitioners may provide employees with training to improve their adaptability, including their ability to manage work-nonwork boundaries and to fit their demands to available resources, and they may coach their managers and supervisors to understand the demands of work from home and the resources employees need to stay balanced (See Appendix E for a list of practical suggestions for organizations and managers).

Limitations

As with any study, our review has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, to identify the antecedents of WLB while working from home, we included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies, which limited our ability to derive and quantify conclusions about the strength of the relationships between factors. The application of some of the identified WLB antecedents and outcomes may be limited to crisis times, since most of the studies were conducted and published when the pandemic was ongoing, and lockdowns and school closures were in place. Third, we only reviewed studies that were published in English and were indexed in the Web of Science database. Fourth, it is important to note that almost all the reviewed studies examined correlational relationships or qualitative associations between WLB and its antecedents and outcomes; therefore, while relationships were often described as direct links, causal effects are yet to be confirmed.