How do flexible working time policies, telework from home and work fatigue impact on the work-life balance?

Human resource management (HRM) continues to establish itself as one of the primary tools used by organisations to achieve business objectives. Numerous studies indicate that achieving an adequate work-life balance (WLB) leads to measurable organisational performance and increased job satisfaction (Allen et al., 2000). Researchers have demonstrated that, beyond organisational performance, WLB influences individual well-being, family satisfaction and overall life satisfaction (Keyes, 2002; Whiston and Cinamon, 2015). Both society at large and the research community have addressed this issue, driven by business considerations (Testi and Andriotto, 2013; Blazovich et al., 2014; Alegre and Pasamar, 2018) as well as approaches from the social and behavioural sciences (Fu and Shaffer, 2001; Voydanoff, 2004; Allen et al., 2013). Moreover, political, legal and cultural changes have, in some cases, increased the pressure on employers to promote WLB (Pasamar Reyes and Valle Cabrera, 2011).

The body of scientific research on WLB is substantial and points to a consensus regarding the positive benefits that WLB provides to both organisations and individuals. For instance, an improvement in WLB facilitates higher job performance (Blazovich et al., 2014; Whiston and Cinamon, 2015); increases job satisfaction (Allen et al., 2000; De Simone et al., 2014); enhances organisational commitment (Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Allen et al., 2000); reduces job burnout (Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Wayne et al., 2004); and decreases absenteeism and turnover intentions (Frone et al., 1997; Wayne et al., 2004). Conversely, a decline in WLB has negative effects, including increased psychological distress (Whiston and Cinamon, 2015), greater overall stress (Allen et al., 2000), heightened emotional exhaustion (Lee and Kim, 2013), emotional distress (Whiston and Cinamon, 2015), as well as anxiety and irritability (Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Allen et al., 2000), among others.

Consequently, it is logical for organisations to explore ways to facilitate WLB within their structures, seeking benefits for both the company and its employees. Such initiatives could even provide competitive advantages by attracting and retaining top talent (Allen, 2001; Poelmans et al., 2003). Managers should assess which organisational policies and programmes are most effective in fostering and facilitating WLB. Common practices such as offering flexible work schedules, part-time work, teleworking from home (TWH), and other arrangements can be implemented to enhance WLB (Sirgy and Lee, 2018). Both physical and psychological fatigue – as well as the opportunity to benefit from flexible schedules and/or telework – are considered relevant factors in achieving WLB.

The transformation of the work environment, driven by the expansion of telework and the adoption of flexible schedules, has placed WLB at the centre of the debate. Although there is an extensive literature that has partially addressed these issues, a significant gap persists in the comprehensive understanding of how telework and flextime can be strategically used to mitigate work fatigue and strengthen WLB. Fawzy et al. (2023) note the high prevalence of burnout in radiologists, highlighting the need to investigate organisational factors that can alleviate this burden, but without integrating the analysis of telework and flextime as preventive tools. Gajjar et al. (2022) note a generalised increase in burnout during the pandemic, but their study does not examine whether schedule redesign or telework can act as containment strategies. Irfan et al. (2021) link good WLB to job satisfaction, but their research lacks concrete proposals on how flexible models can enhance that balance in different work environments. Leo et al. (2022) show unequal impacts by gender during the pandemic, without assessing whether flextime and teleworking could reduce those differences. Correia Leal et al. (2022) reveal how organisational pressure and rigid supervision increase fatigue, but do not explore structural flexibility mechanisms that could counteract that effect. Finally, Palumbo et al. (2021) warn about the lack of exploration into how flexible time organisation influences perceived quality and performance. Taken together, these studies address symptoms and consequences but fail to articulate comprehensive and empirical solutions, which justifies the need for research that studies how strategically designed telework and flextime can become tools to reduce fatigue and promote sustainable WLB. Therefore, the aim of this research is to analyse the influence of flextime and/or telework on WLB. In addition, we will investigate the relationships between flextime, teleworking and workers’ physical and mental fatigue. For this purpose, this empirical work uses the latest wave of the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCTS), which provides data from a total of 71,758 workers in 32 countries. We believe that the results of this study have important implications for both researchers and decision-makers in HR management departments in designing HR policy strategies that improve employee well-being and, in turn, enhance performance.

The structure of the paper is as follows: after this introductory section, a review of the literature and the research hypotheses are presented. Section 3 describes the methodology and the data used. Section 4 is devoted to the empirical analysis of the results, followed by a discussion in Section 5 that covers the theoretical and practical implications, the study’s limitations, and suggestions for future research. Finally, the conclusions are presented in Section 6.

The number of research studies that have addressed work–family reconciliation has been remarkable, generating various definitions of WLB from different areas of knowledge. Among these, Clark (2000) stands out, as it introduces a key perspective by highlighting the importance of the physical, temporal and psychological boundaries that separate the work and family domains. According to this theory, WLB depends not only on the absence of role conflict but also on the active management of these boundaries, whose permeability and flexibility determine the degree of role integration or segmentation, influencing people’s well-being and satisfaction. Other conceptualisations have focused on aspects such as role engagement in both work and personal life and the minimal conflict between them (Sirgy and Lee, 2018). These definitions have addressed, for example, the pursuit of balanced work and non-work satisfaction (Kirchmeyer, 2000; Greenhaus et al., 2003); the allocation of time and psychological energy in a balanced way (Greenhaus et al., 2003); or the smooth functioning of work and family roles with minimal conflict (Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Allen et al., 2000).

Work-life conflict generates high stress and reduces both work and non-work life satisfaction (Allen et al., 2000; Greenhaus and Powell, 2006; Fisher et al., 2009). The high commitment to work and personal life roles contributes to this stress, and according to Voydanoff (2005), WLB will be achieved when people are fully committed to their various social roles in both work and non-work life. This requires people to be engaged in these roles and able to fulfil them by effectively allocating time and effort to each (Marks et al., 2001; Kalliath and Brough, 2008). Research by Greenhaus et al. (2003) shows how a balance between work and personal roles positively influences both domains, which requires a high investment of time and involvement in each. The opposite case, when an individual does not invest much time and energy in work or family life, produces a negative balance in quality of life that affects both work and personal life (Marks and MacDermid, 1996).

However, work-family role conflict arises because the demands of one domain and the other are inherently incompatible (Fisher et al., 2009; Sirgy and Lee, 2018). Conflict arises when the performance of one role is threatened by the demands of another, making time and energy management essential to achieving a balance. Organisations should promote and facilitate WLB, not only because of the benefits it will generate for the individual, but also because it will have a positive impact on the organisation.

Teleworking and flexible working hours (FWH) are presented as options available to facilitate WLB, although it is unclear how these practices affect work performance and employees’ own WLB. Excessive physical and mental tiredness and fatigue also influence the performance of work and personal roles, interfering with the fulfilment of these roles. The hypotheses proposed in this research are described below.

Telework is considered one of the organisational modalities included in flexible work arrangements. It coexists with other concepts describing different possibilities, such as telecommuting, working from home, e-work or smart working (Eurofound, 2020). Although these terms are often used interchangeably, each refers to different scenarios with varying degrees of flexibility in schedules and locations (Charalampous et al., 2019). Currently, there is no globally unified statistical or conceptual standard, which complicates the distinction among these categories [International Labour Organization (ILO), 2020]. In the specific case of telework, the activity is carried out partially or entirely outside the company’s usual premises, using information and communication technologies (ICT). This modality may take place in coworking spaces, coffee shops, clients’ facilities or even at home (Eurofound, 2020). Teleworking can also vary in intensity: it can be part-time – for instance, only one or two days a week – or full-time, with occasional visits to the office. This distinction is relevant when analysing the impact on aspects such as WLB, working hours, productivity and well-being (ILO, 2021). Several studies highlight the importance of considering the intensity with which telework is practised, rather than grouping all teleworkers together in a generic manner (Dancaster and Baird, 2016; Hoornweg et al., 2016). Among the different modalities, TWH has the greatest psychosocial impact on employees (Antunes et al., 2023). Consequently, and with the aim of identifying vulnerabilities along the thin line separating work and family spheres when sharing the same space, this research focuses on TWH.

During the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, teleworking – especially from home – was adopted as an emergency solution to the need for social distancing, which led to an exponential increase in this practice. Once normal conditions were restored, the use of telework continued to grow, driven, among other factors, by employees’ own interests. Clark (2000) argues that the boundaries between work and family can vary in permeability, flexibility and strength, and that these characteristics directly affect the possibility of integrating or segmenting both domains. In telework contexts, where the physical and temporal boundaries between home and workspace are blurred, permeability tends to increase. This can promote greater role integration but also generate conflicts when the demands of each domain do not align.

Numerous studies have examined the effects of teleworking on WLB, with results that remain inconclusive. Some authors have evidenced that TWH is associated with positive emotional outcomes (Biron and van Veldhoven, 2016; Darouei and Pluut, 2021), while other research indicates that the use of ICT at home improves both flexibility and boundary permeability between the two domains (Leung and Zhang, 2017). However, this increased integration may expose teleworkers to interdomain conflicts and technological stress when such factors are not properly managed. Moreover, studies by Elbaz et al. (2022) and Zalat and Bolbol (2022) report an increase in overall work performance, although there are exceptional cases where both work and personal domains have been affected, thereby impacting performance and WLB (Villavicencio-Ayub et al., 2021). Along these lines, research by Palumbo (2020) and Palumbo et al. (2022) suggests that telework can negatively affect WLB, primarily due to the difficulty separating the two domains.

The impact of telework on work fatigue has been extensively studied, showing that, although this modality provides advantages in terms of autonomy and flexibility, it can also induce both physical and psychological fatigue when it is not properly managed. Several investigations point out that teleworking can intensify the stressors inherent to its practice, which diminishes its attractiveness if its benefits are not balanced with measures that promote adequate disconnection (Weinert et al., 2015; Sardeshmukh et al., 2012; Wepfer et al., 2018). In this regard, Jamal et al. (2021) highlights that full-time teleworking brings new psychological and physical challenges, derived from digital overload and the difficulty separating personal and professional spheres, which favours a progressive burnout. Giauque et al. (2022) point out that, although telework improves the perception of autonomy, it also increases the emotional and physical burden, especially when working hours are not adequately regulated and clear disconnection measures are not established. Likewise, Hu and Subramony (2022) emphasise that the conditions imposed by the pandemic intensified the practise of teleworking without adequate planning, generating disruptive effects and increasing the psychological burnout of employees. Bhat et al. (2023) warn that the difficulty in separating the boundaries between personal and professional life in teleworking contributes to a sense of continuous burnout, while Stoian et al. (2022) highlight the absence of effective organisational models to manage the associated fatigue, which underlines the need to adopt a strategic approach that avoids emotional and physical saturation of workers.

Based on these considerations, we propose the following hypotheses:

FWH constitute another labour flexibility policy adopted by organisations to facilitate the reconciliation of employees’ work and family life, and are sometimes implemented in conjunction with teleworking. Moreover, FWH are generally perceived positively by workers (Barros and da Silva, 2010), as they allow individuals to control the time dedicated to their work activities – adjusting start and end times and even determining the number of hours worked per day or week. Over the years, the demand for FWH has experienced a remarkable increase in most industrialised countries, a phenomenon particularly significant among younger generations (Chung and Van der Lippe, 2020).

Although some research has observed that, in certain contexts, the combination of flexible hours and working from home could increase conflicts between the work and family domains (Golden et al., 2006; Allen et al., 2013), it is important to note that the empirical evidence supporting this situation remains limited. In contrast, flexible working time is prominently associated with a better balance between work and personal life, offering significant benefits for both individuals and organisations; indeed, when employees have greater control over their schedules, they tend to report a more favourable perception of WLB (Hill et al., 2001). In this sense, FWH reinforce their potential to improve the quality of working life and reduce conflicts (Clark, 2000; Back-Wiklund et al., 2011). Regarding the impact of FWH on job fatigue, Chung and Van der Lippe (2020) highlight that this modality reduces the stress derived from rigid schedules, thereby facilitating WLB.

Based on these arguments, the following hypotheses are put forward:

Work fatigue is defined as a feeling of physical and mental tiredness resulting from prolonged work demands and lack of adequate recovery, affecting both the physical and psychological well-being of employees. From the perspective of the Job Demands–Resources Model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), fatigue acts as a critical indicator of imbalance, signalling the need to implement corrective strategies. Furthermore, it is highlighted that work-related tiredness and fatigue can increase stress and burnout, further hindering WLB (Weinert et al., 2015; Kelly et al., 2020).

These aspects allow us to hypothesize the following:

Work fatigue, TWH, flexible hours and WLB are interrelated elements that have a significant impact on employee well-being.

