Research on the interface between work and family dates back many years. One of the earliest discussions occurred in Pleck’s (Reference Pleck1977) analysis of the gendered work–family role system. These early discussions coincided with the rise of middle-class women’s entrance into the workforce, such that more attention was placed on how parents – particularly working mothers – managed work and family roles (Cooke & Rousseau, Reference Cooke and Rousseau1984). Drawing from the scarcity perspective that time and energy are finite, research centered on how involvement in multiple roles creates challenges (Goode, Reference Goode1974). In a key conceptual article drawing from Kahn et al.’s (Reference Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek and Rosenthal1964) role theory, Greenhaus and Beutell (Reference Greenhaus and Beutell1985) defined work–family conflict as “a form of interrole conflict that occurs when work and family are mutually incompatible in some respect” (p. 77), including when the time, strain, or behavior of one role interferes with participation or functioning in the other role. Scholarly research on work–family conflict took off in the 1990s, and since that time, a mature literature has developed identifying its stressor antecedents and negative consequences (Eby et al., Reference Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux and Brinley2005). Around 2000, research began to focus on potential benefits of multiple roles and the concept of work–family enrichment, or when the positive gains, such as skills, mood, or other benefits, from one role improve satisfaction or functioning in the other (Carlson et al., Reference Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne and Grzywacz2006). Research has accumulated to demonstrate its resource antecedents and positive consequences (Lapierre et al., Reference Lapierre, Li, Kwan, Greenhaus, DiRenzo and Shao2018). Yet, while academics talked about work–family conflict and enrichment, the popular vernacular that emerged to describe how people manage work and family was “work–family (or work–life) balance,” resulting in a disconnect between the labels people used in practice (“balance”) and what the scholarly literature discussed (“conflict” or “enrichment”).

In this chapter, we review the history of the balance literature, including how it has been defined and measured, from its first mention in the literature (Marks & MacDermid, Reference Marks and MacDermid1996) until now (Wayne et al., Reference Wayne, Vaziri and Casper2021). In the first discussion of role balance, Marks and MacDermid (Reference Marks and MacDermid1996) posited that greater balance fosters better well-being. We review the limited literature that speaks to the relation between balance and well-being, and we note overall findings as well as trends in the way this research has been conducted. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for future theoretical and research development to enhance understanding of balance and its implications for the well-being of individuals, organizations, and their families.

The Meaning and Measurement of Balance

The first scholarly discussion occurred in the family studies literature in 1996 when Marks and MacDermid first used the term “balance” to denote a scholarly construct. They defined role balance as “The tendency to become fully engaged in the performance of every role in one’s total role system, to approach every typical role and role partner with an attitude of attentiveness and care” (p. 421). They described role balance as focusing on all life roles, rather than only work and family, and theorized about the value of attending to one’s entire role system in a balanced way, ensuring adequate attention and commitment to each role such that no one role is shortchanged. When people conscientiously attend to each role, role balance theory suggests they have more positive role experiences and experience less role stress, promoting well-being. Marks and MacDermid (Reference Marks and MacDermid1996) developed an 8-item scale to measure role balance, and their research found that greater role balance was linked to improved self-esteem, less depression and better functioning in work and school roles. Despite their important, seminal work on balance, Marks and MacDermid’s definition and measure did not dominate the scholarly literature. A variety of other conceptualizations of balance and scales to measure it continued to emerge.

