Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Job stress among public sector employees, particularly those working in election oversight institutions, poses risks to employee well-being and organizational performance. This study examined the associations between work–life balance, work overload, and job stress among employees of the West Java Provincial Election Supervisory Agency (Badan Pengawas Pemilihan Umum, Bawaslu), addressing a gap in empirical evidence concerning Indonesian election oversight institutions. A quantitative, cross-sectional census design was employed, involving all 46 employees of the agency. Data were collected using a five-point Likert-type questionnaire measuring job stress (17 items), work–life balance (15 items), and work overload (15 items), with Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.936, 0.888, and 0.871, respectively. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression analysis were used to examine the data. The results indicated low work–life balance (M = 2.20), high job stress (M = 3.96), and a moderate level of work overload (M = 3.28). Work–life balance was significantly and negatively associated with job stress (B = ?0.169; p = 0.008), whereas work overload was significantly and positively associated with job stress (B = 0.244; p = 0.021). The overall regression model was statistically significant; however, inconsistencies among the reported multiple correlation coefficient (R), coefficient of determination (R²), and F-statistic prevented a reliable interpretation of the proportion of variance explained. The findings suggested that both work–life balance and work overload were significantly associated with job stress among the employees studied, although the cross-sectional design did not support causal conclusions or generalization beyond the study population. Practical implications included reviewing workload distribution and deadlines, managing after-hours work demands, strengthening peer coordination, and providing adequate recovery time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Novianti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: