| Abstract [eng] |
SUMMARY The need of work-life balance among educational institutions. Eliana Vanifatova. Vilnius: Vilnius university. Faculty of philosophy. Institute of psychology. 2024, 56 p. In modern organisations, it is possible to provide support to employees to reduce burnout and to create the right working conditions to increase employee engagement. For this reason, it is relevant to explore the links between burnout and engagement and work-life balance, and the measures that can be taken to maintain this balance. The aim of this study is therefore to examine the relationship between work-life balance and burnout and work engagement, and to determine how work-life balance relates to self-efficacy, work-life balance culture and supportive managerial behaviour, in the context of the measures offered by the organisation to support this balance. 183 employees participated in the study. The instruments used in the study were the Work-nonwork balance scale (Wayne et al. 2021), the Burnout Assessment Tool, short version of the BAT-12 (Schaufeli, 2019), the work-life balance self-efficacy scale newly developed and adapted from Bandura (2005), the Work Engagement Scale (UWES-3), and the work engagement scale (UWES-3). An ultra-short measure for work engagement: The UWES-3 (Shaufelli, 2017), the Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior Short-Form (FSSB-SF) (Hammer, 2013), the Family-Supportive Organization Perception (FSOP) scale (Allen, 2001). Results of the study: All three dimensions of work-life balance (engagement, efficacy and emotional) have significant associations with work engagement and burnout; self-efficacy has a positive and statistically significant association with engagement balance, efficacy balance and emotional balance; work-life balance manager supportive behaviour had a positive and statistically significant correlation with emotional balance; work-life balance culture, self-efficacy and work-life balance manager supportive behaviour are statistically significantly more pronounced for respondents who have the option of choosing their workplace freely; work-life balance culture and supportive behaviour of the work-life balance manager are statistically significantly more pronounced for those respondents who have the freedom to choose their work schedule; work-life balance culture, self-efficacy and supportive behaviour of the work-life balance manager do not differ statistically significantly between those who do and do not have reduced working hours. Keywords: work-life balance, work engagement, burnout, self-efficacy, work-life balance supportive supervisor’s behaviour, supportive work-life balance culture. |
