Orientation: Many employees find it difficult to balance their role in family and work. For the organisation to be successful in achieving its goals, management must be fully aware of the employee’s needs as well as responsibilities towards the employee’s family.

Research purpose: This study aimed to analyse the effect of work–family conflict on work–life balance, the effect of work–family conflict on performance, the effect of work–life balance on performance and the effect of work–family conflict on employee performance through work–life balance as the intervening variable.

Research approach/design and method: The population of this study comprised all taxation civil services in The Solo Region totaling 694 participants. A sample of 254 people. The primary data was obtained through questionnaires distributed to respondents. This research employed the partial least square analysis method.

Main findings: Work–family conflict had a negative and significant effect on work–life balance and performance. Work–life balance had a positive and significant effect on employee performance. Work–family conflict showed a negative and significant effect on employee performance through work–life balance.

Practical/managerial implications: In an effort to minimise the possibility of work–family conflict, employees should remain knowledgeable in balancing the fulfilment of role demands in work and life domains. The organisation is expected to create a comfortable and supportive work atmosphere in order to avoid employee role conflicts efficiently.

Contribution/value-add: This study provides a new contribution to proving the theory of the relationship between work–family conflict, work–life balance and individual performance.

Keywords: work–life balance; work–family conflict; employee performance; working hours

Introduction

Work and family are essential parts of an employee’s life that may cause conflict. Employee conflict between their role in the family and role in work is termed work–family conflict. Many employees find it difficult to balance their role in family and work, especially during long working hours and in elaborate organisations (Lingard & Francis, 2012; Žnidaršič & Bernik, 2021). The management may assume this is a personal problem for each employee, yet the family is a fundamental part of society, in which traditional management theory that divides family problems from work problems is no longer relevant. Work–family conflict experienced by employees is a stressor that leads to a decrease in employee welfare, so it affects employee performance and ultimately organisational performance (Lingard & Francis, 2006). Work–family conflict is experienced by all employees, regardless of gender. Although male and female employees have different roles in the family, they are assigned to the same role in the work setting. For the organisation to be successful in achieving its goals, management must be fully aware of the employee’s needs as well as responsibilities towards the employee’s family. Management is expected to make policies based on social justice for employees and effectiveness for the sake of the organisation.

Work–family conflict is a form of dual role conflict, in which role pressures in work and family are not aligned (Breyer & Bluemke, 2016). Work–family conflict is an inter-role conflict that occurs when the energy and time devoted, the tension experienced and the expected behaviour in the role at work perplex employees to fulfil their role obligations in the family (Gunaprasida & Wibowo, 2019). Employees with work–family conflicts will attempt to find solutions to reduce the impact of the conflict. According to Lingard and Francis (2006), the solution is to seek support from superiors, coworkers and organisations so that they are able to balance roles and responsibilities at work and in the family. The organisation as a setting to work stabilises roles and responsibilities by providing support and accommodating the interests of employees outside the organisation.

Work–life balance has become one of the most interesting topics in academic, business, political and social contexts. According to Osoian, Lazar and Raţiu (2009), this phenomenon emerges in response to demographic, economic and cultural changes such as the increasing integration of women in the workplace, the increasing number of partners working outside the home or the transformation of family structures, following the population growth, technological advances, declining birth rates and the need to improve human resource management. These social, economic and political changes have involved organisations in work, family and personal life issues. Work–life balance emerged as a response to work–family conflict (Osorio, Aguado & Villar, 2014).

In this case, the organisation should implement a proactive approach to work–life balance practices (Gómez & Marti, 2004), create a flexible structure for environmental change and contribute to increasing individual life satisfaction (Ahn, 2005). Work–life balance as a human resource policy is deemed a major challenge for organisational leaders, which can be a source of competitive advantage. As an effort to obtain committed and highly motivated employees, work–life balance policies help retain skilled employees in the organisation (Konrad & Managel, 2000) and are expected to improve employee performance.

If an employee can achieve a state of balance between work and family life, they will experience smaller overloads roles, carry out bigger roles easily, have lower depression rates, increase the achievement of organisational goals, cut unnecessary expenditures, improve the organisation they are in and experience increased job satisfaction (Clark, 2000). Work–life balance positively affects organisational commitment (Rumangkit & Zuriana, 2019), and it has a positive impact on employees, such as increasing the motivation, reducing job stress, creating higher productivity and minimising turnover rates (Johari, Yean & Tjik, 2018).

However, when employees are unable to achieve a work–life balance, the consequences are reduced job satisfaction, poor productivity and performance, lower organisational commitment, inferior career ambitions and success, increased absenteeism and intention to resign, burnout, work stress, poor physiological and psychological health and declined performance in personal and family life (Shobitha & Sudarsan, 2014). Work–life balance is important in the continuity of an organisation; thus, further research is required.

Work–family conflict is a form of dual role conflict in which the role pressures in work and family are not aligned in several ways. Meanwhile, work–life balance is a balance between individual life in carrying out each role, both work life and personal life. The lack of conflicts that occur makes employees more capable to manage themselves to balance the various roles they have, so they can achieve work–life balance, thereby increasing productivity or performance. The main objective of this study is to analyse the effect of work–family conflict on employee performance through work–life balance as an intervening variable.

Theoretical framework

Employee performance

Sapada (2017) and Sarini et al. (2020) define employee performance as the result of an individual’s work in terms of quality and quantity during a particular period of working according to the assigned responsibilities. According to Sopiah (2016), performance is work achieved by a person in carrying out the tasks assigned to him or her based on skills, experience, keenness and time. Performance is an actual behaviour displayed by an individual as work performance by employees according to his or her role in the agency. The success of the organisation relies on the performance of the actors within the organisation. Each work unit in an organisation must be assessed for its performance so that the performance of human resources in the units of an organisation can be assessed objectively. Based on Samwel (2018) interpretation, performance is defined as a level in which employees meet or achieve the specified work requirements, while performance appraisal is a process in which employee contributions to the organisation are assessed over a period of time.

Based on several definitions of performance, it can be determined that performance is the result of work achieved by an employee or worker in carrying out his or her functions given the assigned responsibilities. Maryani, Entang and Tukiran (2021) suggest that performance appraisal is done by taking into account several aspects, comprising the following:

There are four indicators to measure performance (Alexandro, 2021), which include the following:

Work–family conflict

Chang, Zhou, Wang and Heredero (2017) state that work–family conflict is a role conflict between two significant domains. These domains are family domain and work domain. Work–family conflict is a result of a dual role between role as a worker at work and role as spouse or parents in the family.

Those who have roles at work and in the family encounter two different role demands. Netemeyer, Boles and McMurrian (1996) further explain that there are five main demands in a role that each individual possesses. The five demands are responsibility, requirements, expectations, duties and commitments. Roles in the family have different responsibilities, requirements, expectations, duties and commitments compared to those of work.

Chang et al. (2017) suggest that every individual requires physical and psychological resources to fulfil these demands. Therefore, when they feel that resources cannot guarantee these demands, there will be a conflict arising between work and family.

Frone, Russell and Cooper (1994) elaborate that married people will prioritise their roles in the family over work. Those who focus more on roles in the family than roles in work will devote more time, energy and thoughts to perform their roles in the family. Problems may emerge when the role at work also demands time, energy and thought from them. This happens as an outcome of roles at work and in the family not supporting one another, or in the worst case, they contradict each other (Frone et al., 1994). Meanwhile, the resources owned by individuals in the form of time, energy and thoughts to meet the demands of work and family are limited.

Amran et al. (2021) assert that there are three main forms of work–family conflict, which include the following (see Table 1):

According to Chang et al. (2017), each of the three forms of work–family conflicts entails two directions: (1) conflict arises because work interferes with family, known as work interfering with family (WIF) and (2) conflict arises because family interferes with work, or family interfering with work (FIW). The combination of the three forms and the two directions will yield six dimensions of work–family conflict, which are as follows: (a) time-based WIF, (b) time-based FIW, (c) strain-based WIF, (d) strain-based FIW, (e) behaviour-based WIF and (f) behaviour-based FIW.

Work–life balance

Daipuria and Kakar (2013) state that work–life balance is a balance between work and life, feeling comfortable at work and having a commitment to family. The concept of work–life balance implies that work life and personal life must complement each other and must be balanced in order to avoid work–life conflicts. Yuile, Chang, Gudmundsson and Sawang (2011) define work–life balance as the state of an individual who can manage real or potential conflicts in various demands of different roles using time and energy they have so that they can achieve prosperity and self-fulfilment.

According to Johari et al. (2018), someone who has good potential expects to work in a reputable company or institution and applies the concept of work–life balance. The balance between time and energy for work and personal activities by a person is an effort to achieve harmonious life in connection with work–life balance. Lazar, Osoian and Ratiu (2010) argue that work–life balance is the achievement of meaningful enjoyment of life; a better work–life balance is when all work is done perceptively, making more work completed in a brief time. In the most scope of business, work–life balance is perceived as a new opportunity in human resource management (Osorio et al., 2014). Organisations must be conscious of employee needs and provide them with flexibility, allowing them to combine work and personal spheres to meet professional and personal goals (Osorio et al., 2014).

The application of the right work–life balance policy provides greater autonomy for employees to manage the work and nonwork domains in their lives (Wheatley, 2012). Byrne (2005) also explains that someone who achieves work–life balance will rarely experience conflict between the ‘work’ and ‘nonwork’ domains and will find satisfaction in their life, be it in work roles or other roles, so their motivation and productivity at work will improve. Based on the understanding, it can be determined that work–life balance is a balance between individual live in carrying out each role, both work life and personal life, to avoid conflicts between roles and achieve life satisfaction in each role.

Research conducted by Aryateja, Susita and Sebayang (2021) proved a more relevant and valid measure in assessing work–life balance based on four dimensions, including:

Research methods

This research is quantitative in nature. Creswell and Plano (2018) interpret quantitative research as the process of collecting and analysing numerical data. It is used to find patterns and means, make prediction, test causal relationships and generalise research results to a wider population. In quantitative research, the researcher analyses data by considering symptoms that have certain characteristics in human life called variables.

The population of this research was all tax civil services in the Greater Solo area, totalling 694 participants. The sample in this study involved 254 participants who were selected based on the calculation of Slovin’s formula. This study employed primary data obtained from survey results through the questionnaire distributed to respondents.

This research uses the partial least square (PLS) analysis method with the SmartPLS program. The PLS is one of the structural equation modelling (SEM) techniques that can analyse latent variables, indicators and measurement errors directly. Partial least square analysis is a combination of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), regression analysis and path analysis. (Hair, Howard and Nitzl 2020).

Research results and discussion

The number of respondents in this study was 254 employees, of which 65.35% were male and 34.65% were female. As many as 72.44% were implementers and 27.56% of respondents worked as functional employees. Based on the age category, 7.09% were 25 years or younger, 11.42% were 26–30 years, 20.08% were 31–35 years, 23.62% were 36–40 years, 16.54% fell between the 41 and 45 years age range, 12.99% were 46–50 years and 8.27% were over 50 years of age.

As many as 87.80% of respondents were married, and 12.20% were single. Of those who were married, 85.83% had children, and the remaining 14.17% did not have children. Furthermore, 61.81% of respondents lived with family, parents or siblings, and 38.19% did not live with family, parents or siblings. A total of 47.64% of respondents had employed partners (husband or wife), and 52.36% had unemployed partners (husband or wife). A total of 17.32% of respondents had other sources of income, and the majority of 82.68% did not have other sources of income. A total of 43.70% were active in community activities, and the other 56.30% were not active in community activities.

Only 24.41% of respondents obtained a diploma, 52.36% had undergraduate degrees (S-1), 21.26% obtained master’s degrees (S-2) and 1.97% had other educational backgrounds. A total of 7.87% of respondents worked for less than 5 years, 17.72% for 5–10 years, 24.02% for 11–15 years, 20.87% for 16–20 years and 29.53% more than 20 years.

Path diagram

The path diagram of the effect of work–family conflict on work–life balance and employee performance is illustrated in Figure 1.

Evaluation of measurement model

Convergent validity

Convergent Validity is to determine whether the dimension is valid in measuring variables. A dimension is deemed valid in measuring the variable if the loading factor is positive and greater than 0.6.

The results of the measurement of the work–family conflict variable using six dimensions indicate that all dimensions had a loading factor greater than 0.6; thus, the dimensions are valid (see Table 2). The strain-based work interfering with the family (X3) dimension yielded the largest loading factor, which was 0.819. It means that the strain-based work interfering with the family (X3) dimension is the most dominant dimension in measuring the work–family conflict variable with a representation level of 81.9%.

The results of the measurement of the work–life balance variable using four dimensions denote that all dimensions had a loading factor greater than 0.6, thus showing that the dimensions are valid. The dimension of WEPL (Z3) obtained the largest loading factor, which was 0.791. It implies that the dimension of WEPL (Z3) is the most dominant dimension in measuring the work–life balance variable with a representation level of 79.1%.

The results of measuring employee performance variables using seven dimensions show that the entire dimensions measuring employee performance variables produced a loading factor greater than 0.6; hence, it is deemed valid (see Table 4). The dimension of work quality (Y2) produced the largest loading factor, which was 0.908. It implies that the dimension of work quality (Y2) was the most dominant dimension in measuring employee performance variables, with a representation level of 90.8%.

Besides using loading factors, the assessment can be seen through the average variance extracted (AVE). An instrument is declared to meet the convergent validity test if it has an AVE above 0.5 (see Table 3).

The value of AVE on the variables of work–family conflict, work–life balance and employee performance was greater than 0.5. Based on the calculation of AVE, all dimensions measuring work–family conflict, work–life balance and employee performance variables are declared valid.

Discriminant validity

Discriminant validity is calculated using cross-loading, with the criteria that if the loading factor value is greater than the correlation between the dimensions and other variables, then the dimension is valid.

Overall, the dimensions that measure the variables of work–family conflict, work–life balance, and employee performance obtained a loading factor greater than the cross-loading of other variables. Therefore, the dimensions are valid.

Reliability test

The calculations used to test the reliability of the constructs are Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. The test criteria state that if the composite reliability is greater than 0.7 and Cronbach’s alpha is greater than 0.6, then the construct is reliable (see Table 5).

The value of composite reliability on the variables of work–family conflict, work–life balance, and employee performance was greater than 0.7, so all dimensions are reliable. Furthermore, the value of Cronbach’s alpha on the variables of work–family conflict, work–life balance and employee performance was greater than 0.6, meaning all dimensions are deemed reliable.

Goodness-of-fit model

The goodness-of-fit model is used to determine the ability of endogenous variables to explain the heterogeneity of exogenous variables, or in other words, to determine the significance of the contribution of exogenous variables to endogenous variables. The goodness-of-fit model in PLS analysis was performed using R-square and Q-square predictive relevance (Q2).

The R-square of the work–life balance variable was 0.442. It signifies that the heterogeneity of work–life balance variable can be explained by the work–family conflict variable with 44.2%. In other words, the contribution of work–family conflict to work–life balance was 44.2%, while the remaining 55.8% was the contribution of other variables that were not discussed in this study (see Table 6).

Next, the R-square of the employee performance variable was 0.235. This indicates that the heterogeneity of employee performance variable can be explained by the work–family conflict and work–life balance variables with 23.5%. In other words, the contribution of work–family conflict and work–life balance to employee performance was 23.5%, while the remaining 76.5% were the contribution of other variables that were not discussed in this study.

The Q-square predictive relevance value obtained was 0.573. This implies that the heterogeneity of employee performance variable can be explained by the work–family conflict and work–life balance variables (direct effect and indirect effect) of 57.3%. In other words, the contribution of work–family conflict and work–life balance to employee performance was 57.3%, while the remaining 42.7% was the contribution of other variables that were not discussed in this study.

Direct effect hypothesis testing

Testing the direct effect hypothesis is employed to test whether there is an effect of exogenous variables on endogenous variables. The test criteria state that if the probability level of significance (alpha = 5%), then there is a significant effect of exogenous variables on endogenous variables.

The structural model of the effect of work–family conflict on work–life balance is as follows (see Table 7):

The effect of work–family conflict on work–life balance earned a probability of 0.000. The test results show the probability < level of significance (Alpha (α) = 5%). Therefore, work–family conflict had a significant effect on work–life balance. The path coefficient of the effect of work–family conflict on work–life balance was –0.665, indicating that work–family conflict had a negative and significant effect on work–life balance. It implies that the higher the work–family conflict, the lower the work–life balance will be.

The structural model of the effect of work–family conflict and work–life balance on employee performance is as follows:

The effect of work–family conflict on employee performance generated a probability of 0.010. The test results show the probability < level of significance (alpha = 5%). Thus, work–family conflict had a significant effect on employee performance. The path coefficient of the effect of work–family conflict on employee performance was –0.283, denoting that work–family conflict had a negative and significant effect on employee performance. So the higher the work–family conflict, the lower the employee performance will be.

The effect of work–life balance on employee performance produced a probability of 0.023. The test results show the probability < level of significance (alpha = 5%). This means that work–life balance had a significant effect on employee performance. The path coefficient of the effect of work–life balance on employee performance was 0.248, meaning that work–life balance had a positive and significant effect on employee performance. Hence, the higher the work–life balance, the higher the employee performance will be.

Testing of indirect effect hypothesis

The testing of the indirect effect hypothesis was conducted to determine whether there is an indirect effect of exogenous variables on endogenous variables through intervening variables. The test criteria assert that if the p-value level of significance (alpha = 5%), then there is a significant effect of exogenous variables on endogenous variables through intervening variables of testing of indirect effect hypothesis results.

The effect of work–family conflict on employee performance through work–life balance obtained a probability of 0.030. The test results imply the probability < level of significance (alpha = 5%). It implies that work–family conflict had a significant effect on employee performance through work–life balance. The path coefficient of the effect of work–family conflict on employee performance through work–life balance was –0.165, indicating that work–family conflict had a negative and significant effect on employee performance through work–life balance. In other words, the lower the work–life balance due to a higher work–family conflict, the lower the employee performance will be (see Table 8).

Dominance

Exogenous variables with a dominant effect on endogenous variables were discovered through the largest total coefficient, regardless of the sign of the positive or negative coefficient.

The analysis results inform that the variable with the largest total coefficient on the employee performance variable was the work–family conflict variable, with a total coefficient of –0.448. Work–family conflict is the variable with the most dominant effect on employee performance.

Based on the results of data analysis, the following issues shall be discussed (see Table 9):

The results of this study correspond to the previous theory that events occurring at work are related to events at home and vice versa (Clark, 2000). Fundamentally, family life and work life are interrelated. When conflict occurs because work life interferes with family life, performance and satisfaction in family roles will be compromised. Conversely, if family life interferes with work life, performance will decrease (Tiroina & Mahdani, 2021, Aryateja et al., 2021).

The reality now is that many people have dual roles as workers as well as parents, spouses and children, and sometimes these roles conflict with each other and become the roots of conflict. On the other hand, human life is not solely built upon work and family life, but demands in other life aspects also lead to conflict. Counterbalancing various roles requires one to control the tension arising as a result of inter-role conflict that occurs due to the demands in those roles (Yuile et al., 2011). Likewise, along with their role as employees in the office, they also function as parents, spouses and children in their family. Indeed, it will trigger a conflict between work life and family life.

Conflicts between these roles can be minimised by fully and effectively participating in each role undertaken so that individuals have a balanced state in performing each role. This is the concept of work–life balance. Work–life balance is an essential aspect of human life. Yet achieving such balance is easier said than done. In the process of attaining a balance between work life and personal life, various conflicts and problems will arise and should be accepted by individuals. When employees in the office experience work–family conflict, the fulfilment of one role will eventually interfere with the fulfilment of other roles, affecting their performance as an employee. If functional and implementers experience work–family conflict, a solution should be sought so that they continue to carry out their roles properly. In this way, a work–life balance will be achieved.

Work–life balance is very important for organisations and individuals. Work–life balance is a major factor in increasing employee productivity, and this has a positive impact on the general performance of the organisation (Ainapur, Vidyavathi, Kulkarni & Mamata, 2016, Semlali & Hassi, 2016, Garg & Yajuverdi, 2018). Bataineh (2019) stated that work–life balance creates a superior work ethic. When the balance between work and life is at a high level of satisfaction, the work ethic will improve in order to provide the best contribution and service. With a superior work ethic, it is expected that it will facilitate employees in carrying out their duties and responsibilities.

Conclusion

Work–family conflict had a negative and significant effect on work–life balance and performance. The higher the employee work–family conflict, the lower the work–life balance and employee performance will be and vice versa. Work–life balance had a positive and significant effect on employee performance. Work–family conflict had a negative and significant effect on employee performance through work–life balance. This means that the lower the work–life balance due to the higher work–family conflict experienced by an employee, the lower the employee performance will be and vice versa.

Work–family conflict is a stressor that leads to a decrease in employee welfare, thus affecting employee performance and ultimately organisational performance. In an effort to minimise the possibility of work–family conflict, employees should remain knowledgeable in balancing the fulfilment of role demands in work and life domains, in other words, without putting aside other important aspects of life, including work, family, personal, social and spiritual. Furthermore, employees should never cease to establish good teamwork with colleagues and superiors to create a positive work atmosphere that will increase performance productivity. Employees should have good time management skills in order to carry out each role optimally.

If employees often experience work–family conflicts that forbid them to achieve work–life balance, the consequences are reduced job satisfaction, poor productivity and performance, lower organisational commitment, inferior career ambitions and success, increased absenteeism, intention to resign, burnout, work stress, poor physiological and psychological health and decreased performance in personal and family life. These consequences will eventually affect the productivity of organisational performance. The organisation is expected to create a comfortable and conducive work environment and to sustain a positive and supportive work atmosphere to help minimise the occurrence of conflict in the roles of employees.

Moreover, the government should maintain existing work–life balance policies, such as a flexitime policy for going to and leaving the office, maternity and paternity leaves, lactation room facilities, work from home policy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and immediate implementation of remote work plans and other policies that support work–life balance practices. These policies aim to make employees happier, which in turn will make them more productive at work and ultimately improve organisational performance. Many other factors can affect employee performance. Further research is encouraged to add several other variables such as workload, happiness at work, flexibility working, job satisfaction, motivation, organisational commitment and so on.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank LPPI and LPPM Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta for the financial support for this study.

This research is quantitative research using primary data. The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

M.I. and N.I. contributed equally to the design and implementation of the research, the analysis of the results and the writing of the manuscript.

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

The source of funds for the implementation of this research and the publication of research results came from the University of Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.

References

Ahn, N. (2005). Factors affecting life satisfaction among Spanish workers: Relative importance of wage and others factors. Documento de trabajo 17. Madrid: FEDEA.

Ainapur, P., Vidyavathi, B., Kulkarni, K., & Mamata, P. (2016). Work life balance policies, practices and its impact on organizational performance. International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science, 5(7), 11–21.

Alexandro, R., Tonich, U., Fendy, H.H., Uci, L. (2021). The effect of employee performance on consumer satisfaction at Setia Hotel, Puruk Cahu, Murung Raya. International Journal of Social Science and Business, 5(3), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijssb.v5i3.38211

Amran, A., Lestari, T., Komalasari, Y., Putriyandar, R., Rahayu Y.S., & Drajat, D.Y. (2021). The phenomenon of work-family conflict and work stress and their effect on employee performance. Journal of International Conference Proceedings (JICP), 4(2), 98–108.

Aryateja, K.B., Susita, D., & Sebayang, K.D.A. (2021). The influence of work-life balance and work environment on employee commitment. The International Journal of Social Sciences World, 3(2), 152–168.

Bataineh, K.A. (2019). Impact of work-life balance, happiness at work, on employee performance. International Business Research, 12(2), 99. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v12n2p99

Breyer, B., & Bluemke, M. (2016). Work-Famil y Conflict Scale (ISSP). Mannheim: GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften.

Byrne, U. (2005). Work-life balance: Why are we talking about it at all? Business Information Review, 22(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382105052268

Chang, X., Zhou, Y., Wang, C. & Heredero, C.D.P. (2017). How do work-family balance practices affect work-family conflict? The differential roles of work stress. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 11(8), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-017-0008-4

Clark, S.C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536001

Creswell, J.W., & Plano, C.V.L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daipuria, P., & Kakar, D. (2013). Work-life balance for working parents: Perspectives and strategies. Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management, 2(1), 45–52.

Frone, M.R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. (1994). Relationship between job and family satisfaction: Causal or noncausal covariation. Journal of Management, 20(3), 565–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000303

Garg, P., & Yajuverdi, N. (2018). Impact of work-life balance practices on employees retention and organizational performance – A study on IT industry. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 6(8). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326607206

Gómez, S., & Martí, C. (2004). La incorporación de la mujer al mercado laboral: Implicaciones personales, familiares, personales, y profesionales, y medidas estructurales de conciliación trabajo-familia. Documento de Investigación, No. 557. Barcelona: IESE.

Gunaprasida N., & Wibowo, A. (2019). The effect of work-family conflict and flexible work arrangement on turnover intention: Do female and male employees differ? Jurnal Siasat Bisnis, 23(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.20885/jsb.vol23.iss1.art3

Hair, J.F., Howard, M.C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLSSEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109(5–6), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069

Irmawati, I., & Wulandari, A.S. (2017). Pengaruh quality of work life, self determination, dan job performance terhadap work engagement karyawan (Effect of quality of work life, self determination, and job performance on employee work engagement). Jurnal Manajemen D ayasaing, 19(1), 27–36.

Johari, J., Yean Tan, F., & Tjik Zulkarnain, Z.I. (2018). Autonomy, workload, work-life balance and job performance among teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2016-0226

Konrad, A., & Managel, R. (2000). The impact of work-life programs on firm productivity. Strategic Management Journal, 21(12), 1225–1237. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200012)21:12%3C1225::AID-SMJ135%3E3.0.CO;2-3

Lazar, I., Osoian, C., & Ratiu, P. (2010). The role of work-life balance practices in order to improve organizational performance. European Research Studies Journal, 8(1), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/267

Lingard, H., & Francis, V. (2006). Does a supportive work environment moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and burnout among construction professionals? Journal Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010500226913

Lingard, H., & Francis, V. (2012). The case for family-friendly work practices in the Australian construction industry. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 2(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v2i1.2884

Maryani, Y., Entang, M., & Tukiran, M. (2021). The relationship between work motivation, work discipline and employee performance at the regional secretariat of Bogor City. International Journal of Social and Management Studies, 2(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5555/ijosmas.v2i2.14

Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400

Osoian, C., Lazar, L., & Ratiu, P. (2009). The benefits of implementing and supporting work – life balance policies in organizations. Cluj-Napoca: Babeş-Bolyai University.

Osorio, D.B., Aguado, L.M., & Villar, C. (2014). The impact of family and work-life balance policies on the performance of Spanish listed companies. AIMS Management, 17(4), 214–236. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.174.0214

Rumangkit & Zuriana, Z. (2019) Work-life balance as a predictor of organizational commitment: A multidimensional approach Stefanus. Diponegoro International Journal of Business, 2(1), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.14710/dijb.2.1.2019.18-22

Samwel, J.O. (2018). An assessment of the impact of performance management on employee and organization performance – Evidence from selected private organizations in Tanzania. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 8(3), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v8i3.13415

Sapada, A.F.A., Modding, H.B., Gani, A., & Nujum, S. (2017). The effect of organizational culture and work ethics on job satisfaction and employees performance. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 6(12), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.9790/1813-0612042836

Sarini, Wajdi, M.F., Syamsudin, Isa, M., (2020). The Role of Motivation as Mediation in the Relationship between Communication and Work Discipline on Employee Performance. Issuees on Inclusive Growth in Developing Countries, 1(2), 93–104.

Semlali, S., & Hassi, A. (2016). Work–life balance: How can we help women IT professionals in Morocco? Journal of Global Responsibility, 7(2), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-07-2016-0017

Sopiah, (2016). The relationship between performance appraisal and job performance. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6(6), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v6-i6/2182

Tiroina, S.D., & Mahdani, S. (2021). The effect of work from home during the Covid-19 pandemic on work-life balance and its impact on employee performance of Aceh communication, informatics and encoding office. International Journal of Business Management and Economic Review, 4(2), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.35409/IJBMER.2021.3240

Wheatley, D. (2012). Work-life balance, travel to work, and the dual career household. Personnel Review, 41(6), 813–831. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481211263764

Yuile, C., Chang, A., Gudmundsson, A., & Sawang, S. (2011). The role of life friendly policies on employees’ work–life balance. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2012.18.1.53

Žnidaršič, J., & Bernik, M. (2021). Impact of work-family balance results on employee work engagement within the organization: The case of Slovenia. PLoS One, 16(1), e0245078. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245078

Original Research

The role of work–life balance as mediation of the effect of work–family conflict on employee performance

Muzakar Isa, Nur Indrayati

Abstract

Introduction

Theoretical framework

Employee performance

Work–family conflict

Work–life balance

Research methods

Research results and discussion

Path diagram

Evaluation of measurement model

Convergent validity

Discriminant validity

Reliability test

Goodness-of-fit model

Direct effect hypothesis testing

Testing of indirect effect hypothesis

Dominance

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Competing interests

Authors’ contributions

Ethical considerations

Funding information

Data availability

Disclaimer

References