Introduction
The 2019 coronavirus pandemic significantly influenced communities and the economy globally. Governments and organizations quickly instituted social distancing and lockdowns to reduce viral transmission (Teslya et al., 2020). These methods accelerated remote working. This article briefly discusses the coronavirus epidemic and the main justifications for remote working. Integrating theory and practice helps understand how work-life balance affects employees. The coronavirus epidemic forced companies to reassess their work methods. Companies swiftly switched to remote work to meet social distance and business continuity needs (Margherita and Heikkilä, 2021). Remote work involves using communication and collaboration tools to perform job duties away from the office.
Remote working is touted for its flexibility, autonomy, and work-life balance. According to Abdullah et al. (2020), the pandemic offered a unique chance to test and evaluate remote work on a broad scale. It lets companies and workers experience remote working’s pros and cons. This research analyzes how the pandemic-driven shift to remote work has affected employee work-life balance by combining theoretical frameworks and actual data. The COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on remote workers’ work-life balance is examined in this thorough review. Work-life balance, conventional office research, remote working during the epidemic, and employee attitudes are covered in the following areas. The evaluation and critical assessment part assesses the literature’s quality, topics, gaps, and long-term impacts. The conclusion reviews the results, impacts, and future research. The framework ensures thorough analysis while meeting criteria.
Critical Analysis
Working remotely affects work-life balance, according to numerous research. A Jamal et al. (2021) study indicated that remote employees had more control over their work schedules and less commute time, improving their work-life balance. This supports the idea that autonomy and flexibility help work-life balance. However, Adisa et al. (2022) found that remote work increases work intensity, blurs work-life boundaries, and isolates workers. These issues may damage work-life balance and employee well-being. Job demands-resources (JD-R) theory illuminates this issue. According to Koroglu and Ozmen (2022), job demands and resources comprise the JD-R model. Workload and time pressure may cause burnout. However, employment resources like autonomy and social support mitigate job pressures and improve well-being. During the pandemic, remote employment changed workplace responsibilities and resources, perhaps affecting work-life balance.
Individuals and contexts may affect the pandemic’s influence on work-life balance. González Ramos and García-de-Diego (2022) found gender variations in distant work-life balance attitudes. Due to increasing caring needs and possible social isolation, women, particularly caregivers, may find it harder to balance work and personal life. Different employment responsibilities and experience levels may affect work-life balance differently due to autonomy and workload.
Remote working became widespread due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Integrating theory and practice may reveal how this transition affects employee work-life balance. The JD-R model helps explain how job demands and resources vary during remote work and affect work-life balance. Empirical research shows that remote work may improve or hurt work-life balance, depending on the situation and personality. This study may comprehend how the pandemic-driven remote work shift affects employee work-life balance by rigorously evaluating the literature.
Conceptualization of Work-Life Balance
Work-life balance is balancing personal and professional life. Work-life balance was initially defined as balancing work and non-work activities. Garg and Rani (2014) defined work-life balance as “the extent to which an individual is equally engaged in—and equally satisfied with—his or her work role and family role.” As work-life balance has grown, researchers have realized its subjectivity. It now includes an individual’s sense of harmony and contentment across life domains (Brough et al., 2020).
Factors Affecting Work-Life Balance
Traditional office work-life balance depends on several things. Workload affects work-life balance (Raisinghani and Goswami, 2014). Job autonomy—control over job duties and schedule—is also essential. Job autonomy improves work-life balance (Mas-Machuca et al., 2016). Organizational culture also matters. Employees benefit from supportive work-life balance cultures that offer tools and policies (Cegarra-Leiva et al., 2012). Work-life balance advantages have been shown repeatedly. Work-life balance improves job satisfaction and turnover intention (Kasbuntoro et al., 2020). Work-life balance reduces burnout, improves health, and boosts life happiness. Several variables affect remote workers’ work-life balance. Job traits shape these impressions. Workload, job autonomy, and organizational support affect work-life balance. Job autonomy gives workers greater control over their schedules and duties, improving work-life balance (Le et al., 2020).
Remote work work-life balance depends on personal choices. Some like definite work-life boundaries, while others appreciate the flexibility and the opportunity to work around personal obligations. Individual variables affect work-life balance perspectives. The Person-Environment Fit (P-E Fit) hypothesis links job features, personal preferences, and work-life balance. This idea states that people try to fit their traits into the workplace’s needs and resources (Mufti et al., 2019). Work-life balance improves when employment qualities (e.g., autonomy, workload) match personal preferences.
Employee Work-Life Balance and Productivity
Work-life balance affects employees’ well-being and productivity in and out of the workplace. According to Adnan Bataineh (2019), work-life balance involves managing time, energy, and attention to balance professional and personal obligations. Work-life balance improves mental, physical, and life happiness. This section will address how remote working during the epidemic has influenced employee views of work-life balance. Success depends on employee well-being. Work-life conflict, which interferes with personal life, may cause stress, burnout, and job dissatisfaction. Kelly et al. (2020) found that improved work-life balance is associated with higher job satisfaction, reduced stress, and less burnout. Overall well-being and turnover intentions improve.
Work-life balance also affects physical health. Overwork and stress may lead to cardiovascular disease, obesity, and immunological dysfunction (Tkalych et al., 2020). Those who can balance work and life have more time and energy for exercise, good habits, and self-care: work-life balance benefits both workers and companies. Abdulaziz et al. (2022) found that work-life balance improves employee engagement, productivity, and organizational commitment. Maintaining a good work-life balance helps individuals perform better, contribute to a happy workplace, and bring their best selves to work.
Remote working became prevalent after the coronavirus epidemic, creating work-life balance possibilities and drawbacks. As firms adjusted to the new normal, workers had to manage additional duties, blurring work-life boundaries and remote work (Shirmohammadi et al., 2022). Organizations must understand how this transition affects work-life balance perspectives to support remote workers’ well-being and productivity. The research on the effects of the pandemic-driven shift to remote employment on work-life balance is diverse. Remote employment offers flexibility, decreased travel time, and greater work-life integration, according to Anderson and Kelliher (2022). However, Ekpanyaskul and Padungtod (2021) note that remote work might lead to longer hours, higher work intensity, and trouble separating work and home life.
Alternative techniques have examined how person variables (e.g., gender, parental status), job features (e.g., autonomy, workload), and organizational support affect work-life balance during remote employment. These studies illuminate the challenges of distant work-life balance and the pros and cons in various ways. One may assess employee perspectives of work-life balance during the epidemic by examining the literature and associated information. This study may uncover research gaps and generate suggestions for companies supporting remote work-life balance.
Work-life balance improves employee health and productivity. It positively impacts personnel and organizations (Anderson and Kelliher, 2022). Work-life balance has been affected by remote working throughout the epidemic. We may synthesize ideas and develop appropriate conclusions on how remote working affects employee work-life balance by critically assessing the literature, considering alternative methods, and analyzing the problem in light of current knowledge. This study will illuminate the complicated dynamics and help remote work businesses enhance work-life balance. During the epidemic, remote working changed employee work-life balance. To promote work-life balance, businesses and people must weigh remote work’s pros and downsides. Organizations may foster employee well-being and productivity by identifying and resolving remote work issues.
The Emergence of Remote Working during the Pandemic:
As companies fought to maintain business continuity and contain the COVID-19 outbreak, remote working became widespread. The literature on remote working during the epidemic sheds light on work-life balance, combining pertinent philosophies. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) paradigm explains remote working. This paradigm classifies work characteristics as job needs or resources. Job demands are the work environment’s physical, cognitive, or emotional characteristics, whereas job resources are physical, psychological, social, or organizational factors that help people achieve their work objectives (Bakker and Demerouti, 2014). Job pressures, including the unexpected change to remote work, technology obstacles, and increasing effort due to work-life blurring, may adversely impact workers’ work-life balance. However, autonomy, flexibility, and social support from bosses and coworkers may improve work-life balance in remote employment. The pandemic’s remote working literature shows work-life balancing prospects and problems. Remote employment allows workers to balance work and life (Vartiainen, 2021). Employees may spend more time and energy on personal interests without commuting, improving work-life balance. The JD-R model suggests that job autonomy and flexibility improve work-life balance (Jamal et al., 2021).
However, remote employment may disrupt the work-life balance. As the workplace and home get closer, blurred work-life boundaries might lead to more extended workdays and trouble unplugging (Irawanto et al., 2021). Lack of boundaries may cause work-family conflict and negative spillover when job stress and worries affect home life. Remote workers struggle to set and maintain work-life boundaries, which might affect work-life balance. The research also emphasizes individual and environmental aspects in distant work-life balance. Gender and parenting status may affect distant work-life balance. Due to growing household obligations and demands, women, particularly caregivers, may struggle to balance work and personal life (Uddin, 2021). Supportive policies and resources may also help remote workers balance work and life.
The literature’s different methods reveal strengths and limitations. Quantitative surveys provide significant insights into the frequency and extent of work-life balance concerns during remote employment, but qualitative research is needed to study individual experiences and subjective perspectives. Qualitative investigations may reveal how distant workers balance work and life. According to the research, work-life balance during remote work relies on a complex interaction of human traits, job needs and resources, and organizational support. The JD-R model illuminates how remote employment affects work-life balance. Identifying and applying suitable theoretical frameworks to the unique context of remote working during the pandemic allows for a complete and critical investigation of work-life balance consequences.
The literature on remote working during the epidemic sheds light on work-life balance. The JD-R model helps us comprehend remote work potential and difficulties. Flexibility and autonomy improve work-life balance, while blurred boundaries and difficulty detaching from work might hamper it. Personality and organizational support also matter. Studying remote work-life balance requires qualitative research and novel theory-practice integration. We may grasp the complicated dynamics and provide work-life balance suggestions for remote workers by integrating the literature, combining theories, and critically analyzing the findings.
Reasons for the Widespread Adoption of Remote Work
Remote work increased during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social isolation and technology. Government-enforced social distance reduced viral transmission and protected public health (Rigotti et al., 2021). Remote employment helped companies maintain company continuity while following these steps. Technology has made remote work possible. High-speed internet, video conferencing platforms, project management tools, and cloud-based technologies enable distant collaboration and communication (Rigotti et al., 2021). These technologies allow workers to work remotely, minimizing office time.
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) may be used to study remote work uptake. Perceived utility and ease of use impact technology adoption (Al Shbail et al., 2022). Technology is often used in remote work since it helps with communication, collaboration, and job completion. Remote work has spread quickly throughout the epidemic due to technological platforms’ simplicity of use and workers’ familiarity with digital technologies.
Remote Working Pros and Cons
Remote employment helps balance work and life. Flexibility is a benefit. Remote employment gives workers greater flexibility to balance work and personal life (Adisa et al., 2022). Flexibility helps workers combine work and personal life. Remote employment offers autonomy. Autonomy refers to people’s control and decision-making over their job duties and schedules. Autonomy enhances work-life balance (Bae et al., 2020). Remote workers have greater freedom to organize their job. Remote work reduces travel time and stress, freeing time and energy for personal activities and improving work-life balance (Samroodh et al., 2022). Remote work also allows those with impairments, caregiving duties, or geographical limits to work.
Remote employment may affect work-life balance. With apparent boundaries between the workplace and home, people may be able to unplug from work, resulting in longer work hours and more work-family conflict (Samroodh et al., 2022). The Conservation of Resources (COR) hypothesis illuminates distant employment and work-life balance issues. The COR hypothesis states that people want time, energy, and well-being (Franken et al., 2021). Remote workers may have to reconcile professional and personal commitments. Resource depletion and pressure may affect work-life balance without proper resource management.
Comparing literary methods shows benefits and drawbacks. Quantitative research has shown distant work-life balance issues. These studies use standardized metrics and statistical analysis to generalize. They commonly use self-report data, which may be biased and socially desirable. Consider individual and environmental elements to examine remote work and work-life balance thoroughly. Personality, job preferences, and family obligations affect work-life balance in remote employment (Shirmohammadi et al., 2022). Clear communication, flexible rules, and supportive leadership help remote workers achieve work-life balance. These variables in literature and associated information help us comprehend the intricacies.
Technology and social distance drove remote labor during the epidemic. Remote working flexibility and autonomy promote work-life balance. Blurred boundaries and resource depletion may hamper work-life balance. TAM and COR frameworks help us understand remote work’s effects on work-life balance. Alternative methods and individual and environmental variables complement our findings. Remote workers need assistance and resource management to achieve work-life balance.
Impact of Remote Working on Work-Life Balance:
During the COVID-19 epidemic, remote working increased, affecting work-life balance. This critical study will evaluate remote work’s shifts in work-life boundaries and flexibility, its problems and pressures, and its potential for work-life balance. This work synthesizes concepts and draws suitable conclusions by applying relevant theories, considering alternative methods, and examining the topic in light of the literature and associated information.
Changes in Work-Life Boundaries and Flexibility in Remote Work Settings:
Remote employment has changed work-life boundaries and boosted employee flexibility. Work timings and locations are more flexible without the office (Chan et al., 2023). People may smoothly switch between business and personal life in the exact location. Boundary theory helps explain these shifts. The boundary theory states that people set borders to distinguish their roles and identities (Gardner et al., 2021). Remote employment blurs the lines between work and home, making work-life balance difficult. Remote work flexibility may promote work-life balance but sometimes provide obstacles. Personalizing work schedules helps people balance work and life. This flexibility supports the job demands-resources paradigm, which states that job resources like control and autonomy promote work-life balance (Neidlinger et al., 2022).
Challenges and Stressors Associated with Remote Work:
Remote employment may similarly strain work-life balance. Blurred borders between work and personal life may lead to extended work hours and trouble unplugging (Basile and Beauregard, 2022). The absence of physical distinction between professional and personal environments might make it hard to set boundaries. The Conservation of Resources (COR) hypothesis helps explain distant work issues. The COR hypothesis states that people want time, energy, and well-being (Merino et al., 2021). Remote workers may have to reconcile professional and personal commitments. Resource depletion and pressure may cause work-life imbalance without proper resource management. Remote work might also cause more interruptions. Working at home may be difficult for caregivers or those with restricted space (Merino et al., 2021). Family, domestic, and other distractions may reduce productivity and cause work-life conflict.
Opportunities for Improved Work-Life Balance:
Working remotely improves work-life balance despite its limitations. Reduced travel time lets people spend more time on themselves. Not commuting during the pandemic was a social distancing tactic to limit viral transmission. The Effort-Recovery model argues that leisure time after work improves work-life balance (Jo and Lee, 2022). This decrease in commute supports this theory. Remote employment allows workers to adjust their schedules to fit personal obligations. Control and flexibility help balance work and life. The literature and associated expertise show a complicated interaction between remote working and work-life balance. Work-life balance possibilities and problems arise from changing work-life boundaries and more flexibility. Individual techniques, organizational support, and resource management are needed to handle distant work difficulties and benefits.
Remote employment affects work-life balance in many ways. It allows people to balance work and life better (Cannito, M., & Scavarda, 2020). Blurred boundaries and distractions impede work-life balance. Reduced commute and work schedule management promote balance. The border theory and COR theory help explain remote work developments and problems. We can comprehend how remote working affects work-life balance and develop methods to maximize it by integrating ideas from many sources, combining theories, and critically analyzing the study.
Employee Perceptions of Work-Life Balance during Remote Working in the COVID-19 Pandemic:
Each study on remote worker well-being and happiness during the COVID-19 epidemic has pros and cons. Due to improved autonomy and decreased travel time, Zürcher et al. (2021) discovered that distant workers were happier. The research used self-reported data, which may include social desirability bias.
Adisa et al. (2022) found that while some remote workers experienced reduced stress and improved work-life balance, others struggled to manage their workload and maintain work-life boundaries during the pandemic. The study’s sample size could have improved generalizability. These studies show the value of considering subjective and objective indicators of happiness and well-being. Self-report assessments may reveal individual views, but societal desirability and biases might affect them. Qualitative and quantitative methodologies may help comprehend remote workers’ work-life balance. Some of the ways remote work impacted the work-life balance perceptions of employees during the pandemic are discussed below.
Psychological Distance and Boundary Management
Remote employment during the epidemic shifted work-life boundaries. Employees need to set boundaries with a physical divide between work and home. Work-family conflict and work-life balance grew because people could not psychologically separate work from home life. According to the psychological detachment hypothesis, workers needed routines and physical or temporal separation to generate psychological distance and improve work-life balance (Rapp et al., 2021).:
Work-Life Balance and Technostress
Workers had to learn new digital tools and communication channels during the epidemic, which caused technostress. Constant connectedness and information overload blurred work and home life, making work-life balance difficult. Pressure to constantly be accessible and difficulties disengaging from work-related expectations raised stress and impaired work-life balance (Reinelt and Benlian, 2022). According to the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, individuals and organizations must develop strategies to reduce technostress, such as setting technology boundaries, creating designated workspaces, and encouraging disconnection and work-free time.
Work-Life Balance and Social Isolation
Remote employment during the epidemic increased social isolation and decreased colleague contact. Employees felt disconnected and unsupported without casual talks, unexpected meetings, and face-to-face encounters. Social contact builds ties, exchanges resources, and fosters support, according to the Social Information Processing hypothesis (Boekhorst, 2015). To reduce the effect of social isolation on work-life balance, firms must foster virtual social connections, stimulate team-building, and create venues for informal communication.
Differences in Perceptions Based on Individual Characteristics:
Gender, parental status, and job function might affect work-life balance during remote employment. Due to the uneven allocation of household and caregiving tasks, women, especially those with caregiving responsibilities, may find work-life balance more difficult (Noorani and Shakir, 2021). Women report more work-family conflict than males, which may adversely affect their work-life balance. Parenthood also affects work-life balance. Managing work, daycare, and homeschooling during the epidemic may stress parents out. Parents—particularly mothers—report increased work-family conflict and weaker work-life balance than non-parents (Graham et al., 2021).
Job position and industry may affect work-life balance perspectives. Some occupations have greater remote work flexibility, improving work-life balance. Knowledge workers that do computer-based work may find it simpler to adjust to remote work and preserve work-life boundaries than frontline employees or those in sectors that need a physical presence.
The COVID-19 epidemic has called into question remote workers’ work-life balance. Employee happiness and well-being studies have shown the complexities of remote employment. Job features, individual preferences, gender, parental status, and job position affect work-life balance perspectives. P-E Fit theory illuminates employment features and work-life balance desires. We may comprehend employee views of work-life balance during remote working during the COVID-19 epidemic by combining studies, adding applicable theories, and critically analyzing the evidence.
Evaluation and Critical Assessment:
The literature on employee work-life balance during remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic is high-quality, reliable, and relevant. Quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews are used in the chosen papers for a complete analysis. The Job Demands-Resources model, Conservation of Resources theory, Technology Acceptance Model, Boundary theory, and Person-Environment Fit theory show the literature’s quality. These ideas explain work-life balance and remote work’s pros and cons. The literature also includes subjective indicators like employee happiness and well-being and objective measures like work features and organizational support. This combination captures human views and environmental aspects to assess remote work-life balance. Diverse samples, including people from various sectors, job functions, and demographic backgrounds, strengthen the literature. These surveys cover all angles and include work-life balance attitudes.
The COVID-19 epidemic and remote working make the literature relevant. The studies evaluated focus on remote work during this particular moment, providing insights into people’s problems and possibilities in adjusting to this new work environment. Literature assessment reveals many themes. Firstly, workload, job autonomy, and organizational support affect work-life balance. Studies show that excessive work expectations, lack of autonomy, and unsupportive company cultures affect work-life balance during remote employment. Secondly, the literature discusses remote working pros and cons. Flexibility and scheduling control improve work-life balance. Blurred boundaries, trouble detaching from work, and diversions may damage work-life balance. Thirdly, gender, parenting status, and job function affect remote work work-life balance. Women, parents, and people in specific occupations may encounter work-life balance issues.
Despite its value, the present research has shortcomings. First, more qualitative studies on remote workers’ work-life balancing experiences, coping methods, and views are needed. Qualitative investigations illuminate individual experiences and explain underlying processes. The long-term consequences of remote work on work-life balance should also be studied. Understanding how the epidemic will affect work-life balance and employee well-being as remote work becomes more permanent is critical. Organizational interventions and support mechanisms in distant work-life balance require more study. Work-life balance best practices, policies, and tools are vital for employee well-being and company performance.
The evaluated literature on employee work-life balance during remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic is high-quality, reliable, and relevant. Studies use varied populations, theoretical frameworks, and subjective and objective metrics. Work-life balance, remote work, and personal traits are key topics and debates. Qualitative studies, long-term benefits, and organizational solutions still need to be included in the literature. Future research may fill these gaps to improve our knowledge of remote work-life balance and educate employee well-being solutions in this changing workplace.
Conclusion
The literature study and assessment on employee perceptions of work-life balance during remote working in the COVID-19 project provide light on this changing work arrangement. The review found that job features, preferences, and organizational support influence work-life balance views. Remote work offers flexibility and control over scheduling, but blurring boundaries and distractions might affect work-life balance (Tkalych et al., 2021). Gender, parenting status, and job position affect work-life balance. Remote employment affects work-life balance in numerous ways. Remote employment improves work-life balance by eliminating commutes and offering flexibility. Blurred boundaries and trouble detaching from work may damage the work-life balance. Remote work work-life balance requires organizational actions and support. Remote work may affect employee work-life balance over time. To promote work-life balance, firms must handle the problems and maintain the benefits of remote work as it becomes permanent. Clear rules help set limits and manage time. Organizations should invest in remote work productivity and well-being technologies and tools.
Post-pandemic work arrangements should blend remote and in-person cooperation. This allows workers to select when and where they work and fosters socialization and collaboration (Hopkins and Bardoel, 2023). Sustainable work environments that encourage work-life balance individual demands with corporate goals. Further research using different research designs should fill literature gaps. Qualitative research may reveal distant workers’ experiences, coping methods, and work-life balance perspectives. Remote employment may affect work-life balance and employee well-being over time. Organizational interventions, policies, and resources should also be studied to promote distant work-life balance. Best practices and successful tactics can help firms develop supportive workplaces. The literature study and assessment illuminated remote workers’ work-life balance during the COVID-19 epidemic. Job qualities, preferences, and organizational support affect how remote employment affects work-life balance. Remote employment gives freedom but also blurs boundaries. Qualitative studies, longitudinal studies, and organizational interventions are needed to understand better and promote distant work-life balance. Sustainable work arrangements that promote work-life balance improve employee well-being and company performance.
References
Abdulaziz, A., Bashir, M., & Alfalih, A. A. (2022). The impact of work-life balance and work overload on teacher’s organizational commitment: do Job Engagement and Perceived Organizational support matter? Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9641-9663.
Abdullah, N. A. A., Rahmat, N. H., Zawawi, F. Z., Khamsah, M. A. N., & Anuarsham, A. H. (2020). Coping with post covid-19: Can working from home be a new norm? European Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 5(6).
Adisa, T. A., Antonacopoulou, E., Beauregard, T. A., Dickmann, M., & Adekoya, O. D. (2022). Exploring the impact of COVID‐19 on employees’ boundary management and work–life balance. British Journal of Management, 33(4), 1694-1709.
Adisa, T. A., Antonacopoulou, E., Beauregard, T. A., Dickmann, M., & Adekoya, O. D. (2022). Exploring the impact of COVID‐19 on employees’ boundary management and work–life balance. British Journal of Management, 33(4), 1694-1709.
Adnan Bataineh, K. (2019). Impact of work-life balance, happiness at work, on employee performance. International Business Research, 12(2), 99-112.
Al Shbail, M. O., Alshurafat, H., Ananzeh, H., Mansour, E., & Hamdan, A. (2022, March). Factors affecting the adoption of remote auditing during the times of COVID-19: An integrated perspective of diffusion of innovations model and the technology acceptance model. In International Conference on Business and Technology (pp. 38-53). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Anderson, D., & Kelliher, C. (2020). Enforced remote working and the work-life interface during lockdown. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 35(7/8), 677-683.
Bae, J., Jennings, P. F., Hardeman, C. P., Kim, E., Lee, M., Littleton, T., & Saasa, S. (2020). Compassion satisfaction among social work practitioners: The role of work–life balance. Journal of Social Service Research, 46(3), 320-330.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of occupational health psychology, 22(3), 273.
Basile, K. A., & Beauregard, T. A. (2020). Boundary management: Getting the work-home balance right. Agile working and well-being in the digital age, 35-46.
Boekhorst, J. A. (2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 241-264.
Brough, P., Timms, C., Chan, X. W., Hawkes, A., & Rasmussen, L. (2020). Work–life balance: Definitions, causes, and consequences. Handbook of socioeconomic determinants of occupational health: From macro-level to micro-level evidence, 473-487.
Cannito, M., & Scavarda, A. (2020). Childcare and remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ideal worker model, parenthood and gender inequalities in Italy. Italian Sociological Review, 10(3S), 801-820.
Cegarra‐Leiva, D., Sánchez‐Vidal, M. E., & Gabriel Cegarra‐Navarro, J. (2012). Understanding the link between work-life balance practices and organizational outcomes in SMEs: The mediating effect of a supportive culture. Personnel Review, 41(3), 359-379.
Chan, X. W., Shang, S., Brough, P., Wilkinson, A., & Lu, C. Q. (2023). Work, life, and COVID‐19: A rapid review and practical recommendations for the post‐pandemic workplace. Asia Pacific Journal of human resources, 61(2), 257-276.
Ekpanyaskul, C., & Padungtod, C. (2021). Occupational health problems and lifestyle changes among novice working-from-home workers amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Safety and health at work, 12(3), 384-389.
Franken, E., Bentley, T., Shafaei, A., Farr-Wharton, B., Onnis, L. A., & Omari, M. (2021). Forced flexibility and remote working: Opportunities and challenges in the new normal. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(6), 1131-1149.
Gardner, D. M., Lauricella, T., Ryan, A. M., Wadlington, P., & Elizondo, F. (2021). Managing boundaries between work and non‐work domains: Personality and job characteristics and adopted style. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(1), 132-159.
Garg, D., & Rani, S. (2014). Work-life balance: A key driver to improve organizational performance. International Journal of Research, 1(11), 1471-1477.
González Ramos, A. M., & García-de-Diego, J. M. (2022). Work–life balance and teleworking: Lessons learned during the pandemic on gender role transformation and self-reported well-being. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(14), 8468.
Graham, M., Weale, V., Lambert, K. A., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., & Oakman, J. (2021). Working at home: The impacts of COVID-19 on health, family-work-life conflict, gender, and parental responsibilities. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(11), 938.
Hopkins, J., & Bardoel, A. (2023). The future is hybrid: How organizations are designing and supporting sustainable hybrid work models in post-pandemic Australia. Sustainability, 15(4), 3086.
Irawanto, D. W., Novianti, K. R., & Roz, K. (2021). Work from home: Measuring satisfaction between work–life balance and work stress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Economies, 9(3), 96.
Jamal, M. T., Anwar, I., Khan, N. A., & Saleem, I. (2021). Work during COVID-19: Assessing the influence of job demands and resources on practical and psychological outcomes for employees. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 13(3), 293-319.
Jo, Y., & Lee, D. (2022). Activated at home but deactivated at work: How daily mobile work leads to next‐day psychological withdrawal behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(1), 1-16.
Kasbuntoro, D. I., Maemunah, S., Mahfud, I., Fahlevi, M., & Parashakti, R. D. (2020). Work-life balance and job satisfaction: A case study of employees on banking companies in Jakarta. International Journal of Control and Automation, 13(4), 439-451.
Kelly, M., Soles, R., Garcia, E., & Kundu, I. (2020). Job stress, burnout, work-life balance, well-being, and job satisfaction among pathology residents and fellows. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 153(4), 449-469.
Koroglu, Ş., & Ozmen, O. (2022). The mediating effect of work engagement on innovative work behavior and the role of psychological well-being in the job demands–resources (JD-R) model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 14(1), 124-144.
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), 100766.
Margherita, A., & Heikkilä, M. (2021). Business continuity in the COVID-19 emergency: A framework of actions undertaken by world-leading companies. Business Horizons, 64(5), 683-695.
Mas-Machuca, M., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Alegre, I. (2016). Work-life balance and its relationship with organizational pride and job satisfaction. Journal of managerial psychology, 31(2), 586-602.
Merino, M. D., Vallellano, M. D., Oliver, C., & Mateo, I. (2021). What makes one feel eustress or distress in quarantine? An analysis from conservation of resources (COR) theory. British Journal of Health Psychology, 26(2), 606-623.
Mufti, M., Pudjiarti, E., & Darmanto, S. (2019). Analysis of second-order person-environment fit on innovative work behavior and individual performance. Arthatama, 3(2), 100-113.
Neidlinger, S. M., Felfe, J., & Schübbe, K. (2022). Should I Stay or Should I Go (to the office)?—Effects of Working from Home, Autonomy, and Core Self–Evaluations on Leader Health and Work–Life Balance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), 6.
Noorani, I., & Shakir, K. (2021). Pakistani Women and Traditional Values: The Role of Culture in Work-Life Balance. Work-Life interface: Non-western Perspectives, 343-378.
Peck, J. A. (2021). The disproportionate impact of COVID‐19 on women relative to men: A conservation of resources perspective. Gender, Work & Organization, 28, 484-497.
Raisinghani, M., & Goswami, R. (2014). Model of work-life balance explaining relationship constructs. Int J Appl Innov Eng Manage, 3(2), 46-59.
Rapp, D. J., Hughey, J. M., & Kreiner, G. E. (2021). Boundary work as a buffer against burnout: Evidence from healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), 1169.
Reinelt, A., & Benlian, A. (2022). Working Remotely, but not Remotely Stress-Free: Identifying Technostressors in and Design Principles for Collaboration Systems.
Rigotti, T., Yang, L. Q., Jiang, Z., Newman, A., De Cuyper, N., & Sekiguchi, T. (2021). Work‐related psychosocial risk factors and coping resources during the COVID‐19 crisis. Applied psychology= Psychologie appliquée, 70(1), 3.
Samroodh, M., Anwar, I., Ahmad, A., Akhtar, S., Bino, E., & Ali, M. A. (2022). The indirect effect of job resources on employees’ intention to stay: A serial mediation model with psychological capital and work–life balance as the mediators. Sustainability, 15(1), 551.
Shirmohammadi, M., Au, W. C., & Beigi, M. (2022). Remote work and work-life balance: Lessons learned from the covid-19 pandemic and suggestions for HRD practitioners. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 163-181.
Teslya, A., Pham, T. M., Godijk, N. G., Kretzschmar, M. E., Bootsma, M. C., & Rozhnova, G. (2020). Impact of self-imposed prevention measures and short-term government-imposed social distancing on mitigating and delaying a COVID-19 epidemic: A modeling study. PLoS medicine, 17(7), e1003166.
Tkalych, M., Snyadanko, I., Guba, N., & Zhelezniakova, Y. (2020). Social and psychological support for personnel in organizations: work-life balance programs. Journal of Intellectual Disability-Diagnosis and Treatment, 8(2), 159-166.
Uddin, M. (2021). Addressing work‐life balance challenges of working women during COVID‐19 in Bangladesh. International Social Science Journal, 71(239-240), 7-20.
Vartiainen, M. (2021). Telework and remote work. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology.
Zürcher, A., Galliker, S., Jacobshagen, N., Lüscher Mathieu, P., Eller, A., & Elfering, A. (2021). Increased working from home in vocational counseling psychologists during COVID-19: associated change in productivity and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 750127.
write