Teleworking can provide considerable benefits in reducing work fatigue, as eliminating commuting and decreasing the need for physical presence in the office optimises time and reduces the stress associated with these factors (Golden et al., 2006; De Simone et al., 2014). These time savings and increased flexibility contribute to an improved WLB. However, when telework is implemented in a disorganised manner, it can make it difficult for workers to disconnect from work, thereby negatively affecting the level of fatigue experienced during the workday (Lazauskaitė-Zabielskė et al., 2023). In addition, some studies indicate that teleworkers may experience greater mental health-related stress symptoms compared to office-based employees, due to increased permeability between roles, which adversely impacts WLB (Mann and Holdsworth, 2003; Palumbo et al., 2022; Sardeshmukh et al., 2012).

In this regard, we hypothesize the following:

Although FWH can have negative consequences, such as fostering a culture of constant availability or leading to self-imposed additional burdens, increasing fatigue and undermining WLB (Kelliher et al., 2010; Mazmanian et al., 2013), their well-managed benefits can be transformative. They allow employees to tailor their work schedules to their personal needs, facilitating better time management, reducing fatigue and promoting physical and mental recovery (Chung and van der Lippe, 2020). Therefore, with proper management, FWH not only mitigate adverse effects but can also become a key tool to improve employees’ well-being and WLB.

With this argument in mind, we propose the following hypothesis:

TWH can present significant challenges if physical, temporal and psychological boundaries are not properly managed. When these boundaries are too permeable, employees find it difficult to disengage, which can increase work fatigue and negatively affect WLB (Clark, 2000). However, if these practices are structured correctly, telework offers key benefits, such as the elimination of commuting and greater control over interruptions; these advantages can alleviate tensions related to managing multiple roles, reducing fatigue and enabling flexible working hours to have a more positive impact on WLB (Gajendran et al., 2007; Allen et al., 2020). Thus, well-managed telework moderates the relationship between FWH and fatigue, reinforcing its effect on improving WLB.

In addition to its role in reducing fatigue, TWH can directly moderate the relationship between FWH and WLB. Combining the two practices enhances employees’ perceived control over their schedules and responsibilities, which reinforces the positive impact of FWH on WLB (Chung and van der Lippe, 2020). However, these positive effects depend on factors such as organisational support and clarity of policies on digital disconnection.

Based on this argument, we hypothesize the following:

Figure 1 outlines the structural relationships between the constructs “Work-related Fatigue” (WF), “Flexible Working Hours” (FWH), “Teleworking from Home” (TWH) and “Work–Life Balance” (WLB) in the conceptual model under investigation. The model illustrates direct and moderated interactions, highlighting the influence of FWH and TWH on WF and WLB as well as the reciprocal impact of WF on WLB. Additionally, the interaction between FWH and TWH is represented, indicating a moderating effect on the relationships with both dependent constructs, WF and WLB. This conceptual diagram captures the complexity of the interplay between flexible work practices and their effects on WF and WLB.

In this paper, we analyse a sample from the data produced in the 2021 special edition of the European Working Conditions Telephone Survey (EWCTS). The survey was expanded to include more workers in 36 European countries, including the EU Member States, the UK, Norway, Switzerland, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia. The sample used in EWCTS 2021 is representative of people aged 16 and over who are working and residing in the surveyed countries. A single-stage, non-clustered sampling design was used in 35 of the 36 countries. Data collection took place between March and November 2021. For this work, the following criteria were applied to the sample for the purposes of the research: workers in all countries included in the survey who were employed and either worked at their place of work or always teleworked from home. Cases with missing values in the analysed variables of more than 15% were eliminated. The final sample size used in the analyses is 13,724 workers (Table 1).

The independent variables used in the statistical model were TWH and FWH (Table 2). TWH is a dichotomous variable, where “0” indicates that respondents never telework and “1” indicates that respondents always telework from home. The other independent variable, FWH, measures the extent to which respondents are able to combine their work schedule with family or social commitments outside of work. This variable was originally measured on a 1–4 Likert scale (1 = “very well”; 4 = “not at all well”), which we recorded by inverting its values ( Appendix).

WLB was analysed as a dependent variable in our model. This construct is formed by the aggregation of three items that aim to capture the impact of work on personal life and vice versa. It explores the preoccupation with work during leisure time, how work fatigue affects household chores, as well as how family responsibilities impact work concentration. In short, it highlights the tension between the work and personal spheres. It was measured on a 1–5 Likert scale, rating the tension from less to more. We recoded and inverted these variables to orient their values from less to more WLB.

