Work 49 (2014) 133–142 133

DOI 10.3233/WOR-131643
IOS Press

Validation of the Work-Life Balance Culture

Scale (WLBCS)
Anika Nitzsche∗, Julia Jung, Christoph Kowalski and Holger Pfaff
Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Science
and Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Abstract.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to describe the theoretical development and initial validation of the newly developed
Work-Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS), an instrument for measuring an organizational culture that promotes the work-life
balance of employees.
METHODS: In Study 1 (N = 498), the scale was developed and its factorial validity tested through exploratory factor analyses.
In Study 2 (N = 513), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to examine model fit and retest the dimensional structure
of the instrument. To assess construct validity, a priori hypotheses were formulated and subsequently tested using correlation
analyses.
RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed a one-factor model. Results of the bivariate correlation anal-
yses may be interpreted as preliminary evidence of the scale’s construct validity.
CONCLUSION: The five-item WLBCS is a new and efficient instrument with good overall quality. Its conciseness makes it
particularly suitable for use in employee surveys to gain initial insight into a company’s perceived work-life balance culture.

Keywords: Work-life balance, organizational culture, validation

1. Introduction shown, an imbalance experienced between work and

In recent years, work-life balance (WLB) has re-
ceived increasing attention in the workplace. An im-
portant element of WLB is the balance between work
and family, an issue often studied as work-family con-
flict (for an overview, see [1,2]). This conflict has been
shown in numerous studies to have a meaningful im-
pact on both individuals and organisations. At the indi-
vidual level, studies have found an association between
work-family conflict and physical and mental health
outcomes (e.g. [3–6]), greater stress and dissatisfaction
with life (e.g. [7–9]).
Work-family conflict can also have negative con-
sequences for organisations. As several studies have
∗ Address for correspondence: Anika Nitzsche, Institute for Med-
ical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Sci-
ence (IMVR), Faculty of Human Science and Medicine, University
of Cologne, Eupener Str. 129, Cologne 50933, Germany. E-mail:
Anika.Nitzsche@uk-koeln.de.
family is directly linked to lower organisational com-
mitment, greater turnover intentions and increased ab-
senteeism (e.g. [8–13]). Others have found a correla-
tion with decreased job satisfaction (e.g. [14–17]) and
a decrease in the quality of work performance (e.g. [18,
19]), for an overview, see [20]).
The concept of WLB, however, is much more com-
prehensive as it subsumes more than just the balance
of work and family; it encompasses the family situa-
tions of all employees, including those who have fam-
ilies and care for dependent relatives as well as singles
or couples without children.
In companies that have actually implemented work-
life balance programs, these programs have predom-
inantly been aimed at promoting company family-
friendliness. Typical examples include child care bene-
fits or services, telecommuting or flexible work sched-
ules. Meanwhile, scientific studies on these types of
programs have found that they are underused by em-
ployees and often have little if any effect (see e.g. [11,

1051-9815/14/$27.50 
c 2014 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
134 A. Nitzsche et al. / Validation of the Work-Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS)
21–24]). A key to understanding these findings is to an-
alyze the companies’ organizational culture. For exam-
ple, although a company may have formal work-family
policies and informal practices, the underlying mes-
sage conveyed to employees may be that they should
not use them [25]. In an organizational culture that
“punishes” employees in some way for utilizing work-
family programs, the odds that they will actually use
them are low. Such is the case, when employees have
the feeling that taking advantage of these programs
could have negative consequences for their career [26].
Other authors have already linked the concept of or-
ganizational culture to the topics of “work” and “fam-
ily”. Thompson et al. (1999) defined work-family cul-
ture as “the shared assumptions, beliefs and values re-
garding the extent to which an organization supports
and values the integration of employees’ work and
family lives” (p. 394) [26]. According to their 20-item
measure, work-family culture consists of three dimen-
sions: (1) organizational time expectations that may in-
terfere with family responsibilities, (2) career conse-
quences for using work-family benefits, and (3) man-
agerial support for employees’ family responsibilities.
This instrument and modified versions of it have al-
ready been employed in several studies (e.g. [27–29]).
Our paper enhances findings on work-family cul-
ture in organizations as we attempt to build on the
work-family culture concept by developing the concept
of “work-life balance culture”, which encompasses al-
ready known aspects of a family-friendly organiza-
tional culture (e.g., social support from management)
as well as other related aspects which have not yet
been discussed. Unlike Thompson et al.’s (1999) fre-
quently used instrument for assessing work-family cul-
ture, our newly developed instrument is designed to
assess work-life balance culture, which involves more
than just family-friendliness. Personal life, for exam-
ple, is more than just family. It also has other facets
which should be taken into consideration, such as
leisure activities and social or political involvement.
In other words, a work-life balance culture is more
than just a family-friendly culture. It is an organi-
zational culture which fundamentally recognizes and
supports the fact that employees have personal lives
outside of work, regardless of whether they involve
family responsibilities, such as caring for children or
other relatives. The Work-Life Balance Culture Scale
(WLBCS) was developed to account for these other
aspects of work-life balance culture. For this reason,
we also completely refrained from using words such
as “family” and “family responsibilities” in the scale
items.
In this paper, we discuss the development and ini-
tial validation of the new WLBCS, which measures the
work-life balance culture construct from the perspec-
tive of employees. Our aim was to develop a theoreti-
cally sound, valid and reliable instrument. Preliminary
qualitative studies conducted in various companies be-
fore developing the instrument showed that the compa-
nies were looking for an efficient instrument for use in
routine surveys. They would therefore need as short of
an instrument as possible that nonetheless meets sci-
entific requirements. Since work-life balance culture,
as measured by the developed WLBCS, is seen as an
aspect of organizational culture, the WLBCS is not
meant to give a complete view of a whole organiza-
tional culture.
2. Schein’s definition of organizational culture
Providing the theoretical foundation for the develop-
ment of the WLBCS is Schein’s definition of organiza-
tional culture, which he considers “a pattern of shared
basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its
problems of external adaptation and internal integra-
tion, which has worked well enough to be considered
valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as
the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation
to those problems” (p. 18) [30]. According to Schein
(1985, 2010), there are three levels of culture within
an organization: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values,
and basic underlying assumptions [30,31]. The term
“level” refers to the “degree of visibility of a cultural
phenomenon to the observer” [32]. Artifacts, the most
visible level, are the easily observed structures and pro-
cesses within an organization, such as room layout,
marks of status, language, dress code and etiquette.
At the next, deeper level of culture are the espoused
values that “provide the day-to-day operating princi-
ples by which the members of a group guide their be-
havior” [30]. These include the strategies, goals and
philosophies in the organization. Values are conscious
and can be reflected upon. They can also evolve into
basic assumptions, most often as the result of the group
taking some joint action based on these values and ob-
serving the successful outcome of that action [32]. Ac-
cording to Schein (2010), it is these unconscious, un-
questioned assumptions which constitute the “essence”
of organizational culture and are difficult to assess. In
his model, the three individual levels of culture interact
with each other as an interrelated whole. Accordingly,
an organizational culture emerges when artifacts and
 A. Nitzsche et al. / Validation of the Work-Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS)
espoused values are formed based on basic assump-
tions, and at the same time, these basic assumptions are
influenced by the artifacts and espoused values.
3. Definition of work-life balance culture and
initial scale development
Based on Schein’s definition of organizational cul-
ture (1985, 2010), a work-life balance culture may be
seen as an organizational culture that promotes work-
life balance through a prevailing attitude that this bal-
ance is something sensible and worth supporting. This
underlying belief that employee WLB has value may
then be considered a basic assumption, which could
be assessed through an organization’s espoused values
(e.g., its core principles). The Work-Life Balance Cul-
ture Scale (WLBCS) addresses these principles. Seen
in this light, a work-life balance culture exists when
work-life balance is considered to be of value and is
actively supported within an organization. Only un-
der these conditions do employees feel that their needs
for work-life balance are valued and taken seriously, a
feeling which leads to reduced work-life conflict [11].
As Messersmith stated: “Organizational support is a
key variable in determining the level of work-life con-
flict experienced” (p. 447) [33]. The first two items of
the WLBCS assess these key aspects of a work-life
balance culture. Whereas the first item operationalizes
the core values of companies (“Our company values
measures to promote employee work-life balance.”),
the second assesses whether they actively support their
employees (“Our company supports employees in bal-
ancing their professional and private lives.”).
An organization’s managers play a major role in
the attitude toward and support of employee work-life
balance. As leaders, they “have considerable freedom
to decide how their organizations will be run” [34].
They are also the main conveyors of basic assump-
tions and values [31] since employees often observe
and take cues from management. Studies have shown
that the attitude managers convey and the way in which
they administer WLB programs can have an impact
on their utilization [35]. Evidence also suggests that
while managers can significantly contribute to reduced
employee work-life imbalance [36,37], a lack of sup-
port by managers increases employee work-life con-
flict [38,39]. An organization with a work-life balance
culture is, therefore, characterized by managers who
use their position as role models to personally demon-
strate how to actively “live out” this work-life balance,
135
rather than the WLB programs and policies merely ex-
isting on paper (item: “Our company’s management
sets a good example of work-life balance”). It is also
marked by managers who promote the WLB of em-
ployees through their sensitivity to employees’ needs
and their use of other special skills, perhaps acquired
through training (item: “Our company’s management
is trained to promote the work-life balance of employ-
ees”).
Furthermore, it can be assumed that in order for a
balance-friendly culture to exist, the organization must
have an open information policy which ensures that
employees are informed about relevant WLB programs
(item: “At our company, employees are informed about
programs promoting work-life balance.”).
A total of five items were derived from theoretical
and research literature (see Table 1 for the items). This
article evaluates the reliability and validity of the WL-
BCS based on the results of two independent studies
(Study 1: N = 498; Study 2: N = 513). In Study 1,
exploratory factor and reliability analyses were con-
ducted to test the scale’s factorial validity. A confirma-
tory factor analysis was then performed in Study 2 to
examine model fit and retest the dimensional structure
of the instrument. To demonstrate the scale’s construct
validity, hypotheses regarding the antecedents and con-
sequences of work-life balance culture were formu-
lated and tested using correlation analyses.
4. Study 1: Qualitative and exploratory analyses
The five items for the scale were derived from
the literature described above and were subsequently
pretested. First, to assess content validity, four experts
evaluated the clarity and representativeness of each
item to the work-life balance culture construct. Next,
qualitative pretests were conducted with a sample of
n = 10 managing directors or decision makers us-
ing cognitive approaches, such as the think-aloud and
probing techniques [40].
4.1. Methodology
4.1.1. Participants and procedure
This cross-sectional study took place in 2008 in the
German information and communication technology
(ICT) sector. Telephone interviews were conducted
with managing directors (or a representative appointed
by him/her), each representing one company from
the ICT sector Contact information for potential par-
136 A. Nitzsche et al. / Validation of the Work-Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS)
ticipating companies was obtained from the Schober
Group International (http://www.schober.com) address
database, which had been identified as the largest and
most extensive database for companies in Germany.
Only companies with a minimum of 10 employees
were included in the survey. A letter of introduction
was sent to each company and up to 15 contact at-
tempts were made. Of the 2,527 randomly selected
companies contacted by a professional survey institute,
522 consented to participate in the survey, giving a re-
sponse rate of 21%. 24 were excluded due to missing
data on the WLBCS, resulting in a final sample of 498.
44% of the respondents were female; 56% were male
(valid responses: n = 498). Respondent age was as-
sessed in categories (valid responses: n = 495). Most
of the respondents (37%) were between the ages of 40
and 49; 9% were under 30, 26% were between 30 and
39, 23% were between 50 and 59, and 5% were 60 or
older. Nearly two-thirds (62%) held a degree from a
university or other higher education institution (valid
responses: n = 496).
4.1.2. Measures
The Work-Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS) is
a newly developed instrument for measuring an or-
ganizational culture that promotes the work-life bal-
ance of employees as described above. The scale oper-
ationalizes work-life balance culture using five items,
all of which are written as statements. Respondents
can express the degree to which they agree with these
statements on an 11-point Likert scale ranging from
“strongly disagree” (0) to “strongly agree” (10). All
items are coded so that a higher value corresponds to
a positive assessment by the respondent and a lower
value corresponds to a negative assessment. Scale
items and selected item statistics can be found in Ta-
ble 1.
4.1.3. Analyses
Using data from the survey, an exploratory factor
analysis and reliability analyses were performed in
SPSS 19 to examine the validity and reliability of the
WLBCS. In the exploratory factor analysis, a scree plot
and Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalue  1) were used to
identify the number of factors to be extracted. Item fac-
tor loadings were then examined using a cut-off of 0.5
to determine whether the items loaded on the extracted
factor [41,42]. The reliability of the scale was assessed
using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which as a rule of
thumb, should be at least 0.7 in order for the scale to be
considered to have high internal consistency [43,44].
The discrimination ability of the items was also deter-
mined. Items with item-total correlation values greater
than 0.30 were considered discriminating [45].
4.1.4. Results
Factorial validity
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was 0.78 and the
Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.001),
both of which indicate good sampling adequacy [46].
The exploratory factor analysis using principal com-
ponent analysis revealed a one-factor solution (eigen-
value = 2.98) accounting for 59.68% of the variance.
Factor loadings and selected item statistics are shown
in Table 1.
Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha for the WLBCS was 0.83, indicat-
ing that the internal consistency of the scale is good.
As a whole, the items have high discrimination ability,
with item-total correlation values ranging from 0.59 to
0.67.
5. Study 2: Further scale evaluation
The purpose of Study 2 was to retest the dimensional
structure of the WLBCS through confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) and to assess its construct validity by
developing various hypotheses and testing them using
bivariate correlations. The items of the WLBCS were
not reworded for Study 2. However, the original 11-
point scale had to be shortened to a 4-point scale since
the original scale proved to be impractical for this sec-
ond study (see the description of the instrument in the
Measures section below).
5.1. Hypotheses for construct validity
As detailed above, a work-life balance culture is
largely determined by an organization’s management.
Management opposition to work-life balance can hin-
der the development of a balance-friendly culture.
We, therefore, hypothesized that organizations have a
stronger work-life balance culture when the work cli-
mate is one in which management provides more social
support.
Hypothesis 1: Work-life balance culture is posi-
tively associated with social support from manage-
ment.
 A. Nitzsche et al. / Validation of the Work-Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS) 137

Table 1
Items of the WLBCS, their factor loadings and selected item statistics, N = 498
Items Mean Standard Factor Item-total
deviation loadings∗ correlation∗∗
1. Our company values measures to promote employee work-life balance. 6.74 2.63 0.79 0.63
2. Our company supports employees in balancing their professional and private lives. 6.88 2.48 0.82 0.67
3. Our company’s management sets a good example of work-life balance. 5.44 2.77 0.77 0.61
4. Our company’s management is trained to promote the work-life balance of employ- 2.96 2.93 0.72 0.59
ees.
5. At our company, employees are informed about programs promoting work-life bal- 3.82 3.38 0.77 0.64
ance.
WLBCS N = 498 (M = 5.17; SD = 2.19; Min = 0; Max = 10).
∗ Extraction method: principal component analysis; items with factor loadings > 0.5 were considered to load on a factor.
∗∗ Recommended minimum value (r = 0.3); values > 0.5 indicate high discrimination.

Few studies have examined the relationship between
work-life balance culture and the social support pro-
vided by colleagues. As a whole, social support from
colleagues is considered to play a subordinate role in
influencing this culture. We, therefore, hypothesized
that an association does exist between social support
from colleagues and work-life balance culture, but
that the association with support from management is
stronger.
Hypothesis 2: Work-life balance culture is pos-
itively associated with social support from col-
leagues.
A work-life balance culture is also believed to be
stronger in organizations in which there are shared val-
ues and a strong sense of mutual trust and belonging
among employees. This is referred to as social capi-
tal. Empirical findings already suggest that social cap-
ital has a significant impact on the physical and men-
tal health and well-being of employees (e.g. [47–51]).
We, therefore, hypothesized that a higher level of so-
cial capital in organizations results in a stronger work-
life balance culture.
that the effects of a work-life balance culture primarily
stem from the work domain and that a balance-friendly
culture results in reduced negative interaction between
the work and personal life domains.
Hypothesis 4a: Work-life balance culture is neg-
atively associated with negative work-life interac-
tion.
Hypothesis 4b: Work-life balance culture is neg-
atively associated with negative life-work interac-
tion.
More recent studies tend to examine the positive
spillover effects in both directions as well (e.g. [56–
59]). Research findings showed a positive relationship
between an organizational culture that promotes work-
life balance and positive spillover effects from work to
personal life [54] and from personal life to work [24].
These positive spillover effects are also referred to as
positive work-life interaction and positive life-work in-
teraction. Based on the findings of these studies, we hy-
pothesized that there is a positive relationship between
the work-life balance culture in organizations and pos-
itive interaction in both directions.

Hypothesis 3: Work-life balance culture is posi-
tively associated with perceived social capital in or-
ganizations.
As shown in other studies [11,26,52–54]), a work-
life balance culture should contribute to the work-life
balance of employees. Additionally, empirical findings
have shown that the effects of conditions in the work
domain on the personal life domain (i.e., spillover ef-
fect) primarily stem from the work domain itself [55].
This means, for instance, that stress at work can lead
to greater negative work-life interaction. However, the
negative spillover effect in the other direction – from
the personal life domain to the work domain – is not
considered to be as great. It can therefore be posited
Hypothesis 4c: Work-life balance culture is pos-
itively associated with positive work-life interac-
tion.
Hypothesis 4d: Work-life balance culture is pos-
itively associated with positive life-work interac-
tion.
5.2. Methodology
5.2.1. Participants and procedure
Data for this study were taken from online surveys
conducted in the micro- and nanotechnology sector
from May to October 2010. A total population survey
of five small to medium-sized companies in Germany
was carried out (n = 216). Response rates for the five
138 A. Nitzsche et al. / Validation of the Work-Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS)
companies ranged from 70.8% to 93.8% (average re-
sponse rate = 76.3%). Other micro- and nanotechnol-
ogy employees were also surveyed with the help of a
large umbrella organization of micro- and nanotech-
nology companies (n = 352; response rate = 15.3%).
In order to participate in the online surveys, the compa-
nies had to be a part of the micro- and nanotechnology
sector and use German as their language of business.
In total, n = 568 employees participated in the study
(overall response rate = 22%).
Of these, 55 were excluded for missing data on the
WLBCS. Thus, the final sample size consisted of 513
employees, of whom 25% were female and 75% were
male (valid responses: n = 509). Employees’ mean
age was 42.5 years (SD = 9.87) (valid responses: n =
457). The overall level of education was high, with
nearly half (47%) having graduated from an academic
university and 21% holding degrees from a technical
university or university of applied sciences. The major-
ity of the participants (84%) reported having a spouse
or partner (valid responses: n = 492). 39% had chil-
dren under the age of 18 living with them (valid re-
sponses: n = 456). Approximately 58% held manage-
ment positions (valid responses: n = 508), 33% of
which were in upper management, 42% in middle man-
agement and 25% in lower management.
5.2.2. Measures
The wording of the Work-Life Balance Culture Scale
(WLBCS) that was developed and used in Study 1 was
not changed for Study 2. Only the number of response
options was modified. Answers ranged from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree”, with each response cat-
egory measured by a score from 1–4 points.
The 3-item Social Support from Management and
Social Support from Colleagues Scales [60] measure
the level of perceived support in organizations. The
item wording of both scales is the same except that the
items of one scale inquire about the respondent’s direct
managers and the items of the other ask about the re-
spondent’s colleagues (sample item: “How much can
you rely on your immediate managers/colleagues when
things get tough at work?”) Response options for the
items of both scales range from 1 = “not at all” to 4 =
“completely”. Cronbach’s alpha for the Social Support
from Management Scale in this study was 0.87; Cron-
bach’s alpha for the Social Support from Colleagues
Scale was 0.83.
The key dimensions of the Social Capital in Or-
ganizations Scale are “shared values” and “perceived
trust” (sample items: “In our company, we share many
common values”; “In our company, we trust one an-
other”) [61]. The scale, which was derived from un-
derlying sociological assumptions about social capital
as well as Coleman (1990; 1991), Putnam (1993) and
Fukuyama’s (2001) understanding of the concept [62–
65], has already been used in several studies conducted
in various types of organizations including hospitals,
disabled care facilities and companies in the informa-
tion and technology sector (see e.g. [47,49,66–68]). It
consists of six items rated on a 4-point scale ranging
from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 4 = “strongly agree”.
In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.90.
Interaction between the work and personal life do-
mains was measured using the German version of the
“Survey Work-home Interaction – Nijmegen” (SWING)
questionnaire [69], which comprises four different di-
mensions measuring both positive and negative inter-
action between the two domains. These dimensions
are: negative work-home interaction, (8 items, Cron-
bach’s alpha = 0.87), negative home-work interaction
(4 items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75), positive work-
home interaction (5 items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75)
and positive home-work interaction (5 items, Cron-
bach’s alpha = 0.86). The response categories for these
four scales are “never,” “sometimes,” “often” and “al-
ways”.
5.2.3. Analyses
To reexamine the factor structure of the WLBCS,
confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted
using the maximum-likelihood estimation proced-
ure [70] available in AMOS 19. Construct validity of
the WLBCS was assessed by testing our hypotheses
using bivariate correlations.
5.2.4. Results
Factorial validity
CFA of the WLBCS was conducted based on data
from the sample of N = 513 employees. Modification
indices were examined to identify possible sources of
model misspecification as well as paths that could be
added to systematically improve the fit of the model.
The indices suggested that the error terms between
items 3 (“Management sets a good example of work-
life balance”) and 4 (“Management is trained to pro-
mote the work-life balance of employees”) and be-
tween items 4 and 5 (“Employees are informed about
programs promoting work-life balance”) should be
modeled as correlated, which implies that these two
item pairs are more highly correlated than was as-
sumed in the one-factor model. CFA of the modified
 A. Nitzsche et al. / Validation of the Work-Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS) 139

Table 2
Measures of global fit
χ2 df p TLI CFI RMSEA
Acceptable fit threshold > 0.05 > 0.9 (satisfactory) > 0.9 (satisfactory) < 0.08
> 0.95 (good) > 0.95 (good)
Original model 150.4 5 0.000 0.69 0.84 0.24
Modified model 9.95 3 0.019 0.98 0.99 0.07
TLI: Tucker-Lewis index; CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.

Table 3
Results of the bivariate analyses for testing the construct validity of the WLBCS (Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rs )) – Study 2
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Work-life balance culture 1
2. Social support from management 0.42∗ 1
3. Social support from colleagues 0.18∗ 0.34∗ 1
4. Social capital of organizations 0.45∗ 0.48∗ 0.38∗ 1
5. Negative work-home interaction −0.29* −0.25* −0.20* −0.15* 1
6. Negative home-work interaction −0.16∗ −0.15∗ −0.15∗ −0.20∗ 0.31∗ 1
7. Positive work-home interaction 0.23∗ 0.16∗ −0.01 (n.s.) 0.20∗ −0.00 (n.s.) 0.00 (n.s.) 1
8. Positive home-work interaction 0.18∗ 0.07 (n.s.) 0.01 (n.s.) 0.14∗ 0.00 (n.s.) −0.00 (n.s.) 0.60∗ 1
∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). n.s.: not significant.

model (see Table 2) revealed that it provides good to
very good fit to the data (TLI = 0.98; CFI = 0.99; RM-
SEA = 0.07).
Construct validity
Construct validity of the WLBCS was assessed us-
ing bivariate correlations to test the various hypothe-
sized relationships with the work-life balance culture
construct. The results of the analyses are presented in
Table 3.
A significant positive association was found be-
tween work-life balance culture and social support
from management (r = 0.42), which may be seen
as preliminary confirmation of Hypothesis 1. Work-
life balance culture was also significantly correlated
with social support from colleagues, though as hypoth-
esized, this correlation was weaker (r = 0.18) than
the correlation with social support from management
(Hypothesis 2). As asserted in Hypothesis 3, a pos-
itive and significant association was found between
work-life balance culture and social capital (r = 0.45),
suggesting that the stronger the social capital of an
organization as characterized by a sense of mutual
trust and belonging among the organization’s employ-
ees, the stronger the work-life balance culture. Support
was also found for the hypothesized relationships be-
tween work-life balance culture and the various dimen-
sions of WLB measured using the SWING question-
naire [69]. Work-life balance culture was negatively
associated with both negative work-home interaction
(Hypothesis 4a) and negative home-work interaction
(Hypothesis 4b). Only weak, yet significant, positive
correlations could be found between the work-life bal-
ance culture construct and both of the scales measuring
positive interaction between the work and personal life
domains (Hypotheses 4c and 4d). However, the corre-
lation between work-life balance culture and positive
work-life interaction, measured as positive work-home
interaction, was marginally stronger. All of these re-
sults support the construct validity of the WLBCS.
6. Overall discussion
This article aimed to describe the development of a
standardized instrument for measuring work-life bal-
ance culture in organizations. Based on Schein’s def-
inition of culture (1985, 1995), work-life balance cul-
ture is understood to be an organizational culture that
promotes work-life balance through a prevailing atti-
tude that this balance is something sensible and worth
supporting.
Two independent studies were conducted to exam-
ine the psychometric properties of this newly devel-
oped instrument. The results of the studies provide ev-
idence of the instrument’s good internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha in Study 1 = 0.83 and in Study 2 =
0.82). Both the exploratory factor analysis in Study 1
and the confirmatory factor analysis in Study 2 used to
test the scale’s factorial validity revealed a one-factor
solution with good model fit. In the final model, how-
ever, two error terms were found to be more highly cor-
related than would be expected in a one-factor solution.
Further analyses (for example, using this scale in other
140 A. Nitzsche et al. / Validation of the Work-Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS)
studies) would definitely be of use to test this finding.
The results of the correlation analyses confirm our ini-
tial hypotheses and support the construct validity of the
WLBCS. Both organizational social capital and sup-
port from management and colleagues were positively
associated with perceived work-life balance culture.
Correlation analyses with the four dimensions of bidi-
rectional positive and negative interaction between the
work and personal life domains showed that the effects
of a work-life balance culture stem from the work do-
main and that work-life balance culture primarily leads
to reduced negative spillover from the work domain
to the personal life domain. In summary, the Work-
Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS) proved to be an
efficient, reliable and valid instrument for measuring
work-life balance culture in organizations.
7. Limitations
Each of the two studies conducted as part of this
work was conducted in a different sector – the ICT sec-
tor and the micro- and nanotechnology sector. Since
both of these are high-tech sectors, future research
should test the scale’s psychometric properties in other
sectors as well. We should also note that many of the
participants in both samples held management posi-
tions and that their overall level of education was very
high. Further testing of the scale’s psychometric prop-
erties should be conducted using a more balanced sam-
ple in terms of education level and management po-
sition. Another point of criticism is the use of cross-
sectional data to validate the scale since both the in-
dependent and dependent variables captured solely the
subjective assessments of the participants. Due to a
lack of data from other data sources, there is a threat
of common method bias. Common method variance
may have inflated the correlations between the vari-
ables (see [71]). In addition, the scale’s validity and
stability should be reconfirmed in longitudinal studies,
for example by assessing its test-retest reliability.
8. Implications for practice
Despite these limitations, the Work-Life Balance
Culture Scale is a valid and reliable instrument for
measuring the work-life balance culture in organiza-
tions. Because of its conciseness (5 items), it is partic-
ularly suitable for use in companies. It can quickly and
easily be administered as part of employee surveys in
order to gain initial insight into the perceived support
for work-life balance within a company.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the German Federal Min-
istry of Education and Research, the European Union,
the European Social Fund (grant number: 01FH09045)
and Köln Fortune (grant from the University Hospi-
tal of Cologne) for providing financial support (grant
number: 77/2010).
References
[1] Byron K. A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and
its antecedents. J Vocat Behav 2005; 67(2):169–98.
[2] Eby LT, Casper WJ, Lockwood A, Bordeaux C, Brinley A.
Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and
review of the literature (1980-2002). J Vocat Behav 2005;
66(1):124–97.
[3] Frone MR, Russell M, Cooper ML. Relation of work-family
conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of
employed parents. J Occup Organ Psych 1997; 70(4):325–35.
[4] Frone MR, Russell M, Cooper ML. Work-family conflict
and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity
survey. J Appl Psychol 2000; 85(6):888–95.
[5] Grzywacz JG, Bass BL. Work, family, and mental health: test-
ing different models of work-family fit. J Marriage Fam 2003;
65(1):248–61.
[6] Innstrand ST, Langballe EM, Espnes GA, Falkum E, Aasland
OG. Positive and negative work-family interaction and
burnout: A longitudinal study of reciprocal relations. Work
Stress 2008; 22(1):1–15.
[7] Rice RW, Frone MR, McFarlin DB. Work-nonwork con-
flict and the perceived quality of life. J Organ Behav 1992;
13(2):155–68.
[8] Kelloway EK, Gottlieb BH, Barham L. The source, nature,
and direction of work and family conflict: A longitudinal in-
vestigation. J Occup Health Psych 1999; 4(4):337–46.
[9] Perrewe PL, Hochwarter WA, Kiewitz C. Value attainment:
An explanation for the negative effects of work-family con-
flict on job and life satisfaction. J Occup Health Psych 1999;
4(4):318–26.
[10] Netemeyer RG, McMurrian R, Boles JS. Development and
validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict
scales. J Appl Psychol 1996; 81(4):400–10.
[11] Allen TD. Family-supportive work environments: The role of
organizational perceptions. J Vocat Behav 2001; 58(3):414–
35.
[12] Greenhaus JH, Collins KM, Parasuraman S. Career involve-
ment and family involvement as moderators of relationships
between work-family conflict and withdrawal from a profes-
sion. J Occup Health Psych 2001; 6(2):91–100.
[13] Boyar SL, Maertz CP, Pearson AW, Keough S. Work-family
conflict: A model of linkages between work and family do-
main variables and turnover intentions. J Manag Issues 2003;
15(2):175–90.
[14] Boles JS, Babin BJ. On the front lines: Stress, conflict, and
the customer service provider. J Bus Res 1996; 37(1):41–50.
[15] Kossek EE, Ozeki C. Work-family conflict, policies, and the
job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for
organizational behavior human resources research. J Appl
Psychol 1998; 83(2):139–49.
 A. Nitzsche et al. / Validation of the Work-Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS)
[16] Parasuraman S, Simmers CA. Type of employment, work-
family conflict and well-being: A comparative study. J Organ
Behav 2001; 22(5):551–68.
[17] Lapierre LM, Spector PE, Allen TD, Poelmans S. Family-
supportive organization perceptions, multiple dimensions of
work-family conflict, and employee satisfaction: A test of
model across five samples. J Vocat Behav 2008; 73(1):92–
106.
[18] Aryee S. Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict
among married professional woman – evidence from Singa-
pore. Human Relations 1992; 45(8):813–37.
[19] Johns G. Attendance dynamics at work: The antecedents
and correlates of presenteeism, absenteeism, and productivity
loss. J Occup Health Psych 2011; 16(4):483–500.
[20] Gilboa S, Shirom A, Fried Y, Cooper C. A meta-analysis of
work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main
and moderating effects. Pers Psychol 2008; 61(2):227–71.
[21] Behson SJ. The relative contribution of formal and infor-
mal organizational work-family support. J Vocat Behav 2005;
66:487–500.
[22] Goff SJ, Mount MK, Jamison RL. Employer supported child
care, work/family conflict, and absenteeism: A field study.
Pers Psychol 1990; 43:793–809.
[23] Kossek EE, Noe RA, DeMarr BJ. Work-family role synthe-
sis: Individual and organizational determinants. Int J Conflict
Manage 1999; 10(2):102–29.
[24] Wayne J, Randel A, Stevens J. The role of identity and
work-family support in work-family enrichment and its work-
related consequences. J Vocat Behav 2006; 69(3):445–61.
[25] Kossek EE, Lautsch BA, Eaton SC. Telecommuting, control,
and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and prac-
tice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. J Vocat Be-
hav 2006; 68(2):347–67.
[26] Thompson CA, Beauvais LL, Lyness KS. When work-family
benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture
on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-
family conflict. J Vocat Behav 1999; 54(3):392–415.
[27] Baral R, Bhargava S. Work-family enrichment as a media-
tor between organizational interventions for work-life balance
and job outcomes. J Manage Psychol 2010; 25(3):274–300.
[28] Major DA, Fletcher TD, Davis DD, Germano LM. The influ-
ence of work-family culture and workplace relationships on
work interference with family: A multilevel model. J Organ
Behav 2008; 29(7):881–97.
[29] Mauno S. Effects of work-family culture on employee well-
being: Exploring moderator effects in a longitudinal sample.
Eur J Work Organ Psy 2010; 19(6):675–95.
[30] Schein EH. Organizational culture and leadership. 4th ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010.
[31] Schein EH. Organizational culture and leadership. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass; 1985.
[32] Neubauer W. Organisationskultur. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer;
2003.
[33] Messersmith J. Managing work-life conflict among informa-
tion technology workers. Hum Resour Manage 2007; 46(3):
429–51.
[34] Taormina RJ. Interrelating leadership behaviors, organiza-
tional socialization, and organizational culture. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 2007; 29(1):85–102.
[35] Crooker KJ, Smith FL, Tabak F. Creating work-life balance:
A model of pluralism across life domains. Human Resource
Development Review 2002; 1(4):387–419.
[36] Batt R, Valcour P. Human resources practices as predictors
141
of work-family outcomes and employee turnover. Ind Relat
2003; 42:189–220.
[37] Thomas LT, Ganster DC. Impact of family-supportive work
variables on work-family conflict and strain: a control per-
spective. J Appl Psychol 1995; 80(1):6–15.
[38] Anderson SE, Coffey BS, Byerly RT. Formal organizational
initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-
family conflict and job-related outcomes. J Manage 2002;
28(6):787–810.
[39] Beauregard TA. Predicting interference between work and
home: a comparison of dispositional and situational an-
tecedents. J Manage Psychol 2006; 21(3):244–64.
[40] Prüfer P, Rexroth M. Verfahren zur Evaluation von Survey-
Fragen: Ein Überblick. ZUMA-Nachrichten 1996; 20:95–
116.
[41] Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W, Weiber R. Multivari-
ate Analysemethoden. 11. Auflage. Berlin, Heidelberg, New
York: Springer; 2006.
[42] Bühner M. Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruk-
tion. München: Pearson Education; 2006.
[43] Bagozzi RP. Causal Models in Marketing. New York: John
Wiley & Sons; 1980.
[44] Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 1978.
[45] Janssen J, Laatz W. Statistische Datenanalyse mit SPSS für
Windows. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2005.
[46] Hutcheson GD, Sofroniou N. The multivariate social scien-
tists: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models.
London: Sage; 1999.
[47] Driller E, Ommen O, Kowalski C, Ernstmann N, Pfaff H. The
relationship between social capital in hospitals and emotional
exhaustion in clinicians: A study in four German hospitals. Int
J Soc Psychiatr 2011; 57(6):604–9.
[48] Kouvonen A, Oksanen T, Vahtera J, Stafford M, Wilkinson R,
Schneider J et al. Low workplace social capital as a predic-
tor of depression: The finnish public sector study. Am J Epi-
demiol 2008; 167(10):1143–51.
[49] Kowalski C, Driller E, Ernstmann N, Alich S, Karbach U,
Ommen O et al. Associations between emotional exhaus-
tion, social capital, workload, and latitude in decision-making
among professionals working with people with disabilities.
Res Dev Disabil 2010; 31(2): 470–9.
[50] Oksanen T, Kouvonen A, Kivimaki M, Pentti J, Virtanen M,
Linnaa A et al. Social capital at work as a predictor of em-
ployee health: Multilevel evidence from work units in Fin-
land. Soc Sci Med 2008; 66(3):637–49.
[51] Requena F. Social capital, satisfaction and quality of life in
the workplace. Soc Indic Res 2003; 61:331–60.
[52] Behson S. Which dominates? The relative importance of
work-family organizational support and general organiza-
tional context on employee outcomes. J Vocat Behav 2002;
61(1):53–72.
[53] Dikkers JSE, Geurts SAE, Den Dulk L, Peper B, Kompier
MAJ. Relations among work-home culture, the utilization of
work-home arrangements, and work-home interference. Int J
Stress Manage 2004; 11(4):323–45.
[54] Gordon JR, Whelan-Berry KS, Hamilton EA. The relation-
ship among work-family culture, and work outcomes for older
working women. J Occup Health Psych 2007; 12(4):350–64.
[55] Frone MR. Work-Family Balance. In: Quick JC, Tetrick LT,
editors. Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002. p.
143–62 .
[56] Greenhaus JH, Powell GN. When work and family are al-
142 A. Nitzsche et al. / Validation of the Work-Life Balance Culture Scale (WLBCS)
lies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Acad Manage Rev
2006; 31(1):72–92.
[57] Grzywacz JG, Butler AB. The impact of job characteristics on
work-to-family facilitation: Testing a theory and distinguish-
ing a construct. J Occup Health Psych 2005; 10(2):97–109.
[58] Hanson GC, Hammer LB, Colton CL. Development and val-
idation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work-family
positive spillover. J Occup Health Psych 2006; 11(3):249–65.
[59] van Steenbergen EF, Ellemers N, Mooijaart A. How work and
family can facilitate each other: Distinct types of work-family
facilitation and outcomes for women and men. J Occup Health
Psych 2007; 12(3):279–300.
[60] Udris I, Riemann M. SAA und SALSA: Zwei Fragebögen
zur subjektiven Arbeitsanalyse. In: Dunckel H, editor. Hand-
buch psychologischer Arbeitsanalyseverfahren. Zürich: Vdf-
Hochschulverl; 1999. p. 397–420.
[61] Pfaff H, Lütticke J, Badura B, Piekarski C, Richter P, editors.
Weiche Kennzahlen für das strategische Krankenhausman-
agement: Stakeholderinteressen zielgerichtet erkennen und
einbeziehen. Bern u.a: Huber; 2004.
[62] Coleman JS. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, Mass:
Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press; 1990.
[63] Coleman JS. Grundlagen der Sozialtheorie. Band 1 Handlun-
gen und Handlungssysteme. München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag;
1991.
[64] Putnam RD. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in
modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1993.
[65] Fukuyama F. Social capital, civil society and development.
Third World Quarterly 2001; 22(1):7–20.
[66] Ernstmann N, Ommen O, Driller E, Kowalski C, Neumann
M, Bartholomeyczik S. Social Capital and Risk Management
in Nursing. J Nurs Care Qual 2009; 24(4):340–7.
[67] Jung J, Nitzsche A, Ernstmann N, Driller E, Wasem J, Stieler-
Lorenz B et al. The relationship between perceived social cap-
ital and the health promotion willingness of companies. J Oc-
cup Environ Med 2011; 53(3):318–23.
[68] Ommen O, Driller E, Koehler T, Kowalski C, Ernstmann N,
Neumann M et al. The relationship between social capital in
hospitals and physician job satisfaction. BMC Health Serv
Res 2009; 9(1):81.
[69] Geurts SAE, Taris TW, Kompier MAJ, Dikkers JSE, van
Hooff ML, Kinnunen U. Work-home interaction from a
work psychological perspective: Development and valida-
tion of a new questionnaire, the SWING. Work Stress 2005;
19(4):319–39.
[70] Hoogland JJ, Boomsma A. Robustness studies in covariance
structure modeling: an overview and a meta-analysis. Sociol
Method Res 1998; 26(3):329–67.
[71] Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J, Podsakoff NP. Com-
mon method biases in behavioral research: A critical review
of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol
2003; 88(5):879–903.