The balance between work and life for subjective well-being: A moderated mediation model

Ul Hasan, Zameer; Khan, Muhammad Imran; Butt, Tahira Hassan; Abid, Ghulam; Rehman, Saqib Article The balance between work and life for subjective wellbeing: A moderated mediation model Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Provided in Cooperation with: Society of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (SOItmC) Suggested Citation: Ul Hasan, Zameer; Khan, Muhammad Imran; Butt, Tahira Hassan; Abid, Ghulam; Rehman, Saqib (2020) : The balance between work and life for subjective well-being: A moderated mediation model, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, ISSN 2199-8531, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 6, Iss. 4, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040127 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/241513 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Article The Balance between Work and Life for Subjective Well-Being: A Moderated Mediation Model Zameer ul Hasan 1, Muhammad Imran Khan 1, Tahira Hassan Butt 2,*, Ghulam Abid 3and Saqib Rehman 4 1Business Administration Department, Institute of Management Sciences (Pak-Aims) Gulberg, Lahore 54660, Pakistan; [email protected] (Z.u.H.); dr[email protected] (M.I.K.) 2School of Business Administration, National College of Business Administration & Economics, Lahore 54660, Pakistan 3Department of Business Studies, Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore 54660, Pakistan; dr[email protected] 4Department of Management Sciences, Lahore College for Women University, Lahore 540000, Pakistan; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 13 September 2020; Accepted: 21 October 2020; Published: 25 October 2020   Abstract: The aim of this study is to investigate the association among work-life balance, intrinsic motivation, subjective well-being and job satisfaction among the healthcare professionals of Pakistan. Utilizing a sample of 301 Health Care Professionals, the authors tested the proposed relationships. Findings were constant with the hypothesized theoretical scheme, and mediated association between work-life balance and subjective well-being through job satisfaction was stronger when intrinsic motivation was low rather than high. Based on the findings, we suggest that the association between work-life balance and subjective well-being in Health Care Professionals is more complicated than was previously believed—thus yielding a pattern of moderated mediation. In brief, it was found that work-life balance enhances subjective well-being through job satisfaction when intrinsic motivation is low. We also discuss the theoretical contributions and practical implications of the research and directions for future studies. Keywords: work-life balance; subjective well-being; intrinsic motivation; job satisfaction 1. Introduction Work-life balance (WLB) is among the prime focus in everyday discourses of life [ 1 – 4 ]. It represents equilibrium between job demands and other life roles [ 5 , 6 ]. In particular, continuous evolutions in the healthcare sector are foreseen to substantially influence the personal as well as the professional lives of medical professionals [ 7 ]. Elevated amount of stress and exhaustion among Health Care Professionals are extensively reported [ 8 – 11 ] and have been established to be closely linked to the increased risk of psychological as well as physical problems [ 12 , 13 ]). With transformation to the Health Care Professionals, rising patient complication and utilization of advanced health facilities, there has been enhanced concern for the maintaining adequate WLB [ 5 , 7 ]. Regardless of its ubiquity, WLB stays less explored in work-life research [ 1 , 14 ] especially among Health Care Professionals. Specifically, research exploring the positive consequences of greater WLB have been comparatively slow to accumulate [ 14 , 15 ]. Therefore, the current research is an endeavor to contribute to the WLB construct by investigating its relationship with three vital concepts including job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and subjective well-being (SWB). Although, few researchers have documented the associations between WLB, job satisfaction [ 16 , 17 ] and SWB [ 5 ], the extent to which these connections J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127; doi:10.3390/joitmc6040127 www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127 2 of 18 apply to the medical profession is still obscure. Therefore, the prime objective of this research is to fill this shortcoming by examining the association between WLB, job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and subjective well-being among Health Care Professionals working in public and private hospitals of Pakistan. Further, our research also contributed to the existing literature by providing the evidence that work-life constructs that sprung in Western cultures can be generalized beyond these communities—we do so by incorporating understudied culture that of Pakistan. In this study, by utilizing a sample of 301 Health Care Professionals working in hospitals of Pakistan, we developed rigorously tested moderated mediation model (Figure 1)—in which we hypothesize that greater WLB facilitates individuals achieving job satisfaction which in turn enhances their subjective well-being. Further, intrinsic motivation moderates the association between WLB and SWB through job satisfaction. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2020, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19 rewards as prospective candidates are considering WLB is an important parameter for job seeking [34]. Our prime contribution is not only to examine the influence of WLB on SWB but also is the endeavor to comprehend the mechanisms that facilitate this association, with a meticulous focus on the mediating effect of job satisfaction and moderating influence of intrinsic motivation. Figure 1. Theoretical Model (Source: Authors). 2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development In this section, we will explain the rationale underlying study model development and present arguments in favor of the proposed relationships. 2.1 Work–life balance (WLB) It is vital to understand that WLB does not mean to commit an equivalent amount of time to paid job and non-paid work; in its wider sense, it can likewise be characterized as a good level of contribution or fit among the various jobs in an individual's life [35]. Though, at present there is no broadly recognized definition of WLB, as it is a complex phenomenon. However, in line with current theoretical development, e.g., [1,14,15,36], WLB has been conceptualized as a person’s valuation of how well his/her life obligations are managed. This description is based on the individual’s subjective perspective [37] that consider WLB to be an comprehensive notion, enfolding all aspects of a person’s life, which is inimitable for every individual [2,38] and that may differ during the span of people’s life in line with their professional and personal life stage and that relies on an individual’s life standards, objectives, and ambitions [1]. It is essential to consider that WLB is a conception pertinent to every working individual, without paying little heed to their life and family/social situations (i.e., also for unmarried, childless person without other obligations) as it catches the person’s ability to admirably perform the tasks they are conscious of [2]. 2.2 Work–life Balance, Subjective Well-Being and Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction can effectively be described as the favorableness of a work environment for a working individual [39]. It is the orientation that employees have towards the responsibilities they are executing at the workplace [39,40]. Hoppok and Spielgler [40] referred “job satisfaction as the blend of psychological, physiological and environmental” circumstances that urge individuals to concede that they are fulfilled or content with their employments. In other words, one’s quality of life at work which alludes to their economic, social and cognitive aspects of workplace like working conditions, personal development and career growth, welfare facilities, empowerment, caring supervisor and job security [41]. Job satisfaction is the representation of such traits of life of an individual at work. In short, it can be characterized as the degree to which a worker feels satisfaction Figure 1. Theoretical Model (Source: Authors). It has been contended that WLB will augment employee subjective well-being, job satisfaction and innovative work behavior. When employees are satisfied with the job they are performing, they usually exhibit more innovative work behavior as it is often considered as a precondition for viability of any organization in today’s complex and highly competitive work environment. Past empirical studies demonstrated the important role of human capital in the innovation and productivity of organizations. Hence, the well-being of the workforce is vital for sustainable performance of any organization. Subjective well-being (SWB) alludes to the positive assessment that people formulate about the condition of their lives [ 18 – 20 ] while it can be referred to as the cognitive evaluation of one’s job [ 21 , 22 ]. Past researchers have found that WLB anticipates well-being and overall personal satisfaction [ 23 ]. Conversely, inability to accomplish balance results in lower job and life satisfaction [ 24 ], lesser well-being and poor life quality [ 25 , 26 ]. The existing literature argued that the role of WLB in enhancing SWB is significant [ 5 ]. However, past studies did not satisfactorily explicate the indirect mechanisms through which WLB can influence SWB. Therefore, in this study, we endeavor to go beyond examining a direct association between WLB and SWB by incorporating job satisfaction as the mediator and intrinsic motivation as the moderator of this association. Along with WLB, job satisfaction is frequently cited as the predictor of SWB [ 22 , 27 – 29 ] and innovative work behavior. It is argued that when individuals are satisfied with their job, they assume that they have achieved the excellent quality of life which represents their higher SWB [ 30 ]. In an organization, when employees experience WLB, their job satisfaction level increases which promotes their SWB. The present research embraces “spillover theory” by Staines [ 31 ] for its theoretical grounding, which suggest that an employee’s experience in one domain influences those in others. Newstrom [ 32 ] argued that work circumstances shape the workers’ feelings towards their work and life. By following the same direction, we propose that WLB essentially shapes Health Care Professionals’ SWB directly and through job satisfaction provided that work is among the most imperative components of an J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127 3 of 18 employee’s life. This procedure can produce positive as well as negative emotions, which in turn, escort towards depression in some people while high levels of satisfaction in others [27]. Further, intrinsic motivation also has the vital influence. We argue that a high level of intrinsic motivation works as the boundary condition that impacts the association between WLB and SWB via job satisfaction. Intrinsic motivation occurs when employees act without any obvious external rewards [ 33 ]. We posit that individuals with higher intrinsic motivation exhibit lower satisfaction with WLB as they get more enjoyment and satisfaction in spending time on their work as compared to spending it with family. Therefore, their higher intrinsic motivation mitigates the positive affect of WLB on SWB via job satisfaction. This study is significant for organizations, particularly the hospital industry, in understanding and analyzing the concept of WLB and its association with job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and SWB. These interconnected and complementary concepts allow the organizations to draw more benefits from higher retention to enhanced productivity ratios. Additionally, it is also vital to comprehend the idea of WLB. The WLB programs are receiving equal importance to monetary rewards as prospective candidates are considering WLB is an important parameter for job seeking [ 34 ]. Our prime contribution is not only to examine the influence of WLB on SWB but also is the endeavor to comprehend the mechanisms that facilitate this association, with a meticulous focus on the mediating effect of job satisfaction and moderating influence of intrinsic motivation. 