The Relationship among Four Lifestyles of Workers amid the COVID-19 Pandemic (Work–Life Balance, YOLO, Minimal Life, and Staycation) and Organizational Effectiveness: With a Focus on Four Countries

Abstract

This study empirically analyzes the effects of four lifestyles of office workers (work and life balance, you only live once (YOLO), minimal life, and staycation), which have been changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, on organizational effectiveness (measured by job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior). A questionnaire survey was conducted over four months through a global research firm. In total, 649 valid questionnaires were collected. A structural equation model analysis was performed on valid samples using SmartPLS statistics. The results were as follows: (1) Work and life balance, YOLO, and minimal life had a statistically significant positive effect on job satisfaction. (2) Minimal life had a statistically significant positive effect on organizational commitment. (3) Work and life balance, and staycation had statistically significant positive effects on organizational citizenship behavior. (4) Job satisfaction had a statistically significant positive effect on organizational commitment. (5) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment had a statistically significant positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior. This is the first empirical study to focus on four lifestyles (work–life balance, YOLO, minimal life, and staycation). The results show that job satisfaction was affected the most by YOLO,’ that organizational commitment was affected the most by minimal life, and that organizational citizenship behavior was affected the most by work–life balance.

1. Introduction

Undoubtedly, the most pressing issue of 2020 was the COVID-19 pandemic [1]. The prolonged pandemic has created striking changes in work cultures and lifestyles [2,3]. These changes are diverse, including the introduction and expansion of telecommuting, the implementation of staggered commuting, the introduction of remote work methods, the installation of partitions, the closure and reduction in public spaces such as conference rooms, and the reduction in office space [4,5].

In parallel, over the past decade, work–life balance has become a widely discussed topic [6]. Companies above a certain size have been devoting attention to the lives of their employees, while employees have been spending time and energy balancing their work, life, and family [7]. The prolonged COVID-19 pandemic has left many suffering and in hardship. However, it has also accelerated the arrival of this “work–life balance” era [8]. That is, the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic has ushered in an era where an individual’s workplace and residence are one and the same, with many companies putting in place telecommuting policies. Notably, late company dinners and meetings have been replaced by regular working hours, remote meetings, and even remote company dinners [9]. Companies have also been scrambling to establish “untact” systems, which refers to non-face-to-face contact [10].

Today, office workers often reference the concept of being “present” as important in their lives. That is, they have trouble focusing on the present because they are so busy. From this has emerged the concept of you only live once (YOLO), a lifestyle that emphasizes enjoying life in the present [11]. YOLO captures the lifestyles of those who value their happiness generated from travel, hobbies, and self-development and who strive to live life without regrets [12,13]. As the popularity of this lifestyle increases, age groups that pursue the YOLO lifestyle are steadily growing. People in their 20 s and 30 s initially were the main proponents of YOLO, but recently, even those in their 50 s and 60 s have followed this philosophy. Those who pursue a YOLO lifestyle are called “YOLOers”, who value happiness and satisfaction with their present lives [14,15].

In addition to work–life balance and YOLO, the concept of a minimalist lifestyle has garnered attention. The economic recession and prolonged COVID-19 pandemic are two factors that have fueled interest in this lifestyle [16]. A minimal lifestyle is one in which an individual reduces unnecessary possessions, and works and lives with just a few essentials. Thus, it is a lifestyle of reducing excess and restraining spending, thereby creating the time to focus on oneself and one’s surroundings, which is why it has drawn contemporary interest [17,18].

During the prolonged pandemic, consumption has dropped to a minimum; more people have come to value the quality of life and life experiences, and “staycations” have become a trend [19,20]. A staycation, a portmanteau of “stay” and “vacation”, is a vacation spent at or near one’s home rather than at a distant destination [21]. Staycations have naturally become a new travel trend amid the stress of outside vacations during the pandemic, the economic recession, persistent high oil prices, and the spread of COVID-19 worldwide [21,22,23].

Changes in workstyle and the environment due to the prolonged pandemic have unavoidably impacted the job motivation and job satisfaction of many office workers [24,25]. As organizational compositions change and remote work becomes more commonplace, more companies are adopting horizontal structures and smart business practices, and the job satisfaction of employees is likely to increase in certain respects. Nevertheless, there may also be factors that reduce motivation [24,25]. Moreover, a remote working environment can reduce bonds and intimacy (e.g., organizational commitment) among employees, making it a potential impediment to convergent innovation in a space of free-flowing ideas. It has also been noted that people tend to understand each other and to form stronger relationships when working and communicating face-to-face [26,27]. Furthermore, changes in the workforce structure, the burden of producing high output with fewer employees, and the inability to obtain support from colleagues (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior) in real time may act as factors that degrade the psychological stability of employees [28,29,30]. In this context, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic is causing widespread impact on countless businesses, office workers, and economies worldwide [31].

However, in terms of the field of organizational behavior in business administration and psychology, no research has yet focused on these four lifestyles of office workers (work–life balance, YOLO, minimal life, and staycation) in the context of COVID-19, even though the COVID-19 pandemic has persisted now for over three years. Additionally, no studies have specifically investigated which of these four lifestyles enhance organizational effectiveness (as measured by job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior). There is also no research that comparatively analyzes the influence of these four lifestyles as antecedent factors on organizational effectiveness among general office workers in Asia, Europe, North America, and Africa.

Accordingly, our goal is as follows: to investigate how these four lifestyles of office workers influence organizational effectiveness in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we perform a comparative analysis among different ethnicities using one representative developed country in each of Asia, Europe, North America, and Africa (South Korea, the UK, the US, and South Africa). To that end, we ask the following questions.

Research question 1. How do the four lifestyles of office workers (work–life balance, YOLO, minimal life, and staycation) influence organizational effectiveness (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior)? Research question 2. How does the job satisfaction of office workers influence organizational commitment, and how does job satisfaction/organizational commitment influence organizational citizenship behavior? Research question 3. Do the influences of the four lifestyles of office workers (work–life balance, YOLO, minimal life, and staycation) on organizational effectiveness (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior) differ among office workers from the four countries (South Korea, the UK, the US, and South Africa)?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Four Office Worker Lifestyles Changed by COVID-19

A “lifestyle” comprises cultural and psychological aspects such as ways of living, thinking, and behaving that originate from individual or family values [32,33]. While the term “lifestyle” was originally used in sociology and cultural anthropology without a clear definition, interest in it has grown recently in research fields such as marketing in business administration and psychology, consumer behavior, and consumption psychology (e.g., [34,35,36,37,38,39]).

This market interest is based on the need to segment customers, considering not only demographic characteristics but also psychological ones. There is also a need to identify potential consumer requirements when developing new products or infusing new meaning into existing products [34,35,36,37,38,39]. This was established on the premise that the agents that determine consumer behavior not only behave according to rational economic principles as consumers but also are conscious beings that independently design their own lives [40,41,42,43].

This study focuses on four lifestyles because most workers today pursue (i) a lifestyle of YOLO, (ii) a minimal life, (iii) a work–life balance, or (iv) travel to not too distant places [7,8,12,13,14,15,17,18,21,22,23]. These four lifestyles roughly reflect contemporary trends, but life values and life purposes across individuals may differ. The lifestyle of previous generations was centered on achieving goals for the distant future and for descendants at the expense of present enjoyment [11,12,13,14,15]. However, the dominant lifestyle pursued by the current generation is to enjoy “this moment” and to seek happiness in the present; thus, the emergence of these newly coined words is part of this natural evolution [11,12,13].

Because the aforementioned lifestyles (work–life balance, YOLO, minimal life, and staycation) are very important current issues, this study empirically investigates the impact and statistical significance of these four lifestyles on organizational effectiveness. Namely, the following is a detailed examination of the four lifestyles of office workers (work–life balance, YOLO, minimal life, and staycation) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of organizational behavior in business administration and psychology.

2.1.1. Work–Life Balance

Work–life balance is the degree to which an individual’s work and life are maintained in harmony [44,45,46]. Originally focused on the work–family balance of working women, it has developed into a concept applied to all workers regardless of gender or marital status, against a backdrop of changing views of labor and diversifying lifestyles [44,45,46]. In today’s society, where the promise of a personal life has vanished due to constant work correspondence outside the office through social media, frequent overtime, and strenuous work regardless of salary, work–life balance has become a critical factor when choosing a job or profession [47,48,49].

Moreover, the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic has fueled rising interest in work–life balance. The uncertainty of today’s low-growth era has driven many to value “small but certain happiness”, even if tomorrow’s growth may be higher [50]. More people now prefer a job without overtime instead of a high-paying position and enjoy their evenings free [51,52]. Work–life balance was a key business concept in 2018. In addition to general private companies clamoring for innovation in organizational culture and improved labor productivity, the public sector has been devoting efforts to creating a work–life balance culture [53]. Work–life balance policies, which include various measures, such as flexible working hours and shutting off office computers at a certain time, have become a trend amid a growing atmosphere that values work–family balance and quality of life [49,54]. Based on the above, we define work–life balance as “the degree to which one desires to leave work and take breaks at designated times, and wants this to be institutionalized” (Figure 1).

2.1.2. YOLO (You Only Live Once)

YOLO is the acronym for you only live once and captures the attitudes of those who highly value their current happiness [11]. Thus, adherents of this lifestyle do not sacrifice for the future or for others but rather prioritize consumption for their own happiness in the present [12,13]. YOLOers spend money on hobbies and self-development to improve their current quality of life rather than on saving for a home or retirement. Their consumption differs from impulse buying in that they are in the process of realizing their ideal life, going beyond merely satisfying materialistic desires [14,15].

Rather than putting off desires and saving for the future, YOLOers value consuming diverse experiences in the present [11]. YOLOers reduce their sacrifices for others and hard work as much as possible and instead freely spend on what makes them happy [12,13]. The YOLO group reflects similar characteristics to the “yuppy” group that emerged in the 1980s. The yuppy group included young, urban-dwelling, high-income professionals characterized by enjoying their lives by investing heavily in fashion or leisure [55]. Members of the yuppy generation grew up with high-quality educations and stable living conditions, were consumption-oriented, and sought carefree lifestyles [55]. In contrast, YOLOers do not necessarily have easygoing or economically stable lives [56].

While there are various reasons for office worker enthusiasm for a YOLO life, the greatest driver is perhaps the era of low growth [57]. Moreover, the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic has fueled uncertainty about the future. In the past, young people at least had the hope that their present sacrifices would provide for a better future [11,57,58]. Generally, the longer one works, the more promotions and higher salaries one can receive throughout one’s career [58,59]. However, amid low economic growth and the stagnation of corporate organizations, the proverbial pie shared with employees is continuously shrinking [57]. For these reasons, YOLOers seek opportunities to completely revamp their lives with new challenges such as travel and hobbies. They confront reality marred by challenges due to circumstances such as age or their environment, and try to enjoy life by investing in present experiences. Thus, YOLOers faithfully live in the moment, as if today is the last day of their lives [12,60]. Based on the above, we define YOLO as “the degree to which one pursues happiness in the present and does not sacrifice for the future or for others” (Figure 2).

2.1.3. Minimalist Life

A minimalistic lifestyle is synonymous with “simple life” and “simple living” [61]. It is characterized by voluntarily reducing unnecessary objects or routines and being satisfied with one’s possessions [17,18]. Life becomes simpler as one eliminates possessions and then more abundant as one’s mind and thoughts become organized. The time gained from reducing consumption can be used to focus on what is important [17,18]. Those who practice this lifestyle are referred to as minimalists [62].

The prolonged COVID-19 pandemic has led to growing interest in the minimal life as well [63,64]. There are three main ways in which a minimal life resonates with people in modern society and why it is gaining attention as a new lifestyle.

• In addition to the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic, the economic recession is driving attention on this [65,66]. With declining consumption, critical views of excessive economic materialism and mass consumption in a consumerist society are growing, and more people are valuing quality of life or experiences while minimizing consumption. Similar to the YOLO trend, economic and spatial constraints in today’s era of low growth have accelerated these changes [65,66].
• Advancements in information technology have had a significant effect [67,68]. A single smartphone can now replace many objects with functions. With the development of digital technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things) and various business models, the sharing economy has emerged, making it possible to minimize physical ownership. Notably, the development of high-speed internet has enabled the rapid spread of various lifestyles [67,68].
• Socio-demographic conditions have impacted lifestyles [69]. The aging population and rising occupational mobility have accelerated the dissolution of families and increased the number of single-person households. The number of people moving to certain areas has risen alongside worldwide economic expansion and more frequent population movement, leading to discomfort as household items increase. Moreover, more people who have felt worn out from difficult work and long hours are improving their quality of life by minimizing their domestic labor [69]. Based on the above, we define a minimal life as “the degree in which one seeks to escape from the desire for possessions or a life bound by possessions and pursue only what one truly wants” (Figure 3).

2.1.4. Staycation

A “staycation” is a social phenomenon in which people spend vacations at home or visit nearby locations by car rather than traveling to faraway destinations [19,20]. That is, this vacation involves traveling to a destination within reach by car and then returning home to sleep [21]. The greatest advantage of staycations is the reduction in travel time and accumulated fatigue, allowing individuals to focus on releasing built-up stress [19,20]. Staycations include not only leisure activities at home but also outings such as going for a walk or exercising near one’s home or visiting a movie theater or exhibition hall in a nearby city [70,71].

Indeed, like the YOLO and minimal life trends, staycations, as opposed to overseas travel, have become popular due to the recession in which the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic has played a part [21,22,23]. In sum, the prolonged economic recession and high oil prices, as well as the spread of COVID-19, have significantly influenced the choice of staycations by many people around the world [21,22,23].

Cultural trends in enjoying leisure have also played a role. Specifically, this is the inclination to take a relaxing and laid-back vacation rather than to go to a complex summer resort [72]. In this regard, many office workers desire to release stress from various causes, such as cognitive overload, fatigue, tension from work and social life, uncertainty about the future, and complex social relationships [72]. Based on the above, we define staycation as “the degree to which one chooses one’s home as a vacation destination rather than a faraway destination” (Figure 4).

2.2. Organizational Effectiveness

Organizational effectiveness assesses how well the goals of an organization are met and how effectively and efficiently it operates [73]. Organizational effectiveness encompasses the organization’s goals and its members. Ultimately, the purpose of an organizational study is to maximize organizational effectiveness, which is accomplished by introducing new systems, implementing improvements, and pursuing innovation [74,75].

However, despite significant interest in organizational effectiveness, it has never been precisely conceptualized. One reason for this is because many organizations have multiple goals that often conflict with each other [74,75]. Additionally, in organizations with multiple goals, something considered effective in one field may be ineffective in another. Moreover, organizations must establish various standards according to their characteristics (e.g., public or private) [74,75].

Most scholars investigate the following three factors for a detailed analysis of organizational effectiveness, although individual study views may differ: (i) job satisfaction: a pleasant and positive emotional state that results when individual workers assess their completed tasks and experience [73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80]; (ii) organizational commitment: the level of individual workers’ desire to remain in the organization, to make a greater effort for it, and to become attached to it [74,75,81,82,83,84,85,86]; and (iii) organizational citizenship behavior: the degree of voluntary support of individuals toward the development of an organization, even if it is not their official responsibility and does not attract specific compensation [74,75,87,88,89,90,91,92]. Here, we consider organizational effectiveness in terms of three categories: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior.

2.2.1. Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction refers to the degree to which individuals are satisfied with their professions or jobs. Scholars interested in productivity improvement were the first to show interest in job satisfaction. Research on this has focused mainly on the antecedent factors influencing job satisfaction and the effects of job satisfaction under the assumption that job satisfaction promotes performance [76,77]. Generally, job satisfaction is defined so broadly that it is difficult to apply as a single concept. However, it is often classified into affective and cognitive job satisfaction [78]. Affective job satisfaction refers to the positive emotions that individuals feel about their jobs overall [78]. Cognitive job satisfaction refers to individual satisfaction with specific factors, such as wages, employee welfare, working hours, and other jobs, which go through a cognitive evaluation process [79,80]. Here, we measure cognitive and affective job satisfaction as single factors for use in our analysis. In addition, job satisfaction is defined as “the degree of an individual’s joy and positive emotional state as a result of evaluating his/her job or job experience”.

2.2.2. Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is a psychological state where employees feel strongly responsible for their organization, beyond simple affection or a sense of belonging. From a psychological perspective, this commitment means that employees trust and actively accept the organization’s goals and values, are willing to work hard for the organization, and desire to remain a part of it. Meyer and Allen [81] conducted an analysis by categorizing organizational commitment into affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Affective commitment refers to organizational members’ willingness to dedicate effort and loyalty to their organization, their attitudes that bond their individual existence with the organization, and their acceptance of the organization’s goals (e.g., continuous communication and a warm, family-like atmosphere) [82,83,84]. Continuance commitment refers to the member’s attitude toward remaining in the organization, as leaving the organization would bring more harm than good (e.g., benefit versus time and effort, lifetime work) [82,83,84]. Normative commitment refers to a member’s sense of duty or responsibility (e.g., sincere concerns about the company, spirit of self-sacrifice) [82,83,84].

In sum, affective commitment is the emotional state of wanting to stay in the organization; continuance commitment is formed because the member must stay in the organization; and normative commitment is formed because the member feels the desire to stay [85,86]. Here, we measure affective, continuance, and normative commitment as single factors in our analysis. We define organizational commitment as “the degree to which an individual desires to stay in a particular organization and makes an effort to stay because of the individual’s attachment to the organization”.

2.2.3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational citizenship behavior refers to behavior outside an individual’s job that contributes to enhancing the organization’s overall performance [87,88,89]. It encompasses behavior outside one’s job description that encourages a cooperative atmosphere by voluntarily expressing one’s civic consciousness based on consideration for others and affection for the organization [90,91,92]. Thus, organizational citizenship behavior refers to the voluntary behaviors of organizational members performed for other members or the organization regardless of their official work [87,88,89]. Specifically, it describes altruistic behavior that provides aid to superiors or colleagues or cooperative behavior for the organization’s development. Organizational citizenship behavior captures the behaviors that help promote an organization’s interests, irrespective of any official compensation structure [90,91,92]. We define organizational citizenship behavior as “the degree of voluntary behaviors to support an organization’s development, even though these behaviors are not official duties or appropriately compensated for” (Figure 5).

2.3. Hypothesis Development

2.3.1. Work–Life Balance and Organizational Effectiveness

Beyond simply increasing employment, major companies are devoting efforts to improve work conditions by adopting flexible work systems. This allows organizational members to find a suitable work–life balance [93,94]. These efforts play a role in improving employees’ job satisfaction and loyalty to the company (e.g., organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior) [95,96,97,98], ultimately lowering employee turnover and increasing job quality. Furthermore, as these efforts can make organizational culture more rational and efficient, they are seen as investments rather than a cost [96,99]. Based on the above, we formulated the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1-1.

Work–life balance will have a positive effect on job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2-1.

Work–life balance will have a positive effect on organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 4-1.

Work–life balance will have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior.

2.3.2. YOLO and Organizational Effectiveness

Alongside the rising popularity of the YOLO lifestyle among office workers, particularly those in their 20 s and 30 s, people today attach significant meaning to their present happiness and leisure [14,15]. Similar to the concept of work–life balance, this is consistent with valuing harmony between one’s work and life. However, many companies still focus on a culture that prioritizes the organization over its employees [100,101]. Although work may be difficult, by following a YOLO lifestyle, one can enjoy life while achieving work goals (e.g., job satisfaction), make a commitment to work (e.g., organizational commitment), and achieve intimacy and voluntary cooperation with colleagues (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior) [59,102,103,104]. Based on the above, we formulated the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1-2.

YOLO will have a positive effect on job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2-2.

YOLO will have a positive effect on organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 4-2.

YOLO will have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior.

2.3.3. Minimal Life and Organizational Effectiveness

For those of us constantly in a hurry, a minimalist lifestyle is essential. For office workers suffering from relationship stress and overtime at work, a minimal life can also lead to “minimal work”. This lifestyle develops an individual’s ability to escape from an exhausting life, to find time for rest, and to focus only on what is most important. Work becomes easier when one is unburdened, which leads to job satisfaction [105,106]. Studies have also reported that messy desks in the workplace reduce productivity [107,108]. Removing unnecessary objects and documents from desks eliminates obstructions from the workers’ view, allowing them to focus (e.g., organizational commitment) on the most important tasks at hand [107,108]. This also promotes altruistic behavior that aids colleagues (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior) [109]. Based on the above, we formulated the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1-3.

Minimal life will have a positive effect on job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2-3.

Minimal life will have a positive effect on organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 4-3.

Minimal life will have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior.

2.3.4. Staycation and Organizational Effectiveness

In today’s society, a vacation can recharge one’s energy necessary for daily life. While relaxing travel and restaurant tours are fine, an increasing number of office workers are opting for staycations as they prefer to rest in their quiet home environment [21,22,23]). Through staycations, employees can respond flexibly to the rapidly changing IT environments within companies, which then leads to job satisfaction [110]. Rest is also essential for improving work productivity and altruistic behavior (e.g., job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior) through close communication with colleagues [110,111]. After enjoying unbroken concentration and sufficient rest through staycations, collaboration forms naturally among organizational members in the workplace, improving organizational commitment [112,113]. Based on the above, we formulated the following hypotheses.

2.3.5. Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Hypothesis 1-4.

Staycation will have a positive effect on job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2-4.

Staycation will have a positive effect on organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 4-4.

Staycation will have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior.

Job satisfaction is frequently used as a reference for diverse organization-related behaviors, such as organizational citizenship behavior, attendance, attrition, and turnover [114]. According to Cohen and Golan’s [115] longitudinal study, job satisfaction is predicted to strongly influence attendance (e.g., organizational commitment). They report that organizational commitment increases when job satisfaction is high and that companies use this as a strategy to reduce absenteeism and turnover intention. Indeed, job satisfaction is determined by the interaction of individual characteristics and situational factors [116,117,118]. High job satisfaction is known to increase organizational commitment as well as positively influence organizational citizenship behavior and job performance [119,120,121,122,123].

Organizational commitment is the degree to which organizational members identify with their organization and are devoted to it [124,125,126]. Hence, members with high organizational commitment tend to conscientiously perform their duties and have low turnover [127,128,129,130]. Organizational commitment also significantly affects organizational citizenship behavior, which is voluntary behavior (e.g., punctuality, helping colleagues) that improves the organization’s efficiency regardless of the official compensation provided by the organization [131,132,133]. Based on the above, we formulated the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 3.

Job satisfaction will have a positive effect on organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 5.

Job satisfaction will have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior.

Hypothesis 6.

Organizational commitment will have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Model

This study empirically analyzes the effects of four lifestyles of office workers (work and life balance, YOLO, minimal life, staycation), which were changed by the COVID-19 pandemic, on organizational effectiveness (as measured by job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior). In addition, we test the influence of the relationships between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and between organizational commitment/job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. To that end, we developed the following research model, as illustrated in Figure 6.

3.2. Variables and Their Measurements

The survey measurement items for all the variables are created based on previous studies, and modified or supplemented in accordance with the intention of our study. Specifically, the four independent variables that are the keys for this study are as follows:

• Work and Life Balance: (a) this variable uses the scale from ‘A study on the development of a work-life balance scale’ by Kim and Park [134]; (b) the measurement items were derived based on a total of two previous studies, ‘Work–life balance,’ and ‘An analysis of research trends’ by Park and Park [135].
• YOLO derived measurement items based on four previous studies, such as (a) EMBRAIN’s [136] ‘Yolo Life Perception Survey’; (b) Hong and Kwak’s [137] ‘Travel trends network analysis on YOLO’; (c) Jochemczyk et al.’s [56] ‘You only live once’; and (d) Kim, Kim, and Lee’s [138] ‘Effect of YOLO on consumer happiness’.
• Minimal Life derived measurement items based on one previous study, ‘Effects of Minimalism on C2C benefits and evaluations’ by (a) Jeon, Lee, and Lee [139] (measurement items).
• Staycation derived measurement items based on two previous studies, (a) EMBRAIN’s [140] ‘Survey on summer vacation, staycation, and camping’ and (b) Kim’s [16] ‘An exploratory study on staycation’.

Each of the lifestyles is measured by four items, while each organizational effectiveness variable is measured by five items, except for job satisfaction, which is measured by six. The total number of survey measurement items for all variables is 32, and the scale for each is a Likert 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = always). The items are listed in

Table 1. Variables and their measurement items.

Variable	Operational Definition	Measurement Items	Researchers (Source)
Work and life balance	The extent that an individual wants to leave work and take a rest at designated times and wants this to be institutionalized	I want to leave work at designated times without worrying about what others think about it.	Kim & Park [134] Park & Park [135]
		I want my incentives to be paid for the amount work that I did.
		I do not want to do overtime work.
		I want flexible hours at work.
YOLO	You only live once mentality: The extent that an individual spends money for happiness in the present without sacrificing for the future or for others	I want to live a satisfactory life today, not in the future.	EMBRAIN [136] Hong & Kwak [137] Jochemczyk et al. [56] Kim et al. [138] Kwak & Hong [141]
		Whether I am satisfied today is more important than what I did today.
		I seek enjoyment at present for a bright future.
		I want to enjoy this moment without worrying about tomorrow.
Minimal life	The extent that an individual seeks to escape from possessiveness or from a life that is bound by possessions and truly pursues what the individual wants	I want to live simply while owning fewer things.	Jeon et al. [139]
		I think that the less I own, the richer my life can become because my mind and thoughts are more organized.
		I want to reduce consumption or use time, and pursue other interests in my spare time.
		I think that the key to happiness is not finding more things, but cultivating an ability to enjoy life with fewer things.
Staycation	The extent to which an individual chooses their own home as their vacation destination or takes a comfortable rest, instead of taking a vacation at a distant place	I want to stay at home and take a rest comfortably on weekends.	EMBRAIN [140] Kim [16]
		I like to read books or watch TV at home on weekends.
		I want to take a rest at home without any concrete plans on weekends.
		I do not like to go on long-distance trips on weekends because of fatigue.
Job satisfaction	The pleasant and positive emotional state that an individual obtains as a result of evaluating his/her job or job experience	I am satisfied with my salary.	Kim & Cha [142] Korea Labor Institute [143] Lee [144]
		I am satisfied with my job security.
		I am satisfied with the content of my job.
		I am satisfied with my work environment/working hours.
		I am satisfied with my development potential, communication and interpersonal relationships.
		I am satisfied with the fairness of performance assessment and welfare.
Organizational commitment	The extent that an individual wants to remain in an organization and makes more effort by becoming attached to the organization	I am very happy in this workplace.	Kim & Kim [145]
		I think that this is my lifelong workplace.
		This workplace has a very important meaning in my life.
		I truly regard the problems of my company as my own problems.
		I feel a sense of closeness to my organization, like my family.
Organizational citizenship behavior	The extent that an individual voluntarily supports the development of an organization even though it is not an official duty and there is no proper compensation	I would gladly take the time to help a busy colleague.	Kim & Kim [145]
		I try to meet the expectations for the change and innovation of my organization.
		I try not to infringe on or interfere with the rights of my colleagues.
		I voluntarily comply with the company rules and laws.
		I refrain from complaining and private behaviors at work.

along with the original source they are adapted from.

3.3. Respondents

For its analysis, this study focused on workers in medium-sized and large companies. To that end, a survey was conducted of workers in four countries (Korea, the UK, the US, and South Africa) by Netpoint Enterprise Inc. (Seoul, Korea, http://www.netpoint.co.kr/, accessed on 1 October 2020), a global research company. Specifically, as three of the countries (the UK, the US, and South Africa) speak English, the survey was prepared in English, while the survey for Korea was prepared in Korean. The survey was conducted for four months from 1 October 2020 to 31 January 2021. These three countries were selected alongside Korea because they speak English and are advanced countries. In fact, at the time of the survey, three of the four selected countries (excluding South Africa) were ranked among the top ten in the World GDP ranking for the previous three years. Ultimately, 649 responses were used in the research, with details provided in

Table 2. Demographic characteristics (N = 649).

Items		Frequency	%
Sex	Male	326	50.2
	Female	323	49.8
Age	20 s	103	15.9
	30 s	178	27.4
	40 s	179	27.6
	50 s	189	29.1
Education	High school	106	16.3
	Junior college	120	18.5
	College	328	50.5
	Graduate school	95	14.6
Monthly income (Individuals)	KRW 2,000,000 (or less)	207	31.9
	KRW 2,010,000~3,000,000	133	20.5
	KRW 3,010,000~4,000,000	100	15.4
	KRW 4,010,000~5,000,000	81	12.5
	KRW 5,010,000 (or more)	128	19.7
Ethnicity	White	316	48.7
	Yellow	226	34.8
	Black	107	16.5
Nationality	South Korea	208	32.0
	US	143	22.0
	UK	139	21.4
	South Africa	159	24.5
Employer size	Medium company	440	67.8
	Large company	209	32.2

.

3.4. Data Analysis

Two programs (SPSS and SmartPLS) were used for statistical analysis. The statistical analysis proceeded as follows: (i) a frequency analysis was performed to identify the general characteristics of the collected data; (ii) a reliability/validity analysis was performed to verify the reliability and validity of the measurement items related to the variables; (iii) a correlation analysis was performed to examine the correlation between variables; and (iv) a structural equation model analysis was performed to identify causality.

4. Results

4.1. Reliability and Validity

We first established the reliability and validity of all the measurement items of variables in our study (work and life balance, YOLO, minimal life, staycation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior). These results are shown in

Table 3. Reliability and validity.

Variable	Items	Reliability	Validity	Multicollinearity
		Cronbach’s Alpha	Outer Loadings	Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)
Work and life balance	Work and life balance 1	0.596	0.767	1.374
	Work and life balance 2		0.603	1.133
	Work and life balance 3		0.752	1.355
	Work and life balance 4		0.556	1.105
YOLO	YOLO 1	0.771	0.783	1.581
	YOLO 2		0.723	1.386
	YOLO 3		0.789	1.519
	YOLO 4		0.783	1.594
Minimal life	Minimal life 1	0.833	0.851	2.450
	Minimal life 2		0.871	2.590
	Minimal life 3		0.771	1.600
	Minimal life 4		0.769	1.589
Staycation	Staycation 1	0.830	0.874	2.612
	Staycation 2		0.872	2.564
	Staycation 3		0.844	1.987
	Staycation 4		0.658	1.338
Job satisfaction	Job satisfaction 1	0.880	0.752	1.849
	Job satisfaction 2		0.799	2.051
	Job satisfaction 3		0.784	1.914
	Job satisfaction 4		0.800	2.020
	Job satisfaction 5		0.791	2.132
	Job satisfaction 6		0.818	2.352
Organizational commitment	Organizational commitment 1	0.888	0.854	2.278
	Organizational commitment 2		0.803	2.059
	Organizational commitment 3		0.856	2.494
	Organizational commitment 4		0.785	2.260
	organizational commitment 5		0.854	2.638
Organizational citizenship behavior	Organizational citizenship behavior 1	0.823	0.745	1.669
	Organizational citizenship behavior 2		0.786	1.827
	Organizational citizenship behavior 3		0.760	1.778
	Organizational citizenship behavior 4		0.795	1.916
	Organizational citizenship behavior 5		0.738	1.662

(Note) Outer Loadings > 0.50; Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.50; Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) < 10.0.

.

We found that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were at least 0.596, which indicated basically good reliability, as all the values, except on work and life balance, were 0.60 or above. In addition, the factor loading values were at least 0.556, thereby indicating good validity. However, in the case of work–life balance, it can be seen that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is a little low at 0.596. However, in many previous studies, it can be seen that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is accepted even when it is 0.5 or more (e.g., [146,147,148,149,150,151,152]).

Furthermore, as some prediction variables had high correlations with other prediction variables, we analyzed multicollinearity to examine the phenomenon of negative effects. By analyzing the variance inflations factors (VIFs), we found no problem with multicollinearity, as the maximum VIF value was 2.638. Therefore, we were able to verify the general reliability and validity of the survey measurement items in this study.

In this study, all three groups, the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa, are English-speaking countries. However, Korea is a non-English speaking country because it uses Hangul. In other words, since the survey measurement items were written in Korean, a reliability and validity analysis was additionally conducted in the Korean group. The analysis results are included in Appendix A. Both reliability and validity were found to be high.

4.2. Common Method Bias

Common method bias (CMB) occurs when estimates of the correlation between two constructs are overestimated (“biased”) because the same respondents measure both independent and dependent variables [153,154]. That is, responses to all variables (factors) in this research may be overestimated in either the positive or the negative direction.

Specific solutions to the CMB are as follows. (i) During the research design phase, respondents are separated, namely, the separation of the measurement environment. That is, the sources of data regarding independent and dependent variables need to differ. In addition, the measurement time and environments of the variables need to be differentiated. (ii) During the data collection phase, changes need to be made to the survey and variables added, such as a change in the order of the questions, the use of different measures, or the establishment of indicative variables [153,154,155].

During the data collection phase, based on previous studies, this study derived measurement items and the order of the questions was modified to address the CMB. However, some limitations remained. Therefore, principal component analysis based on unrotated factor analysis was performed.

Our principal component analysis used a single-factor test presented by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff [155]. As a result, seven factors with an eigenvalue larger than one were extracted. The cumulative portion (%) of the first factor was 27.886%, which was less than half the total cumulative portion (64.754%), indicating that there was no serious issue in terms of CMB.

4.3. Correlation Analysis

The correlation results, shown in

Table 4. Correlation analysis.

Variable	Work and Life Balance	YOLO	Minimal Life	Staycation	Job Satisfaction	Organizational Commitment	Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Work and life balance	1
YOLO	0.369 **	1
Minimal life	0.281 **	0.412 **	1
Staycation	0.333 **	0.343 **	0.377 **	1
Job satisfaction	0.168 **	0.310 **	0.209 **	0.104 **	1
Organizational commitment	0.088 *	0.234 **	0.261 **	0.141 **	0.764 **	1
Organizational citizenship behavior	0.185 **	0.230 **	0.242 **	0.230 **	0.547 **	0.599 **	1
Mean	3.748	3.687	3.527	3.616	3.385	3.310	3.791
SD	0.726	0.778	0.855	0.848	0.846	0.950	0.701

(Note) * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

, reflected statistically significant correlations between all variables (work and life balance, YOLO, minimal life, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior) at p < 0.05.

4.4. Hypothesis Testing

To test the hypotheses, the statistical analysis program SmartPLS was used. For structural equation model analysis, the bootstrapping method was adopted, running 500 sampling iterations. Bootstrapping is a non-parametric process that can test the statistical significance of the results of various PLS structural equation model analyses, such as the path coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, HTMT, and R² [156,157,158,159]. The results of this study are presented in

Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing.

Path				β Value	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	t Value	p Value	Hypothesis
H1-1	Work and life balance	→	Job satisfaction	0.106	0.109	0.046	2.301	0.022	Supported
H1-2	YOLO	→	Job satisfaction	0.272	0.270	0.048	5.718	0.000	Supported
H1-3	Minimal life	→	Job satisfaction	0.080	0.083	0.045	1.781	0.075	Supported
H1-4	Staycation	→	Job satisfaction	−0.034	−0.030	0.043	0.801	0.423	Not supported
H2-1	Work and life balance	→	Organizational commitment	0.008	0.015	0.044	0.192	0.848	Not supported
H2-2	YOLO	→	Organizational commitment	−0.054	−0.052	0.034	1.582	0.114	Not supported
H2-3	Minimal life	→	Organizational commitment	0.106	0.105	0.034	3.094	0.002	Supported
H2-4	Staycation	→	Organizational commitment	0.039	0.038	0.032	1.195	0.233	Not supported
H3	Job satisfaction	→	Organizational commitment	0.761	0.760	0.023	33.723	0.000	Supported
H4-1	Work and life balance	→	Organizational citizenship behavior	0.122	0.123	0.039	3.139	0.002	Supported
H4-2	YOLO	→	Organizational citizenship behavior	−0.031	−0.027	0.045	0.685	0.494	Not supported
H4-3	Minimal life	→	Organizational citizenship behavior	0.028	0.023	0.039	0.721	0.472	Not supported
H4-4	Staycation	→	Organizational citizenship behavior	0.122	0.125	0.033	3.684	0.000	Supported
H5	Job satisfaction	→	Organizational citizenship behavior	0.207	0.211	0.062	3.315	0.001	Supported
H6	Organizational commitment	→	Organizational citizenship behavior	0.413	0.410	0.060	6.932	0.000	Supported

(Note) R² = 0.127 (Job satisfaction), R² = 0.609 (Organizational commitment), R² = 0.432 (Organizational citizenship behavior).

and Figure 7.

First, we examined the effects of the four lifestyles of office workers on job satisfaction. The results showed that work and life balance (β = 0.106, t = 2.301, p < 0.05), YOLO (β = 0.272, t = 5.718, p < 0.01), and minimal life (β = 0.080, t = 1.781, p < 0.10) had a statistically significant positive effect on job satisfaction. However, staycation did not have a statistically significant effect on job satisfaction. Therefore, Hypotheses 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 were supported, while Hypothesis 1-4 were not, as shown in Figure 7.

Second, we examined the effect of these four lifestyles on organizational commitment. The results showed that minimal life (β = 0.106, t = 3.094, p < 0.01) had a statistically significant positive effect on organizational commitment. However, work and life balance, YOLO, and staycation did not have any statistically significant effect on it. Therefore, Hypothesis 2-3 were supported, while Hypotheses 2-1, 2-2, and 2-4 were not, as shown in Figure 7.

Third, we examined the effect of these four life styles on organizational citizenship behavior. The results showed that work and life balance (β = 0.122, t = 3.139, p < 0.01), and staycation (β = 0.122, t = 3.684, p < 0.01) had a statistically significant positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior. However, YOLO and minimal life did not have a statistically significant effect on organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, Hypotheses 4-1 and 4-4 were supported, whereas Hypotheses 4-2 and 4-3 were not, as shown in Figure 7.

Fourth, we examined the effect of job satisfaction on organizational commitment. The results showed that job satisfaction (β = 0.761, t = 33.723, p < 0.01) had a statistically significant positive effect on organizational commitment. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Fifth, the effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on organizational citizenship behavior was examined. The results showed that job satisfaction (β = 0.207, t = 3.315, p < 0.01) and organizational commitment (β = 0.413, t = 6.932, p < 0.01) had a statistically significant positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, Hypotheses 5 and 6 were supported, as shown in Figure 7.

4.5. Mediating Effect Test

We analyzed whether job satisfaction/organizational commitment had a mediating effect on the relationship between the four lifestyles and organizational citizenship behavior. The results are shown in

Table 6. Mediating effect test results.

Path								β Value	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	t Value	p Value	Mediating Effect
1	Work and life balance	→	Job satisfaction	→	Organizational commitment	→	Organizational citizenship behavior	0.033	0.034	0.016	2.131	0.034	Yes
2	YOLO	→	Job satisfaction	→	Organizational commitment	→	Organizational citizenship behavior	0.086	0.084	0.019	4.404	0.000	Yes
3	Minimal life	→	Job satisfaction	→	Organizational commitment	→	Organizational citizenship behavior	0.025	0.026	0.015	1.719	0.086	Yes
4	Staycation	→	Job satisfaction	→	Organizational commitment	→	Organizational citizenship behavior	−0.011	−0.009	0.014	0.787	0.432	No

.

First, job satisfaction/organizational commitment showed a mediating effect on the path of work and life balance → job satisfaction → organizational commitment → organizational citizenship behavior. In other words, the higher (stronger) “the extent that an individual wants to leave work and take a rest at designated times and wants this to be institutionalized”, the higher (stronger) the job satisfaction/organizational commitment of office workers, and, ultimately, the stronger the organizational citizenship behavior.

Second, job satisfaction/organizational commitment showed a mediating effect on the path of YOLO → job satisfaction → organizational commitment → organizational citizenship behavior. In other words, the higher (stronger) “the extent that an individual spends money for happiness in the present without sacrificing for the future or for others” the higher (stronger) the job satisfaction/organizational commitment of office workers, and, ultimately, the stronger the organizational citizenship behavior.

Third, job satisfaction/organizational commitment showed a mediating effect on the path of minimal life → job satisfaction → organizational commitment → organizational citizenship behavior. In other words, the higher (stronger) “the extent that the individual seeks to escape from possessiveness or from a life that is bound by possessions and truly pursues what the individual wants”, the higher (stronger) the job satisfaction/organizational commitment at work, and, ultimately, the stronger the organizational citizenship behavior.

Fourth, job satisfaction/organizational commitment did not show a mediating effect on the path of staycation → job satisfaction → organizational commitment → organizational citizenship behavior. In other words, job satisfaction/organizational commitment does not have a mediating effect in the relationship between staycation and organizational citizenship behavior.

4.6. Comparisons across Nationalities (Multi-Group Analysis)

We examined the following influence paths: the four lifestyles (work and life balance, YOLO, minimal life, and staycation) → organizational effectiveness (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior); job satisfaction → organizational commitment/organizational citizenship behavior; and organizational commitment → organizational citizenship behavior, which changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, we examined whether there were differences in the analysis results by the nationality of the office workers. These results are shown in

Table 7. Comparisons across nationalities (multi-group analysis).

Path				South Korea			US			UK			South Africa
				β	t	p	β	t	p	β	t	p	β	t	p
H1-1	WLB	→	JS	0.016	0.128	0.899	0.287	2.654	0.008	0.147	1.346	0.179	0.092	0.686	0.493
H1-2	YOLO	→	JS	0.250	3.452	0.001	0.162	1.239	0.216	0.269	2.599	0.010	0.227	2.361	0.019
H1-3	ML	→	JS	0.194	2.938	0.003	−0.086	0.920	0.358	0.098	0.997	0.319	0.178	1.136	0.256
H1-4	SC	→	JS	−0.025	0.306	0.759	0.139	1.429	0.154	0.102	1.017	0.310	−0.158	1.396	0.163
H2-1	WLB	→	OC	−0.106	1.455	0.146	−0.041	0.614	0.540	0.055	0.395	0.693	0.066	0.794	0.427
H2-2	YOLO	→	OC	−0.001	0.016	0.987	−0.019	0.238	0.812	−0.091	1.079	0.281	−0.066	0.898	0.370
H2-3	ML	→	OC	0.138	2.334	0.020	0.148	2.066	0.039	0.098	1.255	0.210	0.085	1.149	0.251
H2-4	SC	→	OC	0.020	0.350	0.727	−0.032	0.471	0.637	0.054	0.733	0.464	0.020	0.246	0.806
H3	JS	→	OC	0.752	18.618	0.000	0.861	23.385	0.000	0.719	10.948	0.000	0.717	13.326	0.000
H4-1	WLB	→	OCB	0.236	2.776	0.006	0.083	1.070	0.285	−0.060	0.534	0.593	0.341	1.873	0.062
H4-2	YOLO	→	OCB	−0.019	0.282	0.778	0.009	0.083	0.934	−0.095	1.120	0.263	−0.029	0.298	0.766
H4-3	ML	→	OCB	0.129	1.822	0.069	−0.068	0.777	0.438	0.098	1.259	0.209	0.046	0.352	0.725
H4-4	SC	→	OCB	0.052	0.829	0.408	0.084	0.997	0.319	0.182	2.027	0.043	0.090	0.889	0.375
H5	JS	→	OCB	0.143	1.366	0.173	0.441	2.466	0.014	0.375	2.612	0.009	−0.042	0.495	0.621
H6	OC	→	OCB	0.399	3.796	0.000	0.312	1.782	0.075	0.309	2.164	0.031	0.478	5.384	0.000

.

(1)

Lifestyle → Job Satisfaction: The results across the four nationalities showed significant differences. We can see that YOLO is the most important lifestyle to increase job satisfaction.

(2)

Lifestyle → Organizational Commitment: The results showed differences according to the nationality of the office workers (South Korea, the UK, the USA, and South Africa). We can see that the minimal lifestyle is the most important to improve organizational commitment.

(3)

Job Satisfaction → Organizational Commitment: In all groups, South Korea, the UK, the US, and South Africa, job satisfaction was statistically significant.

(4)

Lifestyle → Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The results showed differences according to the nationality. We can see that work and life balance is the most important lifestyle to increase organizational citizenship behavior.

(5)

Job Satisfaction → Organizational Citizenship Behavior: In the US and UK groups, all lifestyles were statistically significant, while in the South Korean and South Africa groups, all lifestyles were statistically insignificant.

(6)

Organizational Commitment → Organizational Citizenship Behavior: In all groups, South Korea, the UK, the US, and South Africa, organizational commitment was statistically significant.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Research Summary

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study analyzed empirically the influence of four lifestyles of office workers (work–life balance, YOLO, minimal life, and staycation) on organizational effectiveness (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior). We also investigated the paths of job satisfaction → organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior; and organizational commitment → organizational citizenship behavior. We surveyed general office workers (adult men and women) from four countries (South Korea, the UK, the US, and South Africa) employed by mid-sized or larger enterprises. We used a global research agency to conduct the survey over four months (1 October 2020, to 31 January 2021) and collected a valid sample of 649 respondents (323 females, 49.8%). We used SmartPLS to perform structural equation modelling analysis on the valid sample, with the following results.

Work–life balance, YOLO, and a minimal life showed a statistically significant positive effect on job satisfaction. This result supports the findings of Alvesson [105]; Aruldoss, Kowalski, and Parayitam [160]; Clegg [106]; and Song [59]. The implication is that major companies are focusing on the work–life balance needs of their employees, and these efforts are increasing employee job satisfaction [93,94]. Furthermore, similar to the aforementioned concept of work–life balance, the YOLO lifestyle values the harmony between one’s work and life. Although work may be difficult at times, one can enjoy job satisfaction through this lifestyle [14,15]. In terms of the minimal lifestyle, office workers suffering from relationship stress and overtime may seek out “minimal work” as well. In the workplace, work becomes easier when the individual is unburdened, which then leads to job satisfaction [105,106]. As such, our results are similar to those in the extant literature.

However, staycation did not show a statistically positive significant relationship with job satisfaction. This result is in contrast with the findings of Baba and Năstase-Anysz [110]. Today, a vacation can recharge one’s energy needed for daily life. Indeed, an increasing number of office workers are opting for staycations as they prefer to rest in the quiet of their homes [21,22,23]. However, due to the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic, relaxing travel and restaurant tours may have a greater impact on job satisfaction in terms of relieving stress or depression. This may be why staycations did not have a positive influence on job satisfaction.

Minimal life had a statistically significant positive effect on organizational commitment. This result supports the findings of Ifijeh [107], and Yunus and Ernawati [108]. They reported that messy desks in the workplace reduced productivity [107,108]. In other words, removing unnecessary objects and documents from a desk eliminates obstructions from the worker’s field of view, allowing the individual to focus (e.g., organizational commitment) on the most important tasks at hand [107,108]. Our study found similar results to those in the literature.

However, work–life balance, YOLO, and staycation did not have a statistically significant effect on organizational commitment. These results are in contrast to those of Lee and Park [112]; Nisbett and Strzelecka [103]; Shabir and Gani [161]; and Song, Oh, and Lee [162]. To achieve work–life balance, many companies have reduced working hours, improved employee welfare (e.g., guaranteed vacation days), and introduced reward systems that are beneficial to employees [49,54]. However, it seems that treating employees well and providing generous benefits do not guarantee employee happiness. Ultimately, the key to a satisfactory workplace lies in employees’ voluntary commitment to their work, rather than commitment engendered by others. Voluntary organizational commitment can lead to individual as well as company growth.

Furthermore, as uncertainty about the future grows amid low economic growth and the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic, the YOLO lifestyle (i.e., prioritizing one’s present happiness before anything else) may actually have a negative influence on organizational commitment [12,13,57]. That is, as the proverbial pie shared with employees continues to shrink amid low economic growth and corporate stagnation, office workers will not be able to psychologically enjoy a YOLO lifestyle [57], which affects organizational commitment.

The economic recession and the COVID-19 pandemic have also fueled the popularity of staycations as opposed to overseas travel [21,22,23]. However, as already stated, the comparatively minor relaxation from staycations is not sufficient to relieve the stress many office workers are facing from cognitive overload, fatigue, tension from work and social life, uncertainty about the future, and complex social relationships [72]. Therefore, in this context, staycations are not sufficient to impact organizational commitment.

Job satisfaction had a statistically significant positive effect on organizational commitment. This result supports the findings of Lambert et al. [163]; Mwesigwa, Tusiime, and Ssekiziyivu [164]; Ruiz-Palomo, León-Gómez, and García-Lopera [165]; and Vickovic and Morrow [166]. Organizational members with high job satisfaction had a positive attitude toward their job environment, whereas organizational members dissatisfied with their jobs had a negative attitude toward their job environment.

Hence, job satisfaction, which impacts an organization’s performance directly and indirectly, varies with the characteristics of the organization and individual situational factors [79,80,116,117,118]. This is also true for the organizational commitment of members. The evidence suggests that forming a suitable work environment is more important than trying to change employees’ consciousness. A better work environment can lead to continuous, self-perpetuating innovation, regardless of external pressure. The implication is that job satisfaction increases as innovations in workstyles and the work environment continue, which then promotes organizational commitment [115]. Our results on this are similar to those in prior literature.

Work–life balance and staycation showed a statistically significant positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior. This result supports the findings of Baba and Năstase-Anysz [110], Dahadi and Yusup [111], and Pradhan et al. [98]. The implication is that companies can reduce turnover and increase organizational citizenship behavior by adopting desirable work–life balance policies, such as regular working hours, avoiding employee contact after work, productivity-oriented meetings, clear work orders, flexible work arrangements, efficient reporting, a healthy company dinner culture, and promoting the use of annual leave [96,99]. By improving concentration and sufficient rest through staycations, collaboration can form naturally among organizational members, as well as organizational citizenship behavior and improved productivity through close communication [110,111]. Our results on this are similar to those in the literature.

However, YOLO and minimal life did not have a statistically positive significant effect on organizational citizenship behavior. This was in contrast to the findings of Ehrhart and Naumann [109] and Nisbett and Strzelecka [103]. As uncertainty about the future grows amid low economic growth and the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic, the YOLO lifestyle (i.e., the priority of one’s present happiness before anything else) may actually have a negative influence on organizational citizenship behavior, as perceived by office workers. That is, it may end up negatively influencing both organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior [12,13,57]. Additionally, a minimal life involves voluntarily reducing unnecessary objects and routines, allowing the individual to pursue maximum rather than minimum satisfaction [17,18]. This then can help the individual focus on what is considered important [17,18]. This also promotes altruistic behavior that aids colleagues (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior) [109].

Job satisfaction and organizational commitment had a statistically significant positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior. This finding supports the findings of Chun et al. [131]; Khaskheli et al. [167]; Prasetio et al. [132]; Torlak, Kuzey, Sait Dinç, and Budur [168]; and Wombacher and Felfe [133]. The high affective job satisfaction that workers feel [78] and cognitive job satisfaction for specific factors relating to wages, welfare, working hours, and other jobs [79,80] had a positive effect on organizational commitment [115]. Hence, high job satisfaction leads to increased organizational commitment and positively influences organizational citizenship behavior [119,120,121,122,123]. Our results on this are similar to those in prior literature.

We also found statistically significant differences in our comparative analysis of the four nationalities of office workers (South Korea, the US, the UK, and South Africa). Notably, according to the statistical analysis, YOLO was the most important lifestyle that increased job satisfaction, minimal lifestyle was the most important for organizational commitment, and work–life balance was the most important for organizational citizenship behavior. We can summarize are findings as follows.

• The YOLOers. To consume wisely, these office workers practice “value consumption”. Value consumption is the tendency to carefully weigh price or satisfaction when consuming rather than giving up the value one seeks [13]. Indeed, unlike conspicuous consumption, the YOLO lifestyle is characterized by investing in products that one desires that are highly satisfying for the price. There are also many office workers who seek to enjoy the present through value consumption rather than sacrificing for the future [12,13]. As such, the YOLO lifestyle, that is, fully enjoying life in the present, can have the biggest impact on job satisfaction.
• The Minimal Lifestyle. A minimal lifestyle is essential for those constantly in a hurry. In addition to a minimalistic approach to life, office workers who are suffering from relationship stress and overtime also seek out “minimal work”. That is, the ability to escape from one’s exhausting life, to find time for rest, and to focus only on what is most important [17,18]. Therefore, being able to practice a minimal life at work (e.g., “unburdening one’s body and mind when going to work”, “minimizing objects and documents on one’s desk”, and “remembering a list of things not to do for work”) had the greatest influence on organizational commitment.
• Work–life Balance. Many companies heavily emphasize external incentives, rational motivation, and a performance-oriented management system. Work–life balance policies that focus on providing direct and monetary incentives to encourage employees’ individual development and leisure activities are now essential for organizational success [53]. A work–life balance is effective in motivating employees to identify with the organization and become devoted to it [96,99]. Indeed, desirable work–life balance policies can increase the job satisfaction of organizational members, which is linked to corporate competitiveness and even organizational citizenship behavior [95,96,97,98]. As such, it is imperative to encourage an organizational culture of work–life balance so that members can enjoy their natural right to normal work hours and rest when needed [7]. Thus, a desirable work–life balance culture in an organization has the greatest influence not only on the efficiency of the individual’s life and work but also on organizational citizenship behavior, which is an altruistic behavior.

5.2. Contributions, Implications, and Recommendations

• In terms of organizational behavior in business administration and psychology, this is the first empirical study to focus on four lifestyles of office workers (work–life balance, YOLO, minimal life, and staycation) in the context of COVID-19, especially now that the COVID-19 pandemic has persisted for over three years.
• This is the first study to comparatively analyze the influence of these four office work lifestyles as antecedent factors on organizational effectiveness (measured by job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior) among general office workers in Asia, Europe, North America, and Africa.
• As evidenced by our results, work–life balance is an especially important factor in improving job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. This finding has the following implications. (1) Since work–life balance can reduce the burden and stress on office workers, “concentration in work can be improved”. (2) “Skilled human resources” can be secured through long-term service and by reducing the number of employees leaving the workplace due to poor work–life balance. (3) Reducing working hours can improve employee focus on work, which can “improve work efficiency”. (4) Work commitment can increase through improvements in work–life balance such as the reduction in working hours, which can then “improve productivity”. (5) Employees can continue working even if their work hours are reduced, making it possible to “prevent career disruption”. (6) “Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior” can be improved by reducing the burden and stress of work on employees suffering from health-related issues, for example. (7) This can provide “opportunities for self-development and self-realization”, such as education. (8) Reducing working hours can improve employees’ concentration and the quality of work, which can “improve corporate competitiveness”. (9) Improved work–life balance can enable employees to take care of their families, which can “improve neglected family relationships”. (10) Companies that are recognized for their support of work–life balance can “improve their corporate image”.
• As evidenced by the results, the minimal lifestyle is an especially important factor in improving job satisfaction and organizational commitment. As discussed, practicing a minimalist life can be crucial to efficiency (e.g., “unburdening one’s body and mind when going to work”, “minimizing objects and documents on one’s desk”, “remembering a list of things not to do for work”). This finding has the following implications.
  • Organization is essential. This means not only putting things away but also adopting the most efficient workstyle to maximize work performance.
  • A messy workspace may reduce concentration more than we know. Therefore, the greatest advantage of an organized space is the reduced work burden on the individual.
  • Since employees can continue working in the same way after organizing their space using their own unique method, the psychological burden of work itself is reduced.
  • Information becomes easier to remember as the habit of organization develops, enabling workers to grasp tasks rapidly.
  • By sorting through what is and what is not necessary for the organization, employees can devote more time to productive tasks.
• Work and life balance is a positive aspect of organizational management (e.g., job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior) from the perspective of the company in the ‘supplier’ position. In other words, it suggests that ensuring sufficient leisure time without being too focused on work can help people realize happiness in their personal lives and simultaneously increase work efficiency. Therefore, it is believed that companies can achieve a work–life balance only by improving the quality of jobs and the working environment. This means that job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior can be enhanced only when job quality such as wage level, working environment, and job stability are improved together. Therefore, it suggests the need for policies to improve the social and economic environment in consideration of the various aspects that jobs have on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior from a company’s point of view.
• YOLO is a strong ‘economic safety net’ where increased assets such as savings accumulated during the prolonged period of the COVID-19 pandemic and stocks which can help people to become YOLO (enjoy the moment) have grown due to price surges. In other words, individual economic power accumulated during the pandemic acted as a catalyst to realize the desire for YOLO. In addition, as the flexible working system (e.g., work–life balance) spreads, the ‘negotiating power’ of workers in labor contracts with management has increased. These factors are considered a major background to the YOLO economy trend. These contents are mentioned as common priorities for the pursuit of high self-actualization, quality of life, and high job satisfaction in the daily life of YOLO-oriented people. Therefore, it suggests that YOLO can act as a significant factor for office workers.
• A minimal life way of life starts with people releasing items that are unnecessary for them. In other words, you learn what you can and cannot live without. In the process of choosing whether to release or hold onto things, we have time to face our inner selves. We learn what we value in lives. This makes the center of our life clear and fosters self-confidence. Through a minimal life, it becomes clear what choice and focus should be made in the company. Therefore, limited time, money, and space becomes valuable, and people can focus on their work. Therefore, it suggests that the minimal life can ultimately increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
• Many office workers choose their own home as a vacation destination or rest at a nearby destination instead of taking a vacation away at a distance due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is referred to as a staycation. Staycations help to maintain the energy efficiency of office workers. In other words, staycation can meet the needs of workers and help increase work efficiency. In addition, the more employees feel that their employers care about their health and rest, the more they practice organizational citizenship behavior. Thus, taking a break through a staycation can help people manage their energy at work. This, therefore, suggests that staycations can have positive effect, not only for workers but also for employers.
• Many workers in each country are exposed to a variety of intrinsic factors (e.g., job independence, interest in the job, successful job performance, application of skills, commitment to the job, etc.) and extrinsic factors (e.g., compensation, job security, safe working conditions, relationships with supervisors and supervisors, peer relationships, promotions, etc.). In particular, these factors are expected to vary greatly by country (including cultural). Therefore, this study has significant implications in that a difference analysis was conducted for each country and significant differences were found.

5.3. Limitations and Future Directions

This study empirically analyzed the influence of the four lifestyles of office workers (work–life balance, YOLO, minimal life, and staycation) on organizational effectiveness (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparative analysis among office workers from four countries (South Korea, the UK, the US, and South Africa) was also conducted. However, we used only these four lifestyles as independent variables to analyze the causal relationship with organizational effectiveness. Furthermore, generalization is limited since we surveyed office workers from only four countries for statistical analysis.

The dependent variable in our study was organizational effectiveness (as measured by job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior). Therefore, follow-up studies should derive various other outcome variables which could also be influenced by these four lifestyles.

The COVID-19 pandemic will gradually stabilize as more people develop antibodies through vaccinations. Thus, research findings on the influence of these four lifestyles on organizational effectiveness may vary in future years. Therefore, longitudinal studies would be helpful as well.