Around the turn of the twenty-first century, several researchers defined balance as an absence of work–family conflict (Buffardi et al., Reference Buffardi, Smith, O’Brien and Erdwins1999; Clark, Reference Clark2000), attempting to map the popular vernacular (i.e., balance) and the primary construct from the scholarly literature (i.e., conflict) onto one another. Meanwhile, another stream of research in the work–family literature began to examine the ways work and family might benefit one another and result in positive spillover (Gryzwacz & Marks, Reference Grzywacz and Marks2000), which was later labeled work–family enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, Reference Greenhaus and Powell2006; Wayne, Reference Wayne, Crane and Hill2009). Shortly after the emergence of this new positive construct, Frone (Reference Frone, Quick and Tetrick2003) defined work–family balance as a phenomenon that results from a combination of low conflict and high enrichment. Given conflict and enrichment were found to be bidirectional, Frone (Reference Frone, Quick and Tetrick2003) suggested four components were important to work–family balance. Work could hurt family (work-to-family conflict) and/or family could harm work (family-to-work conflict), or work could benefit family (work-to-family enrichment) and/or family could benefit work (family-to-work enrichment). Thus, Frone’s (Reference Frone, Quick and Tetrick2003) work resulted in the fourfold taxonomy of work–family balance, and a number of researchers followed Frone’s conceptualization of balance in their work (Aryee et al., Reference Aryee, Srinivas and Tan2005; Bulger et al., Reference Bulger, Matthews and Hoffman2007; Gareis et al., Reference Gareis, Barnett, Ertel and Berkman2009; Hennessy, Reference Hennessy2007; Lu et al., Reference Lu, Siu, Spector and Shi2009).

At the same time that Frone’s (Reference Frone, Quick and Tetrick2003) definition emerged, a distinct conceptualization of balance was developed by Greenhaus et al. (Reference Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw2003). Drawing from a common meaning of the word “balance” to denote equality, Greenhaus et al. (Reference Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw2003) defined work–family balance as “The extent to which an individual is equally engaged in and equally satisfied with his or her work role and family role.” These authors measured balance through a comparison of three facets: “(1) the amount of time spent at work with the amount of time spent on home and family activities, (2) involvement in work with involvement in family, and (3) satisfaction with work with satisfaction with family” (p. 518). Halpern and Murphy (Reference Halpern, Murphy, Halpern and Murphy2005) followed the lead of Greenhaus and colleagues (Reference Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw2003) to embrace the definition of equality across work and family roles by using the metaphor of a balance beam to describe work–family balance. These authors suggested that balance occurs when the investment in family on one side of the balance beam matches the investment in work on the other. However, Greenhaus and colleagues (Reference Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw2003) found that the equality-based operationalization of balance was not associated with better outcomes, but that greater involvement in family was, suggesting an equality conceptualization may not be the most relevant way to define balance.

In contrast to the equality notion embraced by Greenhaus et al. (Reference Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw2003), Voydanoff (Reference Voydanoff2002) conceptualized work–family balance as a mechanism linking work and family domains. Drawing from the cognitive appraisal view of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, Reference Lazarus and Folkman1984), Voydanoff (Reference Voydanoff2005) positioned balance as a perception derived from the relative resources and demands in work and family experiences, defining it as “A global assessment that work and family resources are sufficient to meet work and family demands such that participation is effective in both domains” (p. 825). This view rejects the notion that balance requires equal time, involvement, and/or satisfaction across work and family roles and instead draws from a demands-resources person-environment fit perspective to conceptualize balance. Voydanoff (Reference Voydanoff2005) theorized that balance appraisals developed as a result of perceptions of the degree to which work resources met family demands, family resources met work demands, and boundary-spanning resources generally help one manage work and family, resulting in “an overall appraisal of the extent of harmony, equilibrium, and integration of work and family” (p. 825).

In 2007, the debate around the meaning of balance shifted from a focus on whether balance required equality across work and family roles (Greenhaus et al., Reference Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw2003) or was an assessment of fit between demands and resources within and across work and family domains (Voydanoff, Reference Voydanoff2005), to focus on whether balance was a psychological construct that involved a subjective appraisal of one’s work and family experience (Valcour, Reference Valcour2007) or a social construct that reflects the views of role partners at work (e.g., supervisor, coworker) and home (e.g., spouse, children) (Grzywacz & Carlson, Reference Grzywacz and Carlson2007). Drawing from Voydanoff (Reference Voydanoff2005), Valcour (Reference Valcour2007) defined balance as “An overall level of contentment resulting from an assessment of one’s degree of success at meeting work and family role demands” (p. 1512), suggesting that balance is an attitude which includes affective (i.e., contentment) and cognitive (i.e., assessment of success) components. In contrast, that same year Grzywacz and Carlson (Reference Grzywacz and Carlson2007) defined balance as the “Accomplishment of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared between an individual and his/her role-related partners in the work and family domain.” Grzywacz and Carlson (Reference Grzywacz and Carlson2007) suggested that balance is more behavioral in nature, considering whether expectations that role partners have for the focal employee are met. Valcour’s (Reference Valcour2007) definition considered whether the focal employee feels successful, and balance was still defined as an attitudinal variable held in the mind of the focal employee. A self-report 5-item satisfaction-based scale was developed to assess it (i.e., rate your satisfaction with “the way you divide your time between work and personal or family life”). In contrast, by defining balance as a behavioral variable tapping into meeting expectations that are negotiated with role partners, Grzywacz and Carlson (Reference Grzywacz and Carlson2007) define balance as inextricably linked to social context, as views of role partners are central to the definition. Carlson et al. (Reference Carlson, Grzywacz and Zivnuska2009) developed a 6-item scale to assess balance as they conceptualized it. While it was a self-report scale to be completed by the focal employee, it tapped into that employee’s view of their effectiveness in the eyes of role partners (e.g., “I am able to accomplish the expectations that my supervisors and family have for me”).

As the balance literature emerged over time, scholars began to coalesce around a view that balance was a distinct phenomenon from conflict and enrichment. This led to questions about how conflict and enrichment, which are directional constructs in which one domain impacts the other, might relate to balance, which was increasingly conceptualized as a global nondirectional assessment. In 2011, two important papers contributed to the conversation about how conflict and enrichment relate to balance. First, Greenhaus and Allen (Reference Greenhaus, Allen, Quick and Tetrick2011) theorized about the personal and contextual conditions that give rise to a perception of work–family balance. In doing so, they defined work–family balance as “An overall appraisal of the extent to which individuals’ effectiveness and satisfaction in work and family roles are consistent with their life values at a given point in time.” They developed a theoretical model proposing that dispositional, work, and family characteristics lead to work–family conflict and enrichment which, in turn, foster satisfaction and effectiveness in work and family roles, which give rise to feelings of balance. In that same year, Maertz and Boyar (Reference Maertz and Boyar2011) distinguished conflict and enrichment, which could be studied as episodic variables that differ from day to day, from the global perception of balance, which they suggested may be less dynamic and referred to as a “levels” phenomenon. Like Greenhaus and Allen (Reference Greenhaus, Allen, Quick and Tetrick2011), these authors conceptualized conflict and enrichment as antecedents to perceptions of balance, rather than variables that define what balance is. Yet, despite emerging consensus that conflict and enrichment were best conceptualized as antecedents of a more global perception called balance, there was still substantial disagreement about how to define balance.

In 2012, Allen et al. presented findings from a qualitative investigation of laypersons’ definitions of work–family balance at the Work–Family Researchers Network conference. This qualitative study collected survey data from 783 employees of an engineering firm and asked: “When you think about work–family balance, what does that mean for you? How do YOU define work–family balance?” Participants were 80.3% male, 54.4% parents, and an average of 37.2 years old. Two researchers coded the themes that emerged in participants’ definitions of work–family balance with 98% agreement. Eight themes emerged, suggesting that work–family balance does not mean the same thing to all people.

The most common definition of balance reported by 41.2% of participants was that balance means having adequate time to be with family as well as enough time to get work done (e.g., “Having time to be with my family that I want and having time to do my work”), indicating a form of behavioral involvement (time with family). The next most common definition, described by 32.4% of participants, was success and good performance in both work and family roles. For example, one participant said “I define work–family balance as successfully meeting the needs of one’s career and the needs of family and home life.” The next most common theme, reported by 15.5% of participants, was satisfaction (e.g., “To me it means being able to enjoy both work and family time”), which reflects the attitudinal view of Valcour (Reference Valcour2007). A similar portion of people, 15.4% of the sample, reported being mentally present as indicative of balance. One participant noted, “My husband’s work–life balance is out of whack… when he is not at work, he is still not fully present… he is checking email, fielding calls, thinking about projects, or actively working on projects.” Mental engagement, along with the most common definition of temporal involvement, taps into the central role of involvement in balance, reflecting the conceptualization of Marks and McDermid (Reference Marks and MacDermid1996).

Low levels of conflict were described in defining balance for 12.7% participants (e.g., “A balance between work and family means that neither will suffer on the occasions when one or the other must be raised as the priority”), mirroring some researchers’ view that balance is best defined as low conflict. Another 9.8% emphasized the notion of fit, indicating balance involved choices that fit one’s priorities or values (e.g., “Family is priority one and work is two; Family needs and celebrations are first and foremost.”), echoing Voydanoff’s (Reference Voydanoff2005) view. A handful of participants (3.6%) referenced energy in defining work–family balance (e.g., “Comfortable with the amount of energy spent in each area”). Finally, a small number of participants (3.3%) also referred to work–family enrichment – both family-to-work enrichment (e.g., “My family inspires me to do better at work”) and work-to-family enrichment (e.g., “My work provides me with the means to give my family a good life”), as indicative of work–family balance. Thus, this research revealed that, much like the literature more generally, people have different meanings of balance.

In 2013, Casper et al., in their chapter on concepts and measures in the work–family interface, briefly reviewed the construct of balance to comment on the state of literature at that time. In addition to noting the tendency of some scholars to define balance as a function of conflict and/or enrichment (e.g., Frone, Reference Frone, Quick and Tetrick2003), these authors described the primary scholarly definitions of balance. They noted three definitions of balance with scales associated with them (Carlson et al., Reference Carlson, Grzywacz and Zivnuska2009; Greenhaus et al., Reference Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw2003; Valcour, Reference Valcour2007). They also mentioned the Greenhaus and Allen (Reference Greenhaus, Allen, Quick and Tetrick2011) definition and noted that this definition could be operationalized by the interaction of life role values with role satisfaction and perceived role effectiveness, although at that time no empirical research had operationalized balance in this way.

In 2017, Wayne et al. differentiated and empirically examined various conceptualizations and measures of balance. To do so, Wayne and colleagues (Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2017) noted the various ways balance had been defined and suggested that the various definitions represented distinct forms of balance. Importantly, these authors differentiated the combined spillover approach to balance from a global approach. The combined spillover approach draws from Frone’s (Reference Frone, Quick and Tetrick2003) fourfold taxonomy of balance such that the two directions of conflict and enrichment are components of balance. Wayne et al. (Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2017) differentiated the additive spillover approach from the multiplicative spillover approach, noting that most of the literature that draws from Frone (Reference Frone, Quick and Tetrick2003) operationalizes balance with the additive spillover approach, which examines the unique direct effects of four dimensions of balance (work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict, work-to-family enrichment, family-to-work enrichment). However, Wayne et al. (Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2017) argued that although the additive spillover approach had been used to operationalize Frone’s (Reference Frone, Quick and Tetrick2003) definition of balance in several studies, it did not capture the true meaning of balance that is suggested by Frone (Reference Frone, Quick and Tetrick2003). They argue that Frone’s definition of balance as “low levels of interrole conflict and high levels of interrole facilitation” (p. 145) suggests that “the synergistic effect of low conflict combined with high enrichment is greater than the sum of its individual parts” (Wayne et al., Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2017, p. 171). Given this, Wayne et al. (Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2017) argue that an interaction effect better reflects the synergistic experience of low conflict with high enrichment that Frone (Reference Frone, Quick and Tetrick2003) defined as balance. Wayne et al. (Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2017) examined the effects of this multiplicative spillover approach (i.e., the interaction) on role attitudes and performance above and beyond the additive spillover effects. As expected, they found that multiplicative spillover predicted incremental variance in job satisfaction, family satisfaction, and turnover intentions, above and beyond additive spillover, suggesting the value of this multiplicative approach.

Wayne et al. (Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2017) labeled constructs that were gestalt, nondirectional perceptions of the interplay between work roles and family roles as “global approaches” to balance. Though various global approaches had been treated as if they were interchangeable with one another as balance constructs, Wayne and colleagues (Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2017) argued that there may be important conceptual and empirical differences between them. As such, they focused on two common global balance approaches for which there were established measures in the literature. The attitudinal construct developed by Valcour (Reference Valcour2007) was labeled “balance satisfaction” and differentiated from the more social construct developed by Grzywacz and Carlson (Reference Grzywacz and Carlson2007), which was labeled “balance effectiveness.” Despite the behavioral conceptual definition of this construct (accomplishing what is expected by role partners), Wayne and colleagues (Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2017) suggested that, given the self-report nature of this measure by the employee, balance effectiveness is best defined as a cognitive appraisal that involves self-evaluation of the interdependent self. That is, this self-evaluation takes into account not only general perceptions of the self (i.e., how well I think I am meeting expectations) but also perceptions of role partner views of the self (i.e., how well I think my supervisor and spouse think I am doing). Wayne et al. (Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2017) found that these two global balance perceptions (balance satisfaction and balance effectiveness) predicted additional variance in important outcomes above the effects of both additive and multiplicative spillover, but that these different forms of balance were predictive of distinct outcomes. Specifically, consistent with the compatibility principle (Ajzen & Fishbein, Reference Ajzen and Fishbein1977), balance satisfaction was more strongly related to job and family attitudes whereas balance effectiveness was more strongly related to job and family performance. This demonstrates that, while they are related constructs that share variance (r = .74), balance effectiveness and balance satisfaction are distinct types of global balance that relate differently to correlates and, as such, should be distinguished in elaborations of the balance construct and theories regarding its processes.

Most recently, Casper et al. (Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018) conducted a comprehensive review of the various conceptualizations and measures of balance in the work–nonwork literature. Across 290 articles, these authors identified 233 distinct conceptual definitions, which clustered into six higher order types of definitions which typically drew from multiple meanings within a single definition. The most common meanings evoked in defining balance in order of frequency were effectiveness, satisfaction, fit, conflict, and involvement, suggesting a variety of ways balance has been defined in the extant literature. Most of the operational definitions, which also clustered into six higher order definitions, were unidimensional or psychological (held in the mind of the focal person) and drew from multiple meanings. Operational and conceptual definitions frequently were not well aligned, with operational definitions most often using conflict or the term balance in items, followed by effectiveness, satisfaction, and involvement.

To examine the discriminant validity of distinct operationalizations of balance, Casper et al. (Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018) meta-analyzed the unique operationalizations of balance with satisfaction-based correlates. Their analysis provided empirical evidence for the presence of operationalizations of balance that differ from conflict and enrichment and are more strongly correlated with job, family, and life satisfaction than are conflict and enrichment. These authors concluded that there is a unique construct called balance, which is conceptually and empirically distinguishable from conflict and enrichment and adds unique value to the literature. They suggested that, consistent with most of the balance literature, balance should be conceptualized as a psychological, attitudinal construct which is held in the mind of the focal person and as such, can be captured through self-report survey instruments. Given the various meanings which have been attributed to the term balance in the literature, Casper et al. (Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018) argued that balance is best conceptualized as a multidimensional construct with multiple meanings, defining it as “The extent to which employees hold a favorable evaluation regarding their combination of work and nonwork roles, arising from the belief that their emotional experiences, involvement, and effectiveness in work and nonwork roles are commensurate (compatible) with the value they attach to the roles.” (p. 197). Just as job satisfaction can be assessed using a global or facet approach, so can balance. They called for creation of a global balance scale as well as a scale which measures affective, effectiveness, and involvement facets.

Wayne et al. (Reference Wayne, Vaziri and Casper2021) responded to these calls to develop a scale to measure Casper et al.’s (Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018) multidimensional definition of balance, developing a 5-item global balance scale (e.g., “Overall, my work and nonwork roles fit together”) and a 5-item measurement of the affective (e.g., “I am happy with the work and nonwork aspects of my life that are important to me.”), effectiveness (e.g., “I perform well in my most highly valued work and nonwork roles”), and involvement (e.g., “I am able to devote enough attention to important work and nonwork activities”) facets of balance. These authors explored the structure of the 20 items that measured balance. Consistent with Casper et al. (Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018), they found that global balance was best represented as a general factor which could be measured with their five global balance items. Furthermore, the 15 items assessing each of the three dimensions of balance (involvement balance, effectiveness balance, and affective balance) all loaded significantly on the global balance as well as their intended factor, suggesting that global balance operates as a general factor that relates to the three dimensions of balance, and that each dimension represents a form of balance that is not fully picked up by global balance. Thus, it appears that, similar to job satisfaction, overall balance can be measured as a global construct, or a facet-based approach can be used. In a facet approach, distinct facets of balance are measured and can either be examined separately or can be combined to form an indicator of global balance that could be used instead of (or in addition to) the global balance items.

In addition to exploring the factor structure of balance, Wayne et al. (Reference Wayne, Vaziri and Casper2021) also examined whether their new global and facet measures of balance predicted variance in important work-related and well-being variables, over and above the established measures of balance satisfaction (Valocur, Reference Valcour2007) and balance effectiveness (Carlson et al., Reference Carlson, Grzywacz and Zivnuska2009). All three facets and the global balance measure were all unique, incremental predictors of at least one important outcome variable, although there were some differences in which specific outcomes were predicted. The global measure of balance exhibited predictive validity across all the outcome variables that were examined, including work-related (organizational commitment, turnover intention, organizational citizenship behavior, OCBs) and well-being outcomes (vigor, emotional exhaustion, and general health). Affective balance was also associated with outcomes, predicting incremental variance in all the same variables with the exception of OCBs. Involvement and effectiveness facets of balance both predicted incremental variance in only work-related outcomes. Specifically, involvement balance was a unique predictor of organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and OCBs. In contrast, effectiveness balance was a unique predictor of only OCBs. This pattern of relationships highlights the important predictive role of the global balance construct, while also suggesting that a fine-grained examination of the facets of balance has important implications given distinct facets are linked to different outcomes.

In summary, though the balance literature began about 25 years ago, only recently has the research evolved to the point that there is clearer meaning and stronger measurement of the balance construct. In particular, balance is best considered a global appraisal of the combination of one’s work and nonwork roles that is comprised of facets including the degree to which one’s involvement, satisfaction, and effectiveness in roles is consistent with one’s priorities (Casper et al., Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018). Wayne et al. (Reference Wayne, Vaziri and Casper2021) have developed a reliable and valid measure of the global appraisal and involvement, effectiveness, and affective balance and demonstrated their relevance to work and well-being outcomes. A critical next step is that we urge scholars to consistently use these conceptual definitions and measures for research to accumulate in a meaningful way.

Work–Nonwork Balance and Well-Being

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC, 2020), although there is no consensus around a singular definition of well-being, there is agreement that it “includes the presence of positive emotions and moods (e.g., contentment, happiness), the absence of negative emotions (e.g., depression, anxiety), satisfaction with life, fulfillment and positive functioning” as well as “physical well-being (e.g., feeling very healthy and full of energy).” Marks and MacDermid (Reference Marks and MacDermid1996) theorized that balance was associated with greater well-being, and this was supported by Wayne et al.’s (Reference Wayne, Vaziri and Casper2021) research, linking balance with vigor, emotional exhaustion, and general physical health. Numerous other studies have examined this important connection, and in order to speak to the state of the literature, we conducted a literature review to examine the research linking balance to stress and well-being outcomes. Because our interest was to focus on holistic definitions of balance, we excluded articles that used a combined spillover approach in which balance was operationalized as conflict and enrichment, and only reviewed the literature on the well-being consequences of holistic balance (though we refer to these as “consequences,” it is important to note that they are theorized as outcomes of balance, e.g., Marks & MacDermid, Reference Marks and MacDermid1996, few studies appropriately use longitudinal studies to examine temporal order among these variables).

Our review searched for manuscripts through 2021 in PsycINFO and Business Source. To do so, we first used the keyword “work–family balance” along with each of the following keywords to search for articles: “well-being,” “wellness,” “stress,” “anxiety,” “thriving,” “happiness,” “health,” and “depression.” We then ran the same search using the keyword “work–life balance” instead. The search yielded a total of 140 references that used quantitative measures of balance, and 13 of them were empirical studies that examined well-being outcomes of a holistic balance construct. Examination of these studies revealed four distinct ways in which holistic balance was measured: fit-based balance, balance satisfaction, balance effectiveness, and balance involvement. Moreover, a separate group of studies was classified as overall balance because they used items that asked participants to rate their balance without invoking one of the meanings commonly attributed to balance like satisfaction, effectiveness, involvement, and fit (Casper et al., Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018). Table 6.1 provides information on the scales used to assess the various conceptualizations of balance. We clustered these scales according to four distinct primary meanings attributed to balance, drawing from the meanings of balance identified by Casper et al. (Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018) – fit, satisfaction, effectiveness, and involvement. Scales that did not tap into a primary meaning identified by Casper et al. (Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018) but that used the term “balance” in a scale item were classified as overall balance. Table 6.2 provides information on the 13 studies we identified that examined how balance was linked to indices of mental and/or physical well-being.

Toward a Better Understanding of Work–Nonwork Balance and Its Link to Well-Being

Given the conceptual and measurement progress that has been made on the balance construct (Casper et al., Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018; Wayne et al., Reference Wayne, Vaziri and Casper2021), we encourage scholars to follow these suggestions and adopt the newly developed measures that capture the content domain and enable research to accumulate in a meaningful way. From this foundation, the time has come to enhance understanding of balance in general, including its link to well-being. There is little consensus around theory describing the key antecedents of balance, how and why people experience balance (or don’t), and how it relates to outcomes such as well-being. For example, while role balance theory discusses the meaning and organization of the balance construct and how it relates to outcomes such as well-being (Marks & MacDermid, Reference Marks and MacDermid1996), it does not discuss conflict, nor enrichment, nor other proximal antecedents. Voydanoff (Reference Voydanoff2005) discusses demands and resources as antecedents of fit and, in turn, balance to outcomes, but also overlooks these central work–family constructs. Greenhaus and Allen’s (Reference Greenhaus, Allen, Quick and Tetrick2011) model of balance includes antecedents (work, family, and dispositional characteristics) and mediators (conflict and enrichment) as well as role satisfaction and performance, all as factors contributing to “feelings of balance.” Most recently, Hirschi et al.’s (Reference Hirshi, Shockley and Zacher2019) action regulation model posits that balance is a function of attaining work and family goals. Hirschi et al. (Reference Hirshi, Shockley and Zacher2019) suggest that people attain balance through strategically engaging and disengaging in work and family roles to foster goal attainment, but do not speak to how balance relates to established work–family constructs (conflict and enrichment). As balance is the endpoint of the models proffered by both Greenhaus and Allen (Reference Greenhaus, Allen, Quick and Tetrick2011) and Hirschi et al. (Reference Hirshi, Shockley and Zacher2019), neither speaks to how balance relates to indicators of well-being such as mental or physical health. This brief review highlights the need for greater consensus around theory describing how balance is linked to bidirectional conflict and enrichment, employee well-being, and role attitudes and behaviors.

Another limitation of existing theories of balance is that none of them account for current conceptualizations of balance as a multidimensional construct (Casper et al., Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018; Wayne et al., Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2017; Reference Wayne, Vaziri and Casper2021). Theories are needed that explain how global balance and each dimension (involvement, affective, and effectiveness balance) relate to one another and to various indicators of well-being. Given global balance is defined as a favorable evaluation that arises from the three facets of balance (Casper et al., Reference Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, De Hauw and Greenhaus2018), research could examine the assumption inherent in this definition that global balance is a mechanism that explains how the facets of balance relate to well-being outcomes. Moreover, research might also examine whether specific facets of balance are more closely linked to different indices of well-being. Based on the compatibility principle (Azjen & Fishbein, Reference Ajzen and Fishbein1977), it may be that affective balance is more strongly related to subjective or hedonic well-being (e.g., life satisfaction; SWB) whereas effectiveness and/or involvement balance may relate more strongly to psychological or eudemonic well-being (e.g., a sense of purpose; growth or mastery; PWB; Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2001). Theory and research are needed that thoughtfully consider the facets of balance and how they connect to elements of well-being.