2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development In this section, we will explain the rationale underlying study model development and present arguments in favor of the proposed relationships. 2.1. Work-Life Balance (WLB) It is vital to understand that WLB does not mean to commit an equivalent amount of time to paid job and non-paid work; in its wider sense, it can likewise be characterized as a good level of contribution or fit among the various jobs in an individual’s life [ 35 ]. Though, at present there is no broadly recognized definition of WLB, as it is a complex phenomenon. However, in line with current theoretical development, e.g., [ 1 , 14 , 15 , 36 ], WLB has been conceptualized as a person’s valuation of how well his/her life obligations are managed. This description is based on the individual’s subjective perspective [ 37 ] that consider WLB to be an comprehensive notion, enfolding all aspects of a person’s life, which is inimitable for every individual [ 2 , 38 ] and that may differ during the span of people’s life in line with their professional and personal life stage and that relies on an individual’s life standards, objectives, and ambitions [ 1 ]. It is essential to consider that WLB is a conception pertinent to every working individual, without paying little heed to their life and family/social situations (i.e., also for unmarried, childless person without other obligations) as it catches the person’s ability to admirably perform the tasks they are conscious of [2]. 2.2. Work-Life Balance, Subjective Well-Being and Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction can effectively be described as the favorableness of a work environment for a working individual [ 39 ]. It is the orientation that employees have towards the responsibilities they are executing at the workplace [ 39 , 40 ]. Hoppok and Spielgler [ 40 ] referred “job satisfaction as the blend of psychological, physiological and environmental” circumstances that urge individuals to concede that they are fulfilled or content with their employments. In other words, one’s quality of life at work which alludes to their economic, social and cognitive aspects of workplace like working conditions, personal development and career growth, welfare facilities, empowerment, caring supervisor and job security [ 41 ]. Job satisfaction is the representation of such traits of life of an individual at work. In short, it can be characterized as the degree to which a worker feels satisfaction or a feeling of accomplishment, which an employee gets from his/her activity. It is an outcome that makes one attain their activity esteems or meet their essential requirements through appraisal [35]. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127 4 of 18 Furthermore, job satisfaction also has an influence on the personal life of the employees. It heartens organizational steps to reduce stress and increase confidence and perceptions of employees about organization being supportive and caring. SWB can simply be referred to as a self-reported measure of life satisfaction. Diener et al. [ 42 ] argued about SWB and elaborate the concept as “a person’s cognitive and affective assessment of his life”. From a scholarly viewpoint, SWB is the existence of optimistic feelings, the nonexistence of adverse reactions and the experience of happiness or life satisfaction that indicates global life and domain satisfaction [ 18 , 19 , 43 , 44 ]. Synchronization of life and work boosts psychological and physical well-being. A good equilibrium among work and life enhances job satisfaction, psychosocial health and the global life quality. Furthermore, the relationship between work and life is a multifaceted study area that has gained noteworthy attention of scholars [ 27 ]. This domain has created a significant amount of research that, regrettably, could sometimes become befuddling and even conflicting. A few scholars utilize diverse names, such as “enhancement,” “facilitation,” “positive spillover,” or “enrichment,” to depict to this phenomenon [ 45 ]. Past investigations recognized few facets of this construct, but numerous shortcomings linked to its theoretical construction keep on persisting. These shortcomings can aid elucidate the path through which the work life is connected to personal life [46]. The literature study uncovers two conditions linked to this research. From one viewpoint, the research studies that maintain the proposition demonstrate that the impact of work on private life can be significant [ 47 , 48 ]. From other viewpoint, the majority of investigations on work-life association concentrated on the inverse link between the two [ 45 ]. Research on the clash among work and other life roles shows that the stress to increment involvement in either the work or the other aspects of life irreversibly lessens the time as well as vigor dedicated for the other [ 49 , 50 ]. Consequently, this strife is inescapable among work and life as inclusion in part diminishes the resources meant for the other [ 51 ]. Extant studies indicate that individuals who observe stability among their work and life duties tend to be more contented in their job as well as overall life and proclaim better physical and psychological well-being [ 15 , 36 , 52 – 55 ]. Conversely, poorly harmonized work and personal life leads towards decreased job satisfaction, lower SWB, deteriorated quality of life [ 24 , 26 ], impaired psychological health, prompted exhaustion, stress and family conflicts [ 56 ]. By grounding these premises, in this study we propose that WLB will be positively related with job and life satisfaction. We maintain that individuals who have WLB may be more contended of their job and life “because they are participating in role activities that are salient to them” [53]. Accordingly, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1 (H1). WLB is positively related to SWB. Hypothesis 2 (H2). WLB is positively related to job satisfaction. 2.3. Job Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being Vroom [ 57 ] weighted the responsibilities of employees within the workplace as job satisfaction. Therefore, job satisfaction was an impressive orientation of one’s workplace where they are working. On the contrary, Hoppock [ 58 ] illustrated job satisfaction as any arrangement of physical, environmental and psychological environments. All these factors impact the individual’s point of view about the organization and feeling of satisfaction with the job [ 58 ]. Furthermore, job satisfaction could also be pictured as in what way an individual is satisfied by his/her work. It is anticipated that personnel would be more satisfied with work if they were found to be pleased and entertaining in performing their duties [ 59 ]. On the other end, job satisfaction exemplifies a positive opinion about the job after judgment of job characteristics [60]. There are contending perceptions with regards to the description of the connection among job satisfaction and SWB [ 61 ]. The first, the spillover hypothesis, recommends that a person’s positive encounters in the workplace spillover into the non-work areas, recommending a constructive connection between the two. The second, the segmentation hypothesis, assumes that people categorized their J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127 5 of 18 personal and work domains, so that job satisfaction and SWB are irrelevant to each other. The third one is the compensation hypothesis, which recommends that a person with decreased job satisfaction will look for contentment in his/her non-work life, recommending an inverse connection between the two constructs. In most of the research, job satisfaction is used as predictor to SWB. The majority of such studies back the spillover hypothesis. In their study, [ 61 , 62 ] asserted that job satisfaction had an encouraging impact on life or non-work satisfaction. Employees who experience high levels of job satisfaction hold positive judgment regarding his/her life which depicts their higher SWB. Meanwhile, workers having low satisfaction starts to absorb bad perception about work [ 63 ] and show dissatisfaction with overall quality of their life (i.e., lower SWB). Therefore, we assume that: Hypothesis 3 (H3). Job satisfaction is positively associated to SWB. 2.4. Job Satisfaction as the Mediator On the groundings of the arguments above, we can propose that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between WLB and SWB. Hypothesis 2 recommends the positive linkage among WLB and job satisfaction, and hypothesis 3 states a positive association among job satisfaction and SWB. Mutually, these hypotheses present a model in which job satisfaction explains the effect of WLB on SWB. Further, by building on “work-life spillover theory” proposed by Staines [ 31 ] which suggest that an employee’s experience in one area influence those in others. This theory asserts that a person’s behaviors, feelings and expertise generated in one field (work or personal life) shape the other [ 64 – 66 ]. The main idea here is that SWB (an assessment of how a person thinks about his life in general) is formed by satisfaction in pivotal life areas (work life, personal life, etc.), and overall satisfaction in turn are shaped by positive and negative emotions connected with life occasions. This theory implies that SWB can be augmented by permitting positive life areas (e.g., work life, domestic life) to spill over positive impact on the overall life area. Hence, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 4 (H4). Job satisfaction mediates the association between WLB and SWB. 2.5. Intrinsic Motivation as a Moderator Intrinsic motivation is an energizer for behavior that emanates from within a person, out of self-motivation and significance for the task at hand. No external incentives are obligatory to provoke the intrinsically motivated individual to perform. The incentive is the behavior by itself. Rationally, this gives the impressions of an ideal situation, for individuals to act as “origins” of their behavior rather than “pawns” [67]. It has been expected that intrinsic motivation works as a border condition on the forecasted relation among the WLB and SWB and the positive impact of WLB on SWB in presence of job satisfaction may vary across different levels of intrinsic motivation. We argue Employees with higher intrinsic motivation show lower satisfaction with WLB as they are self-motivated towards their work and job. They find more enjoyment and satisfaction in spending time on their work as compared to the spending it with family. Resultantly, such personnel have a lower job satisfaction and SWB. Hence, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 5 (H5). Intrinsic motivation moderates the association between WLB and SWB through job satisfaction, such that meditational association is weaker when intrinsic motivation is high rather than low. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127 6 of 18 3. Methods 3.1. Sample and Procedure The primary data were gathered by a self-administered questionnaire (Appendix A) from the employees of the government and private sector hospitals of Pakistan including the Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Center (PKLI and RC), Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre (SKMTH and RC), Lahore General Hospital (LGH) and the Jinnah Hospital through a convenience sampling technique. The questionnaire had five sections. The first section is related to respondents’ details, the second section contains questions regarding work-life balance, the third section is regarding the subjective well-being, the fourth section contains questions about intrinsic motivations, and lastly, the fifth section asks about job satisfaction as such; data were gathered through the self-administered questionnaires on Likert type scale. The study setting was non-contrived as data were collected in natural work settings without any kind of interference and manipulation from the researchers. Privacy of information has been warranted to get unbiased and true information. The questionnaires were distributed personally by hand to all the employees who came to the permitted site during the working hours. The respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire and place their filled questionnaires in the envelope provided. At the end of the allowed time, the envelopes were sealed and collected by the researchers. During the data collection process, we ensured voluntarily participation and the anonymity of the respondents’ information without any involvement of top management. For the purpose of generalizing our research findings, the sample size was chosen by following [68,69] who recommended that “10 respondents against each item in the questionnaire (i.e., No. of items in the questionnaire × 10 respondents from targeted population) from target population is an important to infer best attainable results about targeted population”. As our questionnaire consisted of 16 items, the sample size of 160 participants was quite enough to examine our purposed model and also to generalize our results. By keeping the fact in mind, that there is a possibility of missing data and non-respondents, and we targeted 350 hospital personnel. In this research, total valid responses were 301 out of 350 circulated questionnaires (response rate =86%). The frequency analysis of respondent’s demographic characteristics including gender, education, age and tenure was exhibited in the Table 1. Most of the participants, i.e., 224, were male. The age of 301 correspondents ranged between 23 and 86 years, with an average age of about 37.14 years (SD =8.87). Table 1. Participants’ Characteristics. Variables Category Frequency Percent Gender Male 224 74.42 Female 77 25.58 Age Below 25 5 1.66 25–35 136 45.18 36–45 111 36.88 46 and Above 49 16.28 Education Below 14 years 3 1.00 14 years 10 3.32 16 years 14 4.65 18 years 153 50.83 Above 18 years 121 40.20 Working Experience Under 1 years 09 2.99 1–2 years 107 35.55 3–5 years 115 38.21 6–10 years 58 19.27 11–15 years 11 3.65 Above 15 01 0.33 Total 301 100 J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127 7 of 18 Most of respondents had 18 years of education (i.e., 153, 50.83%) followed by the respondents with above 18 years of education (i.e., 121, 40.20%), and respondents with 16 years of education (i.e., 14, 4.65%), and respondents with 14 years of education (i.e., 10, 3.32%), while 3 respondents had education level below 14 years (i.e., 1.00%). Furthermore, the study results specified that 2.99% of respondents had below 1 year of work tenure, 35.55% respondents had 1–2 years of work tenure, 38.21% had 3–5 years of work tenure, 19.27% had 6–10 years of work tenure and 3.65% had 11–15 years of work tenure, while 0.33% of the respondents had more than 15 years of work experience. 3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction was measured using the scale of Mitchell et al. [ 70 ]. The scale consisted of 3 items with items such as “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale; 1 depicting strongly disagree and 5 depicting strongly agree. (Cronbach´s alpha =0.86). 3.2.2. Intrinsic Motivation Intrinsic motivation was measured using the 3 items scale by Ryan and Connell [ 71 ]. The sample item is “I enjoy the work itself”. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 5 indicating strongly agree. (Cronbach´s alpha =0.92). 3.2.3. Subjective Well-Being SWB was measured with a 5-item scale developed by Diener et al. [ 72 ]. A sample item is “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale with 1 indicating completely false and 5 indicating completely true. (Cronbach´s alpha =0.85). 3.2.4. Satisfaction with Work–Family Balance The employee’s satisfaction with work-life balance was measured using the 5 items scale developed by Valcour [ 73 ] by using 5-point Likert scale with 1 indicating very dissatisfied and 5 indicating very satisfied. A sample item of this scale is “The way you divide your time between work and personal or family life?” (Cronbach´s alpha =0.92). 3.2.5. Control Variables To avert erroneous findings and other explanations of the statistical results, we controlled for employees’ Gender, Education, Tenure, job categories and age for their potential effects on our study variables (i.e., SWB, WLB, Job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation). Previously, researchers have established that age and gender significantly influence SWB [ 74 – 76 ]. Similarly, age and tenure are related to job satisfaction [ 77 ]. Moreover, gender and education work as important predictors of WLB [78]. 3.2.6. Analytical Strategy We have utilized previous studies approaches to conduct data analysis to test the proposed direct and indirect paths e.g., [ 18 , 79 ]. Specifically, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using the IBM SPSS and AMOS software version 24 to test the factorial structure and the adequacy of our measurement model. Subsequent to the CFA, hypotheses were tested using the PROCESS macro analysis [ 80 ]. The PROCESS macro analysis was selected because, based on bootstrap sampling, it has been recognized as a solid and rigorous approach for detecting the significance of conditional indirect effects [81,82]. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127 8 of 18 4. Results 4.1. Descriptive Analysis The descriptive statistics are exhibited in Table 2. The outcomes depict that correlation coefficients were in anticipated direction and offer the preliminary support for the stipulated hypothetical connection among variables. Table 2. Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlations of Variables. Correlations Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Gender 1.26 0.44 - 2. Age 37.14 8.87 −0.12 * - 3. Education 18.86 2.85 −0.21 ** 0.39 ** - 4. Tenure 4.14 2.98 0.02 0.32 * 0.12 * - 5. WLB 2.94 0.97 −0.29 ** −0.11 0.16 ** −0.19 * (0.92) 6. SWB 3.20 0.91 −0.05 −0.17 * 0.08 −0.03 0.62 ** (0.85) 7. Job Satisfaction 3.54 0.98 0.19 ** 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.16 ** 0.52 ** (0.86) 8. Intrinsic Motivation 3.48 0.99 −0.01 −0.03 0.13 * 0.04 0.31 ** 0.62 * 0.70 ** (0.92) Note: N=301, “Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients are on the diagonal in parentheses”; “*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)” “**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)”. 4.2. Measurement Validation We run Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) via SPSS 24 version, with principal component analysis on WLB, SWB, job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation in order to determine dimensionalities as well as psychometric properties. A prime element factor analysis of 31 Likert scale items with a Varimax (orthogonal) rotation was performed on which data were obtained from 301 participants. According to Osborne and Costello [ 83 ] communalities within the range of 0.40 to 0.70 are the most common and acceptable. All components of our study variables have communalities within the range of 0.53 to 0.91 which further validates that each item shared some common variance with other items in the data set (see Table 3). Table 3. FACTOR LOADING. WLB SWB IM JS Communalities WLB1 0.87 0.80 WLB2 0.86 0.82 WLB3 0.85 0.79 WLB4 0.84 0.77 WLB5 0.75 0.63 SWB1 0.69 0.63 SWB2 0.76 0.75 SWB3 0.80 0.73 SWB4 0.75 0.63 SWB5 0.61 0.53 IM1 0.89 0.88 IM2 0.84 0.79 IM3 0.85 0.89 JS1 0.76 0.6 JS2 0.92 0.91 JS3 0.91 0.9 Eigenvalue 6.49 2.45 2.06 1.03 % of Total Variance 40.55 15.29 12.9 6.43 Total Variance 75.17% Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis (n =301). Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Factor loadings <0.40 are suppressed. Further, EFA gives that all factor loadings of the measured variables were above 0.60, following the criteria of Field [ 68 ]. The factor loadings for WLB ranged from 0.75 to 0.87 and in SWB amounts from 0.61 to 0.80. For job satisfaction, loadings lay between 0.76 and 0.92, and for intrinsic motivation, J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127 15 of 18 References 1. Greenhaus, J.H.; Allen, T.D. Work–family balance: A review and extension of the literature. 2011. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-06010-009 (accessed on 21 October 2020). 2. Kossek, E.E.; Valcour, M.; Lirio, P. The Sustainable Workforce: Organizational Strategies for Promoting Work-Life Balance and Well-Being. In Work and Wellbeing; Cooper, C., Chen, P., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 295–318. 3. Maertz, C.P.; Boyar, S.L. Work-family conflict, enrichment, and balance under ‘levels’and ‘episode’ approaches. J. Manag. 2011,37, 68–98. 4. Sun, X.; Xu, H.; Köseoglu, M.A.; Okumus, F. How do lifestyle hospitality and tourism entrepreneurs manage their work-life balance? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020,85, 102359. [CrossRef] 5. Schwingshackl, A. The fallacy of chasing after work-life balance. Front. Pediatrics 2014 ,2, 26. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Kelliher, C.; Richardson, J.; Boiarintseva, G. All of work? All of life? Reconceptualising work-life balance for the 21st century. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2019,29, 97–112. [CrossRef] 7. Starmer, A.J.; Frintner, M.P.; Freed, G.L. Work-life balance, burnout, and satisfaction of early career pediatricians. Pediatrics 2016,137, e20153183. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 8. Dyrbye, L.N.; West, C.P.; Satele, D.; Boone, S.; Tan, L.; Sloan, J.; Shanafelt, T.D. Burnout among US medical students, residents, and early career physicians relative to the general US population. Acad. Med. 2014 ,89, 443–451. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9. Humphries, N.; McDermott, A.M.; Creese, J.; Matthews, A.; Conway, E.; Byrne, J.P. Hospital doctors in Ireland and the struggle for work-life balance. Eur. J. Public Health 2020 ,30 (Suppl. 4), iv32–iv35. [CrossRef] 10. Kowalczuk, K.; Krajewska-Kułak, E.; Sobolewski, M. Working Excessively and Burnout among Nurses in the Context of Sick Leaves. Front. Psychol. 2020,11, 285. [CrossRef] 11. Shanafelt, T.D.; Boone, S.; Tan, L.; Dyrbye, L.N.; Sotile, W.; Satele, D.; Oreskovich, M.R. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among US physicians relative to the general US population. Arch. Intern. Med. 2012,172, 1377–1385. [CrossRef] 12. Fahrenkopf, A.M.; Sectish, T.C.; Barger, L.K.; Sharek, P.J.; Lewin, D.; Chiang, V.W.; Landrigan, C.P. Rates of medication errors among depressed and burnt out residents: Prospective cohort study. BMJ 2008 ,336, 488–491. [CrossRef] 13. Wilcox, J. Work-life balance. Heart 2020,106, 1276–1277. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Russo, M.; Shteigman, A.; Carmeli, A. Workplace and family support and work-life balance: Implications for individual psychological availability and energy at work. J. Posit. Psychol. 2016,11, 173–188. [CrossRef] 15. Haar, J.M.; Russo, M.; Suñe, A.; Ollier-Malaterre, A. Outcomes of work-life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures. J. Vocat. Behav. 2014 ,85, 361–373. [CrossRef] 16. Cahill, K.E.; McNamara, T.K.; Pitt-Catsouphes, M.; Valcour, M. Linking shifts in the national economy with changes in job satisfaction, employee engagement and work-life balance. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2015 ,56, 40–54. [CrossRef] 17. Mas-Machuca, M.; Berbegal-Mirabent, J.; Alegre, I. Work-life balance and its relationship with organizational pride and job satisfaction. J. Manag. Psychol. 2016,31, 586–602. [CrossRef] 18. Butt, T.H.; Abid, G.; Arya, B.; Farooqi, S. Employee energy and subjective well-being: A moderated mediation model. Serv. Ind. J. 2018, 1–25. [CrossRef] 19. Diener, E. Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 1984,95, 542–575. [CrossRef] 20. Fan, D.; Cui, L.; Zhang, M.M.; Zhu, C.J.; Härtel, C.E.; Nyland, C. Influence of high performance work systems on employee subjective well-being and job burnout: Empirical evidence from the Chinese healthcare sector. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014,25, 931–950. [CrossRef] 21. Arif, B.; Farooqi, Y.A. Impact of work life balance on job satisfaction and organizational commitment among university teachers: A case study of University of Gujrat, Pakistan. Int. J. Multidiscip. Sci. Eng. 2014 ,5, 24–29. 22. Bakker, A.B.; Oerlemans, W. Subjective well-being in organizations. Oxf. Handb. Posit. Organ. Scholarsh. 2011, 178–189. [CrossRef] 23. Gröpel, P.; Kuhl, J. Work-life balance and subjective well-being: The mediating role of need fulfilment. Br. J. Psychol. 2009,100, 365–375. [CrossRef] J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127 16 of 18 24. Allen, T.D.; Herst, D.E.; Bruck, C.S.; Sutton, M. Consequences associated with work-to family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000,5, 278–308. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 25. Grant-Vallone, E.J.; Donaldson, S.I. Consequences of work-family conflict on employee well-being over time. Work Stress 2001,15, 214–226. [CrossRef] 26. Noor, N.M. Work-family conflict, work-and family-role salience, and women’s well-being. J. Soc. Psychol. 2004,144, 389–406. [CrossRef] 27. Ariza-Montes, A.; Arjona-Fuentes, J.M.; Han, H.; Law, R. The price of success: A study on chefs’ subjective well-being, job satisfaction, and human values. International. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018,69, 84–93. [CrossRef] 28. Bowling, N.A.; Eschleman, K.J.; Wang, Q. A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010,83, 915–934. [CrossRef] 29. Judge, T.A.; Locke, E.A. Effect of dysfunctional thought processes on subjective well-being and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993,78, 475. [CrossRef] 30. Yadav, R.K.; Dabhade, N. Work life balance and job satisfaction among the working women of banking and education sector-A comparative study. Int. Lett. Soc. Humanist. Sci. 2014,21, 181–201. [CrossRef] 31. Staines, G. Spillover versus compensation: A review of the literature on the relationship between work and nonwork. Hum. Relat. 1980,33, 11–129. [CrossRef] 32. Newstrom, J.W. Organizational Behavior-Human Behavior at Work, 2th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2007. 33. Van Dijke, M.; Leunissen, J.M.; Wildschut, T.; Sedikides, C. Nostalgia promotes intrinsic motivation and effort in the presence of low interactional justice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2019,150, 46–61. [CrossRef] 34. Kashyap, S.; Joseph, S.; Deshmukh, G. Employee Well-Being, Life Satisfaction and the need for Work-Life balance. J. Ravishankar Univ. 2016,22, 11–23. 35. Thakur, M.B.; Shah, H.; Bhat, N. Relationship between Work-Life Balance and Job Satisfaction. Our Herit. 2020,68, 1248–1264. 36. Yang, J.W.; Suh, C.; Lee, C.K.; Son, B.C. The work-life balance and psychosocial well-being of South Korean workers. Ann. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018,30, 38. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 37. Guest, D. Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing: Building the worker into HRM. J. Ind. Relat. 2002,44, 335–358. [CrossRef] 38. Marks, S.R.; MacDermid, S.M. Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. J. Marriage Fam. 1996 ,58, 417–432. [CrossRef] 39. Lee, J.S.; Back, K.J.; Chan, E.S. Quality of work life and job satisfaction among frontline hotel employees: A self-determination and need satisfaction theory approach. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015 ,27, 768–789. [CrossRef] 40. Hoppok, R.; Spielgler, S. Job Satisfaction. Occup. Vocat. Guid. J. 1938,16, 636–643. [CrossRef] 41. Tziner, A.; Rabenu, E.; Radomski, R.; Belkin, A. Work stress and turnover intentions among hospital physicians: The mediating role of burnout and work satisfaction. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ. 2015,31, 207–213. [CrossRef] 42. Diener, E.; Oishi, S.; Lucas, R.E. Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2003,54, 403–425. [CrossRef] 43. Abid, G.; Ahmed, S.; Elahi, N.S.; Ilyas, S. Antecedents and Mechanism of Employee Well-Being for Social Sustainability: A Sequential Mediation. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020. [CrossRef] 44. Nikolaev, B.; Boudreaux, C.J.; Wood, M. Entrepreneurship and subjective well-being: The mediating role of psychological functioning. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2020. [CrossRef] 45. McNall, L.; Nicklin, J.; Masuda, A. A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work–family enrichment. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010,25, 381–396. [CrossRef] 46. Georgellis, Y.; Lange, T. Traditional versus secular values and the job–life satisfaction relationship across Europe. Br. J. Manag. 2012,23, 437–454. [CrossRef] 47. Lambert, S.J. Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda. Hum. Relat. 1990 ,43, 239–257. [CrossRef] 48. Robinson, R.N.; Kralj, A.; Solnet, D.J.; Goh, E.; Callan, V. Thinking job embeddedness not turnover: Towards a better understanding of frontline hotel worker retention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014 ,36, 101–109. [CrossRef] 49. Greenhaus, J.H.; Beutell, N.J. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985 ,10, 76–88. [CrossRef] 50. Kalliath, P.; Hughes, M.; Newcombe, P. When work and family are in conflict: Impact on psychological strain experienced by social workers in Australia. Austr. Soc. Work 2012,65, 355–371. [CrossRef] J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127 17 of 18 51. Karatepe, O.M.; Bekteshi, L. Antecedents and outcomes of work–family facilitation and family–work facilitation among frontline hotel employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2008,27, 517–528. [CrossRef] 52. Brough, P.; Timms, C.; O’Driscoll, M.P.; Kalliath, T.; Siu, O.; 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 . [CrossRef] 53. 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. [CrossRef] 54. Ferguson, M.; Carlson, D.; Zivnuska, S.; Whitten, D. Support at work and home: The path to satisfaction through balance. J. Vocat. Behav. 2012,80, 299–307. [CrossRef] 55. Lunau, T.; Bambra, C.; Eikemo, T.A.; van der Wel, K.A.; Dragano, N. A balancing act? Work-life balance, health and well-being in European welfare states. European J. Public Health 2014. [CrossRef] 56. Peeters, M.C.; Montgomery, A.J.; Bakker, A.B.; Schaufeli, W.B. Balancing work and home: How job and home demands are related to burnout. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2005,12, 43. [CrossRef] 57. Vroom, V. Work and Motivation; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964. 58. Hoppock, R. Job Satisfaction; Harper and Brothers: New York, NY, USA, 1935; p. 47. 59. Noah, Y.; Steve, M. Work environment and job attitude among employees in a Nigerian work organization. J. Sustain. Soc. 2012,1, 36–43. 60. Talukder, A.M.H. Supervisor support and organizational commitment: The role of work–family conflict, job satisfaction, and work-life balance. J. Employ. Couns. 2019,56, 98–116. [CrossRef] 61. Newman, A.; Nielsen, I.; Smyth, R.; Hooke, A. Examining the relationship between workplace support and life satisfaction: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Soc. Indic. Res. 2015,120, 769–781. [CrossRef] 62. Prasoon, R.; Chaturvedi, K.R. Life satisfaction: A literature review. Res. Int. J. Manag. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2016,1, 25–32. 63. Robbins, S.; Judge, T. Organizational Behaviour, Global ed.; Person Education Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2013. 64. Balmforth, K.; Gardner, D. Conflict and facilitation between work and family: Realizing the outcomes for organizations. N. Z. J. Psychol. 2006,35, 69–76. 65. Bell, A.S.; Rajendran, D.; Theiler, S. Job Stress, Wellbeing, Work-Life Balance and Work-Life Conflict Among Australian Academics. E-J. Appl. Psychol. 2012,8, 25–37. [CrossRef] 66. Sirgy, M.J.; Lee, D.J.; Park, S.; Joshanloo, M.; Kim, M. Work–Family Spillover and Subjective Well-Being: The Moderating Role of Coping Strategies. J. Happiness Stud. 2019, 1–21. [CrossRef] 67. De Charms, R. Personal Causation: The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1968. 68. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. 69. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015. 70. Mitchell, T.R.; Holtom, B.C.; Lee, T.W.; Sablynski, C.J.; Erez, M. Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Acad. Manag. J. 2001,44, 1102–1121. 71. Ryan, R.M.; Connell, J.P. Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1989,57, 749–761. [CrossRef] 72. Diener, E.D.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsen, R.J.; Griffin, S. The satisfaction with life scale. J. Personal. Assess. 1985 , 49, 71–75. [CrossRef] 73. Valcour, M. Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007,92, 1512. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 74. Chang, W.C. Identity, gender, and subjective well-being. Rev. Soc. Econ. 2011 ,69, 97–121. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 75. Singhal, H.; Rastogi, R. Psychological capital and career commitment: The mediating effect of subjective well-being. Manag. Decis. 2018. [CrossRef] 76. Khan, A. Predictors of positive psychological strengths and subjective well-being amongnorth Indian adolescents: Role of mentoring and educational encouragement. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013,114, 1285–1293. [CrossRef] 77. Dobrow Riza, S.; Ganzach, Y.; Liu, Y. Time and job satisfaction: A longitudinal study of the differential roles of age and tenure. J. Manag. 2018,44, 2558–2579. [CrossRef] J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 127 18 of 18 78. Beham, B.; Drobniˇc, S.; Präg, P.; Baierl, A.; Eckner, J. Part-time work and gender inequality in Europe: A comparative analysis of satisfaction with work-life balance. Eur. Soc. 2019,21, 378–402. [CrossRef] 79. Imran, M.Y.; Elahi, N.S.; Abid, G.; Ashfaq, F.; Ilyas, S. Impact of perceived organizational support on work engagement: Mediating mechanism of thriving and flourishing. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complexity. 2020,6, 82. [CrossRef] 80. Hayes, A.F. PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling. 2012. Available online: http://claudiaflowers.net/rsch8140/Hayesprocess. pdf (accessed on 25 October 2020). 81. Abid, G.; Arya, B.; Arshad, A.; Ahmed, S.; Farooqi, S. Positive personality traits and self-leadership in sustainable organizations: Mediating influence of thriving and moderating role of proactive personality. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020. [CrossRef] 82. Iqbal, Z.A.; Abid, G.; Torres, F.; Hassan, Q.; Zafar, R. Ethical leadership and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of individual attributes. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 68. [CrossRef] 83. Osborne, J.W.; Costello, A.B. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Pan-Pac. Manag. Rev. 2009,12, 131–146. 84. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981,18, 39–50. [CrossRef] 85. Sobel, M.E. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol. Methodol. 1982,13, 290–312. [CrossRef] 86. Yun, J.J.; Liu, Z. Micro-and macro-dynamics of open innovation with a quadruple-helix model. Sustainability 2019,11, 3301. [CrossRef] 87. Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X.; Jung, K.; Yigitcanlar, T. The Culture for Open Innovation Dynamics. Sustainability 2020,12, 5076. [CrossRef] 88. Spithoven, A.; Clarysse, B.; Knockaert, M. Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation 2010,30, 130–141. [CrossRef] 89. Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X.; Park, K.; Shi, L. Sustainability Condition of Open Innovation: Dynamic Growth of Alibaba from SME to Large Enterprise. Sustainability 2020,12, 4379. [CrossRef] 90. Chatenier, E.D.; Verstegen, J.A.; Biemans, H.J.; Mulder, M.; Omta, O.S.F. Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams. RD Manag. 2010,40, 271–280. [CrossRef] 91. Yun, J.J.; Lee, M.; Park, K.; Zhao, X. Open innovation and serial entrepreneurs. Sustainability 2019 ,11, 5055. [CrossRef] 92. Hill, E.J.; Hawkins, A.J.; Ferris, M.; Weitzman, M. Finding an extra day a week: The positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Fam. Relat. 2001,50, 49–58. [CrossRef] 93. Portoghese, I.; Galletta, M.; Coppola, R.C.; Finco, G.; Campagna, M. Burnout and workload among health care workers: The moderating role of job control. Saf. Health Work 2014,5, 152–157. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 94. Arora, C.; Wagh, R. Importance of work-life balance. Int. J. New Technol. Res. 2017,3, 23–25. 95. Pappa, S.; Ntella, V.; Giannakas, T.; Giannakoulis, V.G.; Papoutsi, E.; Katsaounou, P. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020,88, 901–907. [CrossRef] 96. Jafri, M.H.; Batra, M. Work-life Balance and Subjective Well-being: Role of Social Support and Psychological Detachment. Merc Glob. Int. J. Manag. 2014,2, 133–150. 97. Heriyadi, H.; Tjahjono, H.K.; Rahayu, M.K.P. Improving Organizational Citizenship Behavior through Job Satisfaction, Leader-Member Exchange, and Work-Life Balance. Binus Bus. Rev. 2020 ,11, 97–104. [CrossRef] 98. Abid, G.; Butt, T. Expressed turnover intention: Alternate method for knowing turnover intention and eradicating common method bias. Int. Lett. Soc. Humanist. Sci. 2017,78, 18–26. [CrossRef] 99. Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003,885, 10–1037. [CrossRef] Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).