WF was used as a mediating variable between TWH and WLB, and between FWH and WLB. This variable aims to assess, through two items, the respondents’ sense of physical and mental exhaustion at the end of the working day. It was measured on a 1–5 Likert scale.

TWH served as a moderating variable. The purpose was to determine, to what extent TWH affects the relationship between FWH and WLB and between FWH and WLB mediated by WF.

To examine the hypotheses proposed in this research, structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied using the partial least squares approach for the estimation process. This technique is well-regarded and extensively used in the field of business studies (Hair et al., 2019; Wichaisri and Sopadang, 2017).

The evaluation of the model adhered to established standards to ensure measurement accuracy and reliability. Key aspects such as the consistency and validity of the indicators were scrutinised to guarantee a faithful representation of the theoretical constructs (Hair et al., 2019).

Construct validity was assessed based on four essential criteria:

1. composite reliability (CR), with values exceeding 0.70 deemed acceptable;

2. factor validity, where factor loadings above 0.5 are expected, with optimal results being above 0.7;

3. convergent validity, determined by the average variance extracted (AVE), which must surpass 0.50 to confirm that the construct explains more than 50% of the variance of its indicators; and

4. discriminant validity, which requires that the AVE of each construct exceeds the square of the correlation between it and any other construct, ensuring conceptual distinctiveness (Benitez et al., 2020; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Sarstedt et al., 2019).

To test the structural model and validate the proposed hypotheses, the model’s fit was analysed, focusing on the path coefficients for direct, indirect and moderation effects, along with their statistical significance. These evaluations were complemented by the coefficient of determination (R²), which provides insights into the model’s predictive strength. The bootstrapping method, with 5,000 subsamples, was used to calculate t-statistics and assess significance. All analyses were performed using SmartPLS software, version 4.0.9.5 (Ringle et al., 2024).

The results presented in Tables 2 and 3 show that the constructs “work–life balance” and “work-related fatigue” have acceptable convergent validity. Although the Cronbach’s alpha values for WLB and WF are slightly below the standard threshold, the composite reliability (RhoC > 0.7) and convergent validity (AVE > 0.5) justify their acceptance (Hair et al., 2019). Discriminant validity was established through the Fornell–Larcker and HTMT criteria, indicating that the constructs are distinct from one another, which supports the theoretical structure of the model. Thus, despite some limitations in the reliability indices, the constructs demonstrate adequate psychometric properties to be used in subsequent analyses.

Table 4 details the results of the estimated model. The results indicate that the model effectively explains the variability in the constructs of WLB and WF. The coefficient of determination (R²) shows that 31.7% of the variability in WLB is explained by the independent variables included in the model, while 11.9% of the variability in WF is explained.

The estimated model reveals significant relationships between the constructs, confirming some of the proposed hypotheses while rejecting others. TWH shows a negative and statistically significant impact on WLB (β = –0.266; p < 0.000), supporting H1. This finding highlights that teleworking may compromise employees’ ability to maintain a healthy balance between their professional and personal lives. However, contrary to H2, TWH does not significantly affect WF (β = –0.024; p = 0.203). This suggests that teleworking does not directly increase fatigue in the current context.

FWH show a positive and significant influence on both WLB and WF (β = 0.182; p < 0.000 and β = –0.331; p < 0.000, respectively). These results confirm H3 and H4, indicating that FWH improve employees’ WLB and simultaneously contribute to reducing fatigue. WF strongly influences WLB (β = –0.462; p < 0.000), supporting H5 and emphasising the crucial role of fatigue in shaping employees’ ability to balance work and personal demands.

Regarding the moderating effects, the interaction between TWH and FWH positively influences both WLB and WF (β = 0.052; p = 0.004 and β = –0.059; p = 0.003, respectively). This supports H6 and H7, suggesting that FWH can mitigate some of the negative effects of teleworking, reducing fatigue and enhancing WLB when used in conjunction with remote work.

Table 5 presents a summary of the hypothesis-testing results, providing a clear overview of which relationships in the proposed model were supported by the data. The findings confirm most of the hypotheses, showing significant effects of TWH, FWH and WF on WLB, as well as the moderating and mediating roles of these variables. Notably, Hypotheses H1, H3, H4, H5, H5b, H6 and H7 were supported, indicating that FWH improve WLB while influencing fatigue, and that teleworking moderates these relationships. However, Hypotheses H2 and H5a were not supported, suggesting that teleworking does not significantly increase fatigue, nor mediate the relationship with WLB through fatigue. This table provides a concise and comprehensive summary of the model’s empirical findings.

The purpose of this research was to examine the influence of TWH, FWH and work fatigue on WLB. To this end, an empirical study was conducted using SEM with data from 13,724 workers. This data set comes from the latest wave of the EWCTS, which collects information from 71,758 workers in 32 countries.

The findings of this study show that TWH has a negative impact on WLB (H1). This result aligns with Palumbo et al. (2022), who argue that teleworkers’ inability to separate work and personal life is a key factor negatively affecting WLB. These results reinforce the notion that, although telework may provide greater flexibility, it can also blur the boundaries between work and personal spheres, leading to role conflicts (Allen et al., 2000; Clark, 2000; Fisher et al., 2009; Greenhaus and Powell, 2006).

Regarding the potential increase in work fatigue derived from TWH (H2), the results do not conclusively support this relationship. This observation contrasts with previous research, such as Weinert et al. (2015) and Mann and Holdsworth (2003), who noted that teleworking may heighten physical and mental fatigue due to increased emotional load and lack of disconnection. The discrepancy may stem from variability in workers’ experiences. Some studies, such as Palumbo (2020), argue that workers with heavy job demands may fail to recognise how work invades their personal lives. Along these lines, other research indicates that some workers view telework as a way to avoid commuting stress and better manage their time, thus minimising perceptions of work fatigue (Golden et al., 2006; De Simone et al., 2014).

FWH exert a positive influence on WLB and help reduce work fatigue (H3 and H4). These findings are consistent with Hill et al. (2001), who emphasise the mutual benefit of flexible schedules for both organisations and employees. They also align with Clark (2000) and Back-Wiklund et al. (2011), who identify FWH as an effective strategy to mitigate conflicts between professional and personal obligations. The ability to adjust work schedules according to individual needs not only contributes to improving WLB but also lowers mental and physical exhaustion. This reduction in fatigue can be explained by more efficient management of time and responsibilities, which translates into greater well-being for workers.

Work fatigue negatively affects WLB (H5), mirroring the findings of Weinert et al. (2015) and Kelly et al. (2020), who highlight the role of physical and emotional stress, as well as burnout, in reducing employees’ capacity to manage demands from both domains. Such burnout not only depletes the energy needed to meet personal responsibilities but also hampers effective decision-making, thereby creating a cycle of work-family conflict (Bakker et al., 2008).

Moreover, fatigue increases the risk of “work spillover” behaviours – when professional duties and concerns intrude upon personal time – exacerbating conflict between these two spheres (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). These findings underscore the importance of adopting strategies to reduce fatigue, such as wellness initiatives, flexible work schedules and balanced workload management. Tackling fatigue promotes a better quality of life, higher productivity and increased job satisfaction, underscoring its relevance in policies aimed at achieving a sustainable WLB.

With respect to the negative mediation of fatigue in the relationship between home-based telework and WLB (H5a), the hypothesis could not be confirmed. The results suggest that the effect of fatigue on the link between home-based telework and WLB is negligible. In other words, its negative effect on WLB may stem from other factors – such as blurred boundaries between professional and family domains or hyperconnectedness – rather than fatigue arising from working at home. This finding diverges from studies suggesting that teleworking helps reduce fatigue by offering greater flexibility and schedule control (Golden et al., 2006).

On the other hand, the data confirm the mediating role of work fatigue in the relationship between working-time flexibility and WLB (H5b). These findings align with earlier research (Hill et al., 2001), which indicates that flexible work schedules enable employees to adapt their workday to personal needs, alleviating stress caused by rigid patterns and, consequently, fatigue. By mitigating burnout, flextime not only directly enhances WLB but also serves as a protective mechanism for managing energy and time more efficiently. Furthermore, this mediation reveals that flexible schedules are more effective when supported by organisational policies that respect employees’ time, preventing hyper-availability (Kossek et al., 2017). Therefore, this conclusion underscores the strategic importance of flexible schedules not only as an employee benefit but also as a key lever to reduce fatigue and foster well-being, generating positive effects for both individuals and organisations.

