Next Article in Journal
Results-Based Financing (RBF) for Modern Energy Cooking Solutions: An Effective Driver for Innovation and Scale?
Next Article in Special Issue
A Multidimensional Comparative Analysis of Involvement in CSR Activities of Energy Companies in the Context of Sustainable Development Challenges: Evidence from Poland
Previous Article in Journal
Optimizing Energy Consumption in Internal Transportation Using Dynamic Transportation Vehicles Assignment Model: Case Study in Printing Company
Previous Article in Special Issue
Identification and Classification of Global Theoretical Trends and Supply Chain Development Directions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 14
Issue 15
10.3390/en14154556
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Green Work-Life Balance and Greenwashing the Construct of Work-Life Balance: Myth and Reality

by
Anuradha Iddagoda
1,*,
Eglantina Hysa
2,
Helena Bulińska-Stangrecka
3 and
Otilia Manta
4,5
1
Management Sciences Unit, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda 10250, Sri Lanka
2
Department of Economics, Epoka University, 1032 Tirana, Albania
3
Faculty of Administration and Social Sciences, Warsaw University of Technology, 00-661 Warsaw, Poland
4
Romanian Academy, Center for Financial and Monetary Research “Victor Slavescu”, 050711 Bucharest, Romania
5
Research Department, Romanian-American University, 012101 Bucharest, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2021, 14(15), 4556; https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154556
Submission received: 9 February 2021 / Revised: 15 July 2021 / Accepted: 19 July 2021 / Published: 28 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Integrated Approaches for Enterprise Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Some of the frequently used buzz words in the corporate sector include green leadership, green human resource management, green employee engagement and green work-life balance. The intention of this article is to identify and examine the logical reasons that govern “green work-life balance” or, in simple terms, “greenwashing” work-life balance. The paper also aims at providing a comprehensive conceptualization of work-life balance, while thoroughly examining the components of measuring the construct. Based on a cross-sectional study in the banking industry with a sample of 170 managerial employees, this study analyzes the impact of work-life balance on employee job performance mediated by employee engagement. Results support the assumed relationship between work-life balance and employee job performance embedded in employee engagement. The theoretical contribution of this study concerns the application of role behavior theory to describe the mechanisms shaping the relationship between work-life balance and job performance through employee engagement. The practical implications of the paper include recommendations for improving job performance by enhancing the work-life balance and strengthening employee engagement.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Work-life balance enables employees to feel better, reduces internal conflicts, and ultimately increases engagement [1]. By feeling motivated and less stressed, a balanced employee is able to contribute to the company’s productivity and minimize conflicts between employees themselves and between employees and management [2].
Employee preferences towards companies that encourage work-life balance have created the advantage of developing a pool of workers who are enthusiastic and energetic [3,4]. According to Anitha [5], companies that promote work-life balance also tend to experience a higher level of employee engagement. As Iddagoda et al. [6] and Aon [5] contend, an employee with higher engagement with his/her job, as well as the respective organization, performs well in the job, and such employees talk positively of the organization in their comparative comments and ideas. Aon [7] states that engaged employees are the people who go an extra mile to achieve the organizational goals. The ultimate result is employee job performance.
“Environmentally conscious”, “eco-friendly”, “eco-consciousness” and “going green” are the buzz words [8,9,10], driven by a realization that the world will be incapable of supplying resources if we continue consumption with no space or thought for sustainability [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Saunila et al. [20] have identified the link between sustainability engagement and green technology investments. Sustainability’s being more related to “planet” in the triple bottom line is the view of the researchers of this study. Human resource activities, such as managerial support and consultancy, training and triple bottom line (economic, social and environmental) carry a higher potential for establishing a business culture conscious of the existing social and environmental issues, and their impacts on business are the view of Casey & Sieber [21]. The mistakes humans make not only cost animals their habitats and result in their extinction, but also create pathways for various illnesses and diseases, making humans unwell. Regardless of the awareness that the guidelines and laws imposed are to reduce and minimize the damage on the environment, proper adherence to these provisions is not properly practiced. Nevertheless, the corporate world is full of other buzz words on this concept, such as green leadership, green human resource management, green employee engagement and green work-life balance. Contemporary scientific literature deals with the concept of green work-life balance; however, there is emphasis that it refers rather to environmentally friendly behavior both at work and in private life [22]. Nonetheless, this does not take into account that the key assumption of work-life balance is one that does not involve employees in environmental initiatives. Work-life balance is defined as the integration of different spheres of an employee’s life [23]. Therefore, it seems that the inclusion of the prefix “green” may not be justified in relation to the integration of different spheres of life and minimizing conflicts. So, this paper is going to investigate whether green work-life balance is a valid concept or just an element of greenwashing strategy.
The main purpose of this research paper is to determine whether the concept of green work-life balance is based on strong rationale or whether it is nothing more than a concept, a certain misuse of the prefix “green”. The second objective is to provide instruments for the constructs of work-life balance and employee job performance through conceptualization and operationalization. Lastly, the third objective is to identify the mediating effect of employee engagement on the relationship between work-life balance and employee job performance.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Work-Life Balance as an Aspect of Sustainable HRM

Opatha [24] has identified three sub-branches of sustainable HRM, i.e., Green HRM (planet-related matters), Social HRM (society-related matters) and Economic HRM (profit-related matters). Opatha [24] elaborates that Green HRM includes several key elements such as: green roles of employees, green HRM functions, green attitude and behavior, green job performance, etc. Bombiak and Anna Marciniuk-Kluska [25] indicate that green HRM is intended to support green organizational practices. Moreover, Green HRM incorporates environmental goals into its strategic goals [26]. Consideration of the environmental aspects of functioning in an organization represents a significant change and contributes to a broader consideration of sustainability in human resource management. In contemporary literature, the analysis of practices that strengthen environmental attitudes among employees focuses on training [27] and motivation [28]. The integration of conservation-oriented activities into people management is a contribution to the wider promotion of environmental sustainability in organizations. In summary, Green HRM refers to an interdisciplinary approach to managing employees that supports the achievement of environmental objectives in the workplace using a variety of tools.

2.2. Greenwashing

Greening is characterized as the process of making environmentally friendly actions by implementing various ecological practices such as conserving natural resources, reducing pollution, and managing an organization in an environmentally sustainable manner [29]. Greenwashing, on the other hand, is the misrepresentation by organizations to present an ecologically responsible image to the stakeholders through false claims [30]. As current evidence suggests, the growing popularity of green attitudes has also led to more greenwashing [31]. Labeling practices that have nothing to do with saving natural resources or caring for the environment as “green” are becoming more and more common [29]. As a result, employees, employers and stakeholders alike are becoming skeptical of green practices, undermining genuine green initiatives [32]. Therefore, it is important to diagnose which activities actually refer to greenwashing.

2.3. Green Employee

According to Opatha [24], the green roles of employees are a part of Green HRM. Opatha and Arulrajah [12] have identified four roles to play in becoming a green employee; being a preservationist, conservationist, non-polluter and a maker. According to them, being a preservationist, while preserving natural resources, protects it from harm, loss or negative change. A conservationist is very cautious in utilizing the natural environment, as the main concern is allowing the environment to last as long as possible; using the natural environment is at the minimum level, so that future generations may also utilize it. The non-polluter refrains from (or minimizes) contaminating the water, air, atmosphere, etc. through unpleasant and poisonous substances and waste. The non-polluter also plays the role of a guardian against behaviors and outcomes that will ultimately endanger the planet/earth. The maker creates gardens, parks and places resembling natural spaces with plants, trees and grass.

2.4. Role Behavior Perspective and Work-Life Balance

Role behavior theory, as Katz and Kahn [33] explain, recognizes that the behavioral expectations of all role partners can influence the behavior of organizational members. They also argue that implementing effective Human Resource Management (HRM) contributes to helping employees meet the expectations of role partners within the organization (i.e., supervisors, co-workers, subordinates), at the boundaries of the organization (i.e., customers and clients), and outside the organization (i.e., family and society). This theory explains how an individual takes on the roles imposed on them in an organization [34]. These roles are in alignment with the organization’s goals, and they support employees in completing tasks in accordance with the organization’s expectations. It has been suggested that if a particular person accomplishes the respective demands in a satisfactory manner, he/she has maintained the work-life balance [35]. Based also on the Figure 1, a person who exercises work-life balance is aware of the work role and family role, and therefore he/she fulfills the behavioral expectations of all role partners, which ultimately influences employee engagement and job satisfaction [36,37].
Therefore, the role theory explains the mechanism that leads to maintaining a proper work-life balance by minimizing an individual’s internal conflict [38]. Employee balance and well-being is related to the lack of contradiction and disagreement with one’s professional role and the appropriate integration of the individual’s other roles.

2.5. Green Work-Life Balance Is a Myth

An employee performing according to the requirements of his/her job is engaged in work-life. Within an organization, an employee has to maintain relationships with his/her supervisors, peers, subordinates, customers and clients. On the contrary, family life includes an employee’s family life, caring, responsibilities involving their loved ones—i.e., children, parents, grandparents and spouses—as well as personal life outside the workplace. According to Opatha [35], work-life balance requires that the individual should achieve the respective demands in a satisfactory manner. The demands of the family life vary significantly from the demands of the work-life. Opatha [24] states that a person has to perform four roles to become a green employee: i.e., preservationist, conservationist, non-polluter, and maker. The view of the researchers of this study is that the behavior patterns when fulfilling family life and work-life commitments are not different.
A green employee who plays the role of the preservationist preserves the natural environment. This refers to the respectful treatment of natural resources such as wildlife [12]. Furthermore, it has been claimed that major behavior patterns related to preservationist roles include respecting and admiring the nature and refraining from misusing or altering nature. [24] In fulfilling the demands of work-life (bosses, subordinates, customers and others) and the demand of family life (parents, children and spouse), these behaviors remain the same.
The second role, conservationist is, according to Opatha and Arulrajah [12], the conservation of the natural environment, being careful in utilizing it and letting it saving it for the use of future generations. The two behavior patterns of a conservationist are suggested by Opatha [24]. An employee with the behavior patterns of a conservationist uses only certain parts of nature, as it is unavoidable, and at the same time minimizes the usage of them as much as possible in both work-life and family life. The third step of being a green employee is being a non-polluter, of which the essential parts, according to Opatha and Arulrajah [12], include avoiding or minimizing environmental pollution—water, air and atmosphere pollution. High pollutants such as unpleasant and poisonous substances and waste should be discouraged organizationally so that ultimate outcomes will not endanger the planet. According to Opatha [14], the non-polluters refrain from polluting the water, air atmosphere etc., and secondly launch and/or initiate campaigns to stop pollution whenever possible. The behaviors of a non-polluter, as identified by Opatha [24], remain the same for both work-life and family life when fulfilling the demands that come with them.
Being a maker, the fourth and the final role Opatha and Arulrajah [12] propose, involves the creation of gardens and nature-like places, such as parks and spaces with plants, trees and grass. Opatha [24] identifies being involved in the construction maintenance of parks and building gardens as two main behaviors of a maker. Teams of employees can be assigned to maintain roof-top gardens or outdoor gardens in the office premises, and individually they can be encouraged to bring a desk plant and maintain it properly. Garden maintenance can also be carried out with their family members at their residences, or they may maintain indoor plants. It is evident that the behaviors do not vary depending on work-life and family life.

3. Methodological Instruments for Measuring the Construction of the Paper

3.1. Conceptualization and Operationalization of the Construct of Work-Life Balance

According to Greenhaus et al. [39], work–life balance is defined as a situation in which an employee is similarly engaged and equally satisfied with both his or her per-sonal and professional life. A broader definition by Greenhaus et al. [39] includes positive balance and negative balance. Greenhaus et al. [40], elaborating their definition, state that each dimension of the work–life balance can include both positive and negative outcomes of the two, depending on the level of involvement, time commitment, and subjective sense of satisfaction of the individual. They propose three components of work family balance, which are: (1) Time balance: an equal amount of time devoted to work and family roles; (2) Involvement balance: an equal level of psychological involvement in work and family roles; (3) Satisfaction balance: an equal level of satisfaction with work and family roles.
Each component of work-family balance may represent either positive balance or negative balance, depending on whether the levels of time, involvement or satisfaction are equally high or equally low. According to Greenhaus et al. [39], work-life balance is the extent to which an individual is equally engaged in and satisfied with the work role and family role. Greenhaus et al. [39] state that when it comes to a work-life balance individual’s satisfaction or the balance between work and family life that leads to the satisfaction of both the employer and the family, the more accurate the balance, the more it will promote individual satisfaction.
In another perspective, work–life balance is conceptualized as an employee’s percep-tion of the bilateral compatibility of professional and personal activities [40]. Further elaborating their definition, Kalliath and Brough [40] state that individual work or life priorities can be voluntarily changed in order to enable development in non-work activities (private study, a new baby, extended travel) and/or work activities such as working hard for recognition or a promotion. The definition by Kalliath and Brough [40] emphasize how the effectively balanced work and/or non-work domains promote growth. However, it is felt that the term “family” would have been more suitable instead of the term “non-work activities”, used by Kalliath and Brough [40].
Opatha in 2010 [35] defined the work-life balance as the degree to which you fulfill demands coming from your employment and your family, and the other as the employee’s ability to meet the employer’s expectations and his/her family member’s expectations so that all can remain happy. The words “work-life balance” altogether signify the balance between “work” and “life”. The correct balance between work and family, as Opatha [35] states, is a particular person fulfilling the respective demands which result in satisfaction. According to Opatha [35], a person’s inability to meet the respective demands, which makes the relevant parties dissatisfied, is a result of an imbalance between work and family. Reading the context with the definition by Opatha [35]; “your ability to meet your employer’s expectations and your family member’s expectations to the extent that makes them happy” is a very straightforward idea.
Brough et al. [22] give a common definition for “work-life balance”; a connection between work/family conflict and work/family facilitation. Further explaining it, Brough et al. [41] state that the balance comprises two individual pathways—“conflict” which is the “negative pathway” and “facilitation” which is the “positive pathway”. Brough et al. [41] explain, using three arguments how they contribute to produce balance in a special way, which are listed below.
  • As work-life balance, at a given time, gives access to individuals enabling them to assess the amount of this resource in possession, it is regarded as a resource.
  • As the assessment of this work-life balance resource is subjective, it is not possible to be verified through external observation such as perceptions of co-workers or supervisors.
  • An employee can both gain and lose this resource; the nature of his/her work environment, such as inflexible work schedules, influences “resource gain” or “resource loss”.
Brough et al. [41], outline work–life balance as an individual’s assessment of the agree-ment between that individual’s occupational and personal activities.
Ensuring the balance between fulfilling the duties for the family members, either in a nuclear family or extended family, and fulfilling duties for the employer, is the working definition of this study.
Work-life balance is operationalized as a system which basically consists of two dimensions: the employer’s expectations and family members’ expectations.

3.1.1. Dimension 1: Employer’s Expectations

In order to fulfill the employer’s expectation of “making profit”, the employee has to work with his/her employer, such as, for instance, the Chief Executive Officer. The employee is expected to work with his/her immediate supervisor, subordinates, co-workers and customers to fulfill employer’s expectations. According to Rao and Rao [42], a 360 Degree Feedback program is capable of collecting information on employee’s performance from persons who are linked to the particular employee—his/her immediate boss, co-workers, subordinates and even the customers. This idea shows how important fulfilling the demands, expectations and responsibilities of an immediate supervisor, subordinates, co-workers and customers, are. Thus, the fundamentals of the dimension “employer’s expectation” are the employer, immediate supervisor, subordinates, co-workers and customers.
An employer’s expectation is measured by the statements such as (1) I am an asset of my CEO or the employer; (2) My immediate supervisor has made no complaints against me; (3) I am considered a role model by my subordinates; (4) My co-workers are happy about how I interact with them; (5) The way I provide services to customers makes them satisfied. The elements and statements of the dimension of an employer’s expectations are illustrated in Table 1.

3.1.2. Dimension 2: Family Member’s Expectations

“Family members” are those who interact with an individual in his/her family life, which, according to Opatha [35], include a spouse, children, parents and close relatives (brothers, sisters and grandparents). When it comes to the above-mentioned elements, within the dimension “family members”, they are measured by the statements such as (1) My husband/wife has almost no complaints against my responsibilities at home; (2) My children are happy about the way that I treat them as a father/mother; (3) My parents are really satisfied about the way that I’m fulfilling my duties and responsibilities for them; (4) I have a healthy relationship with my close relatives. The elements and statements of the dimension of family member’s expectations are illustrated in Table 2.
Figure 2 presents diagrams the dimensions and elements of the construct of work-life balance. Figure 2D stands for a dimension and Figure 2E for an element of the variable of work-life balance.

3.2. Employee Engagement

Employee engagement has become a buzz word in the management world, and an engaged employee is an asset to any organization [43,44,45]. Kahn [46] characterizes employee engagement, indicating that it is the apprehension of employees’ expression in their work activities. He emphasizes that work engagement means that employees can express themselves both physically, cognitively, and emotion-ally while performing their work roles. Indeed, employee engagement is a way of employee expression in a variety of ways [4]. Highly engaged employees are more likely to put increased effort into their work as well as be enthusiastic, proactive, and creative in their workplace [47]. Additionally, engaged employees have a high level of employee job performance, less absenteeism and talk positively about the organization when they move within society [8,48]. According to Gallup [49], Sri Lanka 38% of employees engaged, 54% disengaged and 8% actively disengaged.

3.2.1. Conceptualization and Operationalization of the Construct of Employee Job Performance

Weis and Süß [50] point out that employee job performance is a human behavior concept. Kozlowski [51] reveals that many authors have emphasized reveals that the existing literature highlights that employee job performance as employees’ activities related to achieving organizational goals. Weis and Sub [50] mention that the result of employee job performance is an important factor for the evaluation of an employee’s work effectiveness. Silvera et al. [52] mention that the organizational success or failure depends on the job performance of the employee in that organization. Schat and Frone [53] state that employee job performance represents the primary contribution of individuals to organizational effectiveness, and this is the main reason for individuals being employed by organizations. There are many forms of employee job performance such as task performance [53,54], citizenship performance [54] and counterproductive performance [54]. According to Schat and Frone [53], contextual performance is also known as organizational citizenship. Stewart and Brown [54] state that organizational citizenship is a set of actions that comes under citizenship performance. By finding out about many studies conducted over several decades, Adetula [55] reveals that job performance has been an important dependent variable among the researchers.
The construct of job performance is an intuitively simple construct that is notoriously difficult to define and operationalize [56]. Kozlowski [51] mentions that there is no universally accepted definition of employee job performance. Viswesvaran and Ones [57] define work performance as measurable activities and work outcomes that are consistent with organizational goals. Montowidlo [58] specifies job performance as the expected value of employees’ efforts for the organization completed in a specific time interval at the workplace. The view of Kozlowski [51] is that Motowildo [58] draws a division between behavior, performance and results. According to Kozlowski [51], behavior means the actions performed on the job. Performance, on the other hand, refers to the expected organizational value for actions taken by employees. Results, in turn, concern the change in conditions resulting from what employees have accomplished in terms of organizational effectiveness. Stewart and Brown [54] defined job performance as the contribution that individuals make to the organization that employs them. The essence of all these definitions and the organizational success depends on the employees’ performance.
Stewart and Brown [54] provide a model which contains dimensions of job performance. The three main performance dimensions are, namely, task performance, citizenship performance and counterproductive performance. Under each dimension, a set of actions is provided. The researchers of this study provide a definition of employee job performance, i.e., employee’s contribution to fulfill the tasks and jobs in order to make a positive work environment while eliminating negative or harmful acts; this is the working definition of this study.
Existing models of job performance distinguish the following three dimensions: task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors, as well as counterproductive or-ganizational behaviors [57]. Stewart and Brown [54] provide a model which contains dimensions and elements of job performance. The three main dimensions for the construct of employee job performance are, namely, task performance, citizenship performance and counterproductive performance.

Dimension 1: Task Performance

Stewart and Brown [54] define task performance as the employee behavior that directly contributes to producing goods or services. Beier and Kanfer [56] state task performance varies based on the requirements of the job, but is generally measured in either subjective (i.e., supervisor ratings) or objective (e.g., sales or production numbers) ways. Stewart and Brown [54] write: “Task performance occurs when employees perform actions that transform raw materials into goods and services. Some of these actions may be job-specific, such as when a secretary prepares a document, a home builder lays the foundation for a house, or a waiter fills beverage glasses. Administrative tasks, such as planning and delegating, are important aspects of task performance for people working as managers.” Stewart and Brown [54] state in order to perform tasks in most jobs, employees must also communicate with others by either writing or speaking.
When it comes to task performance, employees are most likely to make significant contributions when they have appropriate knowledge, skill, and motivation [54]. According to Stewart and Brown [54], employees must have two elements under task performance such as declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge and skill. Stewart and Brown [54] define declarative knowledge as an employee’s understanding of the tasks that need to be done to perform job duties. They [54] write: “For instance, declarative knowledge for a carpenter might include knowing that constructing a cabinet involves obtaining accurate measurements, cutting boards to appropriate lengths, and then fastening the boards together in the proper sequence.” They further [54] define procedural knowledge and skill as the information and expertise that an employee needs to have in order to carry out specific actions. Stewart and Brown [54] explain this element by providing an example: The carpenter must be able to measure accurately, make straight cuts with a power saw, and drive nails without damaging the wood if he/she has procedural knowledge and skill.
The dimension called task performance measured by the statements such as (1) I have already understood the tasks that need to be done to perform job duties; (2) I have the information and expertise that need to have in order to carry out specific actions. Table 3 elaborates the elements and statements of the dimension called task performance.

Dimension 2: Citizenship Behavior

Whereas task performance contributes by directly creating goods and services, citizenship behavior contributes by building a positive organizational environment [35]. According to Stewart and Brown [54], citizenship behavior contributes by building a positive organizational environment. Volunteering to take on tasks that are not part of one’s job, following organizational procedures even when it is not convenient and supporting and defending the organization is one example provided by Stewart and Brown [54] for citizenship behavior. Willingly taking charge and initiating positive change also demonstrates citizenship performance. Another example given by Stewart and Brown [54] are groups with higher levels of citizenship performance being more productive and profitable.
Stewart and Brown [54] provide two elements of citizenship behavior. They are, namely, organizational citizenship behavior and interpersonal citizenship behavior. Stewart and Brown [54] describe organizational citizenship behavior as positive initiatives undertaken by employees to support the overall success of the organization. In addition, they [54] point to the proven association of organizational citizenship behavior with adequate pay, praise, and appreciation for well-performed duties as well as positive working conditions. Beier and Kanfer [56] discuss organizational citizenship behavior under contextual performance. They [56] further state that contextual performance includes behaviors that positively influence work environments; for example, volunteering for extra work, helping others and following organizational rules even when they are inconvenient (i.e., organizational citizenship behaviors, OCBs). Stewart and Brown [35] define interpersonal citizenship behavior as positive employee actions aimed at helping specific coworkers succeed. Importantly, Stewart and Brown [54] emphasize that organizational citizenship behaviors encompass supporting particular coworker successes as well.
The dimension called citizenship behavior measured by the statements such as: (1) I’m volunteering for extra work when it is necessary, and (2) I help my coworkers for their achievements. Table 4 elaborates the elements and statements of the dimension called citizenship behavior.

Dimension 3: Counterproductive Performance

Stewart and Brown [54] mention engaging in helpful behavior; employees can consciously choose to engage in counterproductive performance behavior that is harmful to the organization. They [54] define counterproductive performance as employee behavior that is harmful to the organization. Beier and Kanfer [56] also mention counterproductive behaviors. They [56] indeed state that behaviors at the opposite end of the contextual-performance spectrum include those that negatively influence work environments; for example, ignoring rules and procedures, sabotaging the work of others and rebelling against supervision. Stewart and Brown [54] point out that like citizenship performance, counterproductive behavior can be directed toward either the organization or specific individuals. Negative actions directed toward the organization include production and property deviance. Stewart and Brown [54] define production deviance as harmful employee actions aimed at reducing the speed and accuracy of production processes. Steward and Brown [54] point out that similar to organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive behavior can also be directed either at the organization as a whole or at individual coworkers. In terms of negative behaviors that harm the interests of the organization, we distinguish activities that reduce productivity and those that damage the organization’s property. They describe production deviance as employee actions that negatively affect the speed or quality of an organization’s production processes. Moreover, they indicate [54] that deviance production is also manifested through the following employee behaviors: frequent going on breaks, deliberately slow performance of professional duties, and wasting of resources belonging to the organization. In addition, property deviance refers to an employee’s intentional destruction of organizational resources [54]. Examples of such behaviors include sabotaging equipment, stealing materials, or misusing them. Stewart and Brown [54] mention that counterproductive behaviors can also be aimed at specific coworkers in an organization. In such a case, such actions may constitute political deviance or a manifestation of personal aggression. Stewart and Brown [54] state that “Political deviance occurs when an employee does things that put other employees at a disadvantage. Examples include showing favoritism, gossiping about coworkers, and competing with others in non-beneficial ways.” Stewart and Brown [54] define personal aggression as harmful employee actions that seek to personally harm coworkers. They also [54] point out: “The more serious form of counterproductive behavior directed toward individuals is personal aggression, which is represented by hostile acts such as violence and sexual harassment. Employees working in groups lacking civility and respect are particularly prone to act aggressively.”
The dimension called counterproductive performance measured by the statements such as: (1) I’m not a person who takes unauthorized breaks, intentionally work slowly and waste company resources; (2) I do not have harmful employee actions that seek to personally harm coworkers, e.g., showing favoritism, gossiping about coworkers and competing with others in non-beneficial ways. Table 5 elaborates the elements and statements of the dimension called counterproductive performance.

3.3. Mediating Effect of Employee Engagement on the Relationship between Work-Life Balance and Employee Job Performance

In the general systems theory there are three components; namely, input, process and output. According to Wright and Snell [59], skills and abilities are treated as inputs from the environment under the general systems theory. Work-life balance is an antecedent of employee engagement [36,60]. Employee engagement is also considered as an action or a behavior [61]. There are activities in employee engagement; therefore, performing the action is employee engagement. In other words, employee engagement becomes the process. Researchers such as Bulińska–Stangrecka and Iddagoda [62] and Anitha [5] identified that employee engagement leads to employee job performance. The output of the process in the general systems theory is the employee job performance. Taken together, these relationships lead to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Employee engagement will significantly mediate the relationship between work-life balance and employee job performance.