Theory and research should also take a broad view of well-being to include its numerous aspects such as physical, financial, social, and emotional/psychological (CDC, 2020). Within each type of well-being, scholars should study multiple indicators. For example, researchers might examine the link between balance and multiple indicators of physical health, including alcohol use, sleep duration, sleep quality, obesity, cardiovascular health, etc., and rely on biometric (e.g., sleep recordings via watch measurements) as well as self-report measures. Financial well-being has generally been overlooked and is also an important direction for future research. In a study that focused on work–family conflict rather than balance, Odle-Dusseau et al. (Reference Odle-Dusseau, Matthews and Wayne2018) quantitatively demonstrated that perceived financial insecurity predicts subsequent self-reports of physical health through increased work–family conflict and perceived stress. In a mixed method study, Odle-Dusseau et al. (Reference Odle-Dusseau, Matthews, Wayne and Huang2019) found that in critical incidents of financial hardship, financial insecurity was described as a cause of poor health, but poor health (and associated medical costs) was also described as a cause of financial insecurity, albeit to a lesser extent. Quantitatively, they demonstrated that financial insecurity related to greater stress and less balance satisfaction which, in turn, negatively related to health outcomes, including sleep disturbances, musculoskeletal pain, and general health perceptions, as well as organizational outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceptions of organizational justice. This research tentatively suggests complex relationships among balance and financial, physical, and emotional well-being. More research is needed that gives these relationships deeper consideration theoretically and methodologically.

Following recent developments on balance as a multidimensional construct, empirical research is needed that offers theory-method fit (Allen et al., Reference Allen, French, Braun and Fletcher2019). Allen and colleagues, in their review of the work–family conflict literature, concluded that there has been little theoretical attention to the role of time and not enough longitudinal designs to appropriately test theoretical assumptions. We urge researchers to explicitly consider the nature of the balance construct (as a stable or changing one) and consider how proposed relationships with well-being unfold over time (in the short-term and/or long-term). From this, it is essential that researchers employ experience sampling or longitudinal designs (in addition to cross-sectional ones) and use best practices in analytic techniques (e.g., fully autoregressive, cross-lagged panel designs; Orth, Reference Orth, Clark, Donnellan and Robins2020; or latent growth curve modeling) to be able to gain insight into temporal precedence among variables. Extant theory implies, for example, that greater balance enables greater well-being (Marks & MacDermid, Reference Marks and MacDermid1996). Perhaps, though, as tentatively suggested by Odle-Dusseau et al. (Reference Odle-Dusseau, Matthews, Wayne and Huang2019), having greater physical health, more energy, or better mental health may also provide someone the positive perspective needed to experience greater harmony across roles (global balance) or to be effective in valued roles, adequately involved in valued roles, and/or satisfied in valued roles – effectiveness, involvement, and affective balance. As also implied by Odle-Dusseau et al. (Reference Odle-Dusseau, Matthews, Wayne and Huang2019), rather than being unidirectional – as implied in previous theory – relationships between balance and various types of well-being may occur simultaneously and operate in feedback loops over time. Designs are needed that allow for examination of reciprocal relationships.

Beyond a focus on individual well-being, we encourage scholars to take a multilevel perspective. That is, well-being not only exists at the individual level but is also conceptualized and measured at levels of communities and/or countries and cultures (OECD, 2020). Research using local or state unemployment rates, for example, could explore the connection between community financial well-being, work–family balance, and individual-level well-being. This notion could also be used to examine whether national culture (and differences in country-level) well-being affects individual-level relationships. We see this as a ripe area for future research on the connection between the work–family interface and well-being.

In conclusion, theory and research linking balance and well-being are ripe for investigation. Here, we encourage theory development that will enhance understanding of the likely complex and multilevel relationships that exist between multiple types of balance and multiple indicators of individual and community-level well-being. We also encourage scholars to adopt a dynamic rather than static perspective to consider how these relationships unfold over time (Allen et al., Reference Allen, French, Braun and Fletcher2019). Finally, we implore scholars to move beyond cross-sectional research to apply designs and analyses that enable appropriate conclusions regarding viability of dynamic theoretical explanations. In doing so, scholars can advance understanding will significantly advance of how, why, and when balance relates to well-being and better inform practice.