Work Life Fulfilment Scale (WLF)

1. Abstract

The Work Life Fulfilment Scale (WLF) is an advanced psychometric instrument developed by Khatri, Shukla, Thomas, Shiva, and Behl (2025) to evaluate a holistic, positively oriented paradigm of human functioning across professional and domestic spheres. Moving beyond conventional paradigms of work-life balance and work-family conflict—which frequently conceptualize the work-nonwork interface as an antagonistic, zero-sum resource depletion dynamic—the WLF operationalizes eudaimonic well-being, human thriving, and holistic personal synergy. The scale is mathematically modeled as a reflective-reflective second-order construct comprising six core first-order dimensions: Work Prowess, Work-Life Balance, Reward and Recognition, Healthy Lifestyle, Relationship Management, and Self-Transcendence.

Developed through a rigorous four-phase methodological architecture—encompassing a systematic literature review, qualitative focus groups, quantitative Content Validity Indexing (CVI), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and predictive criterion modeling—the scale demonstrates robust structural integrity and psychometric reliability. The final instrument presents items measured on a standardized 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). Across development samples, the scale achieved exemplary composite reliability and internal consistency, with dimension-specific Cronbach’s alpha values and composite reliabilities consistently exceeding standard thresholds (> .80) and strong average variance extracted (AVE > .50). Predictive validity assessments confirm that elevated scores on the WLF robustly predict diminished employee burnout, enhanced psychological flourishing, and greater organizational commitment, establishing the WLF as a transformative instrument for industrial-organizational psychologists, human resource executives, and occupational health researchers.

2. Keywords

Work-Life Fulfilment, Work-Life Balance, Eudaimonic Well-Being, Positive Psychology, Work Prowess, Self-Transcendence, Occupational Burnout, Psychometrics, Second-Order Factor Model, Thriving at Work, Organizational Health

3. Authors

The Work Life Fulfilment Scale was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by an interdisciplinary team of researchers in organizational behavior, human resource management, and psychometrics:

• Puja Khatri — Professor, University School of Management Studies (USMS), Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi, India. Expert in organizational behavior, employee engagement, and positive psychology.
• Shweta Shukla — Researcher and Scholar in Human Resource Management and Organizational Psychology, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi, India.
• Anoosha Thomas — Researcher in Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Human Resource Management, specializing in workplace flourishing and occupational well-being.
• Amit Shiva — Academician and Quantitative Methodologist, specializing in multivariate data analysis, structural equation modeling, and scale development methodologies.
• Abhishek Behl — Associate Professor and prolific researcher in information systems, human behavior, and organizational analytics, affiliated with international business institutions including Management Development Institute (MDI) Gurgaon, India.

Correspondence regarding the original development publication can be directed to the corresponding author via the Department of Business Research / Journal of Business Research editorial distribution networks.

4. Purpose

For several decades, organizational scholarship addressing the nexus of employment and personal living has operated predominantly under a scarcity framework. Rooted in traditional role stress theory and Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, scholars historically emphasized work-family conflict, role overload, and resource depletion. Even the popularized construct of “work-life balance” implicitly carries a mechanical assumption of tension, implying that equilibrium requires a zero-sum trade-off: hours, cognitive energy, or emotional presence dedicated to work must inherently subtract from domestic and individual domains. The fundamental purpose of the Work Life Fulfilment Scale (WLF) is to disrupt this deficit-centered ontology by articulating and measuring work-life fulfilment as an integrative, generative state of complete psychological flourishing.

Work-life fulfilment shifts the empirical focus from mere survival, coping, and non-conflict to thriving, psychological growth, and life purpose. It recognizes that professional accomplishment, physiological vitality, close relational bonds, and higher existential purpose can synergistically reinforce one another. An individual who experiences high work prowess and meaningful professional recognition does not merely tolerate the work domain; they derive eudaimonic energy that enriches interpersonal connections, sustains physical health, and activates self-transcendence. Consequently, the WLF is designed to measure how successfully individuals achieve an integrated, meaningful existence where professional pursuits and personal realities coalesce into sustained flourishing.

The scale serves diverse applications across both organizational and academic settings:

• Applied Organizational Diagnostics: Human resource departments, organizational development practitioners, and occupational wellness leaders can deploy the WLF as a strategic diagnostic audit. It enables organizations to identify systemic deficits across distinct dimensions—such as inadequate relational support, insufficient recognition mechanisms, or truncated avenues for purpose-driven work—moving beyond generic employee satisfaction surveys.
• Intervention Design and Evaluation: The scale enables precise baseline and post-intervention evaluations for corporate wellness programs, flexible working initiatives, leadership coaching, and organizational job-crafting strategies.
• Clinical and Occupational Health Assessment: In counseling and occupational health environments, the WLF assists clinicians and executive coaches in identifying existential alienation, professional disempowerment, or somatic health erosion before symptomatic burnout manifests.
• Advanced Empirical Research: The WLF equips researchers with a psychometrically rigorous, multidimensional instrument capable of advancing complex structural equation models exploring the nomological network connecting corporate social responsibility, leadership styles, employee turnover intentions, psychological capital, and subjective vitality.

5. Psychological Construct

The Work Life Fulfilment construct is mathematically and conceptually articulated as a reflective-reflective second-order multidimensional construct. Under this conceptualization, the overarching latent phenomenon—Work-Life Fulfilment—manifests across six distinct, interconnected, yet non-redundant first-order domains. Each domain captures a fundamental facet of an individual’s psychological ecosystem:

1. Work Prowess

Work Prowess encompasses an employee’s perceived mastery, self-efficacy, and cognitive competence within their occupational role. Rather than referring strictly to objective skill certification, work prowess captures the psychological self-assurance that one possesses the technical acumen, problem-solving agility, and emotional resilience necessary to surmount complex operational challenges. For instance, an employee exhibiting elevated work prowess approaches ambiguous professional demands not as debilitating threats, but as intrinsically rewarding opportunities for mastery, maintaining deep confidence in their executive capabilities.

2. Work-Life Balance

In the context of the WLF, Work-Life Balance reflects the pragmatic, operational harmony achieved between professional tasks and nonwork life. This dimension encapsulates temporal agility, cognitive boundary management, and psychological detachment. It assesses whether an individual experiences reasonable autonomy in scheduling, avoids the pervasive encroachment of work-related rumination into domestic hours, and successfully executes responsibilities across occupational, domestic, and familial spaces without chronic logistical strain.

3. Reward and Recognition

Rooted in organizational justice and psychological contract theories, the Reward and Recognition dimension measures the extent to which an individual feels validated, appreciated, and equitably compensated for their labor. This includes both extrinsic reinforcers (e.g., competitive financial compensation, tangible incentives, advancement opportunities) and intrinsic social reinforcers (e.g., authentic verbal praise from leadership, public peer recognition, institutional appreciation). When employees perceive robust reward and recognition, their professional self-worth is reinforced, minimizing feelings of exploitation.

4. Healthy Lifestyle

The Healthy Lifestyle dimension captures the somatic and behavioral foundations of human flourishing. It evaluates whether an individual’s everyday living patterns sustain physiological and mental vitality, including adequate sleep hygiene, physical activity, wholesome nutritional habits, and proactive stress-reduction rituals. Within the WLF architecture, physical health is not viewed as a detached biological metric, but as an indispensable reservoir of physical and nervous system energy required to sustain cognitive focus at work and emotional presence at home.

5. Relationship Management

Humans are fundamentally social beings whose psychological functioning depends on social belonging and secure attachment. The Relationship Management dimension evaluates the depth, authenticity, and reciprocal emotional support characterizing an individual’s personal and social networks. This encompasses familial harmony, meaningful friendships, positive domestic partnerships, and empathetic collegial relationships. High scores reflect an absence of chronic interpersonal alienation and indicate the existence of robust emotional safety nets that buffer against acute stressors.

6. Self-Transcendence

Drawing directly from humanistic and existential psychology, Self-Transcendence represents the pinnacle of the WLF model. This dimension measures an individual’s conviction that their labor and personal existence serve a higher purpose beyond immediate self-interest, ego gratifications, or material accumulation. It evaluates the degree to which an individual experiences their daily activities as contributing positively to society, future generations, ecological welfare, or communal advancement. Self-transcendence infuses occupational striving with deep existential meaning, transforming routine employment into a vocational calling.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Work Life Fulfilment Scale synthesizes several foundational paradigms from occupational health psychology, humanistic philosophy, and organizational behavior:

Positive Psychology and Eudaimonic Well-Being

The primary philosophical underpinning of the WLF is rooted in positive psychology and Aristotelian eudaimonia, popularized in modern psychology by scholars such as Martin Seligman and Carol Ryff. In contrast to hedonic well-being—which focuses strictly on momentary pleasure maximization and pain avoidance—eudaimonic well-being centers on human flourishing, self-realization, and purposeful living. The WLF integrates Seligman’s PERMA model (Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment), ensuring that fulfillment represents an enduring, multidimensional state of actualization rather than transient occupational contentment.

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory and Resource Enrichment

Originally formulated by Stevan E. Hobfoll, COR theory posits that individuals actively seek to acquire, preserve, protect, and accumulate valuable resources, ranging from material assets to psychological conditions such as self-efficacy and health. While classical research utilized COR theory to explain resource depletion cascades leading to burnout, the WLF draws upon modern expansions of COR theory: resource enrichment and resource caravans. Resources generated in one domain (e.g., self-efficacy cultivated via Work Prowess, or social capital nurtured in Relationship Management) cross-pollinate and enrich the adjacent domain, producing virtuous cycles of psychological resilience and holistic flourishing.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

Conceptualized by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, Self-Determination Theory asserts that psychological wellness depends upon the satisfaction of three innate, universal psychological needs: autonomy (ownership over one’s life), competence (feeling effective in interacting with the social environment), and relatedness (experiencing reciprocal belonging). The dimensions of the WLF map directly onto these fundamental needs: Work Prowess addresses competence; Work-Life Balance reflects autonomy over temporal and personal boundaries; and Relationship Management satisfies relatedness.

Frankl’s Existential Meaning and Maslow’s Self-Actualization

The inclusion of Self-Transcendence draws upon Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy and Abraham Maslow’s revised hierarchy of needs. Frankl posited that the search for meaning is the primary motivational force in human existence. Late in his life, Maslow amended his famous pyramid to place self-transcendence above self-actualization, arguing that human flourishing reaches its zenith when an individual surrenders the ego to serve transpersonal causes. The WLF explicitly embeds this perspective by evaluating how vocational output contributes to broader societal flourishing.

7. Validity

The scale development and validation process conducted by Khatri et al. (2025) adhered strictly to established psychometric standards, demonstrating extensive empirical validity across multiple analytical phases:

Content and Face Validity

To establish comprehensive item domain clarity, the researchers executed an initial systematic literature review followed by qualitative focus group sessions with industry practitioners, academicians, and occupational psychologists. A quantitative evaluation using Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Lynn’s Content Validity Index (CVI) was executed using a panel of subject-matter experts. Items exhibiting an item-level CVI (I-CVI) below .78 were revised or eliminated, securing a Scale-Level Content Validity Index (S-CVI/Ave) well above the .90 benchmark, ensuring that each dimension conceptually mirrored its theoretical domain.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates whether the observed indicators of a latent construct share a high proportion of variance. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that all standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) across the six dimensions were statistically significant ($p < .001$) and exceeded the standard .60 threshold (with the vast majority exceeding .70). Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) calculated for each of the six first-order dimensions, as well as the overarching second-order construct, surpassed the recommended threshold of .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), demonstrating that the latent factors explain over 50% of the variance in their respective measurement items.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established via two rigorous psychometric methodologies:

• Fornell-Larcker Criterion: The square root of the AVE for each latent dimension was systematically compared to the inter-construct correlations between dimensions. In all cases, the square root of the AVE was substantially higher than any paired inter-construct correlation coefficient, confirming that each dimension possesses empirical uniqueness.
• Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT): Recognizing the conservative nature of the Fornell-Larcker test, the researchers computed HTMT ratios across all pairs of constructs. All HTMT values were well below the stringent conservative threshold of .85, confirming that the six dimensions do not overlap excessively.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

To verify the clinical and practical utility of the WLF, predictive validity was tested against established occupational outcomes. Structural equation modeling established that the overarching Work Life Fulfilment construct exhibited a strong, statistically significant negative relationship with employee burnout (measured via standardized burnout inventories capturing emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment). Concurrently, WLF demonstrated significant positive relationships with affective organizational commitment, flourishing, and subjective vitality, confirming that higher WLF scores directly predict diminished clinical strain and elevated professional engagement.

8. Reliability

Reliability analyses conducted during the four-phase validation process confirmed that the WLF exhibits exceptional internal consistency, temporal stability, and scale homogeneity across diverse occupational demographics.

Internal Consistency Metrics

Standard psychometric protocols require assessing internal consistency via both traditional and modern estimates:

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): Across validation samples, the overarching scale Cronbach’s alpha surpassed .90, demonstrating exceptional overall reliability. Each individual subscale exhibited strong alpha coefficients: Work Prowess ($lpha > .82$), Work-Life Balance ($lpha > .84$), Reward and Recognition ($lpha > .85$), Healthy Lifestyle ($lpha > .81$), Relationship Management ($lpha > .83$), and Self-Transcendence ($lpha > .86$). All dimensions comfortably exceeded the classical .70 threshold recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Because Cronbach’s alpha assumes tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings), Composite Reliability (Raykov’s rho / McDonald’s omega equivalent) was calculated within structural equation modeling. The CR values across all six dimensions ranged between .83 and .91, establishing exceptional internal construct coherence without item redundancy.

Scale Homogeneity

Corrected item-total correlations across the entire scale were systematically inspected. All item-total correlation values exceeded .40, with no individual item demonstrating an alpha-if-item-deleted increase, confirming that every item meaningfully contributes to the measurement of its designated dimension.

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality and latent architecture of the Work Life Fulfilment Scale were determined using an initial Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on a calibration sample, followed by rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on an independent validation sample.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Prior to extraction, the sampling adequacy was confirmed via the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure, which yielded an outstanding value exceeding .90, while Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity attained high statistical significance ($p < .001$), confirming significant correlation matrices suitable for factor extraction. Principal Axis Factoring with Promax (oblique) rotation was executed to allow for the theoretically expected correlations between wellness dimensions. The EFA extracted six distinct eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Kaiser’s criterion), supported by Cattell’s scree plot analysis. The six-factor solution explained over 60% of the total cumulative variance. Items demonstrated clean factor patterns, exhibiting primary factor loadings exceeding .60 and negligible cross-loadings (< .30).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Second-Order Architecture

Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation to validate the hypothesized higher-order structure. A series of competitive structural models were tested against each other:

• Single-Factor Model: All items loaded onto a single latent general factor. This model exhibited poor fit across all conventional indices ($\chi^2/ ext{df} > 5.0$, $ ext{CFI} < .75$,$ ext{RMSEA} > .11$), demonstrating that WLF cannot be conceptualized as a unidimensional construct.
• Six-Factor First-Order Correlated Model: Six distinct first-order factors freely correlated with one another. This model demonstrated strong goodness-of-fit indices.
• Reflective-Reflective Second-Order Model: In this target theoretical model, the six first-order dimensions loaded directly onto a single overarching second-order latent construct: Work-Life Fulfilment. This model achieved superior, highly parsimonious model fit indices:

Second-order factor loadings ($\gamma$) from the overarching Work-Life Fulfilment construct to each of the six first-order dimensions were all highly significant ($p < .001$) and elevated (ranging from .68 to .88), providing statistical justification for treating the six domains as sub-dimensions of a singular, overarching work-life fulfilment phenomenon.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural characteristics, administration requirements, and diagnostic scoring protocols for the Work Life Fulfilment Scale are detailed below:

• Instrument Designation: Work Life Fulfilment Scale (WLF)
• Target Population: Working adults, employed professionals across public, private, and non-profit sectors, knowledge workers, corporate managers, and gig-economy workers.
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric rating inventory; multidimensional reflective-reflective second-order instrument.
• Administration Format: Digital online survey forms, paper-and-pencil questionnaires, or integrated corporate diagnostic pulse modules.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Number of Subscales: 6 first-order dimensions: Work Prowess, Work-Life Balance, Reward and Recognition, Healthy Lifestyle, Relationship Management, and Self-Transcendence.
• Response Scale: Standard 5-point Likert-type scale formatted as follows:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral / Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Computational Procedures:
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by computing the arithmetic mean of all items constituting each specific subscale (Score Range: 1.00 to 5.00 per dimension).
  • Composite Global WLF Score: Calculated either as the arithmetic mean of the six dimension scores or through factor-score weighting derived from second-order structural equation modeling (Score Range: 1.00 to 5.00).
  • Interpretive Benchmarks:
    • 1.00 to 2.49: Low Work-Life Fulfilment — Indicates acute operational disequilibrium, feelings of alienation, health neglect, and severe vulnerability to occupational burnout.
    • 2.50 to 3.79: Moderate Work-Life Fulfilment — Denotes adequate transactional functioning and coping, but accompanied by clear deficits in existential alignment, holistic health, or social reciprocity.
    • 3.80 to 5.00: High Work-Life Fulfilment — Reflects complete psychological flourishing, strong professional self-efficacy, deep relational resilience, and profound vocational meaning.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Work Life Fulfilment Scale was formally introduced to the academic literature in 2025 in the peer-reviewed empirical publication:

Khatri, P., Shukla, S., Thomas, A., Shiva, A., & Behl, A. (2025). Towards work life fulfilment: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 186, 115006.

Regarding usage rights, fees, and licensing:

• Academic and Non-Commercial Research: Under standard fair-use academic conventions, qualified university researchers, post-graduate students, and non-commercial scholars may utilize the scale for scientific inquiry, non-funded dissertations, and research studies without royalty fees, provided proper bibliographic citation is accorded to the original authors and the Journal of Business Research.
• Commercial, Organizational, and Consulting Applications: Commercial use, including incorporation into commercial employee engagement platforms, proprietary diagnostic SaaS products, paid organizational consulting audits, or executive coaching instruments, requires prior written authorization from the primary authors and copyright holders (Elsevier B.V. / Journal of Business Research).
• Intellectual Property & Copyright: The content structure, psychometric modeling, and published textual formulations are protected under international copyright law. Researchers seeking complete unedited diagnostic batteries or permission for non-English cross-cultural translations should contact the primary authors directly or utilize the Elsevier permissions clearinghouse (RightsLink).

12. References

• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man’s search for meaning. Simon and Schuster.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Khatri, P., Shukla, S., Thomas, A., Shiva, A., & Behl, A. (2025). Towards work life fulfilment: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 186, 115006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115006
• Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. Viking Press.
• Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
• Seligman, M. E. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.

13. Items of the Scale