4. Methods and Materials

The materials used to support the research results were based on the authors’ documentation based on the scientific literature. The literature review was conducted via Archival method, recommended by Tranfield et al. [12] to achieve the first and second research objectives. Relevant literature was studied in detail to identify the key elements pertaining to green work-life balance. In order to achieve the second objective, proper conceptualization and operationalization were done. When doing conceptualization and operationalization of the constructs/variables, authors of the study followed Sekaran [63], Babbie and Roberts [64].
For the third objective, a quantitative study was conducted. According to Dewasiri et al. [65], the research questions of this study are in accordance with the quantitative methodology. Hence, the quantitative methodology is employed in investigating the phenomenon. Data gathering was done through a properly conceptualized, operationalized and self-administered questionnaire. Conceptualization and operationalization for the construct of employee engagement have been published in Iddagoda et al. [6]. Refer to Appendix C for the result of the conceptualization and operationalization for the construct of employee engagement. A five-point Likert scale was the measurement scale, and the unit of analysis was individual, i.e., a sample population of 445; managerial employees in 170 of the Public Listed Banks in Sri Lanka. Sampling rule, recommended by Roscoe (1975) as cited in Sekaran [63], was adhered to during when determining the sample size; that it should be larger than 30 and less than 500. The type of investigation was correlational, which, according to Sekaran and Bougie [63], is conducted with the researchers’ minimum interference in an organizational environment with natural and normal work movements. Hence, the researchers’ interference was minimal, the study setting was non-contrived and the time horizon was cross-sectional due to the time constraint.

5. Results

5.1. Statistical Analysis

To verify the research hypothesis, the PROCESS procedure developed by Hayes and Scharkow [66] was applied. All calculations were performed with R i386 software. The bootstrapping approach with 10,000 bootstrapping samples was used in this study. According to this method, a result is obtained indicating an indirect mediating effect of employee engagement (M) on the relationship between work-life balance (X) and employee job performance (Y). Consequently, total, direct and indirect effects were analyzed in the mediation model. A 95% confidence interval was used as an indicator of statistical significance of the model. The mediation method provides an acknowledged method for explaining complex relationships between variables in the social sciences [67].

5.2. Descriptive Statistics

In the research sample of n = 170, the majority of respondents were male (107; 62.9%), with female respondents (63; 37.1%). Table 6 demonstrates the descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables. None of the correlations exceeds r = 0.50, suggesting it is unlikely that it will bias the results of the regression analysis [68]. Furthermore, the statistically significant and positive correlation has been confirmed between variables.

5.3. Reliability Analysis

Reliability analysis was based on Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of the internal consistency of the scale. Reliability analysis is categorized to be important psychometric elements of surveys [69]. Thus, the results made it possible to assess the reliability of the scale used. The results are as follows: (M) Employee engagement- scale reliability statistic is 0.798; (X) Work-life balance- scale reliability statistic is 0.745; (Y) Employee job performance-scale reliability statistic is 0.762. In line with existing standards [68], the scales meet internal reliability requirements.

5.4. Hypothesis Testing: Mediation Modeling

The mediation analysis is presented in Table 7. The carried-out analyses show that the total effect (βyx = 0.401; LLCI = 0.260; ULCI = 0.542; p < 0.001) is statistically significant, and when adding the mediating variable at the same time as controlling for the independent variable (X: harmonious passion), the total effect was still significant but reduced (although not to zero: βyx.m = 0.038; LLCI = 0.007; ULCI = 0.095; with ratio of indirect to total effect of X on Y: β = 0.095; LLCI = 0.018; ULCI = 0.247). The model explained 18.8% (medium practical effect) of the variance in employee job performance.
The results demonstrate that the positive link between the between work-life balance and employee job performance is partially influenced by their employee engagement. Table 7 shows a summary of the mediation analysis carried out using the PROCESS macro [47].
Results of the analysis based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples confirmed that the total effect of work-life balance to employee job performance was significant (β total = −0. 0.401, SE = 0.071, p < 0.001), the direct (β direct = −0.363, SE = 0.072, p < 0.001) and indirect effects are present (Figure 3).
The results of the statistical analysis of the empirical data provide confirmation supporting Hypothesis H1. Empirical evidence clearly shows that work-life balance impacts on employee job performance through employee engagement. Thus, employee engagement explains the in-depth mechanism underlying this link.

6. Discussion

This study verifies the relevance of using the concept of the green work-life balance concept in contemporary organizations. This study also explores how employee engagement affects the relationship between work-life balance and job performance. Through this, the study extends existing theories pointing to the important role of work-life balance in organizational [70]. However, this study highlights the important role of employee engagement in shaping this relationship.
The results of this research allow us to achieve all of the research objectives set out in this paper. First, the analysis of the literature and the research presented here indicate that work-life balance is a concept independent of environmental concerns. In light of the findings that have been demonstrated, this may indicate that greenwashing of work-life balance is occurring. This could be due to the overuse of eco-concepts to build the image of the organization [30]. As a consequence, greenwashing may contribute to weakening the commitment to the protection of natural values among workers and stakeholders [32]. In addition, inadequate reference to the concept of environmental sustainability can lead to misinterpretation of organizational practices: for example, by adding the prefix “green” to work-life balance, the key idea of work-life balance may become more difficult to comprehend. This study provides an important diagnosis of the application of the greenwashing practice in relation to the management of contemporary organizations. By demonstrating that the “green” work-life balance is a myth, it highlights the key elements that support the work-life balance of employees.
Second, this study was designed to develop a measurement instrument for work-life balance. Based on the literature analysis, a suitable measurement method was prepared. This represents an important theoretical contribution of this research. The development of a measurement tool for work-life balance contributes to a better understanding of this concept and is an important foundation for further research. In addition, the existing measurement [40] needs to be updated to take into account changes at the socio-economic, organizational and individual levels. Hence, this paper reports on the development of scale, and thus enriches both theory and practice with a practical tool concerning work-life balance. This is a valuable tool for examining the level of work-life balance in organizations, which is particularly useful when implementing ongoing changes in the workplace.
Third, this study verified the statistical relationship between work-life balance and performance at work through employee engagement. Based on the obtained data, the relationship between work-life balance and performance is positively verified. Furthermore, it is indicated that the employee engagement supports this relationship. In support of hypotheses, this research indicates how important it is to ensure that employees are engaged in order to obtain the full benefits of work-life balance for employee performance. Hitherto, the literature has pointed to the relationship between work-life balance and productivity [70], but it is important to deepen the understanding of this relationship by identifying an important element supporting this positive relationship.
The results of this study confirm the conceptions of Shin and Enoh [71], who pointed out the relationship of work-life balance with performance. This provides important empirical support for the conceptualized relationship.
Furthermore, the findings are in line with the trend showing the role of intangible resources in building organizational sustainability [72,73]. This underlines the importance of promoting work-life balance to enhance employee performance. Consequently, this confirms the importance of sustainable organizational practices. Thus, this study points to the role of sustainability in organizations while diagnosing greenwashing practices.
Finally, the findings are both theoretically and practically relevant for those interested in work-life balance. According to the results, those employees who better evaluate their work-life balance report higher levels of performance at work. Consistent with previous research, our study demonstrates that maintaining a good integration of the different spheres of employees’ lives has positive outcomes for their performance. Taken together, the findings support the notion that fostering work-life balance in organizations increases productivity. They also explain that a key mechanism in this relationship is employee engagement.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study conceptually diagnosed the frequently used concept of “green” work-life balance, indicating the use of greenwashing practices associated with this concept. Additionally, this paper contributed to the development of a work-life balance measurement tool. The described empirical investigation also verified the relationship between work-life balance and performance at work. This research has also shown how essential employee engagement is in mediating this relationship. Employees and their approach to work is a crucial element of an organization’s functioning. Therefore, the results of this study are useful for organizations in showing how to provide the right conditions to optimize the performance of employees. Furthermore, it implies that work-life balance is the driving force behind employee engagement. It is a critical factor in facilitating effective work and employee performance. In summary, the identification of greenwashing work-life balance contributes to a better understanding of the nature of this concept. This and the developed instrument provide a conceptual framework that contributes to the development of appropriate work-life balance management practices. In addition, empirical research provides a deeper understanding of work-life balance mechanisms in organizations and therefore plays an important role in the business environment.

8. Limitations

Despite the positive contribution of this research, there also exist some limitations. First, further empirical analysis should include a global perspective on green work-life balance. In addition, the analysis of the discussed relationships can be presented in the future based on qualitative research. In future research it will be important to verify differences between different sectors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and operationalization: A.I.; methodology: A.I., E.H., H.B.-S. and O.M.; data analysis, H.B.-S.; writing—original draft, A.I. and H.B.-S.; writing—review & editing, A.I., E.H., H.B.-S. and O.M. Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work reported. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions and constructive comments. We are grateful to the editors for their patient work on our manuscript and give many thanks for all your support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Instrument for the construct of work-life balance
  • My CEO or the employer considers me as an asset
  • My immediate supervisor has almost no complaints against me
  • My subordinates consider me as a role model for them to follow
  • My co-workers are happy in the way that I’m interacting with them
  • Customers are satisfied about the way I provide the service to them
  • My husband/wife has almost no complaints against my responsibilities at home
  • My children are happy about the way that I treat them as a father/mother
  • My parents are really satisfied about the way that I’m fulfilling my duties and responsibilities for them
  • I have a healthy relationship with my close relatives

Appendix B

Instrument for the construct of employee job performance
  • I have already understood the tasks that need to be done to perform job duties.
  • I have the information and expertise that need to have in order to carry out specific actions.
  • I’m volunteering for extra work when it is necessary.
  • I help my coworkers for their achievements.
  • I’m not a person who takes unauthorized breaks, intentionally work slowly, and waste company resources.
  • I do not have harmful employee actions that seek to personally harm coworkers e.g.,: showing favoritism, gossiping about coworkers, and competing with others in non-beneficial ways.

Appendix C

Dimensions and elements of the variable of employee engagement.
Energies 14 04556 g0a1 550
Figure A1. Source: Iddagoda et al., (2016).
Figure A1. Source: Iddagoda et al., (2016).
Energies 14 04556 g0a1

References

  1. Wood, S.; Daniels, K.; Ogbonnaya, C. Use of work–nonwork supports and employee well-being: The mediating roles of job demands, job control, supportive management and work–nonwork conflict. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 1793–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jaharuddin, N.S.; Zainol, L.N. The Impact of Work-Life Balance on Job Engagement and Turnover Intention. South East Asian J. Manag. 2019, 13, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Perera, A.; Kailasapathy, P. Emotional labour and work-family interference conflict of front-line employees. Sri Lankan J. Manag. 2013, 18, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  4. Iddagoda, Y.A.; Opatha, H.H.D.N.P. Relationships and Mediating Effects of Employee Engagement: An Empirical Study of Managerial Employees of Sri Lankan Listed Companies. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 2158244020915905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Anitha, J. Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2014, 63, 308–323. [Google Scholar]
  6. Iddagoda, Y.A.; Opatha, H.H.D.N.P.; Gunawardana, K.D. Towards a conceptualization and an operationalization of the construct of employee engagement. Int. Bus. Res. 2016, 9, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Aon, H. 2012 Trends in Global Employee Engagement. Aon Corporation, 2012. Available online: www.business.com/images/content/58a/d9f712f87b1207f720dee/0-0-/ (accessed on 22 December 2020).
  8. Aon, H. 2018 Trends in Global Employee Engagement; The Aon Centre: London, UK, 2018; Available online: https://reba.global/reports/research-2018-trends-in-global-employee-engagement#:~:text=The%20leading%20determining%20factor%20for,Value%20Proposition%20and%20Enabling%20Infrastructure (accessed on 20 December 2020).
  9. Aon, H. 2015 Trends in Global Employee Engagement. Aon Corporation, 2015. Available online: https://engageforsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ORC-Global-Perspectives-2015-worldwide-trends-in-employee-engagement.pdf (accessed on 22 December 2020).
  10. Iddagoda, Y.A.; Bulińska-Stangrecka, H.; Abeysinghe, R. Greening of Military Personnel. Bezp. Obron. Socjol. 2020, 13, 102–121. [Google Scholar]
  11. Iddagoda, Y.A.; Abraham, R.; Chinta, R. The Effects of Green Energy on Economic Development, And Green Human Resource Management on Nongreen Work Outcomes in Sri Lanka. J. Int. Financ. Econ. 2020, 20, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Opatha, H.H.D.N.P.; Arulrajah, A.A. Green human resource management. Simplified general reflections. Int. Bus. Res. 2014, 7, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yong, J.Y.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Ramayah, T.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J.; Sehnem, S.; Mani, V. Pathways towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: Empirical evidence on the role of green human resource management. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2020, 29, 212–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sima, V. Green Behavior of the Romanian Consumers. Econ. Insights Trends Chall. 2014, 66, 77–89. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sima, V.; Gheorghe, I.G. Changing Consumption Patterns in Green Economy. In Agricultural Management Strategies in a Changing Economy; IGI Global: Hershey, PN, USA, 2015; pp. 186–212. [Google Scholar]
  16. Violeta, S.; Gheorghe, I.G. The green strategy mix–A new marketing approach. Knowl. Manag. Innov. Adv. Econ. Anal. Solut. 2009, 1, 1344–1347. [Google Scholar]
  17. Georgiana, G.I.; Sima, V. Transition to Green Economy in Romania. Ann. Econ. Ser. 2014, 3, 32–39. [Google Scholar]
  18. Voica, M.C.; Panait, M.; Radulescu, I. Green investments–between necessity, fiscal constraints and profit. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 22, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Ene, C.; Voica, M.C.; Panait, M. Green investments and food security: Opportunities and future directions in the context of sustainable development. In Measuring Sustainable Development and Green Investments in Contemporary Economies; IGI Global: Hershey, PN, USA, 2017; pp. 163–200. [Google Scholar]
  20. Saunila, M.; Ukko, J.; Rantala, T. Sustainability as a driver of green innovation investment and exploitation. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 179, 631–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Casey, D.; Sieber, S. Employees, sustainability and motivation: Increasing employee engagement by addressing sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Res. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 6, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Muster, V.; Schrader, U. Green Work-Life Balance: A New Perspective for Green HRM. Ger. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 140–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jang, S.J.; Zippay, A. The juggling act: Managing work-life conflict and work-life balance. Fam. Soc. 2011, 92, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Opatha, H.H.D.N.P. Sustainable Human Resource Management. Expanding Horizons of HRM, 1st ed.; University of Sri Jayewardenepura: Gangodawila, Sri Lanka, 2019; pp. 1–464. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bombiak, E.; Marciniuk-Kluska, A. Green Human Resource Management as a Tool for the Sustainable Development of Enterprises: Polish Young Company Experience. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Zhang, Y.; Luo, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, J. How Green Human Resource Management Can Promote Green Employee Behavior in China: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Saeed, B.B.; Afsar, B.; Hafeez, S.; Khan, S.; Tahir, M.; Afridi, M.A. Promoting employee’s pro environmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 424–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Temminck, E.; Mearns, K.; Fruhen, L. Motivating employees towards sustainable behavior. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2015, 24, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sabokro, M.; Mehedi Masud, M.; Kayedian, A. The effect of green human resources management on corporate social responsibility, green psychological climate and employees’ green behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 313, 127963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Francis, C.; Elmore, R.; Ikerd, J.; Duffy, M. Greening of agriculture: Is it all a greenwash of the globalized economy? J. Crop. Improv. 2007, 19, 193–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vos, J. Actions Speak Louder than Words: Greenwashing in Corporate America. Notre Dame J. Law Ethics Public Policy 2014, 23, 673. [Google Scholar]
  32. Parguel, B.; Benoît-Moreau, F.; Larceneux, F. How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 102, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Katz, D.; Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1978; p. viii-489. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sluss, D.M.; van Dick, R.; Thompson, B.S. Role theory in organizations: A relational perspective. In APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 Building and Developing the Organization; Zedeck, S., Ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 505–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Opatha, H.H.D.N.P. Personal Quality, 1st ed.; University of Sri Jayewardenepura: Gangodawila, Sri Lanka, 2010; p. iii-247. [Google Scholar]
  36. Bedarkar, M.; Pandita, D. A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 133, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Shankar, T.; Bhatnagar, J. Work-life balance, employee engagement, emotional consonance/dissonance & turnover intention. Indian J. Ind. Relat. 2010, 46, 74–87. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tidd, S.T.; Friedman, R.A. Conflict style and coping with role conflict: An extension of the uncertainty model of work stress. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2002, 13, 236–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Greenhaus, J.H.; Collins, K.M.; Shaw, J.D. The relation between work–family balance and quality of life. J. Vocat. Behav. 2003, 63, 510–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kalliath, T.; Brough, P. Work-life balance: A review of the meaning of the balance construct. J. Manag. Organ. 2008, 14, 323–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brough, P.; Timms, C.; O’Driscoll, M.P.; Kalliath, T.; Siu, O.L.; Sit, C.; Lo, D. Work–life balance: A longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New Zealand workers. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 2724–2744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rao, T.V.; Rao, R. The Power of 360Degree Feedback: Maximizing Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2005; pp. 1–312. [Google Scholar]
  43. Iddagoda, Y.A.; Opatha, H.H.D.N.P. Identified research gaps in employee engagement. Int. Bus. Res. 2017, 10, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Iddagoda, Y.A.; Opatha, H.H.D.N.P. The intensity of the implementation of high-performance work practices in selected Sri Lankan companies. Spolecz. Rodz. 2018, 56, s.69–s.95. [Google Scholar]
  45. Andrew, O.C.; Sofian, S. Individual factors and work outcomes of employee engagement. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 40, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Kahn, W.A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1990, 33, 692–724. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sharma, A.; Nambudiri, R. Work engagement, job crafting and innovativeness in the Indian IT industry. Pers. Rev. 2020, 2020, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Graça, M.; Pais, L.; Mónico, L.; Dos Santos, N.R.; Ferraro, T.; Berger, R. Decent Work and Work Engagement: A Profile Study with Academic Personnel. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2019, 16, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gallup. 2017 State of the Global Workplace. 2017. Available online: www.managerlenchanteur.org/wp-content/uploads/Gallup-State-ofthe-Global-Workplace-Report-2017_Executive-Summary.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2020).
  50. Weis, S.; Süß, H.M. Social intelligence–A Review and Critical Discussion of Measurement Concepts. In Emotional Intelligence: An International Handbook; Schulze, R., Roberts, R.D., Eds.; HOGREFE: Gottingen, Germany, 2005; pp. 203–230. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kozlowski, S.W. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; p. v-1427. [Google Scholar]
  52. Silvera, D.; Martinussen, M.; Dahl, T.I. The Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale, a self-report measure of social intelligence. Scand. J. Psychol. 2001, 42, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Schat, A.C.; Frone, M.R. Exposure to psychological aggression at work and job performance: The mediating role of job attitudes and personal health. Work Stress 2011, 25, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Stewart, G.L.; Brown, K.G. Human Resource Management: Linking Strategy to Practice; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 6–613. [Google Scholar]
  55. Adetula, G.A. Emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence as predictors of job performance among law enforcement agency personnel. J. Appl. Secur. Res. 2016, 2, 149–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Beier, M.E.; Kanfer, R. Work performance and the older worker. In The Sage Handbook of Aging, Work and Society; Field, J., Burke, R.J., Cooper, C.L., Eds.; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2013; pp. 21–186. [Google Scholar]
  57. Viswesvaran, C.; Ones, D.S. Perspectives on models of job performance. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 2000, 8, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Motowidlo, S.J. Job performance. In Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Borman, W.C., Ilgen, D.R., Klimoski, R.J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2013; Volume 12, p. xiii-763. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wright, P.M.; Snell, S.A. Toward an integrative view of strategic human resource management. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1991, 1, 203–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cain, L.; Tanford, S.; Shulga, L. Customers’ perceptions of employee engagement: Fortifying the service–profit chain. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2018, 19, 52–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Armstrong, M. Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 11th ed.; Kogan Page: London, UK, 2009; pp. 3–977. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bulińska-Stangrecka, H.; Iddagoda, Y.A. The relationship between inter-organizational trust and employee engagement and performance. Akad. Zarządzania 2020, 4, 8–25. [Google Scholar]
  63. Sekaran, U. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach; John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 1–282. [Google Scholar]
  64. Babbie, E.; Roberts, L.W. Fundamentals of Social Research, 4th Canadian ed.; Nelson Education: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dewasiri, N.J.; Weerakoon, Y.K.B.; Azeez, A.A. Mixed methods in finance research: The rationale and research designs. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2018, 17, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Hayes, A.F.; Scharkow, M. The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24, 1918–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Hayes, A.F. An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  68. Zimmerman, D.W.; Zumbo, B.D.; Williams, R.H. Bias in Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Correlation. Psicológica 2003, 24, 133–158. [Google Scholar]
  69. Hysa, E.; Ur Rehman, N. Assessing the Teaching Quality of Economics Program: Instructor Course Evaluations. Integr. Educ. 2019, 23, 556–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Smith, K.T.; Smith, L.M.; Brower, T.R. How work-life balance, job performance, and ethics connect: Perspectives of current and future accountants. In Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  71. Shin, D.; Enoh, J. Availability and Use of Work–Life Balance Programs: Relationship with Organizational Profitability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Bulińska-Stangrecka, H.; Bagieńska, A. Intangible resources for an organization’s sustainability potential. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020, 8, 741–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dobrovič, J.; Čabinová, V.; Gallo, P.; Partlová, P.; Váchal, J.; Balogová, B.; Orgonáš, J. Application of the DEA Model in Tourism SMEs: An Empirical Study from Slovakia in the Context of Business Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 14 04556 g001 550
Figure 1. Theoretical assertions derived from role behavior perspective. Source: authors’ own processing.
Figure 1. Theoretical assertions derived from role behavior perspective. Source: authors’ own processing.
Energies 14 04556 g001
Energies 14 04556 g002 550
Figure 2. Dimensions and elements of the construct of work-life balance. Source: authors’ own processing.
Figure 2. Dimensions and elements of the construct of work-life balance. Source: authors’ own processing.
Energies 14 04556 g002
Energies 14 04556 g003 550
Figure 3. Mediation model (n = 220). Indirect effects of work-life balance on employee job performance through employee engagement. Standardized effects estimates are presented. The effects on the direct path from work-life balance to employee job performance depict the direct effect and the (total effect). Notes: * p = 0.004, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3. Mediation model (n = 220). Indirect effects of work-life balance on employee job performance through employee engagement. Standardized effects estimates are presented. The effects on the direct path from work-life balance to employee job performance depict the direct effect and the (total effect). Notes: * p = 0.004, *** p < 0.001.
Energies 14 04556 g003
Table
Table 1. The elements and statements of the dimension of “employer’s expectation”.
Table 1. The elements and statements of the dimension of “employer’s expectation”.
ElementStatement
Employer/CEOMy CEO or the employer considers me as an asset
Immediate bossMy immediate supervisor has almost no complaints against me
Co-workersMy subordinates consider me as a role model for them to follow
SubordinatesMy co-workers are happy in the way that I’m interacting with them
CustomersCustomers are satisfied about the way I provide the service to them
Table
Table 2. The elements and statements of the dimension of “family member’s expectations”.
Table 2. The elements and statements of the dimension of “family member’s expectations”.
ElementStatement
SpouseMy husband/wife has almost no complaints against my responsibilities at home
ChildrenMy children are happy about the way that I treat them as a father/mother
ParentsMy parents are really satisfied about the way that I’m fulfilling my duties and responsibilities for them
Close relativesI have a healthy relationship with my close relatives
Table
Table 3. Elements and statements of the dimension called task performance.
Table 3. Elements and statements of the dimension called task performance.
ElementStatement
Task performanceI have already understood the tasks that need to be done to perform job duties.
I have the information and expertise that need to have in order to carry out specific actions.
Table
Table 4. Elements and statements of the dimension called citizenship behavior.
Table 4. Elements and statements of the dimension called citizenship behavior.
ElementStatement
Citizenship behaviorI’m volunteering for extra work when it is necessary.
I help my coworkers for their achievements.
Table
Table 5. Elements and statements of the dimension called counterproductive performance.
Table 5. Elements and statements of the dimension called counterproductive performance.
ElementStatement
Counterproductive performanceI’m not a person who takes unauthorized breaks, intentionally work slowly, and waste company resources.
I do not have harmful employee actions that seek to personally harm coworkers eg: showing favoritism, gossiping about coworkers, and competing with others in non-beneficial ways.
Table
Table 6. Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables.
Title 1MeanSD123
1. Employee job performance4.250.445-
2. Work-life balance 0.4420.398 ***-
3.96
3. Employee engagement4.070.4300.216 *** -
Note: N = 170. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 7. Total, direct and indirect links between work-life balance and employee job performance through employee engagement.
Table 7. Total, direct and indirect links between work-life balance and employee job performance through employee engagement.
Bootstrap 95% Confidence Interval (CI)
Effect (β)SEtpLLCIULCI
Total effect (βyx): Work-life balance (X) on Employee job performance (Y)
0.401
Fp = 31.684 ***
R2 = 0.188		0.0715.628<0.0010.2600.542
Direct effect: Work-life balance (X) on Employee job performance (Y)
0.3630.0715.045<0.0010.2210.505
Indirect effect (βyx.m): Work-life balance (X) on Employee job performance (Y) through the mediating variable (M) Employee engagement
Trust in managers
0.0380.021 0.0070.095
Notes: lower level confidence interval (LLCI); upper level confidence interval (ULCI). Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals: 10,000. Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95%. N = 170. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Iddagoda, A.; Hysa, E.; Bulińska-Stangrecka, H.; Manta, O. Green Work-Life Balance and Greenwashing the Construct of Work-Life Balance: Myth and Reality. Energies 2021, 14, 4556. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154556

AMA Style

Iddagoda A, Hysa E, Bulińska-Stangrecka H, Manta O. Green Work-Life Balance and Greenwashing the Construct of Work-Life Balance: Myth and Reality. Energies. 2021; 14(15):4556. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154556

Chicago/Turabian Style

Iddagoda, Anuradha, Eglantina Hysa, Helena Bulińska-Stangrecka, and Otilia Manta. 2021. "Green Work-Life Balance and Greenwashing the Construct of Work-Life Balance: Myth and Reality" Energies 14, no. 15: 4556. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154556

APA Style

Iddagoda, A., Hysa, E., Bulińska-Stangrecka, H., & Manta, O. (2021). Green Work-Life Balance and Greenwashing the Construct of Work-Life Balance: Myth and Reality. Energies, 14(15), 4556. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154556

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop