Reducing Work-Life Conflict: What Works? What Doesn't?

1.0 Introduction

Dr. Chris Higgins, Professor, Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario
Dr. Linda Duxbury, Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University
Dr. Sean Lyons, Assistant Professor, Gerald Schwartz School of Business and Information Systems, St. Francis Xavier University

1.1 Background

Work-life conflict is defined as a form of inter-role conflict in which work and family demands are mutually incompatible so that meeting demands in one domain makes it difficult to meet demands in the other (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell 1985). This definition implies a multi-directional relationship where work can affect family and vice versa (Frone, 2002). When work and family are in conflict, obtaining rewards in one domain requires foregoing rewards in the other (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000). Work-life conflict can be considered to have two major components: the practical aspects associated with time crunches and scheduling conflicts (i.e. an employee cannot be in two different places at the same time), and the perceptual aspect of feeling overwhelmed, overloaded or stressed by the pressures of multiple roles. In our research, we conceptualize work-life conflict broadly to include:

• Role overload: This form of work-life conflict occurs when the total demands on time and energy associated with the prescribed activities of multiple roles are too great to perform the roles adequately or comfortably.
• Work-to-family interference: This type of role conflict occurs when work demands and responsibilities make it more difficult to fulfill family-role responsibilities (e.g. long hours in paid work prevent attendance at a child's sporting event, preoccupation with the work role prevents an active enjoyment of family life, work stresses spill over into the home environment and increase conflict with the family).
• Family-to-work interference: This type of role conflict occurs when family demands and responsibilities make it more difficult to fulfill work-role responsibilities (e.g. a child's illness prevents attendance at work, conflict at home makes concentration at work difficult).
• Caregiver strain: Caregiver strain is a multi-dimensional construct defined in terms of "burdens" in the caregivers' day-to-day lives, which can be attributed to the need to provide care or assistance to someone else who needs it (Robinson, 1983). ⁴

To this point, our research initiatives⁵ have determined that:

• Work and life are no longer separate domains for a significant proportion of the Canadian workforce.
• The four components of work-life conflict have differential impacts on the physical and mental health of employees.
• High levels of role overload have become systemic within the population of employees working for Canada's largest employers. The majority of employees in our 2001 sample (58%) reported high levels of role overload.
• The percent of the workforce with high role overload has increased by 11 percentage points over the past decade.
• Just over one in four (28%) of the Canadians in our 2001 sample report that their work responsibilities interfere with their ability to fulfill their responsibilities at home (i.e. high work-to-family interference). This is the same proportion with high levels of this form of conflict as was observed in 1991.
• Family-to-work interference is not common in Canada at this time: Only 10% of the sample reported high levels of family-to-work interference. The percentage of working Canadians who give priority to family rather than work has doubled over the past decade. This increase is largely because the number of employees with elder care responsibilities has increased over the past decade.
• Three times as many Canadians give priority to work at the expense of their family (i.e. report high work-to-family interference) as give priority to family at the expense of work (i.e. report high family-to-work interference).
• The amount of time Canadians spend in work-related activities increased between 1991 and 2001. Whereas one in ten of the Canadians in our 1991 sample worked 50 or more hours per week, one in four does so now; during this same time period the proportion of employees working between 35 and 39 hours per week declined from 48% to 27%. This increase in time in work was observed for all job groups and all sectors.
• The majority of Canada's largest employers cannot be considered to be best practice employers: Only about half of the employees who participated in this study were highly committed to their employer, satisfied with their job and viewed their organization as "an above average place to work." One in three reported high levels of job stress and one in four was thinking of leaving their current organization once a week or more (i.e. had high intent to turnover). Absenteeism (especially absenteeism due to physical and mental health issues) also appears to be a substantial problem for Canadian employers, with half of the respondents reporting high levels of absenteeism (defined as 3 or more days of absence in the 6 months prior to the study being conducted).
• Conditions within Canadian organizations have declined over time. Three times more employees reported high job stress in 2001 than in 1991. The percent of the sample with high job satisfaction and commitment was significantly lower in 2001 than in 1991.
• Many individuals working for Canada's largest employers are in poor mental health: Over half of the respondents reported high levels of perceived stress; one in three reported high levels of burnout and depressed mood. Only 41% were satisfied with their lives and one in five was dissatisfied. Almost one in five perceived that their physical health was fair to poor. These data are disturbing as they can be considered to be a "best case scenario" as they reflect the mental health status of employed Canadians, many of whom can be considered to have "good" jobs.
• The physical and mental health of Canadian employees has deteriorated over time: 1.5 times more employees reported high depressed mood in 2001 than in 1991. Similarly, 1.4 times more employees reported high levels of perceived stress in 2001 than in 1991.
• Organizational culture and work demands put employees at risk of role overload and work-to-family interference (i.e. the two most important predictors of this form of work-life conflict). With respect to work demands, both role overload and work-to-family interference are positively associated with hours per month in unpaid overtime, hours spent in work per week, hours per week in supplemental work at home (SWAH) and time away from home in job-related travel. Organizational cultures that focus on hours (i.e. advancement limited if you do not work long hours or if you say no to more work), emphasize work or family (i.e. family responsibilities and family leave are perceived to limit advancement) and are not supportive of balance are also linked to higher levels of role overload and work-to-family interference.
• Non-work demands, family type and adult role responsibilities are the most important predictors of caregiver strain and family-to-work interference. Both of these forms of work-life conflict are positively associated with hours per week providing elder care, hours per week in child care and responsibility for elder care. Caregiver strain is strongly associated with the provision of elder care.

Only one important question remains to be answered--what can be done to reduce the various forms of work-life conflict? We attempt to answer this question by identifying policies, programs and supports that organizations can implement and strategies that families and individuals can use to restore work-life balance.