Finally, the results indicate that TWH positively moderates the relationship of schedule flexibility with WLB, both when taking into account the effect of work fatigue (H6) and when the effect of schedule flexibility is direct on WLB (H7). These findings support the idea that teleworking, combined with flexible schedules, helps alleviate the tensions arising from managing demands in both the work and personal domains. In this context, employees not only experience reduced work fatigue but also achieve a more satisfactory WLB, consistent with previous studies (Allen et al., 2021; Chung and van der Lippe, 2020; Gajendran et al., 2007). Furthermore, research suggests that combining flextime with telework amplifies flextime’s positive effect on WLB (Chung and van der Lippe, 2020). This result contrasts with studies such as Golden et al. (2006) and Allen et al. (2013), which propose that home-based teleworking – even when coupled with flexible schedules – could increase work-family conflict. This discrepancy might be explained by the challenges of balancing flexible hours effectively.

The results of this study contribute to the literature on WLB, telework and flexible work schedules in several important ways. Firstly, this research provides a more integrated understanding of how flexible work schedules and telework jointly affect WLB, offering empirical evidence that highlights the need to consider both practices together, rather than in isolation. In addition, it delves into the role of WF as both a mediating and moderating variable; a dimension that has been relatively underexplored in previous research, thereby shedding new light on the complex influence of fatigue in the relationship between flexible work schedules and WLB.

This article also challenges some previous findings in the literature, particularly regarding the impact of telework on WF. Although earlier studies, such as Weinert et al. (2015), suggested that telework increases WF, the results of this study did not confirm that relationship, indicating that fatigue may depend on various factors, including the post-pandemic context or individual worker characteristics.

From a practical standpoint, the findings of this research have crucial implications for human resource management and organisational policies. Firstly, organisations aiming to enhance employees’ WLB should consider not only implementing telework policies but also complementing them with flextime measures. The results show that employees who benefit from both telework and flextime report better WLB, and lower levels of WF. Secondly, the study indicates that organisations must address the critical role of WF. Merely offering telework, without tackling the root causes of fatigue (e.g. excessive workloads or lack of disconnection), may not suffice to improve WLB. Therefore, companies should introduce measures designed to mitigate WF, such as clear limits on working hours, wellness initiatives and adequate breaks.

Finally, these findings suggest that teleworking and flextime are not universal solutions for all employees. Individual differences – such as self-management skills, job type and family circumstances – can significantly affect the effectiveness of these policies. Consequently, HR managers need to implement tailored strategies, adapting these practices to meet the specific needs of each employee.

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. Firstly, although data from the 2021 EWCTS provide a large and representative sample, the findings are based on self-reported information, which may introduce social desirability bias or recall errors. Such biases could affect the accuracy of responses related to WLB, work fatigue and telework. Secondly, the study’s cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causal relationships between variables. Although SEM was used to identify relationships, it remains unclear whether changes to telework or flexible work schedules directly result in changes to WLB or work fatigue over time. Finally, the focus on a sample of European workers may restrict the generalisability of the findings to other cultural and economic contexts. Perceptions of telework and flexible schedules may differ considerably across regions or industries, highlighting the need to expand the geographical and sectoral scope of future research.

Future research could explore how diverse groups of workers experience telework and flexible work schedules. Factors such as gender, age, job type, family structure and cultural background may significantly shape how employees perceive these practices and their potential to enhance WLB Investigating these differences could inform the development of more inclusive policies that address the specific needs of various groups. It would also be valuable to examine organisational interventions aimed at mitigating the adverse effects of telework and flexible schedules on WF. Future studies might evaluate the effectiveness of wellness programmes, digital disconnection policies and workload management strategies in reducing worker fatigue, thereby improving long-term performance and job satisfaction.

This study investigated the effects of TWH and FWH on WLB, as well as their influence on WF. TWH was found to have a negative impact on WLB, supporting the idea that the simultaneous management of work and personal spheres can be challenging. Contrary to expectations, TWH showed a slight indication of reducing WF although this result was not statistically significant.

FWH, on the other hand, positively confirmed their impact on improving WLB, and reducing WF, in line with previous studies highlighting their benefits for WLB. Furthermore, it was confirmed that WF plays a crucial role in WLB as a significant factor in this balance.

Regarding the mediating role of WF, the results indicated that FWH can indeed reduce WF and, consequently, improve WLB. However, no significant evidence was found that TWH affects WLB through the reduction of WF. Finally, the moderating effect of TWH on the relationship between FWH and WLB was demonstrated, suggesting that combining TWH with FWH may be beneficial for reducing WF and improving WLB.

Funding: Of the open access fee: University of Malaga / CBUA.

Table A1