Purpose This study examines how formal work–life balance (WLB) policies are translated into lived experience in Chinese organisations using state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as case study. Moving beyond static accounts of the WLB policy–practice gap, we develop a process explanation of how formal policy authority interacts with informal relational systems to shape access, use and WLB outcomes. Design/methodology/approach Using a sequential, qualitative-led mixed-methods design, we draw primarily on 23 semi-structured interviews, supplemented by a survey (n = 312) and documentary analysis. This design establishes the “policy-as-intended” baseline and then traces how policies are enacted in everyday work. Findings Documentary and survey evidence confirms a clear WLB policy–practice gap. Primarily, interview data show that WLB implementation is a socially negotiated enactment rather than a linear roll-out. We identify a self-reinforcing three-stage process: (1) formal WLB policies are rendered largely symbolic when subordinated to operational KPIs and political/campaign logics; (2) authority shifts to an informal interface where supervisor–subordinate Guanxi channels managerial discretion, turning entitlements into relationship-contingent privileges and segmenting access; and (3) employees manage risk through performative compliance and reciprocal intensification, absorbing hidden costs that stabilise informal governance and reproduce the gap. Originality/value The study contributes a process model of the formal–informal interface in WLB implementation. It reframes human resource management (HRM) process strength as relationally produced in enactment, specifies supervisor–subordinate Guanxi (SSG) as a mechanism that channels discretion and embeds reciprocity costs and shows how employee risk management can inadvertently sustain policy–practice gaps in relationally governed settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: