The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

How do work–life support practices WLS practices

on well-being
impact bank employees’ subjective
well-being?
Ishita Roy and Md. Shamsul Arefin
Department of Management Studies,
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University, Received 22 January 2021
Revised 15 September 2021
Gopalganj, Bangladesh, and Accepted 27 January 2022

Md. Sahidur Rahman

Department of Management, University of Chittagong, Chattogram, Bangladesh

Abstract
Purpose – Based on the social exchange theory, the paper aims to explore the effects of work–life support
(WLS) practices on subjective well-being through work engagement and job satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – Data of 332 bank employees were collected in three waves and analyzed
using AMOS and PROCESS macro.
Findings – The study revealed that WLS practices influenced employees’ subjective well-being both directly
and indirectly. The study’s results further supported the serial mediation of the indirect effect through work
engagement and job satisfaction.
Practical implications – Organizational WLS practices are supposed to play an effective role in helping
employees increase subjective well-being. Organizations should attach importance to implementing WLS
practices to ensure that employees are engaged and satisfied. Furthermore, organizations should undertake
and communicate favorable WLS practices to stimulate employees’ work and non-work well-being.
Originality/value – The study is the first that examines the impact of WLS practices on employees’
subjective well-being. Furthermore, the study offers novel insights regarding the dual mediation effect of work
engagement and job satisfaction in the relationship between WLS practices and subjective well-being.
Keywords Subjective well-being, Work–life support practices, Work engagement, Job satisfaction,
Bangladesh
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
With the pace of demographic and occupational changes, organizations are ever challenged in
terms of managing workplace diversity, such as growing dual-career couples, rising single-
parent families and increasing aging dependents (Butts et al., 2013; Fiksenbaum, 2014; Ronda
et al., 2016). In addition to this, employees face increased work–home conflicts to balance their
work- and family related obligations. A recent study of 2,700 people from over 100 countries has
shown that young professionals recognized work–life balance as one of the top characteristics of
an ideal organization (HBR Ascend Staff, 2019). In response to these changes and to minimize the
conflict between employees work and family roles, organizations are ever more challenged to
adopt WLS practices to enable employees to accomplish their work-related and personal
responsibilities (Cogin et al., 2018). Although there is no specific definition of WLS practices, a
common consensus emerges on WLS practices that include flexible work schedules,
telecommuting, dependent care programs, family leave programs and childcare programs.
Allen (2001) advocated that employee perception of support of work–family benefits is more
pronounced than such benefits’ availability to perform work and family roles.
While organizations are increasingly adopting the WLS practices, a body of research has Personnel Review
investigated these practices’ effects on individual outcomes. Several meta-analyses and © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
review papers suggest that WLS practices are positively related to increased work-related DOI 10.1108/PR-01-2021-0050
PR outcomes such as job attitudes, enhanced organizational commitment and lower employee
turnover (Butts et al., 2013; Kossek et al., 2011). However, scant research focused on the non-
work outcomes of WLS practices. Prior studies have suggested the influence of workplace
resources on non-work-related well-being (e.g. Matthews et al., 2014; Fiksenbaum, 2014;
Carlson et al., 2019). For example, prior studies identified the influence of WLS practices on
employees’ life satisfaction (Fiksenbaum, 2014; Haar and Roche, 2010; Lapierre et al., 2008;
Thompson and Prottas, 2005), family role quality (Pedersen et al., 2009) and family
satisfaction (Thompson and Prottas, 2005). This study focused on the employee’s subjective
well-being as a non-work outcome of WLS practices. Subjective well-being is defined as
“people’s evaluations of their lives and encompasses both cognitive judgments of satisfaction
and affective appraisals of moods and emotions” (Kesebir and Diener, 2008, p. 118). An
individual’s everyday life’s crucial goal is to preserve a certain degree of subjective well-being
(King et al., 1998). Implementation of WLS practices facilitates employees to higher
performance and may also help attain subjective well-being levels. Therefore, this study’s
primary goal is to identify WLS practices’ influence on employees’ subjective well-being.
Organizations help individuals achieve both occupational and non-work-related well-
being during their work lives (Allen, 2001). Employee well-being is defined as the state of
employees’ mental, physical and general health, including their satisfaction with the work
and beyond the work–life (Danna and Griffin, 1999). Thus, well-being includes both work-
related or occupational and non-work-related outcomes. Occupational well-being comprises
physical and psychological health such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, work
engagement, emotional exhaustion and intention to stay in the organization. On the other
hand, non-work-related outcomes include happiness, life satisfaction and family satisfaction.
Previous studies suggested examining the effects of work resources on both work-related
well-being and non-work-related well-being (e.g. Nielsen et al., 2017; Matthews et al., 2014).
However, little is known about the mechanism through which organizational WLS practices
lead to employees’ non-work outcomes (Fiksenbaum, 2014; Lapierre et al., 2008). Moreover,
the spillover hypothesis suggests that experiences of the work domain spill over to the
experiences of the life domain (non-work domain) (Weziak-Bialowolska et al., 2020; Bowling
et al., 2010; Ilies et al., 2007). While work resources positively and negatively affect employee
well-being in the life domain (e.g. Fiksenbaum, 2014; Carlson et al., 2019), only a few studies to
date have considered work-related well-being concerning non-work-related well-being
outcomes (e.g. Matthews et al., 2014). This study assumes that occupational well-being might
play an intervening role in the relationship between WLS practices and subjective well-being.
Work engagement and job satisfaction are the two core components of occupational well-
being, which are frequently studied as outcomes of WLS practices (Siu et al., 2010; Ronda
et al., 2016). Work engagement is defined as a “positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state
of work-related well-being” (Bakker et al., 2008, p. 187). Several studies identified that
supportive WLS practices positively influence employees’ work engagement (e.g. Siu et al.,
2010; Richman et al., 2008). Additionally, job satisfaction is the most studied occupational
well-being in the context of WLS practices (Butts et al., 2013). While previous studies show
that WLS practices have positively related to job satisfaction (Allen, 2001; Lapierre et al.,
2008; Ko et al., 2013; Ronda et al., 2016), few other studies suggest that several WLS practices
do not influence job satisfaction (Thompson and Prottas, 2005; Saltzstein et al., 2001). The
mutual relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction is also acknowledged.
Therefore, drawing on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we argue that organizational WLS
practices are positively related to the degree of employees’ work engagement, which, in turn,
leads to increased job satisfaction and, ultimately, to enhanced subjective well-being.
Considering the potentials benefits of WLS practices, few studies have been carried out in
order to deepen the understanding of the predictors of subjective well-being in the service
sector (Deng and Gao, 2017; Umans et al., 2018). In the service industry of Bangladesh,
banking organizations have been regarded as the most desirable organizations among the job WLS practices
seekers since banking organizations are implementing sound human resource practices on well-being
(Arefin and Islam, 2019), such as WLS practices. The proportion of employed women in the
banking industry is generally high compared with conventional sectors. However, the
banking profession is characterized by long working hours, working under pressures and
high workloads of employees (Ugwu et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2011), which, ultimately,
negatively affects employees’ work-related and non-work-related well-being (Deng and Gao,
2017; Umans et al., 2018). Making a balance between work and personal life seems crucial for
banking professionals. Moreover, being in a collectivist society, Bangladeshi people give
substantial value to family affairs (Arefin et al., 2021). Apart from the jobs, family is the most
salient domain for both men and women. Women are primarily expected to complete the
household chores, including taking care of children and preparing food for family members
(Arefin et al., 2019). In order to make smooth functioning of the dual roles, employees prefer to
work for such a firm that focuses on WLS practices.
This study aims at contributing to the extant research. First, drawing on social exchange
theory (Blau, 1964), this study extends the current WLS practices and subjective well-being
literature, demonstrating the prospective influence of WLS practices on employees’
subjective well-being, which is an important form of non-work outcomes that has been
neglected in the literature. Previous research has generally concentrated on the impacts of
WLS practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors at work (Butts et al., 2013; Kossek et al.,
2011); only a few examined its effects on their non-work-related attitudes (Thompson and
Prottas, 2005; Nielsen et al., 2017). Thus, no prior study investigated the effect of WLS
practices on employees’ subjective well-being. While subjective well-being includes both
cognitive judgments (i.e. life satisfaction) and affective appraisals (i.e. happiness) (Kesebir
and Diener, 2008), previous studies have shown a segmented view focusing primarily on the
relationship between WLS practices and life satisfaction (e.g. Fiksenbaum, 2014; Haar and
Roche, 2010; Lapierre et al., 2008; Thompson and Prottas, 2005) ignoring the affective aspect
of subjective well-being. This study addresses the research call (Haar and Roche, 2010;
Matthews et al., 2014; Nielsen et al., 2017) investigating the influence of WLS practices as a
work resource on employees’ non-work-related outcomes.
Second, although scholars have suggested exploring the influence of work resources on
employee well-being (e.g. Nielsen et al., 2017; Matthews et al., 2014), we still lack a deep
understanding of whether and how WLS practices may translate into particular work-related
well-being that, in turn, increase non-work-related well-being. Thus, there is a need to extend
research examining the indirect influence of WLS practices on individuals’ subjective well-
being to gain a more complete understanding of the individual’s well-being implications of
these practices. This study conceptualizes a serial mediational model exploring whether WLS
practices relate to the degree of work engagement and job satisfaction, which are critical
sources of well-being in life. This study responds to the call for more research on the
underlying mechanism for the WLS practices and well-being in life (Haar and Roche, 2010).
The study’s findings may guide the practitioner in understanding how organizational WLS
practices impact non-work outcomes.
Finally, this study focused on the service industry of an emerging economy such as
Bangladesh exploring employee well-being in the banking organizations, which might
validate the previous research on the predictors of subjective well-being. In a study on the
banking industry in three Asian countries (i.e. China, India and Thailand) and one African
country (i.e. Kenya), Wang et al. (2011) identified the influence of WLS practices on work-
related well-being such as organizational commitment. However, no prior study investigated
the role of WLS practices on non-work-related well-being in the South Asian context.
While the non-work-related consequences of WLS practices are investigated in the Western
countries (Fiksenbaum, 2014; Thompson and Prottas, 2005; Haar and Roche, 2010;
PR Lapierre et al., 2008), this study explored the antecedents of subjective well-being in the South
Asian region. According to the United Nations’ World Happiness Report (2020), Bangladesh
ranks 107th among 156 countries. This report indicates that Bangladeshi people are less
satisfied with their lives than the World Happiness average. Although the status of
Bangladesh is below average in overall performance, the country is in a better position
comparing to other South Asian countries (e.g. India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka). This study
aims to provide meaningful implications in the Bangladeshi culture.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1 Social exchange theory
We use the social exchange theory to analyze the relationship between WLS practices and
their outcomes. Social exchange is based on the reciprocity principle (Gouldner, 1960), where
an employee who receives a benefit (e.g. WLS practices) is supposed to be morally bound to
compensate his or her employer’s reward. Social exchange is also used to define the
relationships of giving and taking between employees and their employing organizations
(Blau, 1964). These giving/taking (the employer for the employee) relationships are central to
testing since the lack of reciprocity can tend to diminished or withdrawn benefits for an
employer (e.g. WLS practices). Since employees’ exact reciprocity of benefits may not be
predicted in advance, employers may provide WLS practices without ensuring the paidoff
from employees. The social exchange theory acknowledges the circumstances under which
people feel compelled to reciprocate when they gain something from others’ actions (Lambert,
2000). In trade ties, trust and reciprocity are crucial because it is not what is offered but what
is given to an employee. As for WLS practices, employees are motivated to respond by taking
a positive stance toward the workplace when they experience a desirable working condition
and attractive benefits (Lee and Hong, 2011; Wang and Walumbwa, 2007).

2.2 Work–life support practices and subjective well-being

WLS practices provided by employers include flexible work arrangements, task sharing,
switching from full-time to part-time jobs, compressing working hours, working from home and
paid leave to care for dependents in an emergency (Butts et al., 2013). These practices vary from
organization to organization. Prior studies revealed that WLS practices impact employees’ work-
related outcomes and allow employees to balance better their work and family responsibilities
(Haar and Roche, 2010). However, few studies focused on the non-work consequences of WLS
practices, such as subjective well-being that refers to how individuals experience and measure
the quality of life (Diener, 2000). Besides, human resources (HR) practice substantially affects
employees’ subjective well-being (Carvalho and Chambel, 2016; Ananthram et al., 2018). More
specifically, WLS practices give employees the flexibility to manage their different
responsibilities (Piszczek and Berg, 2014). Furthermore, Thompson and Prottas (2005)
identified that the availability of family friendly benefits is positively related to family and
life satisfaction. In addition, family and life satisfaction have a unique and independent impact
on subjective well-being (Lent et al., 2005; Yu et al., 2020). Employees who feel that their
organizations are highly valuing them are more likely to perceive that organization positively.
Accordingly, bank employees are more likely to be committed to their organizations when they
perceive that the bank values their work–life balances through incorporating WLS practices
(Wang et al., 2011). Based on the social exchange theory, we presume that employees working in
family supportive organizations are more likely to experience a more robust work–family
balance, which is illustrated by improved subjective well-being. Hence, the hypothesis as follows
can be developed:
H1. WLS practices will be positively related to subjective well-being.
2.3 Mediating role of job satisfaction WLS practices
The current study focuses on one of the most significant psycho-social features of the work, on well-being
job satisfaction, which is characterized by assessing an individual’s job or job experience as a
positive or pleasurable emotional condition (Luthans et al., 2005). Individuals who are
satisfied with their job appear to be happy with their lives. Therefore, subjective well-being is
not merely a matter of provisions; the degree of individuals’ satisfaction significantly
regulates subjective well-being. In the various organizational contexts, researchers have
established positive associations between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. In a
meta-analysis, Bowling et al. (2010) found that job satisfaction has a positive relationship with
life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect and the absence of negative affect in accordance
with the spillover hypothesis. They also analyzed the differential relationship between global
job satisfaction and facets of job satisfaction (work itself, supervision, colleagues, pay and
promotion). They suggested that global job satisfaction has a better relationship with
subjective well-being than the different facets of job satisfaction. The reason is that job
satisfaction affects other facets of a person’s life. In particular, job satisfaction has affected
the employees’ life satisfaction (Iverson and Maguire, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007).
Moreover, Allen (2001) described a positive work–family environment that enables the
employees to manage their work and families better, leads to increased job satisfaction and
reduces turnover intentions. Previous studies also confirmed the influence of WLS practices
on job satisfaction (Ronda et al., 2016; Haar and Roche, 2010). Besides, WLS practices provide
workers with extra opportunities to meet family obligations, which lead to a high degree of
job- and family related satisfaction (Voydanoff, 2005). Therefore, these initiatives aim to
increase work–life balance by providing workers with resources to assist them in their family
commitments while ensuring a significant impact on work efficiency and satisfaction.
Nevertheless, employees may also view WLS practices as interventions that favor them;
following the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), they may feel obliged to reciprocate with
more positive behaviors. As a result, employees can easily meet their family and job
responsibilities in response to WLS practices, which positively impact job satisfaction and
commitment due to a more positive mindset and stress reduction (Ko et al., 2013). That means
employees who experience WLS practices are more satisfied with their jobs, which leads to an
increased degree of subjective well-being. Given the theoretical and empirical background,
the hypothesis is proposed as follows:
H2. Job satisfaction mediates the effect of WLS practices on subjective well-being.

2.4 Mediating role of work engagement

Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind characterized
by vigor, dedication and absorption (Bakker et al., 2008). Vigor refers to showing high-energy
levels during work. Dedication is deep involvement in one’s work and a sense of relevance,
passion, motivation, pride and challenge. Lastly, absorption means that one is completely
focused and gladly immersed in one’s work, so the time passes fast. Following the previous
studies (Bakker, 2011; Bakker et al., 2014), we theorized work engagement as an aggregate
construct consisting of vigor, dedication and absorption. In addition, previous research
identified that family specific job resources such as WLS practices are related to work
engagement (Siu et al., 2010; Rofcanin et al., 2017). These organizational initiatives enable
employees to influence their schedule or the way they perform their job (Rofcanin et al., 2017).
Although all employees may not use such WLS practices, the presence of the available
policies also conveys the message of a caring organization (Arefin et al., 2019).
The availability of adequate job resources (e.g. WLS practices and organizational support)
influences employees’ positive psychological processes and increases motivation (Schaufeli
and Bakker, 2004). That means that workers are more global happy with their lives when
PR engaged (Joo and Lee, 2017). Moreover, Rothmann (2008) reported that work engagement
could impact psychological and subjective well-being. Work engagement was found to
minimize the perception of anxiety or depression (Schaufeli et al., 2008), which means that
work engagement plays a crucial role in sustaining subjective well-being (Matthews et al.,
2014; Joo and Lee, 2017). Undertaking WLS practices, organizations send messages to the
employees that their family domain is important and valued (Fiksenbaum, 2014); in turn,
employees are more likely to be engaged, which leads them to experience subjective well-
being. Therefore, based on the social exchange theory, we assume that work engagement is
also an important mechanism for understanding the impact of WLS practices on subjective
well-being. Taken together, we can posit the hypothesis as follows:
H3. Work engagement mediates the positive effect of WLS practices on subjective
well-being.
As mentioned earlier, research suggests that WLS practices positively influence job
satisfaction (e.g. Allen, 2001; Lapierre et al., 2008; Ko et al., 2013; Ronda et al., 2016), whereas
few other research suggest no association (e.g. Thompson and Prottas, 2005; Saltzstein et al.,
2001). Based on the previous research findings, we argue that WLS practices may indirectly
influence employee job satisfaction. Moreover, while work engagement and job satisfaction
are two forms of work-related well-being, the extant literature suggests the reciprocal
relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction. For example, a body of
researchers suggest that engaged employees are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs
(e.g. Zhang et al., 2013; Mihail and Kloutsiniotis, 2016; Lu et al., 2016; De Simone et al., 2018;
Caesens et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2016), whereas other researchers suggest that satisfied
employees are tended to be engaged in their work (e.g. Ananthram et al., 2018). A major
element of a family supportive organization is the respect for employees’ families and their
personal lives. Employees working in these conditions may feel better in dedicating time and
energy to their jobs, families and personal lives without worrying about their careers’ adverse
consequences. They may also feel less stressed to fully invest in their job activities at their
families’ cost. Based on the previous research and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we
argue that WLS practices influence employees’ psychological state to be engaged with their
work, which, in turn, leads to increased work-related well-being such as job satisfaction and,
ultimately, to increased subjective well-being. Taken together, we may assume that the
indirect relationship between WLS practices and subjective well-being is serially mediated by
work engagement and job satisfaction. Thus, we can posit the hypothesis as follows:
H4. The relationship between WLS practices and subjective well-being is serially
mediated by work engagement and job satisfaction.
The research model is shown in Figure 1.

3. Methodology
3.1 Participants and procedures
In Bangladesh, there are 195,141 employees in the banking sector, of which 126,991
employees are working in more than 50 private commercial banks (Bangladesh Bank, 2020).
The respondents were full-time employees from a large private commercial bank having
branches countrywide in Bangladesh. It is a prominent commercial bank with more than
6,000 employees. We contacted the HR manager for consent to the survey. After getting
approval, the HR manager was requested to provide a list of full-time employees. We
randomly chose the employees from the list and distributed the questionnaire. We followed
the back-translation method to translate English to Bengali. To ensure the face and content
validity, we approached two professors who taught management and four senior bank
 Family-Focused Practices Occupational Well-being Non-work Well-being
WLS practices
T1 T2 T3 on well-being
Work
Engagement

Work-life Support Subjective

Practices Well-being

Job Satisfaction
Figure 1.
The research model

professionals to adjust the items with the work practices and culture in the study context.
Further, a pilot study was conducted on a group of banking employees (n 5 29) at a bank
located in Dhaka district to ensure the items’ content validity. The alpha reliability of all the
constructs was tested, and it found that the reliability ranged between 0.76 and 0.89. The final
questionnaire was delivered face-to-face during their working hours.
The survey was conducted in three phases with a lag of two weeks. Collecting data with
different periods might prevent possible common method bias (CMB) problems (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). At Phase 1, the structured questionnaire was distributed to 565 respondents.
Participation in the survey was voluntary. A cover letter addressing the study’s purpose and
assuring their responses’ confidentiality was attached to the questionnaire. The respondents
were requested to submit their completed questionnaires the following day. A total of 352
employees (62.3%) completed the survey. Four weeks later, all initial participants were
surveyed. The second phase questionnaire contained the mediating variables that included
work engagement and job satisfaction. In Phase 3, employees were asked to provide feedback
on their subjective well-being. Overall, a total of 345 responses were received (61.06%). A
sample of 332 employees (58.76%) was obtained after eliminating thirteen incomplete
questionnaires. Since the respondents were surveyed during their working time, a high
response rate was achieved. The majority of the employees were female (n 5 184; 55.4%),
married and lived with family (n 5 255; 76.8%), and the average employee tenure in the
organization was approximately nine years. The employees’ average age was about 36 and
the average working hours per week was 41.8 h. In terms of education, around 29.2% of the
participants (n 5 97) received a master’s education or above, 43.7% (n 5 145) received
bachelor degree, 21.4% (n 5 71) higher secondary certificate and the rest (n 5 19; 5.7%)
received secondary school certificate.

3.2 Measures
A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used except
subjective well-being and work engagement.
WLS practices (T1): A five-item scale adapted from Judge et al. (1994) was used to measure
the WLS practices. This scale examines the availability of organizational practices to align
work and family responsibilities. For example, a sample item reads, “My organization
stresses the importance of family, leisure, and health.” The reliability of this measure
was 0.96.
Work engagement (T2): The abbreviated Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9;
Schaufeli et al., 2006) was used to measure work engagement. The UWES-9 is composed of
three subscales, i.e. vigor, dedication and absorption. The sample item includes “At my work,
PR I feel bursting with energy (vigor),” “I am enthusiastic about my job (dedication)” and “I am
immersed in my work (absorption).” Previous studies suggested UWES-9 as one factor with
strong reliability results (Bakker and Sanz-Vergel, 2013). By conducting exploratory factor
analysis (EFA), the present study showed UWES-9 as a single-factor model. A 7-point Likert
scale was used, ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The reliability of this
measure was 0.95.
Job satisfaction (T2): We used a three-item scale developed by Cammann et al. (1983) to
measure job satisfaction. A sample item reads, “All in all, I am satisfied with my job.” The
reliability alpha was 0.88.
Subjective well-being (T3): A six-item scale adapted version of the General Health
Questionnaire (Banks et al., 1980) was used to measure subjective well-being. A sample item
reads, “Thinking about the past 30 days, how often have you been able to enjoy your normal
day-to-day activities?” In addition, a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always)
was used. The reliability of this scale was 0.95.
Control variables: This study controlled age, gender, experience, marital status and
education because of their potential relationships with the dependent variable. Gender was
measured using a dummy variable (0 for male and 1 for female), and the educational level was
measured using a dummy variable ranging from 1 to 4 (1 for “higher secondary school
certificate”; 2 for “diploma or pass course”; 3 for “undergraduate”; 4 for “Masters or above”).
Marital status was measured using a dummy variable (0 for single and 1 for married). Age
and experience were measured in years, and total working hours per week were measured
in hours.

3.3 Common method bias

We designed a three-wave study to encourage the temporal separation among different study
variables to avoid the possible CMB. Furthermore, some of the items in the questionnaire
were reverse coded. Thus, we performed “Harman’s single-factor test” and “latent factor
technique” to detect the potential CMBs (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results of the EFA
showed 4 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor was around 28% of the total
variance explained. Second, we added a new latent factor named “CMB” loaded with all the
items of four latent factors using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The latent factor
measure’s findings showed no significant improvements in model fit, having 12% of shared
variance. Overall, the results showed that CMB was not a concern for this study.

4. Results
4.1 Preliminary analysis
Table 1 presented the means, standard deviations and correlations for all constructs. Before
hypothesis testing, the construct validity of the measures was tested. Then, in order to
identify the convergent and discriminant validity, CFA was performed. In Table 2, this
study’s results showed that each construct’s composite reliability (CR) satisfied the
recommended threshold value of 0.70 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Moreover, Table 2 also
showed that Cronbach’s reliabilities were greater than the recommended cutoff value of 0.60.
Therefore, convergent validity was ensured.
To identify the discriminant validity of the constructs, we tested the average variance
extracted (AVE). Table 2 showed that the AVE values were above the recommended cut-off
value of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). AVE’s square root should be greater than the
correlation values between constructs to ensure the discriminant validity (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). In Table 1, the results of this study showed that all the diagonal values are
greater than the off-diagonal values represented in the rows and columns. Furthermore, we
conducted multiple CFAs using AMOS 23 to determine the discriminant validity. Five
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age 36.18 7.29

2. Gender 0.55 0.50 0.09
3. Marriage 0.77 0.42 0.24** 0.33**
4. Education 3.35 0.69 0.02 0.06 0.01
5. Organizational Tenure 8.77 5.84 0.88** 0.09 0.20** 0.01
6. Hours worked 41.69 4.67 0.30** 0.12* 0.03 0.02 0.25**
7. WLSP 3.40 0.69 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.90
8. WE 3.83 0.62 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.44** 0.82
9. JS 3.82 0.69 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.36** 0.39** 0.85
10. SWB 4.00 0.65 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.51** 0.68** 0.46** 0.88
Note(s): N 5 332, *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01. WLSP 5 work–life support practices; WE 5 Work engagement; JS 5 job satisfaction and SWB 5 subjective well-being
on well-being
WLS practices

and square root of

extracted
Mean, standard
Table 1.

average variance
deviation, correlation
PR Factors & items Loading Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE

Work engagement 0.949 0.948 0.669

WE1 0.775
WE2 0.730
WE3 0.822
WE4 0.852
WE5 0.891
WE6 0.788
WE7 0.832
WE8 0.758
WE9 0.895
Work–life support practices 0.956 0.953 0.802
WLSP1 0.853
WLSP2 0.842
WLSP3 0.890
WLSP4 0.950
WLSP5 0.938
Job satisfaction 0.877 0.882 0.715
JS1 0.888
JS2 0.893
JS3 0.748
Subjective well-being 0.954 0.951 0.766
SWB1 0.861
SWB2 0.929
Table 2. SWB3 0.908
Factor loading,
SWB4 0.909
Cronbach’s alpha,
composite reliability SWB5 0.853
(CR) and average SWB6 0.782
variance Note(s): WLSP 5 work–life support practices; WE 5 work engagement; JS 5 job satisfaction and SWB 5
extracted (AVE) subjective well-being

alternative models were compared with the four-factor hypothesized model to assess the
distinctiveness between the latent constructs. Table 3 showed that the hypothesized four-
factor model [χ 2 5 348.443, df 5 214, χ 2/df 5 1.628, p < 0.01, comparative fit index
(CFI) 5 0.983, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) 5 0.979, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) 5 0.044 and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) 5 0.042] had a better
data fit in comparison to one-factor model (χ 2 5 3,612.635, df 5 230, χ 2/df 5 15.707, p < 0.01,
CFI 5 0.561, TLI 5 0.517, RMSEA 5 0.211 and SRMR 5 0.135). Therefore, the discriminant
validity of measures was achieved.

4.2 Hypothesis testing

The hypotheses were tested using an analytical approach suggested by Hayes (2013). The
indirect effect of the three paths was measured using PROCESS macro developed by Hayes.
This approach effectively calculates two single indirect effects (H2 and H3) and one serial
mediation effect, including two mediators at a time (H4). In testing the mediation model, this
approach provides a better option for undertaking a bootstrapping procedure, which offsets
the Sobel test’s weaknesses. This study estimated parameters for the mediation effect with
PROCESS macro (Model 6) by Hayes (2013). This study included respondents’ age, gender,
education, marital status, organizational tenure and weekly hours worked as covariates
throughout the analyses. However, as shown in Table 4, none of the control variables was
significantly linked to the study variables. The bias-corrected bootstrap method was utilized
for the path estimates.
Model χ2 df χ 2/df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
WLS practices
on well-being
Null model 7959.395 253
One-factor model 3612.635 230 15.707 0.561 0.517 0.211 0.135
Two-factor model A 2607.26 229 11.385 0.691 0.659 0.177 0.129
Two-factor model B 2717.098 229 11.865 0.677 0.643 0.181 0.137
Three-factor model A 1249.617 227 5.505 0.867 0.852 0.117 0.103
Three-factor model B 2243.229 227 9.882 0.738 0.708 0.164 0.125
Four-factor model 348.443 214 1.628 0.983 0.979 0.044 0.042
Note(s): CFI 5 comparative fit index; TLI 5 Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA 5 root mean square error of
approximation; SRMR 5 standardized root mean squared residual; WLSP5work–life support practices; WE
5 work engagement; JS 5 job satisfaction; SWB 5 subjective well-being; three-factor Model A: WE and JS
were combined into one factor; three-factor Model B: WLSP and WE were combined into one factor; two-factor
Model A: WE and JS were combined into one factor and WLSP and SWB were combined into another factor; Table 3.
two-factor Model B: WLSP, WE and JS were combined into one factor and one-factor model: WLSP, WE, JS and Confirmatory factor
SWB were combined into one factor analysis

H1 predicted the total effect of WLS practices on subjective well-being (c). In Table 4, the
results of the study shown in that WLS practices significantly impact subjective well-being
(β 5 0.492, SE 5 0.045 and p < 0.001), confirming H1. In hypothesis H2, it was hypothesized
that work engagement mediated the positive relationship between WLS practices and
subjective well-being. The result shown in Table 5 revealed that work engagement
significantly mediated the influence of WLS practices on subjective well-being [Indirect
effect 5 0.2125, SE 5 0.034 and 95% CI (0.1493, 0.2821)]. Based on 10,000 resamples following
the recommendations of Mallinckrodt et al. (2006), the findings indicated that the 95%
confidence intervals for the indirect effects do not contain zero. Thus, H2 is supported.
In H3, job satisfaction was predicted to mediate WLS practice’s relation to subjective well-
being, and the important test included estimating WLS practice’s indirect effect on subjective
well-being. The results showed that WLS practices influenced job satisfaction (β 5 0.232,
SE 5 0.055 and p < 0.001, Table 4) and then job satisfaction impacted subjective well-being
(β 5 0.178, SE 5 0.040 and p < 0.001, Table 4). Table 5 showed that WLS practices indirectly

Y (SWB)
Consequent M1 (WE) M2 (JS) Y (SWB) Total effect

Antecedent Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient

X (WLSP) a1 0.395**(0.05) a2 0.232**(0.06) c’ 0.215**(0.04) c 0.492**(0.05)
M1 (WE) – d21 0.321**(0.06) b1 0.538**(0.05) –
M2 (JS) – – b2 0.178**(0.04) –
Constant 2.798**(0.41) 1.960**(0.49) 0.335 (0.35) 2.350**(0.41)
Age 0.001 (0.01) 0.013 (0.01) 0.002 (0.01) 0.004 (0.01)
Gender 0.020 (0.07) 0.096 (0.07) 0.068 (0.05) 0.063 (0.07)
Marriage 0.047 (0.08) 0.179 (0.09) 0.113 (0.06) 0.109 (0.08)
Education 0.031 (0.04) 0.007 (0.05) 0.036 (0.04) 0.053 (0.05)
Organization Tenure 0.002 (0.01) 0.003 (0.01) 0.003 (0.01) 0.003 (0.01)
Hours worked 0.006 (0.01) 0.014 (0.01) 0.004 (0.01) 0.002 (0.01)
Table 4.
R2 5 0.198 R2 5 0.220 R2 5 0.557 R2 5 0.276 Regression results for
F(7, 324) 5 F(8, 323) 5 F(9, 322) 5 F(7, 324) 5 serial multiple
11.409** 11.405** 45.007** 17.671** mediation pathways
Note(s): *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01; standard errors are represented in the parentheses; WLSP 5 work–life (unstandardized
support practices; WE 5 work engagement; JS 5 job satisfaction and SWB 5 subjective well-being coefficients)
PR affected subjective well-being through the mediation of job satisfaction [Indirect
effect 5 0.0412, SE 5 0.0163 and 95% CI (0.0133, 0.0771)] because the bootstrap
confidence interval is above zero. Thus, H3 is accepted.
In H4, this study predicted that work engagement and job satisfaction serially mediate the
association between WLS practices and subjective well-being. The result of this study
showed that the indirect effect of WLS practices on subjective well-being through the
mediation of work engagement and job satisfaction was significant [Indirect effect 5 0.0226,
SE 5 0.0088 and 95% CI (0.0085, 0.0427)] because the bootstrap confidence interval is entirely
above zero. Thus, H4 is supported. In the presence of WLS practices, employees show higher-
work engagement that produces higher-job satisfaction, which ultimately leads to more
robust subjective well-being. Table 4 showed that the beta coefficients of the total and direct
effects of WLS practices on subjective well-being are c 5 0.4916 and c’ 5 0.2153, indicating
that the total indirect effect in the serial mediating model accounts for more than half of the
overall effect c – c’ 5 0.2763.

5. Discussion
Well-being is a critical concern for employees, and their work environments might impact
both their occupational and subjective well-being. Based on the social exchange theory, this
study sought to determine the underlying processes through which the WLS practices
influence employees’ well-being. The results of this study found that WLS practices
positively influenced employees’ subjective well-being. In addition, it appears that employees
who are employed in family supportive organizations are more likely to have a better balance
between work and family, demonstrating enhanced subjective well-being.
Mihail and Kloutsiniotis (2016) and Zhang et al. (2013) identified the positive relationship
between work engagement and job satisfaction. Recently, Lee et al. (2016) showed a strong
association between work engagement, job satisfaction and subjective well-being in hotel
settings. This is why WLS practices, work engagement and job satisfaction were the main
predictors of subjective well-being in the present study. It seems that employees who perceive
the organization as supportive are more likely to engage in their work and, ultimately, show
high satisfaction with their jobs. Besides, WLS practices help workers perceive that their jobs
can be managed with a certain amount of flexibility and the organization values their talents
and abilities, and in turn, they feel obliged to be engaged in their work. In sum, when
employees realize that their organization aims to strengthen their work–life balance, they
display a high degree of work engagement and job satisfaction, contributing to higher-
subjective well-being levels. All these process mechanisms affect the workers’ perception of
subjective well-being directly and indirectly.

5.1 Theoretical implications

This study has three theoretical significances. First, this research expands the extant WLS
practices and subjective well-being literature by illustrating the substantial influence of WLS

Indirect effects Effect BootSE Boot lower 95% CI Boot upper 95% CI

WLSP → WE → SWB 0.2125 0.0338 0.1493 0.2821

Table 5. WLSP → JS → SWB 0.0412 0.0163 0.0133 0.0771
Indirect effects of WLSP → WE → JS → SWB 0.0226 0.0088 0.0085 0.0427
work–life support Total 0.2763 0.0443 0.1926 0.3653
practices on subjective Note(s): WLSP 5 work–life support practices; WE 5 work engagement; JS 5 job satisfaction and
well-being SWB 5 subjective well-being
practices on subjective well-being. The results of the study supported the direct relationship WLS practices
between WLS practices and subjective well-being. Furthermore, this study responds to the on well-being
call for more research on the consequences of work–family practices on non-work outcomes
(Haar and Roche, 2010). Thus, this research offers additional findings on the impact of WLS
practices, including employee attitudes outside the work settings. The findings reflect the
notion that positive family focused practices help employees to reciprocate with improved
results. Based on the social exchange relationship, we also attempted to determine the effect
of work attitudes on non-work attitudes in the presence of family supporting practices.
Second, the results indicate that WLS practices are related to subjective well-being through a
serial mediation model with two mediators, i.e. work engagement and job satisfaction. The
finding is important because previous studies show that work engagement and job satisfaction
are related and significantly impact employees’ positive outcomes. Therefore, it is crucial to
study how these two work together in this relationship. Moreover, no study has used the serial
mediation approach to evaluate the internal mechanisms between WLS practices and subjective
well-being. Thus, this approach can be regarded as a valuable contribution to the extant
research.
Finally, prior research on family support practices primarily focused on Western countries
(e.g. Thompson and Prottas, 2005; Lapierre et al., 2008; Haar and Roche, 2010; Fiksenbaum,
2014). This study concentrated on a South Asian country, i.e. Bangladesh, having collectivism as
a cultural dimension. This study might generalize the previous findings of the study variables.
This study is analogous to the findings in collectivist cultural countries. For example, in
Pakistan, Shams and Kadow (2019) found that work–life balance plays a positive role in
subjective well-being, whereas Bhatti et al. (2020) identified the influence of ethical leadership as
a work resource on subjective well-being. Moreover, several research findings in China have
suggested the impact of HR practices as work resources on work-related (Zhang et al., 2013;
Huang et al., 2016) and subjective well-being (Fan et al., 2014). Research in India has emphasized
the role of personal resources such as psychological capital (Singhal and Rastogi, 2018) and
mindfulness (Bajaj and Pande, 2016) as predictors of subjective well-being. Overall, this research
gives a more comprehensive and profound interpretation of different organization- and person-
related antecedents of subjective well-being in Bangladesh’s banking industry.

5.2 Practical implications

In light of the consequences of WLS practices on the well-being of bank employees, it might
be understood that employees’ perception of the family supportive practices should be
highlighted to understand their attitudes toward work and life. Therefore, due attention
should be given to incorporating various WLS practices to balance employees’ work with life.
The bank managers need to incorporate a family supporting work environment so that
employees can better balance their work and family requirements. WLS practices’ prevalence
is growing in organizations, and HR managers should establish and incorporate WLS
practices in HR systems. Organizations must make an effort to understand which HR
practices might uphold subjective well-being in order to ensure the overall quality of life.
Employees should be communicated a consistent message regarding the WLS practices,
enabling them to improve their job effectiveness. This study demonstrates that non-work
attitudes, such as subjective well-being, must be considered in analyzing the effect of WLS
practices and favorable family cultures on job attitudes.
Our findings indicate that employees’ work engagement, job satisfaction and subjective
well-being can be improved by the cautious and responsive implementation of WLS practices.
This study supported the chain effects from WLS to well-being suggested by the notion of the
social exchange. The findings remind us of the importance of efforts to increase the availability
of WLS practices at the organizational level that contributes to bank professionals’ work
PR engagement and satisfaction, which ensures their life attitudes. Interventions may improve
employees’ job satisfaction and help them maintain a positive mindset. Efforts should be focused
on providing bank workers with realistic practices for managing their work attitudes so that
they may spill over positive work experiences to their life experiences.
These findings should also be taken into account in the collectivistic culture. The findings
demonstrated that with enabling WLS practices, organizations value employees’ non-work
lives. In a collectivistic culture such as in Bangladesh, people value family responsibilities
(Arefin et al., 2021) that might be enhanced by adopting WLS practices in organizations that
influence occupational and non-work-related well-being. Moreover, these practices respond to
employees’ demands to manage work and non-work affairs, minimizing work–family
conflict. For the banking employees, it is crucial for them to balance work and family, since
the nature of work demands more time and energy from employees (Wang et al., 2011). The
bank managers should focus on the incorporation of relevant and useful WLS practices that
might enhance both work and non-work well-being. Therefore, it is necessary to understand
whether banking organizations should promote WLS practices that might influence
employees’ quality of life and subjective well-being.

5.3 Limitations and future study

Several limitations might undermine the research contribution incorporating the data were
useful from different periods and the causality between the study variables cannot be
identified. Future studies might concentrate on longitudinal research to delineate the causal
directions. Second, since the data were collected from a single respondent, CMB might
concern. However, the data were undertaken three-wave of times to avoid the prospective
impact of CMB. Moreover, the statistical procedure confirmed that CMB was not a problem
for this study. Third, female employees dominated the sample of this study. Although we
chose the sample randomly, females in the financial institutions might be more likely to
respond to the family supporting issues (Rofcanin et al., 2017). Finally, while employees in the
banking industry demonstrated high-subjective well-being, generalizability might concern
other industries and countries. Future studies may also focus on diverse industries and other
countries to embolden our understanding of WLS practices’ impact. Despite the limitations,
this study supports the notion that the contextual factor impacts employees’ non-work
domain, highlighting work-related well-being’s mediating role. More specifically, employees’
work engagement and job satisfaction were found to be the important intervening
mechanism through which organizational WLS practices impact their subjective well-being.

References
Allen, T.D. (2001), “Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 414-435.
Ananthram, S., Xerri, M.J., Teo, S.T.T. and Connell, J. (2018), “High-performance work systems and
employee outcomes in Indian call centres: a mediation approach”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47
No. 4, pp. 931-950.
Arefin, M.S. and Islam, N. (2019), “A study on the motivation to transfer training in the banking
industry of Bangladesh”, South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 45-72.
Arefin, M.S., Alam, M.S., Islam, M.R. and Rahaman, M. (2019), “High-performance work systems and
job engagement: the mediating role of psychological empowerment”, Cogent Business &
Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 1664204.
Arefin, M.S., Alam, M.S., Li, S.-L. and Long, L. (2021), “Spillover effects of organizational politics on
family satisfaction: the role of work-to-family conflict and family support”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1426-1444.
Bajaj, B. and Pande, N. (2016), “Mediating role of resilience in the impact of mindfulness on life WLS practices
satisfaction and affect as indices of subjective well-being”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 93, pp. 63-67. on well-being
Bakker, A.B. (2011), “An evidence-based model of work engagement”, Current Directions in
Psychological Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 265-269.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Taris, T.W. (2008), “Work engagement: an emerging
concept in occupational health psychology”, Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 187-200.
Bakker, A.B. and Sanz-Vergel, A.I. (2013), “Weekly work engagement and flourishing: the role of
hindrance and challenge job demands”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 83 No. 3,
pp. 397-409.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Sanz Vergel, A. (2014), “Burnout and work engagement: the JD-R
approach”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1,
pp. 389-411.
Bangladesh Bank (2020), Annual Report, available at https://www.bb.org.bd/en/index.php (accessed 4
August 2021).
Banks, M.H., Clegg, C.W., Jackson, P.R., Kemp, N.J., Stafford, E.M. and Wall, T.D. (1980), “The use of
the General Health Questionnaire as an indicator of mental health in occupational studies”,
Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 187-194.
Bhatti, M.H., Akram, U., Bhatti, M.H., Rasool, H. and Su, X. (2020), “Unraveling the effects of ethical
leadership on knowledge sharing: the mediating roles of subjective well-being and social media
in the hotel industry”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 20, p. 8333.
Blau, P.M. (1964), “Justice in social exchange”, Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 193-206.
Bowling, N.A., Eschleman, K.J. and Wang, Q. (2010), “A meta-analytic examination of the relationship
between job satisfaction and subjective well-being”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 915-934.
Butts, M.M., Casper, W.J. and Yang, T.S. (2013), “How important are work–family support policies? A
meta-analytic investigation of their effects on employee outcomes”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F. and Luypaert, G. (2014), “The impact of work engagement and
workaholism on well-being: the role of work-related social support”, Career Development
International, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 813-835.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G.D. and Klesh, J. (1983), “Assessing the attitudes and perceptions
of organizational members”, in Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E. III, Mirvis, P.H. and Cammann, C.
(Eds.) Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and Practices, Wiley,
New York.
Carlson, D.S., Thompson, M.J., Crawford, W.S. and Kacmar, K.M. (2019), “Spillover and crossover of
work resources: a test of the positive flow of resources through work–family enrichment”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 709-722.
Carvalho, V.S. and Chambel, M.J. (2016), “Perceived high-performance work systems and subjective
well-being: work-to-family balance and well-being at work as mediators”, Journal of Career
Development, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 116-129.
Cogin, J.A., Sanders, K. and Williamson, I.O. (2018), “Work-life support practices and customer
satisfaction: the role of TMT composition and country culture”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 279-291.
Danna, K. and Griffin, R. (1999), “Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and synthesis of
the literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 357-384.
De Simone, S., Planta, A. and Cicotto, G. (2018), “The role of job satisfaction, work engagement, self-
efficacy and agentic capacities on nurses’ turnover intention and patient satisfaction”, Applied
Nursing Research, Vol. 39, pp. 130-140.
PR Deng, S. and Gao, J. (2017), “The mediating roles of work–family conflict and facilitation in the
relations between leisure experience and job/life satisfaction among employees in Shanghai
Banking Industry”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 1641-1657.
Diener, E. (2000), “Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 34-43.
Fan, D., Cui, L., Zhang, M.M., Zhu, C.J., H€artel, C.E. and Nyland, C. (2014), “Influence of high
performance work systems on employee subjective well-being and job burnout: empirical
evidence from the Chinese healthcare sector”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 931-950.
Fiksenbaum, L.M. (2014), “Supportive work–family environments: implications for work–family
conflict and well-being”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 653-672.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, pp. 165-167.
Haar, J.M. and Roche, M.A. (2010), “Family supportive organization perceptions and employee
outcomes: the mediating effects of life satisfaction”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 999-1014.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
HBR Ascend Staff (2019), The Changing Perspectives of Young Professionals on Work and the
Workplace, available at: https://hbrascend.org/topics/the-changing-perspectives-work-and-the-
workplace-youth-skills-survey/ (accessed 24 October 2020).
Huang, L.-C., Ahlstrom, D., Lee, A.Y.-P., Chen, S.-Y. and Hsieh, M.-J. (2016), “High performance work
systems, employee well-being, and job involvement: an empirical study”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 296-314.
Ilies, R., Schwind, K.M. and Heller, D. (2007), “Employee well-being: a multilevel model linking work
and nonwork domains”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 326-341.
Iverson, R.D. and Maguire, C. (2000), “The relationship between job and life satisfaction: evidence from
a remote mining community”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 807-839.
Joo, B.K. and Lee, I. (2017), “Workplace happiness: work engagement, career satisfaction, and
subjective well-being”, Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 206-221.
Judge, T.A., Boudreau, J.W. and Bretz, R.D. (1994), “Job and life attitudes of male executives”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 5, p. 767.
Kesebir, P. and Diener, E. (2008), “In defense of happiness”, in Bruni, L., Comim, F. and Pugno, M.
(Eds), Capabilities and Happiness, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
King, L.A., Richards, J.H. and Stemmerich, E. (1998), “Daily goals, life goals, and worst fears: means,
ends, and subjective well-being”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 66 No. 5, pp. 713-744.
Ko, J., Hur, S. and Smith-Walter, A. (2013), “Family-friendly work practices and job satisfaction and
organizational performance: moderating effects of managerial support and performance-
oriented management”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 545-565.
Kossek, E.E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T. and Hammer, L.B. (2011), “Workplace social support and
work–family conflict: a meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family-
specific supervisor and organizational support”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 2,
pp. 289-313.
Lambert, S.J. (2000), “Added benefits: the link between work-life benefits and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 801-815.
Lapierre, L.M., Spector, P.E., Allen, T.D., Poelmans, S., Cooper, C.L., O’Driscoll, M.P., Sanchez, J.I., WLS practices
Brough, P. and Kinnunen, U. (2008), “Family-supportive organization perceptions, multiple
dimensions of work–family conflict, and employee satisfaction: a test of model across five on well-being
samples”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 92-106.
Lee, S.Y. and Hong, J.H. (2011), “Does family-friendly policy matter? Testing its impact on turnover
and performance”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 71 No. 6, pp. 870-879.
Lee, K.H., Choo, S.W. and Hyun, S.S. (2016), “Effects of recovery experiences on hotel employees’
subjective well-being”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 52, pp. 1-12.
Lent, R.W., Singley, D., Sheu, H.B., Gainor, K.A., Brenner, B.R., Treistman, D. and Ades, L. (2005),
“Social cognitive predictors of domain and life satisfaction: exploring the theoretical precursors
of subjective well-being”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 429-442.
Lu, L., Lu, C., Gursoy, D. and Neale, N.R. (2016), “Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover
intentions: a comparison between supervisors and line-level employees”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 737-761.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Li, W. (2005), “The psychological capital of Chinese
workers: exploring the relationship with performance”, Management and Organization Review,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 249-271.
Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W.T., Wei, M. and Russell, D.W. (2006), “Advances in testing the
statistical significance of mediation effects”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3,
pp. 372-378.
Matthews, R.A., Mills, M.J., Trout, R.C. and English, L. (2014), “Family-supportive supervisor
behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being: a contextually dependent mediated
process”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 168-181.
Mihail, D.M. and Kloutsiniotis, P.V. (2016), “The effects of high-performance work systems on hospital
employees’ work-related well-being: evidence from Greece”, European Management Journal,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 424-438.
Nielsen, K., Nielsen, M.B., Ogbonnaya, C., K€ans€al€a, M., Saari, E. and Isaksson, K. (2017), “Workplace
resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: a systematic review and
meta-analysis”, Work & Stress, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 101-120.
Pedersen, D.E., Minnotte, K.L., Kiger, G. and Mannon, S.E. (2009), “Workplace policy and environment,
family role quality, and positive family-to-work spillover”, Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 80-89.
Piszczek, M.M. and Berg, P. (2014), “Expanding the boundaries of boundary theory: regulative
institutions and work–family role management”, Human Relations, Vol. 67 No. 12,
pp. 1491-1512.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Richman, A.L., Civian, J.T., Shannon, L.L., Jeffrey Hill, E. and Brennan, R.T. (2008), “The relationship
of perceived flexibility, supportive work–life policies, and use of formal flexible arrangements
and occasional flexibility to employee engagement and expected retention”, Community, Work
and Family, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 183-197.
Rofcanin, Y., Las Heras, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2017), “Family supportive supervisor behaviors and
organizational culture: effects on work engagement and performance”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 207-217.
ni-Legaz, S. (2016), “Family-friendly practices, high-performance work
Ronda, L., Ollo-Lopez, A. and Go~
practices and work–family balance: how do job satisfaction and working hours affect this
relationship?”, Management Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 2-23.
Rothmann, S. (2008), “Job satisfaction, occupational stress, burnout and work engagement as components
of work-related wellbeing”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 11-16.
PR Saltzstein, A.L., Ting, Y. and Saltzstein, G.H. (2001), “Work-family balance and job satisfaction: the
impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 452-467.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Van Rhenen, W. (2008), “Workaholism, burnout, and work
engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being?”, Applied
Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 173-203.
Shams, K. and Kadow, A. (2019), “The relationship between subjective well-being and work–life
balance among labourers in Pakistan”, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 681-690.
Singhal, H. and Rastogi, R. (2018), “Psychological capital and career commitment: the mediating effect
of subjective well-being”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 458-473.
Siu, O.L., Lu, J.F., Brough, P., Lu, C.Q., Bakker, A.B., Kalliath, T., O’Driscoll, M., Phillips, D.R., Chen,
W.Q., Lo, D. and Sit, C. (2010), “Role resources and work–family enrichment: the role of work
engagement”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 470-480.
Thompson, C.A. and Prottas, D.J. (2005), “Relationships among organizational family support, job
autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 100-118.
Ugwu, F.O., Amazue, L.O. and Onyedire, N.G. (2017), “Work-family life balance in a Nigerian banking
sector setting”, Cogent Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 1290402.
Umans, T., Kockum, M., Nilsson, E. and Lindberg, S. (2018), “Digitalisation in the banking industry
and workers subjective well-being: contingency perspective”, International Journal of
Workplace Health Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 411-423.
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C.P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H. and Van den Broeck, A. (2007),
“On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job
outcomes: a self-determination theory approach”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 251-277.
Voydanoff, P. (2005), “Consequences of boundary-spanning demands and resources for work-to-family
conflict and perceived stress”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, p. 491.
Wang, P. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2007), “Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and
work withdrawal: the moderating role of transformational leadership”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 397-427.
Wang, P., Lawler, J.J. and Shi, K. (2011), “Implementing family-friendly employment practices in
banking industry: evidences from some African and Asian countries”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 493-517.
Weziak-Bialowolska, D., Bialowolski, P., Sacco, P.L., VanderWeele, T.J. and McNeely, E. (2020), “Well-
being in life and well-being at work: which comes first? Evidence from a longitudinal study”,
Frontiers in Public Health, Vol. 8, p. 103.
Yu, G.B., Lee, D.J., Sirgy, M.J. and Bosnjak, M. (2020), “Household income, satisfaction with standard
of living, and subjective well-being. The moderating role of happiness materialism”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 2851-2872.
Zhang, M., Zhu, C.J., Dowling, P.J. and Bartram, T. (2013), “Exploring the effects of high-performance
work systems (HPWS) on the work-related well-being of Chinese hospital employees”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 16, pp. 3196-3212.
About the authors WLS practices
Ishita Roy is Associate Professor of Management at the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science
and Technology University, Bangladesh. Currently, she is pursuing her PhD at the same university. Her on well-being
research interest includes human resources practices, work–life balance practices, work engagement,
workplace safety and employee well-being.
Dr Md. Shamsul Arefin is Associate Professor of Management at the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur
Rahman Science and Technology University, Bangladesh. He pursued his PhD from Huazhong
University of Science and Technology, China. His publications have appeared in the Knowledge
Management, Personnel Review and South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management. His
research interest is in workplace safety, psychological contract, work–family interface, leadership and
knowledge management. Md. Shamsul Arefin can be contacted at: arreefin@gmail.com
Dr Md. Sahidur Rahman is Professor of Management at the University of Chittagong, Bangladesh.
His articles have been published, among others, in International Journal of Conflict Management,
Current Topics in Management, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, International Journal
of Applied Management Theory and Research and Journal of International Entrepreneurship. His
research relates to cross-cultural organizational justice, organizational commitment and emotional
intelligence.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com