Introduction
Today, organizations are increasingly more concerned with understanding the connection between work-life balance (WLB) and employee engagement. For clarity, work-life balance refers to a state in which an individual can achieve a certain equilibrium between their professional and personal life. Le et al. (2020) defined it as “the perceptions that individuals have regarding the balance between their work and non-work activities” (p. 5). On the other hand, employee engagement refers to the extent to which workers can invest their time and energy towards positive outcomes.
These two concepts were discussed extensively in the studies by Wood et al. (2020) and Le et al. (2020). These two articles emphasize the importance of organizations prioritizing work–life balance and employee engagement, as both are crucial for job satisfaction and strong organizational commitment. Therefore, this paper synthesizes the two articles into a single conclusion, focusing on their essential points and main findings.
Summary of the Two Articles
The two articles raise several essential points, stressing that organizations should place greater emphasis on work–life balance and employee engagement. Firstly, in the study by Wood et al. (2020), the authors aimed to analyze and synthesize relevant articles that address the relationship between work engagement and WLB. On the other hand, Le et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review of the empirical work-life interface (WLI) to show how different work-life constructs from the West have been adopted. The term WLB, as explicated by Le et al. (2020), “is a catch-all term for work-life balance, conflict interaction, interference, enrichment, and slipover” (p. 6). All these constructs describe the nature of employee work-life balance.
Negative Side
The first point highlighted in the two articles concerns the negative relationship between work engagement and work-family balance, which affects an organization’s ability to meet its set goals. Wood et al. (2020) observed in their study that this negative relationship stems from role strains, which imply that employees struggle to meet the demands of both work and family. Ultimately, this results in minimal output in terms of roles, as such individuals tend to have limited time and energy. From a strain perspective, individuals who attempt to balance dual responsibilities often encounter difficulties when transitioning between roles, which can lead to disengagement from work.
The same views were echoed in Le et al.’s (2020) study, in which the authors highlighted some of the constructs that measure the negative side of WLB. They include “work-family conflict, family-work spillover and home-work interference” (Le et al., 2020, p. 3). For example, work-life conflict emerges when life off the job interferes with an individual’s ability to perform work responsibilities.
Positive Side
The second point highlights the positive relationship between work engagement and work-life balance. According to Wood et al. (2020), the availability of work and home resources translates to a high level of work engagement, thus reducing burnout in the workplace. The authors encouraged organizations to invest more in a supportive work-family culture because “such a culture contributes to work engagement and at the same time helps to prevent burnout” (Wood et al., 2020, p. 7).
Human resource development (HRD) practitioners ensure individuals maintain a positive relationship by balancing work and life. Le et al. (2020) identified several constructs that measure the positive aspect of this type of relationship. They include work-family enrichment, positive work-family spillover, and positive work-home interaction.
Major Findings in the Two Articles
Based on the approaches taken in conducting the studies, the findings in the two articles emphasize the need for organizations to pay closer attention to WLI/WLB and work engagement. Le et al.’s (2020) findings showed that the studies in the Asian region focused more on measuring the negative side of WLI, such as work-family conflict, than the positive aspect.
They further observed that the studies from the West, including Wood et al.’s (2020) research, have shifted their focus towards the positive side of WLI. The main reason, as elucidated in their article, could be that “compared to the West, the rapid economic growth in Asian countries in the last two decades has resulted in greater work demands” (P. 15). This, combined with long working hours, explains why scholars in many Asian countries focus more on the negative aspect of WLI. In essence, the negative aspect appears to be the dominant subject in these countries.
In line with the above, organizations are encouraged to invest more in a supportive work-family culture because it helps improve work engagement and, at the same time, prevent burnout. Wood et al.’s (2020) findings from the literature revealed several mediators, antecedents, and moderators that underscore the relationship between work engagement and WLB. For instance, the findings from a study undertaken on the Indian retail sector in Hyderabad showed that the organization invested heavily in policies that encouraged corporate training. This positively correlated with work, personal life, stress, and training (Wood et al., 2020, in Itam and Singh, 2012).
Similarly, the general findings from the literature showed that work engagement and different WLB factors such as work-family imbalance, work-family or family-work conflict, work-family enrichment, and work-family spillover have a reciprocal relationship. For example, Wood et al. (2020), through the studies carried out by Ilies et al. (2017) and Vîrgă et al. (2015), found a direct correlation between work engagement and work-life/family constructs. The findings further showed that job demands are antecedents to work engagement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the two articles’ findings clearly show a direct relationship between work-life balance and employee engagement. In an effort to draw a conclusion from these two articles, this essay was guided by a specific question: how do employee work–life balance and work engagement relate to one another? It emerged clearly from the discussion that the two articles emphasized the need for organizations to invest more in WLB and employee engagement, as they are critical to job satisfaction and high commitment.
The authors highlighted how the negative and positive relationships impact the ability of the organization to meet the set goals (Wood et al., 2020, and Le et al., 2020). For example, Wood et al. (2020) noted that this negative association is rooted in the role strains, which evoke minimal output regarding roles. The same was replicated in Le et al.’s (2020), who discussed issues such as work-life conflict and family-work spillover. These factors interfere with an individual’s ability to perform work responsibilities.
References
Le, H., Newman, A., Menzies, J., Zheng, C., & Fermelis, J. (2020). Work–life balance in Asia: A systematic review. Human Resource Management Review, 30(4), 100-766. Web.
Wood, J., Oh, J., Park, J., & Kim, W. (2020). The relationship between work engagement and work–life balance in organizations: A review of the empirical research. Human Resource Development Review, 19(3), 240-262. Web.