917560

review-article2020
HRDXXX10.1177/1534484320917560Human Resource Development ReviewWood et al.

Integrative Literature Reviews

Human Resource Development Review

The Relationship Between

1­–23
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Work Engagement and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1534484320917560
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320917560
Work–Life Balance in journals.sagepub.com/home/hrd

Organizations: A Review
of the Empirical Research

Jacob Wood1, Jihye Oh2, Jiwon Park3 ,

and Woocheol Kim3

Abstract
Employers increasingly attempt to create the right environments where employees
experience work–life balance. At the same time, organizations concerned with their
organizational-level outcomes encourage improving employee work engagement. The
question becomes, how do employee work–life balance and work engagement relate
to one another? A similar question concerns human resource development (HRD)
practitioners who seek to help both employees with balancing their work and life
and employers with their organizational goals. A body of literature has examined the
relationship between work–life balance and work engagement, which we review in this
article. We identify and synthesize the findings of 37 articles empirically investigating
the relationship between work–life balance and work engagement. The findings showed
the various antecedents, mediators, and moderators that depict the relationships
between work engagement and work–life balance. Furthermore, we provide insight
into HRD scholarship regarding how to clarify the direction of causality between
two concepts, which has been largely left inconclusive. Finally, our article proposes
insightful directions for future research and practice in the field of HRD.

Keywords
work engagement, work–life balance, literature review

1
James Cook University, Singapore
2
Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
3
Korea University of Technology & Education, Cheonan, South Korea

Corresponding Author:
Jiwon Park, Korea University of Technology & Education, 1600, Chungjeol-ro, Byeongcheon-myeon,
Cheonan 31253, South Korea.
Email: jwpark5252@koreatech.ac.kr
2 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Introduction
Over the past decade, research into the areas of employee work engagement and
employee psychological well-being has gained increasing interest in the fields of
human resource development (HRD) and organizational behavior (Shuck & Wollard,
2010). Research has shown that work engagement, which is defined as “a positive,
fulfilling, work-related state of mind” (Schaufeli et al., 2006, p. 702), has a positive
effect on a variety of not only the employee but also organizational outcomes. Job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, work performance, financial returns, and
customer loyalty (Albdour & Altarawneh, 2014; Bakker et al., 2012; Salanova et al.,
2005; Yan et al., 2017) have been reported as the examples of these outcomes. Using
a meta-analytic approach, Halbesleben (2010) found that work engagement is posi-
tively related to employees’ organizational commitment, performance, and health/
well-being while being negatively associated with turnover intention.
Due to the great potential of work engagement that drives organizational prosperity,
organizations are concerned with employee work engagement. At the same time,
employers increasingly attempt to create the right environments where employees
experience work–life balance (WLB). The question becomes, how do employee WLB
and work engagement relate to one another? A similar question concerns HRD practi-
tioners who seek to help both employees with balancing their work and life and
employers with their organizational goals.
A body of literature has examined the relationship between WLB and work engage-
ment in the literature. Given that both work and family life require a great amount of
time, energy, and emotional effort, several work engagement studies have found sup-
port for the notion that an individual’s personal life (e.g., nonwork satisfaction and
work–nonwork conflict) substantially influences an employee’s engagement, and vice
versa (Halbesleben, 2010; Timms et al., 2015). In addition, the literature has shown that
work engagement and WLB factors (e.g., work–family imbalance, work–family con-
flict [WFC], family–work conflict [FWC], work–family enrichment, work–family
interference, work–family facilitation, and work–family spillover) have reciprocal rela-
tionships, influencing each other (Crutchfield et al., 2013; Ilies et al., 2017; Karatepe &
Demir, 2014; Vîrgă et al., 2015). For example, multiple empirical studies (e.g., Parkes
& Langford, 2008; Shankar & Bhatnagar, 2010) have found the linkage between work
engagement and work–life/family constructs. On the contrary, if employees suffer from
a lack of resources (i.e., depletion of role resources; Rothbard, 2001), they are less
likely to fulfill their family responsibilities, thus creating work–life conflict (Chernyak-
Hai & Tziner, 2016; Mache et al., 2016). As demonstrated in the job demands and
resources (JD-R) model (Opie & Henn, 2013), it has been shown that job demands
(e.g., WFC or FWC) are antecedents to work engagement.
Based on the strong needs of HRD practitioners and close linkages between work
engagement and WLB revealed from previous studies, this study aims to analyze and
synthesize relevant empirical studies that examine the relationship between work
engagement and WLB. Although there are many review studies of work engagement
and those of WLB, to our knowledge, no integrative review has studied the empirical
Wood et al. 3

evidence about the relationship between the constructs of work engagement and WLB.
Through an integrative synthesis, therefore, we could contribute to the literature by not
only documenting the current level of understanding between the two constructs but
also by developing a future research agenda for scholars interested in pursuing this
area of inquiry.
The current article is organized as follows: the “Literature Review” section pro-
vides an overview of the key concepts—work engagement and WLB. After that, we
describe the methodological approach by explaining the article selection process
including the search criteria used for the literature review and include a description
and synthesis of the findings from the selected articles. This is followed by a section
on the theoretical and practical implications of the research. Finally, we note the limi-
tations of the study and areas for future research as well as some final concluding
remarks.

Literature Review
In this section, we provide an overview of work engagement and WLB. In particular,
we discuss its definitions and the results from empirical studies on this topic.
Furthermore, we included a theoretical lens that helps to explain the relationship
between work engagement and WLB.

An Overview of Work Engagement

Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling motivational state of work-related
well-being (Blanch & Aluja, 2009). Engaged employees identify themselves through
their work, and as such have high levels of vigor, dedication, and a deep sense of
absorption in their work (Gignac et al., 1996; Klitzman et al., 1990; Timms et al.,
2015). Absorption dimension of work engagement, referring to the full concentration
on and immersion in work, is often characterized by having time pass quickly or by
finding it difficult to detach oneself from one’s work (Mauno et al., 2007; Schaufeli,
Martinez, et al., 2002). Recently, some researchers have viewed that experiencing
absorption is rather similar to that of flow (González-Roma et al., 2006). Flow relates
to the state of mind in which people are intensively involved in a task that nothing else
seems to matter; moreover, it is so enjoyable that people will do it purely for the sake
doing it (Mauno et al., 2007). Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy, willing-
ness to put effort into the job, and persistence in the face of difficulties (Tims et al.,
2012). From an organizational perspective, vigorous employees persist with difficul-
ties and find their job energizing (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Timms et al., 2015).
Work engagement’s final component, dedication, is characterized by a strong psycho-
logical involvement in one’s work, coupled with a sense of enthusiasm and a feeling
that one is challenged by the job (Schaufeli, Salanova, et al., 2002). Work engagement
was initially introduced as an antonym of psychological burnout which occurs through
a lack of WLB (Maslach et al., 2001). However, others have argued that work
4 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

engagement and psychological burnout had similar antecedents, albeit with opposing
effects (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Leiter & Maslach, 2004; Timms et al., 2015).

An Overview of WLB
In recent decades, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the health and well-
being of employees (Peeters & Demerouti, 2014), and as such, WLB is receiving great
attention from both researchers and practitioners as a means of nurturing employees’
well-being (Jones et al., 2013; Kinnunen et al., 2014; Wagner et al., 2014).
WLB refers to obtaining a sufficient degree of satisfaction at both home and work
(Campbell Clark, 2000). WLB can be achieved through attentive engagement in mul-
tiple roles (Marks, 1977; Marks & MacDermid, 1996), in which time allocation and
involvement are approximately equal (Kirchmeyer, 2000).
Employees’ work or workplace environments can profoundly influence their non-
work-related life situations, and vice versa, which is often referred to as the “work-to-
family interference” or “family-to-work interference” (Mache et al., 2016). The link
between these two areas has supported either positive or negative effects on a person’s
well-being. According to Kinnunen et al. (2014), over the last two decades, the line
between a person’s professional life and nonwork life has become increasingly blurred.
This is largely due to changes in family structures, increases in women’s participation
in the workforce, and technological changes (e.g., mobile phones and portable comput-
ers), which has seen the nature of work evolve with the introduction of remote working
practices (Peeters et al., 2005). Given such an environment, employees now place more
value on free time or social interaction with friends, family, and their community.

Theoretical Perspectives Explaining the Link Between WLB and Work

Engagement
A diverse array of theoretical perspectives have been identified that support the links
between work engagement and the work–family interface. A further examination of the
literature identified both positive and negative associations between these constructs, the
likes of which were respectively examined using accumulation and depletion approaches
(Rothbard, 2001). First, accumulation/enrichment of resource perspectives, such as the
role enrichment and conservation of resources (COR) theory, were used to explain posi-
tive associations between them (e.g., either positive effects of work engagement on
WLB or positive effects of WLB on work engagement). The role enrichment perspective
(Rothbard, 2001) assumes that positive role-related experiences or emotional responses
to one role can increase one’s engagement in other roles. Furthermore, when individuals
have positive feelings for one’s work role in the workplace, it can encourage one to per-
ceive WLB aspects positively and vice versa (Marais et al., 2014).
Similarly, the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 1998) assumes that existing resources
can bring additional resources, thus individuals with more resources are more capable
of initiating proactive behaviors and resolving a problem. Having a good
Wood et al. 5

WLB provides oneself with energy, self-efficacy, and a positive attitude, which can
intrinsically motivate and energize employees to be engaged in their work (Niessen
et al., 2018). It also turns out that work role engagement positively influences work
role resource gains, consequently leading to work-to-family enrichment (Z. Chen &
Powell, 2012). It can be inferred that work engagement and work–life interface factors
can reciprocally strengthen each other based on the COR theory.
On the contrary, research on the negative relationship between work engagement
and work–family interface has been rooted in the role strain/loss perspective, which
means that multiple demands of work and family are detrimental, thus evoking nega-
tive responses to the roles because individuals have limited amounts of time and
energy (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Rothbard, 2001). From a strain/loss perspective,
people fulfilling dual responsibilities in both work and family (e.g., work–family
interferences) face difficulties when transitioning from one role to another due to com-
petition for limited resources, which can lead to disengagement from work
(Montgomery et al., 2003). Furthermore, the JD-R model has been predominantly
used to examine both the positive and the negative relationships between work engage-
ment and family-related factors. According to the JD-R model, high job resources can
increase work engagement, while high job demands can result in burnout (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007; Hakanen & Roodt, 2010). Based on this model, family-related job
resources, such as work–family culture and family-supportive supervisor behaviors
(FSSBs), can play a pivotal role in enhancing work engagement (Peeters et al., 2009;
Qing & Zhou, 2017), whereas a lack of resources and high demands, such as role con-
flicts (WFC, FWC), role overload, and the emotional demands of family roles, may
reduce work engagement and well-being (Opie & Henn, 2013).

Method
An integrative literature review is a distinguishing form of research that creates new
knowledge about topics reviewed (Torraco, 2005, 2016). This integrative literature
review helps to succinctly summarize, analyze, and synthesize an extant body of lit-
erature from a certain genre of scholastic endeavor (Chermack & Passmore, 2005).
Furthermore, given that a literature review can provide comprehensive and refreshing
perspectives on topics that may include inconsistencies or contradictions in the extant
literature, this research adopted a literature review as the primary methodological
approach (Torraco, 2005, 2016).
Based on the guidelines of Torraco’s (2005, 2016) integrative literature review, this
research begins by searching for and selecting relevant articles in the existing litera-
ture. For a systematic and clear literature review, this inquiry is guided by Callahan’s
(2010) criteria for conducting a literature review, considering (a) where the articles
were discovered (i.e., databases), (b) when the search was implemented, (c) who
undertook the search, (d) how the articles were found, (e) how many articles were
identified and the final number of articles selected, and (f) why the articles were ulti-
mately chosen (Callahan, 2010; Kim et al., 2013, 2017).
6 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

When implementing the initial article search in March 2018, the researchers uti-
lized ProQuest multiple databases, which encompassed 43 subsets of databases
(e.g., ABI/INFORM Collection, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, and Social Science
Premium Collection) to discover relevant articles. With regard to keyword combina-
tions, the primary focus of this study is the relationship between work engagement
and WLB within organizations. Given that the term work engagement is used inter-
changeably with similar terms, such as employee engagement, job engagement, per-
sonal engagement, and role engagement (Kim et al., 2013, 2017; Lee et al., 2016),
we used the keyword engagement to elicit all available publications that focus on
work engagement. When it comes to WLB, a preliminary search via Google Scholar
showed that the concepts of work and life balance seem to be examined with sub-
stantial analogous concepts, such as work personal life balance, work life imbal-
ance, work family balance, work family imbalance, work family conflict, family
work conflict, work family enrichment, work family facilitation, work family inter-
ference, and work family spillover. Thus, we included all aforementioned 11 terms
to comprehensively discover relevant articles. Taken together, the search keywords
used for the initial search were combinations of (a) “engagement” with (b) “work
and life balance,” “work personal life balance,” “work life imbalance,” “work fam-
ily balance,” “work family imbalance,” “work family conflict,” “family work con-
flict,” “ work family enrichment,” “work family facilitation,” “work family
interference,” or “work family spillover.” Also, to ensure that articles examined the
identified relationship, only articles in which the search terms appeared either in the
titles or abstracts were included. In addition, considering the inconsistent direction-
ality between work engagement and WLB, articles that empirically examined both
work engagement and WLB were only included for further analysis. As we focus
primarily on the specific relationship between work engagement and WLB, none of
qualitative studies was identified. Although a specific time restriction was not
imposed on the results, this review focused on peer-reviewed articles and English-
language journals, which are fully accessible in databases.
The initial search results using the series of keywords generated 139 articles.
Afterwards, a staged review approach was conducted with 139 articles to further iden-
tify relevant articles aligned with the purpose of the review. Torraco (2005) stated that
the staged review is as follows: (a) perform an initial review by reading abstracts and
(b) complete an in-depth review for each article. Using the staged review approach,
any articles meeting the selection criteria are included for further review. During the
in-depth review process, articles that empirically investigated the relationship between
work engagement and WLB in organizational settings were only selected for further
consideration. However, for the quality of the review, if an article merely described the
relationship without any research model or framework and a method section, it was
excluded. Furthermore, we reviewed the references of the selected articles to expand
the pool of articles. As a result, we added five articles after duplicate articles were also
excluded (e.g., Montgomery et al., 2003; Qing & Zhou, 2017). Throughout these pro-
cesses, 37 articles were ultimately included for further review.
Wood et al. 7

Table 1.  Number of Selected Articles by Direction.

Direction Number of studies

WLB → WE 16
WE → WLB 12
Non-directional 9
Total 37

Note. WLB = work–life balance; WE = work engagement.

Findings
The process of analysis and synthesis was implemented based on the 37 articles that
were ultimately selected. Of these studies, 16 studies have a WLB to work engagement
directional focus, 12 studies have a work engagement to WLB directional focus, while
a further nine studies were non-directional in nature (see Table 1). In an effort to pro-
vide a more detailed synopsis of the selected literature, the total number of articles has
been sorted by the direction and empirical method type. Also, a brief summary, includ-
ing authors, year, the purpose, theoretical frameworks, the data collection and analysis
methods, and key findings, is presented in Supplemental Appendix 1. The included
and reviewed studies are listed in chronological order, beginning in 2003.
An overviewed assessment of the studies recorded (see Supplemental Appendix
1) shows that the key theoretical lenses found in our analysis include the COR the-
ory (seven studies), personal engagement theory, broaden-and-build theory, role
theory, job characteristics theory, segmentation theory, self-determination theory,
spillover theory (two studies), global social support theory, affective events theory,
perceived organizational support theory, the role enhancement theory (two studies),
role expansionist theory (two studies), attribution theory, and compensation theory,
while the following models were also used, including the JD-R model (eight stud-
ies), the job demand–control and job demand–control support models, the spillover–
crossover model (SCM), work–home resources model, and the effort–reward
imbalance model. In terms of design, of the 37 studies, 31 were correlational and
seven were longitudinal. In terms of measuring work engagement, 30 of the 37 stud-
ies utilized the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), while the key measures/
variables of WLB included WFC (22 studies), work–family enrichment (nine stud-
ies), work–family culture (four studies), WLB (six studies), work–family facilitation
(six studies), work–family benefits, work–life imbalance, family satisfaction, work–
home interference, and FSSBs.
As the focus of this research is to closely take a look at the relationship between
work engagement and WLB in organizations, this section details three key sections:
(a) the influence of WLB on work engagement, (b) the influence of work engagement
on WLB, and (c) the non-directional influence (e.g., not directly related or reciprocal)
relationship between work engagement and WLB.
8 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

WLB as the Antecedent of Work Engagement

The literature highlights a range of areas that sought to better understand the WLB as
the antecedent of work engagement. Organizational policies, procedures, structures,
and systems decide the extent to which employees are satisfied, committed, or engaged
in work within their organization. From this analysis, the literature identified a range
of factors that have a mediating effect, such as family and work demands, WFC, work–
family enrichment, and a supportive work–family culture.
To better understand work–family culture, a key early study by Montgomery et al.
(2003) found that work and home demands create additional work pressures and
decreased feelings of engagement, while the availability of work and home resources
led to greater engagement and reduced burnout in the workplace. Furthermore, Peeters
et al. (2009) found that it pays to invest in a supportive work–family culture because
such a culture contributes to work engagement and at the same time helps to prevent
burnout. A key study to assess the main factors encouraging or preventing work
engagement was conducted by Evans and Redfern (2010). Their results highlighted
that communication, remuneration, the branch induction process, and WLB play a
significant role in helping to enhance work engagement; this finding was echoed by a
subsequent Joshi and Sodhi (2011) study, which further analyzed the role of organiza-
tional climate in driving work engagement. Their study was particularly influential, as
they were able to clearly show that WLB, job content, monetary benefits, and team
orientation are important drivers of work engagement for both executives and
non-executives.
Moreover, as Itam and Singh (2012) identified in their study of the Indian retail
sector in Hyderabad, policies aimed at encouraging corporate training highlighted the
positive correlation that exists between work and personal life, stress and training, and
work engagement. In addition, Scanlan et al. (2013) found that by implementing poli-
cies that help to nurture staff, well-being at work (and especially job satisfaction) was
significantly associated with lower turnover intention. Such a finding supports the
belief that organizations with flexible or family-friendly policies are better placed to
develop a better WLB for their employees, which in turn allows them to better deal
with the demands of contemporary households.
In a subsequent study by Timms et al. (2015), the issue of work–family enrichment
was examined as a predictor of work engagement. Furthermore, they considered the
positive and negative influence of WLB for work performance. Their cross-sectional
results showed that experiences of work that contributed to a positive mood (affect)
and to a sense of confidence (capital) in family life were associated with all three
dimensions of work engagement (i.e., absorption, dedication, and vigor) and with fam-
ily satisfaction, while their longitudinal analyses demonstrated enduring effects of
positive mood, with work–family affect predicting work engagement and family–
work affect predicting family satisfaction (Timms et al., 2015).
Another area of importance within the WLB debate is the issue of WFC. To this end,
Peeters et al. (2009) examined the mechanism through which work–family culture influ-
ences burnout and work engagement. Their study showed that a supportive work–family
Wood et al. 9

culture not only enhances work engagement through work–family enrichment but also
reduces burnout through the mediation of WFC. Mauno (2010) shed new light on the
linkage between work–family culture and well-being (WFC, work engagement, and job
exhaustion) by approaching this association through a 2-year longitudinal design. The
results showed a strong prospective association between managerial work–family sup-
port and work engagement; however, there was only a lagged association between the
dimensions of work–family culture (support and barriers) and work engagement. Siu
et al. (2010) also demonstrated the influence that FSSBs have on predicting work
engagement. Set in a Chinese context, the study showed that FSSBs have a direct, posi-
tive, and significant influence on work engagement.
An important contribution was made to the WFC literature by Opie and Henn
(2013). Their study helped to reveal that personality (e.g., neuroticism and conscien-
tiousness specifically) plays a vital role in moderating the relationship between WFC
and work engagement. Their analysis showed that for those with a high level of con-
scientiousness, the decrease in work engagement that is associated with increased
WFC is more prominent than the corresponding decrease for those with medium or
low levels of conscientiousness (Opie & Henn, 2013).
More recently, Li et al. (2014) further extended our understanding about the rela-
tionship between work engagement and WFC through moderating the effects of proac-
tive personality. The results from their analysis showed that social support had a
positive effect on work engagement, and that WFC had a negative effect on work
engagement. In a similar study by Fiksenbaum (2014), an examination of the effects
of WFC on an individual’s well-being (i.e., life satisfaction and work engagement)
was conducted. The study showed that the availability of work–family benefits pro-
moted a supportive work–family culture, which was inversely related to WFC.
Moreover, WFC as a mediator contributed negatively to relationships of work–family
culture with both life satisfaction and work engagement (Fiksenbaum, 2014). In addi-
tion to this, Chambel et al. (2017) examined the relationship between job characteris-
tics and workplace well-being and the role work-to-life conflict plays in mediating this
relationship. Their study further substantiated that in both the part-time and the full-
time subsamples, employees’ perceptions of job characteristics are related to their
well-being, and the work-to-life conflict partially mediates this relationship.
Specifically, they suggested that part-time work is a good solution to prevent the work-
to-life conflict and the promotion of well-being at work.
More recently, Vîrgă et al. (2015) examined the interplay that exists between (a) job
resources, (b) personal resources (organizational-based self-esteem and self-efficacy)
and personality traits (conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability), (c) a
specific job demand (work–life imbalance), and (d) work engagement, in a manner
that is in line with the alternative JD-R model proposed by Bakker (2011). The results
showed that work–life imbalance undermines the positive relationship between self-
efficacy and work engagement. Moreover, in a three-way analysis of job resources,
personal resources, and job demands interaction, self-efficacy and job resources were
found to have had a positive relationship with work engagement when work–life
imbalance was low. Chan et al. (2017) found, in their analysis of public and private
10 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

sector employees in Australia, that self-efficacy was both significantly and negatively
related to work and family demands, which in turn were negatively associated with
WLB, while a better WLB, in turn, enabled employees to be more engaged in their
work.
Finally, Niessen et al. (2018) investigated the issue of preventive coping. From
their analysis, they revealed significant indirect effects for emotional exhaustion, work
engagement, and relationship satisfaction through WLB. Moreover, for those employ-
ees who engaged less in preventive coping, a higher number of business trips were
related to a decrease in WLB, which, in turn, was related to more emotional exhaus-
tion, less work engagement, and lower relationship satisfaction. However, for those
employees who reported higher preventive coping, opposing indirect effects were
found. In this instance, frequent travel was related to an increase in WLB and, in turn,
to less emotional exhaustion, more work engagement, and higher relationship satisfac-
tion (Niessen et al., 2018).

Work Engagement as the Antecedent of WLB

The inherent need for organizations to better appreciate the broader canvases of the
workers’ lives has been increasingly recognized as being an important determinant for
employee health and work performance (Timms et al., 2015). Much research has been
conducted on the correlative influences of work engagement and WLB. A key study by
Burke et al. (2013) showed that for frontline employees in the hospitality and tourism
sector, work engagement was significantly related to job satisfaction and lower levels
of WFC and FWC.
Work engagement as the antecedent of WLB is another important area of research,
with several studies highlighting the spillover effects that exist away from work. To
this end, Halbesleben et al. (2009) investigated the potential influence of work engage-
ment of family life. Their results showed that highly engaged employees have lower
levels of work interference with family. Meanwhile, Culbertson et al. (2012) showed,
in their research on the relationship between work engagement and work-to-family
facilitation, that daily work engagement had a positive effect on family life, with the
results moderated by work–family capitalization, or the sharing of positive work expe-
riences at home. More recently, Karatepe and Demir (2014) examined the link between
work engagement and work–family facilitation from a hotel industry perspective.
Their results were significant as they demonstrated the positive role that core self-
evaluations have on work engagement. More specifically, those who are highly
engaged at work are more capable of integrating their work (family) and family (work)
roles successfully.
Through active work engagement and the adoption of a range of factors, such as
flexible work times, workplaces, part-time contracts, and maternal/paternal leave, an
employer or an organization is able to provide techniques and policies to foster the
WLB of employees. In this regard, Z. Chen and Powell (2012) tested a resource-based
model of work-to-family enrichment and conflict. From this analysis, their study made
an important contribution to the literature by demonstrating how work engagement
Wood et al. 11

can build resource gains and, therefore, suggested it was an antecedent of work–family
enrichment. A subsequent study by Marais et al. (2014), in which the relationship
between work resources, home resources, work engagement, family engagement, and
work–family enrichment was assessed, provided some interesting results. Their analy-
sis showed a positive relationship between work–family enrichment and its anteced-
ents and outcomes. More specifically, it highlighted the mediating relationship
between work resources and work engagement, while family–work enrichment helped
to mediate the relationship between home resources and family engagement. Similar
conclusions were also drawn by Qing and Zhou (2017), in which work engagement
was the most proximal predictor of work–family enrichment in a mainland China
context.
Another area identified as having a significant bearing on the issue of balancing
between work and life is WFC. Within this area of analysis is the issue of spillovers. A
key contribution in this area is the SCM, which proposes that work-related strain first
spills over to the home domain and then crosses over to the partner through social
interaction (Bakker et al., 2012). In this regard, Bakker et al. (2014) found that work
engagement was positively related to work–family facilitation, which, in turn, leads to
predicted employee’s/partner’s family satisfaction. Chernyak-Hai and Tziner (2016)
found that work engagement is statistically and positively associated with burnout and
was shown to predict higher experiences of WFC—a finding that was supported by
Rantanen et al. (2013), in which over-engagement through high weekly working hours
and insufficient personal time were related to harmful levels of WFC. In addition, Y.
S. Chen and Huang (2016) examined how a personal engagement may be related with
WFC and innovative behavior. Their study showed that charismatic leadership style,
colleague support, and self-esteem are key indicators of predicting personal engage-
ment, which, in turn, had a positive relationship with innovative behavior and WFC.
More recently, Ilies et al. (2017) found, in their analysis of Chinese banking employ-
ees, that daily work engagement experiences related positively, within individuals, to
work–family interpersonal capitalization, which, in turn, related positively to daily
family satisfaction and to daily work–family balance. They indicated that both the
relationship between daily work engagement and work–family interpersonal capital-
ization and the indirect effects of daily work engagement on the family outcomes were
stronger for employees with higher intrinsic motivation than for those with lower
intrinsic motivation.

Non-Directional Relationship Between WLB and Work Engagement

The third key area identified within the literature detailed the non-directional relation-
ship that exists between WLB and work engagement. In this context, the term non-
directional refers to the findings of the relevant literature not showing any directly
related or reciprocal relationship between work engagement and WLB, but examining
antecedent factors influencing WLB and/or engagement construct. Ringrose et al.
(2009) assessed burnout rates and potential determinants of burnout in a sample of
medical residents. The results from their study were non-directional in that WFC,
12 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

work-related autonomy, and level of work engagement were significantly associated

with burnout.
From a gender perspective, Burke et al. (2009) examined work experiences, non-
work satisfactions, and psychological health among Turkish physicians. As part of
this, they measured gender differences in levels of work engagement, WFC, and
FWC. Their study found that female and male groups were of similar levels for work
engagement and FWC; however, in terms of WFC, female physicians reported higher
levels of conflict. In addition to this, Geldenhuys and Henn (2017) found, in their
study of women in South African workplaces, that a significant relationship exists
between life satisfaction, WFC, and work engagement. Moreover, being White
showed a significant positive relationship with life satisfaction, WFC, and work
engagement.
In other studies that exhibited non-directional findings, Simbula (2010), while
using the JD-R model, examined the antecedents of job satisfaction and mental health.
In particular, the author examined the effects of WFC (job demand) and co-workers’
support (job resource) by adopting the daily-basis survey to assess day-level exhaus-
tion and work engagement. The results showed that both day-level work engagement
and exhaustion mediated the impacts of day-level co-workers’ support on a day-level
job satisfaction and day-level mental health (Simbula, 2010).
An examination of the relationship between work engagement and WLB, by
Crutchfield et al. (2013), sought to better understand the influence of occupational
commitment on agricultural educator retention. Their study showed that a positive
relationship exists between occupational commitment and vigor, dedication, and per-
ceptions of WLB. Furthermore, Eek and Axmon (2013) found that workplace factors,
such as flexibility and attitude, were positively related with work engagement for
working parents and negatively related with WFC and FWC.
Dåderman and Basinska (2016) examined the extent to which perceived job
demands (workload and interpersonal conflicts at work) and engagement (vigor) are
significantly correlated with turnover intentions in the Polish nursing sector.
Furthermore, job demands, engagement (vigor and dedication), and turnover inten-
tions had a strong effect on WFC, while absorption (the third component of engage-
ment) had a strong effect on FWC (Dåderman & Basinska, 2016). This finding implies
that work engagement not only predicts WFC, but can also be associated with FWC.
More recently, Babic et al. (2017) investigated the directionality of the causal relation-
ships between WFC, work–family enrichment, and two well-being variables (i.e., job
strain and job engagement). By incorporating a two-wave cross-lagged design (a
6-month interval), their results demonstrated the reciprocal effects present between
WFC-job strain and WFC-job engagement.
In other job resources studies, Mache et al. (2016) investigated the relationship
between medical physicians’ JD-R, perceived job stress, WFC, work engagement, and
job satisfaction. They found the significant relationships between physicians’ work
engagement and their job satisfaction, as well as between job stress and WFC.
Wood et al. 13

Figure 1.  The effect of work engagement on work–life balance.

Synthesis of the Reviewed Literature

As found in the findings from the 37 publications, it seems that it is premature to con-
clude that one variable greatly influences over the other. Our findings found that in
some 16 studies, WLB has been more frequently explored as an antecedent of work
engagement rather than an outcome; however, in some 12 other studies, work engage-
ment was also shown to be a precondition of WLB as well. Thus, it is safe to assume
that based on our findings, the two variables have a bidirectional relationship rather
than having causality. To demonstrate the causality of work engagement and WLB-
related factors, further longitudinal studies should be developed. In addition, further
meta-analytic studies should be conducted to more quantitatively and precisely mea-
sure the associations.
When it comes to theories that explain the relationship between WLB and work
engagement, we found that both the JD-R model and COR theory have been pre-
dominantly used to support the direct and/or indirect direction from WLB factors
and work engagement, which means WLB is regarded as the critical resource of
enhancing work engagement. However, we found that various theoretical frame-
works, including SCM, have been used when testing the direction from work engage-
ment to WLB.
Based on key findings of the reviewed studies, we have created Figures 1 and 2,
which detail the effect of work engagement on WLB, and vice versa, so as to clearly
depict the process or underlying mechanism of the associations. A thorough analysis
of the literature provided scope for the development of a detailed understanding of the
antecedents (e.g., charismatic leadership, colleagues support, and self-esteem) that
encourage first work engagement and then a range of factors that both mediate (e.g.,
burnout and work–family facilitation/conflict) and moderate (e.g., gender and intrinsic
motivation) the effect that work engagement has on WLB (see Figure 1).
14 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Figure 2.  The effect of work–life balance on work engagement.

Alternatively, our empirical analysis of the literature also identified a range of

mediating (e.g., family and work demands, supportive work–family culture, and
work–family enrichment) and moderating (e.g., preventive coping and work–life
imbalance) factors that influenced the effect that WLB and its associated terms have
on work engagement and in particular the flow-on effect of employee turnover.
Based on our review and figures, it appears that a variety of antecedents of both
work engagement and WLB, including job resources (e.g., colleague support and
work–family culture) and personal resources (e.g., self-esteem and self-efficacy), have
been studied. Specifically, the most prominent antecedent was the perceived level of
support given by colleagues, co-workers, and society, which was then followed by
self-efficacy/esteem, as shown in two studies by Chan et al. (2017) and Y. S. Chen and
Huang (2016). Three studies (see Y. S. Chen & Huang, 2016; Li et al., 2014; Simbula,
2010) found that social or colleague support is the precondition for either work engage-
ment or WFC. When it comes to the outcomes of both work engagement and WFC, the
most frequently studied outcome was satisfaction, including job satisfaction (i.e.,
Burke et al., 2013; Mache et al., 2016; Simbula, 2010), family satisfaction (i.e., Ilies
et al., 2017; Timms et al., 2015), and personal or life satisfaction (i.e., Geldenhuys &
Henn, 2017; Scanlan et al., 2013). Seven studies, including those by Burke et al.
(2013) and Mache et al. (2016), found a positive association between satisfaction as an
outcome variable and work engagement and WFC, while the factors of satisfaction,
turnover intention, and intention to stay were also notable outcomes highlighted in
three studies by Burke et al. (2013), Dåderman and Basinska (2016), and Scanlan et al.
(2013).
However, our study found no marked use of a mediator/moderator among the 37
articles. In addition, studies that have examined either moderators or mediators have
focused primarily on exploring underlying mechanisms in which work engagement
predicts WLB and their conditional factors than revealing mechanisms and conditions
of the other direction (WLB–work engagement relationship). Given the reciprocal
Wood et al. 15

association between work engagement and WLB factors, as revealed by Babic et al.
(2017), Siu et al. (2010), Timms et al. (2015), more longitudinal investigations should
be attempted in order to more clearly identify their associations.

Discussion
We suggest a number of practical and theoretical HRD implications based on the key
findings of the empirical literature review.

Theoretical Implications
The most evident implication of our review is that the direction of causality between
work engagement and WLB remains inconclusive. As evidenced in our review, a
growing body of literature has examined the relationships between two constructs;
however, the direction between them has been not clearly articulated. Our findings
showed that work engagement is the antecedents of WLB, vice versa. It can be attrib-
uted to the lack of theories that explicitly link the two constructs. While the COR
theory and JD-R model guided our inquiry, neither of theories paid close attention to
the direction or causality between two concepts. Therefore, we urge researchers to
further examine the direction between work engagement and WLB and empirically
substantiate this link.
Another evident implication of our review is our ability to clearly identify the defi-
nitions and validate the concepts through research examining work engagement and
WLB. First, work engagement has been conceptualized and viewed from two different
perspectives. On one hand, work engagement and burnout are reciprocating compo-
nents on a single continuum, rather than clearly distinct concepts. However, on the
other hand, some scholars (e.g., Schaufeli et al., 2002) argue that work engagement,
albeit relevant to burnout, exists as independent. In our review, we established a con-
sensus that work engagement as a distinct concept is associated with WLB. For exam-
ple, 29 of the 37 studies have used the term “work engagement” as their research
construct, instead of employee engagement, job engagement, and (work) role engage-
ment. Furthermore, as was evident in previous arguments (Bakker et al., 2008), the
different versions (i.e., short 9-item and original 17-item) of UWES have been utilized
in 29 studies to validate the concept of work engagement, in doing so, establishing
itself as the predominant scale of measurement.
In addition, some scholars interestingly distinguish the concept of work engage-
ment from burnout, depicting work engagement and its primary relationship with
workaholism as a counterconcept of work engagement. Previous studies have shown
that burnout is solely related to work engagement; however, we observed that
researchers have moved away from simply creating a consensus on the definitions
and constructs of work engagement, to seeking the influences and concepts of work
engagement in relation to other similar work-related constructs. For instance, Bakker
et al. (2014) revealed that although workaholism and work engagement may seem to
16 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

show similar behaviors, the underlying basis between these two concepts is funda-
mentally different.
When it comes to WLB, our study unearthed the variability of the concept of WLB,
with the literature portraying the term from both positive and negative perspectives,
(e.g., work–family culture, enrichment, facilitation, benefits, interpersonal capitaliza-
tion, and WFC). Among these concepts of WLB, we found that the majority of studies
specifically focused on several negative aspects, such as including WFC, FWC, work–
family imbalance, and the work engagement of employees. Such a focus may be due
to the fact that these negative issues have a greater effect on employees.
For example, disengaged employees influenced by work–life imbalance are more
likely to suffer from poor performance and health status when compared with engaged
employees, who feel the positive effects on their work and health. Such findings may
also be attributable to the fact that since reliable and frequently used measures (such
as WFC and FWC) focus on negative perspectives, it may therefore simply mean that
more studies are done which examine the failures in WLB in relation to work
engagement.
However, several recent studies (Bakker et al., 2014; Chan et al., 2017; Z. Chen &
Powell, 2012; Niessen et al., 2018) have sought to examine constructs which empha-
size the positive aspects of WLB, including constructs of work–family facilitation and
positive work–family spillover. These studies provided evidence-based insight that
work engagement is positively associated with above WLB constructs. Although these
have expanded the extant literature on WLB and work engagement, the majority of
these studies have still paid great attention to the negative correlations that exist
between these two factors. Therefore, it is imperative that more is done to explore the
positive causality between engaged employees and WLB aspects and how these under-
lying mechanisms are linked to these two constructs.
Furthermore, it is argued that the concept of work–life/family balance remains
ambiguous, therefore lacking an appropriate measure to assess its concept and influ-
ences (Kalliath & Brough, 2008). From our analysis, it seems that an agreed-upon
definition remains elusive. Although various concepts have been employed to assess
the aspects of WLB (e.g., work–family balance, work–family facilitation, work–fam-
ily enrichment, and work–family benefits) and work–life imbalance (e.g., work–fam-
ily imbalance, WFC, FWC, and work–family interface), distinctions among WLB and
imbalance constructs regarding their conceptualizations have not been identified and
the measures of assessing the concepts have varied greatly. Thus, we encourage schol-
ars to clarify the definition of WLB and work–life imbalance, considering whether
both constructs lie on opposite sides of a single continuum or are distinctive from each
other in terms of their concepts, components, and measures.
Due to a recent shift in workforce interests and the increasing importance of health
and well-being concerns, WLB has received more attention than ever before (Kalliath
& Brough, 2008). Given that nurturing a safe and healthy work environment is one of
the most critical roles for HRD professionals, from both individual and organizational
well-being perspectives, HRD scholarship needs to pay close attention to the areas of
WLB and work engagement. In order for HRD researchers to exert their influence on
Wood et al. 17

not only research but also in practice, it is imperative that more is done to develop
clear and well-established definitions of WLB as well as to create a validated measure
that captures the exact meaning of WLB.

Practical Implications
As the synthesized relationships between work engagement and WLB suggested
reciprocal relations, it is recommended that HRD practitioners better understand the
relationship between work engagement and WLB to implement practices that view
things from a holistic perspective rather than as two separate entities.
This research helps to establish a clearer understanding of how organizations can sup-
port employees’ WLB and work engagement. As supported by our research, by strategi-
cally and proactively using WLB supportive policies and systems, employees can bring
not only their authentic self to the workplace but also feel valued/engaged while at work,
which in turn helps to achieve more desirable individual and organizational outcomes
(e.g., a high level of work engagement and productivity). In this sense, HRD profession-
als and organizations can effectively address retention and engagement issues through
the WLB lens. For example, HRD practitioners may find our figures (i.e., the effect of
work engagement on WLB, vice versa) useful as a job aid or reference tool to guide the
development of supportive work systems and policies. More specifically, when promot-
ing supportive WLB culture and designing WLB policy at the organizational level, HRD
professionals may use the figures as a guideline for setting both goals and the qualities
required to accomplish a high level of WLB and work engagement.
Furthermore, HRD professionals are able to incorporate various interventions and
policies, as evidenced by our findings. For example, organizations can create or desig-
nate a family day, in which all employees should finish their work and leave the office
by 6 p.m. on that day, to spend quality time with their family on a more regular basis.
On the contrary, HRD practitioners can provide family counseling services that help to
address any impending issues that employees may face confidentially, such as prob-
lems regarding marriage, children, and other relevant family issues (e.g., Peeters et al.,
2009). Finally, organizations can offer online courses as well as offline seminars or
workshops that can help to develop and maintain self-esteem, provide preventive cop-
ing mechanisms for WFC, as well as help to provide the skills required to effectively
communicate with their spouse and children (Chan et al., 2017).
Furthermore, both HRD professionals and organizations should be mindful of the
need to change and develop their culture, systems, and policies to successfully facili-
tate higher levels of work engagement and WLB, as they are all inter-related (Rothwell
et al., 2010). For example, a family-supportive workplace culture is better nurtured, if
the organization changes the performance evaluation system and induces flexible
work-hour environments. In other words, through the introduction of flexible working
hours and the removal of unnecessary meetings, and minimizing administrative pro-
cesses, a more conducive level of WLB culture and work engagement can be achieved.
Finally, any efforts made to develop policy initiatives should be done with a long-
term perspective in mind. HRD professionals should consider linking these HRD
18 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

efforts of enhancing the organizational culture of their organization (e.g., supportive

work–family culture) with organization development (OD) perspectives. OD interven-
tions represent planned change in an organization through the use of a long-term
approach, which cannot be created or changed by some one-off events or within sev-
eral months (Rothwell et al., 2010). As one of the focal points in OD, organizational
culture should be based on the shared beliefs, values, and norms of the employees,
reflecting a process of accumulated learning in an organization (Schein, 2010). Given
such a framework, HRD professionals need to carefully understand, design, and imple-
ment HRD policy provisions in a manner that best reflects organizational culture. In
doing so, organizations are able to create an environment that facilitates the desired
balance between WLB, work engagement, and the achievement of desired organiza-
tional outcomes.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic
of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A3A2066878).

ORCID iDs
Jiwon Park https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7484-1468
Woocheol Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2310-6126

Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References
Albdour, A. A., & Altarawneh, I. I. (2014). Employee engagement and organizational commit-
ment: Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Business, 19(2), 192–212.
Babic, A., Stinglhamber, F., Bertrand, F., & Hansez, I. (2017). Work–home interface and well-
being. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 16(1), 46–55.
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & ten Brummelhuis, L. L. (2012). Work engagement, perfor-
mance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
80(2), 555–564.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behaviour: Engaged employ-
ees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 29(2), 147–154.
Wood et al. 19

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An
emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187–200.
Bakker, A. B., Shimazu, A., Demerouti, E., Shimada, K., & Kawakami, N. (2014). Work engage-
ment versus workaholism: A test of the spillover-crossover model. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 29(1), 63–80.
Blanch, A., & Aluja, A. (2009). Work, family and personality: A study of work-family conflict.
Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 520–524.
Burke, R., Koyuncu, M., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2009). Gender differences in work experiences,
satisfactions and wellbeing among physicians in Turkey. Gender in Management: An
International Journal, 24(2), 70–91.
Burke, R. J., Koyuncu, M., Fiksenbaum, L., & Tekin, Y. (2013). Antecedents and consequences
of work engagement among frontline employees in Turkish hotels. Journal of Transnational
Management, 18(3), 191–203.
Callahan, J. L. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews
and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9(3), 300–304.
Campbell Clark, S. (2000). Work-family border theory: A new theory of work-life balance.
Human Relations, 53(6), 747–770.
Chambel, M. J., Carvalho, V. S., Cesário, F., & Lopes, S. (2017). The work-to-life conflict
mediation between job characteristics and well-being at work: Part-time vs full-time
employees. Career Development International, 22(2), 142–164.
Chan, X. W., Kalliath, T., Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M., Siu, O.-L., & Timms, C. (2017). Self-
efficacy and work engagement: Test of a chain model. International Journal of Manpower,
38(6), 819–834.
Chen, Y. S., & Huang, S. Y. (2016). A conservation of resources view of personal engage-
ment in the development of innovative behavior and work-family conflict. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 29(6), 1030–1040.
Chen, Z., & Powell, G. (2012). No pain, no gain? A resource-based model of work-to-family
enrichment and conflict. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 81(1), 89–98.
Chermack, T. J., & Passmore, D. L. (2005). Using journals and databases in research. In R. A.
Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of
inquiry (pp. 401–418). Berrett-Koehler.
Chernyak-Hai, L., & Tziner, A. (2016). The “I believe” and the “I invest” of work-family bal-
ance: The indirect influences of personal values and work engagement via perceived organi-
zational climate and workplace burnout. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
32(1), 1–10.
Crutchfield, N., Ritz, R., & Burris, S. (2013). Why agricultural educators remain in the class-
room. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(2), 1–14.
Culbertson, S. S., Mills, M. J., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Work engagement and work-family
facilitation: Making homes happier through positive affective spillover. Human Relations,
65(9), 1155–1177.
Dåderman, A. M., & Basinska, B. A. (2016). Job demands, engagement, and turnover intentions
in Polish nurses: The role of work-family interface. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article
1621.
Eek, F., & Axmon, A. (2013). Attitude and flexibility are the most important work place fac-
tors for working parents’ mental wellbeing, stress, and work engagement. Scandinavian
Journal of Public Health, 41(7), 692–705.
Evans, C., & Redfern, D. C. (2010). How can employee engagement be improved at the RRG
Group? Part 2. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(6), 330–334.
20 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Fiksenbaum, L. (2014). Supportive work-family environments: Implications for work-family

conflict and well-being. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
25(5), 653–672.
Geldenhuys, M., & Henn, C. M. (2017). The relationship between demographic variables
and well-being of women in South African workplaces. South African Journal of Human
Resource Management, 15(1), 1–15.
Gignac, M. A., Kelloway, E. K., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The impact of caregiving on employ-
ment: A mediational model of work-family conflict. Canadian Journal on Aging, 15(4),
525–542.
González-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work
engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behaviour,
68(1), 165–174.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.
Hakanen, J. J., & Roodt, G. (2010). Using the job demands-resources model to predict engage-
ment: Analysing a conceptual model. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engage-
ment: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 85–101). Psychology Press.
Halbesleben, J. R. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout,
demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engage-
ment: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). Psychology Press.
Halbesleben, J. R., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of
resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with
family. American Psychological Association, 94(6), 1452–1462.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community. Plenum Press.
Ilies, R., Liu, X. Y., Liu, Y., & Zheng, X. (2017). Why do employees have better family lives
when they are highly engaged at work? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 956–970.
Itam, U. J., & Singh, S. (2012). Key dimensions of employee engagement: A study on Hyderabad
organized retailing. Sumedha Journal of Management, 1(4), 55–61.
Jones, F., Burke, R. J., & Westman, M. (2013). Work-life balance: A psychological perspective.
Psychology Press.
Joshi, R. J., & Sodhi, J. S. (2011). Drivers of employee engagement in Indian organizations. The
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(1), 162–182.
Kalliath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Work–life balance: A review of the meaning of the balance
construct. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(3), 323–327.
Karatepe, O. M., & Demir, E. (2014). Linking core self-evaluations and work engage-
ment to work-family facilitation: A study in the hotel industry. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(2), 307–323.
Kim, W., Kim, J., Woo, H., Park, J., Jo, J., Park, S. H., & Lim, S. Y. (2017). The relationship
between work engagement and organizational commitment: Proposing research agenda as
through a review of empirical literature. Human Resource Development Review, 16(4),
350–376.
Kim, W., Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and perfor-
mance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource
Development Review, 12(3), 248–276.
Wood et al. 21

Kinnunen, U., Rantanen, J., Mauno, S., & Peeters, M. (2014). Work-family interaction. In M.
Peeters, J. de Jonge, & T. Taris (Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology
(pp. 267–290). Wiley-Blackwell.
Kirchmeyer, C. (2000). Work–life initiatives: Greed or benevolence regarding workers’ time?
Trends in Organizational Behaviour, 7, 79–94.
Klitzman, S., House, J. S., Israel, B. A., & Mero, R. P. (1990). Work stress, nonwork stress, and
health. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 13(3), 221–243.
Lee, Y., Kwon, K., Kim, W., & Cho, D. (2016). Work engagement and career: Proposing
research agenda through a review of literature. Human Resource Development Review,
15(1), 29–54.
Leiter, M., & Maslach, C. (2004). Areas of worklife: A structured approach to organizational
predictors of job burnout. In P. Perrewe & D. Ganster (Eds.), Emotional and physiological
processes and positive intervention strategies research in occupational stress and well-
being (pp. 91–134). Elsevier.
Li, L., Zhong, J. A., Chen, Y., Xie, Y., & Mao, S. (2014). Moderating effects of proactive
personality on factors influencing work engagement based on the job demands-resources
model. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(1), 7–15.
Mache, S., Bernburg, M., Groneberg, D. A., Klapp, B. F., & Danzer, G. (2016). Work family
conflict in its relations to perceived working situation and work engagement. Work, 53(4),
859–869.
Marais, E., de Klerk, M., Nel, J. A., & de Beer, L. (2014). The antecedents and outcomes of
work-family enrichment amongst female workers. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology,
40(1), 1–14.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time, and
commitment. American Sociological Review, 42(6), 921–936.
Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(2), 417–432.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 397–422.
Mauno, S. (2010). Effects of work-family culture on employee well-being: Exploring mod-
erator effects in a longitudinal sample. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 19(6), 675–695.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as anteced-
ents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 70(1),
149–171.
Montgomery, A. J., Peeters, M. C. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Den Ouden, M. (2003). Work-home
interference among newspaper managers: Its relationship with burnout and engagement.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16(2), 195–211.
Niessen, C., Müller, T., Hommelhoff, S., & Westman, M. (2018). The impact of preventive
coping on business travellers’ work and private life. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
39(1), 113–127.
Opie, T., & Henn, C. M. (2013). Work-family conflict and work engagement among mothers:
Conscientiousness and neuroticism as moderators. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology,
39(1), 1–12.
Parkes, L. P., & Langford, P. H. (2008). Work–life balance or work–life alignment? A test of the
importance of work-life balance for employee engagement and intention to stay in organ-
isations. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(3), 267–284.
22 Human Resource Development Review 00(0)

Peeters, M., & Demerouti, E. (2014, April). The role of work-life balance crafting for women
returning to work after first childbirth. Paper presented at European Conference on Work
and Health Psychology, London, United Kingdom.
Peeters, M. C. W., Wattez, C. J. P., Demerouti, E., & de Regt, W. (2009). Work-family culture,
work-family interference and well-being at work: Is it possible to distinguish between a
positive and a negative process? Career Development International, 14(7), 700–713.
Peeters, M. C. W., Montgomery, A. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Balancing
work and home: How job and home demands are related to burnout. International Journal
of Stress Management, 12(1), 43–61.
Qing, G., & Zhou, E. (2017). Bidirectional work–family enrichment mediates the relationship
between family-supportive supervisor behaviors and work engagement. Social Behaviour
and Personality, 45(2), 299–308.
Rantanen, J., Kinnunen, U., & Pulkkinen, L. (2013). The role of personality and role engage-
ment in work-family balance. Horizons of Psychology, 22, 14–26.
Ringrose, R., Houterman, S., Koops, W., & Oei, G. (2009). Burnout in medical residents: A
questionnaire and interview study. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14(4), 476–486.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and fam-
ily roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655–684.
Rothwell, W. J., Stavros, J. M., & Sullivan, R. L. (2010). Organization development and change.
In W. J. Rothwell, J. M. Stavros, R. L. Sullivan, & A. Sullivan (Eds.), Practicing organiza-
tion development: A guide for leading change (3rd ed., pp. 11–42). Pfeiffer.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service cli-
mate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217–1227.
Scanlan, J. N., Meredith, P., & Poulsen, A. A. (2013). Enhancing retention of occupational
therapists working in mental health: Relationships between wellbeing at work and turnover
intention. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 60(6), 395–403.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engage-
ment with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout
and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33(5), 464–481.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
Schein, E. (2010). Taking organization culture seriously. In W. J. Rothwell, J. M. Stavros, R. L.
Sullivan, & A. Sullivan (Eds.), Practicing organization development: A guide for leading
change (3rd ed., pp. 301–311). Pfeiffer.
Shankar, T., & Bhatnagar, J. (2010). Work life balance, employee engagement, emotional
­consonance/dissonance & turnover intention. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46,
74–87.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the
foundations. Human Resource Development Reveiw, 9(1), 89-110.
Simbula, S. (2010). Daily fluctuations in teachers’ well-being: A diary study using the job
demand-resources model. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 23(5), 563–584.
Siu, O.-L., Lu, J.-F., Brough, P., Lu, C.-Q., Bakker, A. B., Kalliath, T., . . . Shi, K. (2010).
Role resources and work-family enrichment: The role of work engagement. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 470–480.
Wood et al. 23

Timms, C., Brough, C., O’Driscoll, M., Kalliath, T., Siu, O.-L., Sit, C., & Lo, D. (2015).
Positive pathways to engaging workers: Work-family enrichment as a predictor of work
engagement. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 53(4), 490–515.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting
scale. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 80(1), 173–186.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to
explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428.
Vîrgă, D., Horga, A., & Iliescu, D. (2015). Work-life imbalance as a moderator in the rela-
tionship between resources and work engagement. Journal of Personal Psychology, 14(2),
80–90.
Wagner, D. T., Barnes, C. M., & Scott, B. A. (2014). Driving it home: How workplace emo-
tional labour harms employee home life. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 487–516.
Yan, X., Su, J., Wen, Z., & Luo, Z. (2017). The role of work engagement on the relationship
between personality and job satisfaction in Chinese nurses. Current Psychology, 38(1), 1–6.

Author Biographies
Jacob Wood, Associate Professor, is the Associate Dean of Research for the College of
Business, Law and Governance in JCU Australia and the Associate Dean of Research Business,
IT, and Science at JCU Singapore. Dr. Wood’s research specializes in the fields of international
trade negotiation and the effect of non-tariff barriers on international trade flows. In addition to
this, he has also published a series of international business studies on employee engagement.
Jihye Oh is a PhD candidate of Human Resource Development at Texas A&M University. Her
research interests include social capital/network, ethical leadership approaches, Millennials,
workplace spirituality, and career development. She has published in a number of peer-reviewed
journals, including Leadership and Organizational Development Journal and Journal of
Management, Spirituality, & Religion.
Jiwon Park (PhD) is an assistant professor in the Department of Human Resource Development
and the Graduate School of HRD, Korea University of Technology and Education
(KOREATECH). Her research interests include employee engagement, organization develop-
ment, and career and leadership development of managers and women.
Woocheol Kim (PhD) is an assistant professor in the Department of Human Resource
Development and the Graduate School of HRD, Korea University of Technology and Education
(KOREATECH). His research interests include positive change, work/employee engagement,
sustainability, performance improvement, leadership, and career development in organizations.