Work–Life Balance on the Quality of Life: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 1 by Eftichia Vraimaki.

Employees often have to cope with unprecedented challenges in their working and living conditions—caused by organizational and socioeconomic changes and/or crises—by showing resourcefulness and adaptability. Especially working women who bear a heavier burden strive harder to achieve balance between their work and family lives, and build resilience to maintain their quality of life. It is, therefore, important to develop a better understanding of the mechanisms women employ to strengthen their resilience by combining different roles without compromising their quality of life. 

  • work–life balance
  • quality of life
  • employee resilience
  • women employees

1. Introduction

Employees often have to cope with unprecedented challenges in their working and living conditions—caused by organizational and socioeconomic changes and/or crises—by showing resourcefulness and adaptability. It is, therefore, important to develop a better understanding of the mechanisms employees employ to strengthen their resilience by combining different roles without compromising their quality of life. Achieving this can be even more challenging for working women, who are often burdened with more duties and responsibilities in their family lives, especially childcare and household chores [1,2][1][2].
Work–life balance is more complex than a simple conflict between different spheres of life, and it is more than just an aspect of employees’ well-being. WLB is a matter related to human rights, gender equality, and the sustainable development of our communities [3,4,5][3][4][5]. Sustainability is the central driver of societal growth, ensuring better living standards for people and a better future for generations to come.
The importance of recognizing the social dimension of WLB is stressed by [6]. According to the authors, some conceptualizations of work–life balance focus on self-reports from individuals (e.g., their self-reported satisfaction with work and family), as if the experience of WLB is idiosyncratic and the phenomenon solely psychological. In this context, employees are thought to take the primary responsibility of finding a way to reconcile work and life challenges. However, as WLB has a social dimension that should be taken under consideration, Grzywacz and Carlson [6] (p. 458) define it as the “accomplishment of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared between an individual and his/her role-related partners in the work and family domains”.

2. Work–Life Balance and Quality of Life

Work–life balance (WLB) has been generally defined as the capacity of harmonizing or equilibrating work with other aspects of life, such as personal or family life (e.g., [7,8,9,10,11,12][7][8][9][10][11][12]). The term has also been used to describe the level of engagement in employee and family roles, as well as the corresponding sense of satisfaction with involvement in these roles (e.g., [13,14,15,16][13][14][15][16]). Reconciling employment with life outside of work, ranging from childcare and housework to leisure and self-development, has been shown to have a tremendous impact on employees’ quality of life (e.g., [17,18,19,20,21][17][18][19][20][21]). “Quality of life” is a multidimensional concept connected to the subjective perception of well-being. According to the World Health Organization [22] (p. 5), quality of life refers to “individuals’ perceptions of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns”. Four basic domains of quality of life have been identified: “physical health”, “psychological health”, “social relationships”, and “environment”. In broad terms, “physical health” refers to activities of daily living, work capacity, and physical and medical condition. The “psychological” domain of quality of life is related to feelings, mental processes, self-image, personal beliefs, etc. “Social relationships” refer to personal relationships, social support, and sexual activity. Finally, “environment” is related to a wide variety of facets affecting peoples’ lives, such as financial resources, safety, accessibility in social care, opportunities for learning and recreation, and environmental conditions [23]. Quality of life and work are very closely related. Employment has been strongly related to better living conditions. Apart from an adequate wage, which is necessary to ensure a decent living, employment is also important for psychological and social well-being. Employment is related among others to social inclusion and integration, personal development, self-esteem, self-worth, and social status (e.g., [24,25,26][24][25][26]). As more women have entered the labor market and the dual-earner family model is expanding [27], more people are juggling between a paid employment and other life activities. Reconciling work and private life concerns both men and women. However, women are still considered mainly responsible for taking care of “traditional” family duties and tasks (raising children, running the household, organizing family life, caring for older family members, etc.) [28,29,30,31][28][29][30][31]. Although there is considerable progress in addressing gender inequalities, there are still significant differences in the time women spend in unpaid duties and tasks [32]. This condition has been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic [28,29,30][28][29][30]. In this context, it is even more difficult for women than men to achieve work–life balance.

3. Work–Life Balance and After-Work Activities and Experiences

The shift of focus from an individual to a social perspective, which puts emphasis on understanding behavior under a role-related perspective, opens new avenues in the study of WLB. What a person actually does (not his/her ideas, introspections, or attitudes) constitutes the observable signals for role partners (e.g., a spouse, a colleague, or a supervisor) to evaluate his/her performance in terms of how (s)he carries out his/her job, and if (s)he manages to balance the many facets of his/her life. This conceptualization implies that WLB assessment should consider intersubjective appraisals on the accomplishment of role-related expectations, reflecting the complexity and dynamic character of realities people confront in their daily lives. The assumption that work-related and non-work-related activities and experiences, while away from work, have an impact on WLB leaves room for new research directions. Brough et al. [35][33] identify three main topics for future research on WLB: technology, mindfulness, and resilience. The WLB and resilience relationship has been discussed in the light of the restorative potential after-work activities can have on individuals. A variety of activities have been found to help employees to rebound from work demands with benefits for their health, quality of life, and work performance [36,37][34][35]. According to Sonnentag [38][36], three categories of leisure time activities have been found to help employees recover from work. The first category refers to “low-effort activities”, such as watching TV; the second refers to “social activities”, such as meeting or calling a friend; and the third refers to “physical activities”, such as exercise or dancing. Apart from activities per se that can help employees to spring back from workload and work stress, Sonnentag and Fritz [39][37] argue that underlying psychological experiences play a vital role. All employees can recover from work by doing something different, but there are some generic experiences related to recovery from work, such as “relaxation”, “control”, “mastery”, and “psychological detachment”. These underlying work recovery experiences refer to activities individuals are engaged in to “…unwind and recuperate from work during leisure time” [39][37] (p. 204). Recovery activities can occur on evenings, on weekends, or on vacations [40][38]. Based on Parkinson and Totterdell’s [41][39] categorization of mood regulation strategies, Sonnentag and Fritz [42][40] identify “detachment” and “relaxation” as two distraction strategies because they lead to the interruption of whatever a person is doing or thinking in relation to his/her everyday work tasks. “Psychological detachment” refers to a sense of being away from work, not only physically but also mentally [43][41]. “Relaxation” refers to free-time activities with no specific demands, of low physical or mental effort, that generate positive feelings, such as listening to music, being in a beautiful natural environment, or loosening up. “Mastery experiences” are linked to learning something new and developing skills and competencies. These experiences help individuals feel competent, proficient, confident, and rejuvenated. “Control experiences” refer to “the degree to which a person can decide which activity to pursue during leisure time, as well as when and how to pursue this activity” [44][42] (p. 207). Recovery from work is mainly understood through the prism of two theories: the effort-recovery theory [45][43] and the conservation of recovery theory [46][44]. These two theories are complementary and assume that recovery is achieved either by abstaining from demands and activities that strain depleted resources or by acquiring new internal resources that provide energy and help the renewal of resources. However, the everyday reality of working women, where there are a lot of demands from multiple roles and exposure to various stressors, may not leave room to relax or recover by being disengaged from work issues. Due to flexible work arrangements or work–life interference and spillover, it may be impossible to become physically, mentally, and emotionally disengaged from work. To deal with work issues, after-work hours may help to be better prepared for the following day or be less worried. Moreover, in the work–life balance literature, the positive effects of work-to-life spillover under certain conditions have been highlighted (e.g., [47,48,49,50][45][46][47][48]). Thinking about work during free time is not by definition harmful [36,51][34][49]. The implications of being cognitively attached to work during nonwork hours depend on the nature of the work-related thoughts one has [39][37]. In the same vein, Bennett et al. [52][50] broaden the spectrum of recovery activities by taking into account an additional after-work activity: problem-solving pondering. Reflecting on work-related issues and events after work may have a positive or a negative orientation [53][51]. Employees may not always be able to switch off after work. Some employees tend to reflect on things they have not finished, others consider a problem that needs fixing, and others ponder issues with their coworkers or unpleasant workplace incidents. Employees do not just reflect on past events or problems; they also consider future demands, problems, and occurrences they may anticipate at work [54][52]. Therefore, ruminating after work may not prevent recovery, but in a broader context, it may ultimately help recovery when it targets a solution and becomes a creative process [53,55][51][53]. Considering the wide range of after-work experiences, it is important to explore which ones can help employees to spring back, balancing different spheres of their lives and consequently enjoying a better quality of life. Approaching after-work experiences as a resilience mechanism that helps employees cope with workplace adversity can advance work–life balance research, and help us better understand why some employees thrive while others fail to balance personal and work life, feeling drained and exhausted. Particularly for women employees, who are more vulnerable to stress-inducing situations and susceptible to risk factors (e.g., unemployment, underpaid work, single-parent family, “double burden”, or “second shift”) due to gender inequalities, it is significant to explore all these after-work mechanisms to recover and bounce back (see e.g., [56][54]). The study of resilient after-work activities and experiences offers excellent potential to support women’s rights and gender equality, promoting the well-being of women.

4. Coping Strategies and Work–Life Balance

People adopt various coping strategies to deal with internal or external situations that they perceive as potentially threatening or stressful. Coping is a two-stage process of a reaction involving cognitive and behavioral mechanisms. First, the situation and the potential harm are evaluated, and then the individual adopts the response behavior to deal with the situation [57][55]. According to the coping theory, there are problem-focused strategies aimed at managing the stressor and emotion-focused strategies aimed at regulating emotions aroused [57,58][55][56]. Another core distinction is the approach–avoidance distinction. These fundamentally different modes of dealing with stressful situations reflect the tendency of an individual to orient emotionally and cognitively towards or away from the perceived threat [59][57]. Amirkhan [60][58], trying to combine the above dichotomies, identified three generic coping strategies: problem solving, seeking support, and avoidance. The problem-solving strategy focuses on managing the stressor through action planning, searching for the best solution, examining alternatives, and setting goals to solve the problems successfully. Seeking support involves utilizing social connections and networks to deal with the stressor, recognizing and expressing one’s emotions, talking with others about the issue, and looking for consolation, understanding, and guidance. The avoidance strategy refers to a subset of emotional responses associated with behaviors of ignoring or denying the problem, as well as withdrawing from the stressful situation, by selecting to be left alone or to be absorbed in daydreaming or in other peoples’ lives through reading and watching TV. This approach distinguishes the avoidance strategy, emphasizing that both problem orientation and social networks’ orientation to address stressful situations reflect an active coping mechanism. Coping strategies have also been differentiated according to whether they are constructive or destructive. Like active tactics, constructive coping techniques focus on maintaining a positive outlook while actively addressing the stressor. On the contrary, destructive strategies entail stressor avoidance or self-blame, and connect to unhealthy habits, such as substance use and aggressive behaviors [61,62,63][59][60][61]. Another classification of coping mechanisms separates passive and active coping, each associated with distinct behavioral characteristics. When faced with stressful conditions, passive coping is classified as maladaptive tactics, such as negative self-targeting and avoidance, whereas active coping is typically connected with a more adaptive adjustment, promoting resilience [64][62]. Active and positive coping strategies are found to be related to resilience in different professional fields and occupations. For example, police personnel who adopt negative coping strategies report lower job satisfaction and are more likely to experience chronic stress, eventually leading to demotivation, burnout, and resignation, affecting their overall well-being [61,65][59][63]. Another study found that frontline nurses who use positive coping strategies also exhibit better levels of resilience [66][64]. Generally, research on the relationship of resilience with coping strategies in the workplace highlights the significance of being aware of stressors, accepting and actively coping, keeping a positive attitude, and seeking social support [63,67][61][65]. The effort to deal with the stressor is positively related to resilience, personal well-being, and growth. On the contrary, adopting avoidance strategies is negatively associated with positive psychological outcomes [63,68][61][66]. A positive and active view towards life and the adoption of corresponding coping mechanisms increase people’s capacity to obtain WLB and, consequently, help them improve their health, well-being, and quality of life in general [69][67]. Women’s multiple roles—as moms, wives, employees, housekeepers, daughters, etc.—make it difficult for them to manage everything at no cost. Women often experience a lot of stress and psychological symptoms. The unequal sharing of tasks and responsibilities between men and women gives risks and vulnerability a gendered dimension [70][68]. Therefore, adopting coping strategies that will help women build their resilience is critical. There is evidence that active coping can serve as a protective factor against psychological symptoms emerging from the multiple contexts women are engaged in [71][69]. Although women employees experience inequalities, gender stereotypes, and other obstacles, research has shown that they can adopt various resilient coping mechanisms to succeed, even in male-dominated workplaces [72][70]. Thus, it is paramount to explore how generic coping strategies are related to WLB to promote women employees’ quality of life.

References

  1. Corrin, C. (Ed.) Superwomen and the Double Burden: Women’s Experience of Change in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union; Second Story Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1992; ISBN 978-0-929005-34-8.
  2. Stockman, N.; Bonney, N.; Sheng, X. Women’s Work in East and West: The Dual Burden of Employment and Family Life; M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, NY, USA, 1995; ISBN 978-1-56324-708-8.
  3. Gálvez, A.; Tirado, F.; Martínez, M.J. Work–Life balance, organizations and social sustainability: Analyzing female telework in Spain. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3567.
  4. Haar, J.; Carr, S.C.; Arrowsmith, J.; Parker, J.; Hodgetts, D.; Alefaio-Tugia, S. Escape from working poverty: Steps toward sustainable livelihood. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4144.
  5. Rao, I. Work-life balance for sustainable human development: Cultural intelligence as enabler. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2017, 27, 706–713.
  6. Grzywacz, J.G.; Carlson, D.S. Conceptualizing Work—Family Balance: Implications for Practice and Research. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2007, 9, 455–471.
  7. Clark, S.C. Work cultures and work/family balance. J. Vocat. Behav. 2001, 58, 348–365.
  8. Clarke, M.C.; Koch, L.C.; Hill, E.J. The work-family interface: Differentiating balance and fit. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 2004, 33, 121–140.
  9. Fisher, G.G. Work/Personal Life Balance: A Construct Development Study. Ph.D. Thesis, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, KY, USA, 2001.
  10. Keene, J.R.; Quadagno, J. Predictors of perceived work-family balance: Gender difference or gender similarity? Sociol. Perspect. 2004, 47, 1–23.
  11. Milkie, M.A.; Peltola, P. Playing all the roles: Gender and the work-family balancing act. J. Marriage Fam. 1999, 61, 476–490.
  12. Sirgy, M.J.; Lee, D.-J. Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Review. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2018, 13, 229–254.
  13. Davis, S.N.; Shevchuk, A.; Strebkov, D. Pathways to satisfaction with work-life balance: The case of Russian-language Internet freelancers. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 2014, 35, 542–556.
  14. 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.
  15. Haar, J.M. Testing a new measure of work–life balance: A study of parent and non-parent employees from New Zealand. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 3305–3324.
  16. Vanderpool, C.; Way, S.A. Investigating work–family balance, job anxiety, and turnover intentions as predictors of health care and senior services customer-contact employee voluntary turnover. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2013, 54, 149–160.
  17. Gröpel, P.; Kuhl, J. Work-life balance and subjective well-being: The mediating role of need fulfilment. Br. J. Psychol. 2009, 100, 365–375.
  18. Keeney, J.; Boyd, E.M.; Sinha, R.; Westring, A.F.; Ryan, A.M. From “work–family” to “work–life”: Broadening our conceptualization and measurement. J. Vocat. Behav. 2013, 82, 221–237.
  19. Powell, G.N.; Greenhaus, J.H. Is the opposite of positive negative? Untangling the complex relationship between work-family enrichment and conflict. Career Dev. Int. 2006, 11, 650–659.
  20. Rice, R.W.; Frone, M.R.; McFarlin, D.B. Work—Nonwork conflict and the perceived quality of life. J. Organ. Behav. 1992, 13, 155–168.
  21. Noda, H. Work–Life Balance and Life Satisfaction in OECD Countries: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. J. Happiness Stud. 2020, 21, 1325–1348.
  22. World Health Organization. WHOQOL-BREF: Introduction, administration, scoring and generic version of the assessment: Field trial version 1996.
  23. The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol. Med. 1998, 28, 551–558.
  24. Gini, A. Work, identity and self: How we are formed by the work we do. J. Bus. Ethics 1998, 17, 707–714.
  25. May, D.R.; Gilson, R.L.; Harter, L.M. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2004, 77, 11–37.
  26. Szücs, S.; Drobnič, S.; den Dulk, L.; Verwiebe, R. Quality of life and satisfaction with the work-life balance. In Quality of Life and Work in Europe: Theory, Practice and Policy; Bäck-Wiklund, M., van der Lippe, T., den Dulk, L., Doorne-Huiskes, A., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2011; pp. 95–117. ISBN 978-0-230-29944-3.
  27. Adler, M.A.; Lenz, K. Diversification in family forms in nine OECD countries—Challenges for policy and research. In The Changing Faces of Families; Routledge: London, UK, 2023; pp. 213–242. ISBN 978-1-00-319350-0.
  28. Clark, S.; McGrane, A.; Boyle, N.; Joksimovic, N.; Burke, L.; Rock, N.; O’ Sullivan, K. “You’re a teacher you’re a mother, you’re a worker”: Gender inequality during COVID-19 in Ireland. Gend. Work Organ. 2021, 28, 1352–1362.
  29. Hjálmsdóttir, A.; Bjarnadóttir, V.S. “I have turned into a foreman here at home”: Families and work–life balance in times of COVID-19 in a gender equality paradise. Gend. Work Organ. 2021, 28, 268–283.
  30. Andrew, A.; Cattan, S.; Costa Dias, M.; Farquharson, C.; Kraftman, L.; Krutikova, S.; Phimister, A.; Sevilla, A. The gendered division of paid and domestic work under lockdown. Fisc. Stud. 2022, 43, 325–340.
  31. Zamberlan, A.; Gioachin, F.; Gritti, D. Work less, help out more? The persistence of gender inequality in housework and childcare during UK COVID-19. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 2021, 73, 100583.
  32. Jaspers, E.; Van Der Lippe, T.; Evertsson, M. Gender inequality, households, and work. In Handbook of Sociological Science; Gërxhani, K., De Graaf, N., Raub, W., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2022; pp. 176–195. ISBN 978-1-78990-943-2.
  33. Brough, P.; Timms, C.; Chan, X.W.; Hawkes, A.; Rasmussen, L. Work–Life Balance: Definitions, Causes, and Consequences. In Handbook of Socioeconomic Determinants of Occupational Health: From Macro-Level to Micro-Level Evidence; Theorell, T., Ed.; Handbook Series in Occupational Health Sciences; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 473–487. ISBN 978-3-030-31438-5.
  34. Binnewies, C.; Sonnentag, S.; Mojza, E.J. Recovery during the weekend and fluctuations in weekly job performance: A week-level study examining intra-individual relationships. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 419–441.
  35. Sonnentag, S. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 518–528.
  36. Sonnentag, S. Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being: A diary study. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2001, 6, 196–210.
  37. Sonnentag, S.; Fritz, C. Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. J. Organ. Behav. 2015, 36, S72–S103.
  38. Fritz, S.; Milligan, I.; Ruest, N.; Lin, J. Building community at distance: A datathon during COVID-19. Digit. Libr. Perspect. 2020, 36, 415–428.
  39. Parkinson, B.; Totterdell, P. Classifying affect-regulation strategies. Cogn. Emot. 1999, 13, 277–303.
  40. Sonnentag, S.; Fritz, C. The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 204–221.
  41. Sonnentag, S.; Bayer, U.-V. Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2005, 10, 393–414.
  42. Sutherland, J.-A. Mothering, Guilt and shame. Sociol. Compass 2010, 4, 310–321.
  43. Meijman, T.F.; Mulder, G. Psychological aspects of workload. In Handbook of Work and Organizational: Work Psychology, 2nd ed.; Drenth, P.J.D., Thierry, H., de Wolff, C.J., Eds.; Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis: Hove, England, 1998; Volume 2, pp. 5–33. ISBN 978-0-86377-522-2.
  44. Hobfoll, S.E. Stress, Culture, and Community: The Psychology and Philosophy of Stress; The Plenum series on stress and coping; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; ISBN 978-0-306-45942-9.
  45. Chen, Z.; Powell, G.N.; Greenhaus, J.H. Work-to-family conflict, positive spillover, and boundary management: A person-environment fit approach. J. Vocat. Behav. 2009, 74, 82–93.
  46. Cho, E.; Tay, L.; Allen, T.D.; Stark, S. Identification of a dispositional tendency to experience work–family spillover. J. Vocat. Behav. 2013, 82, 188–198.
  47. Grzywacz, J.G.; Marks, N.F. Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000, 5, 111–126.
  48. Kinnunen, U.; Mauno, S.; Siltaloppi, M. Job insecurity, recovery and well-being at work: Recovery experiences as moderators. Econ. Ind. Democr. 2010, 31, 179–194.
  49. Meier, L.L.; Cho, E.; Dumani, S. The effect of positive work reflection during leisure time on affective well-being: Results from three diary studies. J. Organ. Behav. 2016, 37, 255–278.
  50. Bennett, A.A.; Gabriel, A.S.; Calderwood, C.; Dahling, J.J.; Trougakos, J.P. Better together? Examining profiles of employee recovery experiences. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 101, 1635–1654.
  51. Querstret, D.; Cropley, M. Exploring the relationship between work-related rumination, sleep quality, and work-related fatigue. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2012, 17, 341–353.
  52. Cropley, M.; Zijlstra, F.R.H. Work and rumination. In Handbook of Stress in the Occupations; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2011; p. 14333. ISBN 978-0-85793-115-3.
  53. Pravettoni, G.; Cropley, M.; Leotta, S.N.; Bagnara, S. The differential role of mental rumination among industrial and knowledge workers. Ergonomics 2007, 50, 1931–1940.
  54. Smyth, I.; Sweetman, C. Introduction: Gender and resilience. Gend. Dev. 2015, 23, 405–414.
  55. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping; Springer Pub. Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1984; ISBN 978-0-8261-4190-3.
  56. Biggs, A.; Brough, P.; Drummond, S. Lazarus and Folkman’s psychological stress and coping theory. In The Handbook of Stress and Health; Cooper, C.L., Quick, J.C., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2017; pp. 349–364. ISBN 978-1-118-99381-1.
  57. Roth, S.; Cohen, L.J. Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. Am. Psychol. 1986, 41, 813–819.
  58. Amirkhan, J.H. A factor analytically derived measure of coping: The Coping Strategy Indicator. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 59, 1066–1074.
  59. Kazmi, A.B.; Singh, A.P. Work-life balance, stress, and coping strategies as determinants of job satisfaction among police personnel. Indian J. Health Wellbeing 2015, 6, 1244–1247.
  60. Gillen, P.; Neill, R.D.; Manthorpe, J.; Mallett, J.; Schroder, H.; Nicholl, P.; Currie, D.; Moriarty, J.; Ravalier, J.; McGrory, S.; et al. Decreasing Wellbeing and Increasing Use of Negative Coping Strategies: The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the UK Health and Social Care Workforce. Epidemiologia 2022, 3, 26–39.
  61. McFadden, P.; Ross, J.; Moriarty, J.; Mallett, J.; Schroder, H.; Ravalier, J.; Manthorpe, J.; Currie, D.; Harron, J.; Gillen, P. The role of coping in the wellbeing and work-related quality of life of UK health and social care workers during COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 815.
  62. Wood, S.K.; Bhatnagar, S. Resilience to the effects of social stress: Evidence from clinical and preclinical studies on the role of coping strategies. Neurobiol. Stress 2015, 1, 164–173.
  63. Zhao, J.; Thurman, Q.; He, N. Sources of job satisfaction among police officers: A test of demographic and work environment models. Justice Q. 1999, 16, 153–173.
  64. Russo, C.; Calo, O.; Harrison, G.; Mahoney, K.; Zavotsky, K.E. Resilience and coping after hospital mergers. Clin. Nurse Spec. 2018, 32, 97.
  65. Finstad, G.L.; Giorgi, G.; Lulli, L.G.; Pandolfi, C.; Foti, G.; León-Perez, J.M.; Cantero-Sánchez, F.J.; Mucci, N. Resilience, Coping Strategies and Posttraumatic Growth in the Workplace Following COVID-19: A Narrative Review on the Positive Aspects of Trauma. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 9453.
  66. MacIntyre, P.D.; Gregersen, T.; Mercer, S. Language teachers’ coping strategies during the Covid-19 conversion to online teaching: Correlations with stress, wellbeing and negative emotions. System 2020, 94, 102352.
  67. Zheng, C.; Kashi, K.; Fan, D.; Molineux, J.; Ee, M.S. Impact of individual coping strategies and organisational work–life balance programmes on Australian employee well-being. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 27, 501–526.
  68. Enarson, E.P. Women Confronting Natural Disaster: From Vulnerability to Resilience; Lynne Rienner Publishers: Boulder, CO, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-58826-831-0.
  69. Snow, D.L.; Swan, S.C.; Raghavan, C.; Connell, C.M.; Klein, I. The relationship of work stressors, coping and social support to psychological symptoms among female secretarial employees. Work Stress 2003, 17, 241–263.
  70. Wilkins-Yel, K.G.; Simpson, A.; Sparks, P.D. Persisting despite the odds: Resilience and coping among women in engineering. J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 2019, 25, 353–368.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback