Work-Life Conflict in Canada in the New Millennium:
Executive Summary

Key Findings and Recommendations From The 2001 National Work-Life Conflict Study

Report Six

Help on accessing alternative formats, such as Portable Document Format (PDF), Microsoft Word and PowerPoint (PPT) files, can be obtained in the alternate format help section.

Table of Contents

• Objectives of Report Six
• Benchmarking The Canadian Workplace and Workers
• Caregiver Strain: A Primer
• Role Overload: A Primer
• Family Interferes with Work: A Primer
• Work Interferes With Family: A Primer
• Key Recommendations Arising from the Balancing Work, Family and Lifestyle National Study
• Box 1

Objectives of Report Six

The 2001 National Work-Life Conflict Study and the six reports produced from this research (see Box 1 for a list of the reports and where they can be found) have given business and labour leaders, policy makers and academics an objective 'big picture' view of this issue. This report, the final in the series of six reports, provides a summary of the key findings and recommendations arising from this research program.

The goal of this last report is to produce one document that summarizes key findings, conclusions and recommendations from the previous five reports, help key stakeholders understand and deal effectively with work-life conflict, and make the business case for change. This report does this in four ways. First, it quantifies the prevalence of the various forms of work-life conflict. Second, it quantifies the costs of each of these forms of imbalance to key stakeholders (i.e. employees, families, organizations, and governments). Third, it identifies the key risk factors associated with the different forms of work-life conflict. Finally, it summarizes what key stakeholders can do to increase work-life balance. In other words, this report offers readers a primer on the what, why, who and how of four key forms of work-life conflict, by summarizing what we know about this conflict, why it needs to be reduced, who is most likely to experience it, and what can be done.

The Sample

The sample for the 'National Study on Balancing Work and Family' was drawn from 100 Canadian companies with 500+ employees. Forty of these organizations operated in the private sector, 22 were from the public sector, and 38 were from the not-for-profit (NFP) sector. Private sector companies from the following sectors were included in the sample: telecommunications, high technology, retail, transportation, pharmaceutical, financial services, entertainment, natural resources and manufacturing. The public sector sample included seven municipal governments, seven provincial government departments, and eight federal public service departments/agencies. The NFP sector sample consisted of 15 hospitals/district health councils, 10 school boards, eight universities and colleges, and five 'other' organizations that could best be classified as NFP/greater public service (e.g. social service, charity, protective services).

A total of 31,571 people responded to the survey. Just over half (55%) of the respondents are women. The sample includes employees from all sectors and is well-distributed with respect to job type. Just under half (46%) of the respondents work in the public sector. One in three work in the NFP sector and 20% are employed by a private sector company. Just under half (46%) work in managerial and professional positions, 40% work in non-professional positions (e.g. clerical, administrative, retail, production) and 14% work in technical jobs.

This research initiative has culminated in the collection of large, rich, and comprehensive data that allows us to evaluate how Canadian employees, employers and families are doing. The 2001 study sample is well distributed with respect to age, region, community size, job type, education, personal income, family income, and the family's financial well-being. In many ways, the demographic characteristics of the sample correspond to national data suggesting that the results from this research can be generalized beyond this study.

Prevalence of work-life conflict in Canada

The conclusions one reaches with respect to the prevalence of work-life conflict in Canada depend on which measure of work-life conflict is used, and the characteristics of the group being studied. Looking at the data optimistically (i.e. using the prevalence of 'work interferes with family' and 'caregiver strain' as our measures of work-life conflict) we estimate that one in four Canadians working at larger organizations experiences high levels of conflict between work and family. This is the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario (i.e. estimates calculated using 'role overload' data) is that almost 60% of Canadians who are employed outside the home cannot balance their work and family demands.

So why should we care?

The findings from this body of research leave little doubt that reducing work-life conflict, regardless of the form it takes, will benefit all Canadians. High work-life conflict was found to be associated with a number of indicators of physical and mental health problems at the employee level. Employees who are stressed, depressed and burnt out are not as productive as those in good mental health. Stress, depression and burnout are also linked to increased absenteeism, greater use of prescription medicine and employee assistance programs (EAP), and lower levels of creativity, innovation and risk-taking. These factors, in turn, can all be expected to negatively impact an organization's bottom line and Canada's ability to be globally competitive. We have also ascertained that high work-life conflict has a negative impact on the organization's bottom line, impairs an employee's health (both physically and mentally), reduces participation in and enjoyment of family roles, negatively impacts employees' abilities to enjoy and nurture their families, is associated with reduced fertility, and significantly increases health care costs.

If things remain as they are, the proportion of the Canadian workforce at risk with respect to work-life conflict can be expected to increase due to a number of well-documented demographic and structural changes in the family (e.g. greater number of female employees, increased divorce rates, increased life expectancy, increased number of employees with multi-generational responsibility, a redistribution of traditional gender role responsibilities) and in the nature of work (e.g. globalization, sophisticated office technology, the need to deal with constant change, the movement toward a contingent workforce, and growth in atypical forms of work). It is hoped that the findings from this report will help policymakers and employers put into place strategies, policies and interventions that stem the work-life conflict tide. This report should also prove useful to Canadians who wish to make lifestyle changes to restore balance to their lives.

Future success in an increasingly competitive business environment will depend on making the most of one's employees. While Canadian organizations have long held that 'people are our most important resource,' the policies and practices currently in place in many organizations do not reflect this view. Canadian employers, faced with an impending labour force shortage, are searching for ways to stay 'lean and mean' but effective. Dealing with the issue of work-life balance offers one strategy employees can use to increase their ability to recruit and retain employees in a 'seller's market' for labour.

Who is at risk?

Examination of the data leads to some key conclusions with respect to the prediction of the various forms of work-life conflict:

• No set of factors could be identified that substantively predicted all four forms of work-life conflict.
• Organizational culture is a substantive predictor of role overload, work to family interference and family to work interference.
• Employees who work in an organization with a culture of hours, and a culture of work or family, report higher role overload, work to family interference and family to work interference.
• Employees who work for an organization with a culture supportive of work-life balance report lower levels of role overload, work to family interference and family to work interference.
• Role overload and work to family interference are strongly predicted by work-related factors, while family to work interference and caregiver strain are predicted by family factors.
• Work to family interference was the only dimension of work-life conflict predicted by sectors of employment, income, job type, work arrangement, union membership and place of residence in Canada.
• Employees with higher work expectations and whose jobs require that they extend their work hours into times typically reserved for the family are more likely to report high work to family interference.
• Caregiver strain is strongly associated with the provision of elder care.

What can we do about it?

The following key conclusions can be drawn to reduce the various forms of work-life conflict considered in this study:

• There is 'no one size fits all solution' to the issue of work-life conflict. This body of research shows quite clearly that differing policies, practices and strategies will be needed to reduce each of the four components of work-life conflict. The workforce is not homogeneous and gender, dependent care status and job type are significant moderators of the relationship between many of the coping strategies examined in this study, and work-life conflict. Policy planning should take these differences into account.
• The study identified several strategies at the organizational level (supportive management and perceived flexibility) and individual level (have fewer children, do not have children, get enough sleep) that are associated with an increased ability to cope with all four forms of work-life conflict.
• Employees who experience high levels of work-life conflict are, regardless of the form of conflict, less likely to have children. This finding has very important social implications as it links issues such as labour force shortages and pension plan collapse to work-life conflict. Our research suggests that one way to increase Canada's birth rate would be to implement policies and programs to help Canadians cope with work-life conflict in general, and role overload and work interferes with family in particular. Suggestions on how this can be done are given below.
• Organizations can do a lot to help employees cope with work-life conflict in general, and role overload and work interferes with family in particular. Virtually all of the effective coping strategies identified in this study originated in the organizational domain. With a few exceptions (such as reducing family size and not having children) the ability of personal and family coping strategies to reduce work-life conflict pales in comparison to the effectiveness of actions that can be taken by the organization.
• The same organizational interventions and personal coping strategies that reduce role overload also reduce work interferes with family - but more effectively.
• Perceived flexibility helps employees cope with work-life conflict. Flexible work arrangements do not.
• Work-life conflict depends more on who you report to within the organization than the organization you work for. Family-friendly benefits and alternative work arrangements, on their own, have little to no impact on an employee's work-life conflict. The behaviour of the employee's immediate manager (i.e. extent to which they engage in supportive and non-supportive behaviours), on the other hand, are key predictors of work-life conflict in general, and role overload and work interferes with family in particular. Who you work for is also a key predictor of how much flexibility an employee perceives they have with respect to hours of work and work schedules.
• Work-life policies and programs are necessary but not sufficient in that they will neither be implemented nor used if an employee's manager is non-supportive of work-life issues.
• While employers often point with pride to the many 'programs' available in their organizations to help employees meet family obligations, these programs or options do not diminish the fact that most people simply have more work to do than can be accomplished by one person in a standard work week. This study indicates that many of the ways employees attempt to cope with workload issues (i.e. decide to reduce their family size or not have children, work harder, cut back on their sleep, take prescription medicine or have a drink, reduce the quality of the work, cut back on outside activities) benefit neither employees, nor their families, employers or Canadian society in general. These findings are consistent with those noted in previous reports, and reinforce our contention that employers and governments need to recognize that the issue of work-life conflict cannot be addressed without addressing the issue of workloads.
• The majority of Canadians do not cope effectively with work-life conflict. Most Canadians attempt to cope by sacrificing their personal lives, cutting back on their social lives, foregoing having children, working harder, and getting less sleep - strategies that this research shows are associated with increased rather than decreased conflict between work and home. Relatively few Canadians cope by putting family first (i.e. modify work schedule, leave work problems at work), seeking social support and using active coping strategies such as prioritizing, delegating and planning.
• Many of the individual and family coping strategies that the research literature links to an increased ability to deal with stress, do not appear to be effective means of coping with work-life conflict. This would point to a need to consider a much broader set of coping responses.
• Caregiver strain is different from the other three types of work-life conflict. Coping strategies and organizational interventions that help employees cope with role overload and work interferes with family, in particular, have little to no impact on caregiver strain. Our research shows that policies and community supports (i.e. elder care referral, purchasing help from outside the family) are fundamental to an employee's ability to deal with caregiver strain. This indicates that governments have a great role to play with respect to helping Canadians deal with caregiver strain.

Closing Comments

The growing stress on the working population caused by role overload and conflict between work and family responsibilities is both an economic and social problem. Productivity is impaired, costs or production are unnecessarily high, and personal health and family well-being are at risk. The dimensions of the problem have increased over time. This stress affects both men and women in professional and unprofessional jobs, and this is a societal issue. Individuals, families, employers and governments can all take actions to moderate the stress, and they can all share in the benefits if action is taken. Most of the actions reduce costs in both the shortand long-term. All that is required is a shift in attitudes, and recognition that workers are family members and family members are workers. Canada relies on families to carry the responsibility for nurturing their children, their elderly and other dependants. We also expect people of working age to work and earn their own living. Supporting them in meeting all those responsibilities is a positive sum game.

The findings outlined in this study are somewhat disturbing in terms of what they say about Canadian values. Why is caring for our seniors and our children causing so much strain? Why are Canadian men and women foregoing having families or reducing the number of children they have? Has there been a change in values in Canada? Do Canadian organizations with a culture of work or family and a culture of hours reflect what is important to Canadians? Do such cultures give us a competitive advantage globally or are we hurting our chances of future success by focusing on short-term gains? Are we asking too much of families? Are we asking too much of employees? The data outlined in this report suggest that Canadians need to take a step back and reassess these issues. Canadian employees and employers 'survived' the 1990s. Our ability to thrive in this millennium may well depend on how we move forward with respect to the issues outlined in this report.

The first priority is to reduce the demands on working Canadians

The data suggest that employers and governments that wish to improve the health of their workforce, reduce tax burdens on their citizens, and positively influence the health care system, need to pay attention to role overload. This form of work-life conflict is strongly associated with heavy work demands, longer hours at work, higher amounts of unpaid overtime, greater amounts of work-related travel and a culture of face time - where the emphasis is on 'presenteeism' as opposed to actual output. It also represents the highest levels of relative and absolute risk to poorer physical and mental health, and to all measures of use of Canada's health care system included in this study.

The link between hours in work and role overload, burnout and physical and mental health problems suggest that these workloads are not sustainable over the long term. The data from this study reinforce this conclusion. Canadians are subsidizing, through their tax dollars and financial support of the healthcare system, organizational practices such as 'doing more with less', downsizing, basing promotions on hours at work, setting unrealistic work expectations, managing by crisis etc. Organizations that employ such strategies should bear the financial costs of such strategies - not Canadian taxpayers.

The second priority is to reduce caregiver strain

This form of work-life conflict appears to be closely linked to physical health problems and higher use of medical care services and prescription medications. The proportion of the workforce experiencing high levels of caregiver strain is expected to increase dramatically in the next decade as, first the parents of the baby boomers, and then the baby boomers themselves, require care. If steps are not taken now to put policies, procedures and institutions into place to help employees care for their aging parents, the costs associated with this kind of strain can be expected to increase dramatically in the near future.

Benchmarking The Canadian Workplace and Workers

Dr. Linda Duxbury, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Christopher Higgins, Ivey School of Business, U.W.O, London, Ontario, Canada

The Balancing Work, Family and Lifestyle National study involved the collection of data that can be used to provide Canadian employers and governments with benchmark data in a number of key areas. These include work demands and expectations, family demands and expectations, organizational attitudes and outcomes, employee mental health, family health, the use of various family-friendly policies and practices in Canadian organizations, and how Canadian employees and their families cope with stress. Key findings in each of these areas are summarized below.

Work demands and expectations

The typical full-time respondent to the 2001 survey spent 42.2 hours in work per week. One in four spent 50 or more hours in work per week. One in three worked an additional one and a half days of paid overtime in the month prior to the survey being conducted, while half performed 2.5 days of unpaid overtime in the same time period. Fifty percent 'donated' 3.5 days of additional unpaid work per month to their employer by taking work home to complete in the evenings (supplemental work at home - SWAH). An additional day per month was spent commuting to and from work. These long hours at work appear to be systemic as a substantial proportion of all respondents, regardless of job type, worked paid and unpaid overtime.

Time spent in work has increased over time

Comparisons done using the 1991 and 2001 samples suggest that time in work increased over the course of the past decade. Whereas one in 10 respondents in 1991 worked 50 or more hours per week, one in four do so now; during this same time period, the proportion of employees working between 35 and 39 hours per week declined from 48% of the sample to 27%.

Taken together, these data (i.e. time in work has increased, employees regularly work paid and unpaid overtime and take work home to complete in the evening) imply that it has become more difficult over the past decade for Canadian employees (especially those working in managerial and professional positions) to meet work expectations during regular hours. Why have work demands increased over time? Competing explanations for these phenomena drawn from the 2001 data include:

• organizational anorexia: downsizing has meant that there are not enough employees to do the work;
• corporate culture: if you don't work long hours and take work home you will not advance in your career or keep your job during downsizing;
• technology such as e-mail, laptops, cell phones and the Blackberry have increased expectations with respect to employee availability and response time;
• global competition and shareholder value: work hours have been extended to allow work across time zones; increased competition and a desire to keep costs down has limited the number of employees it is deemed feasible to hire; and
• the speed of change has increased to the point that many organizations have lost their ability to plan and prioritize - workloads increase when organizations practice crisis management.

One thing is clear from the data collected for this study - the strong link between hours in work and role overload, work interferes with family, burnout and physical and mental health problems means that these workloads are not sustainable over the long term.

Non-work demands and expectations

In 2001, Canadian employees who answered our survey spent approximately 17 hours a week in non-work-related activities - a significantly lower amount of time than they spent in paid employment. Home chores consumed about 11 hours per week. Respondents with elder care responsibilities spent approximately 5.3 hours helping their elderly relative, and parents spent approximately 10.8 hours per week in childcare. Those who volunteered spent just under four hours per week in volunteer activities.

Time spent in child care, home chores and leisure has declined over time

The amount of time that working men and women devote per week to child care, home chores and leisure declined dramatically over the 1990s. The decline in time spent in home chores and leisure over the decade was essentially the same for both men and women: 20% less time in home chores and 40% less time in leisure in 2001 than in 1991. The decline in time spent in child care was, however, more precipitous for women than for men.

Responsibilities at home are shifting - women are doing less and men more

A key finding from this research is that the role of 'caregiver' is not as strongly associated with gender as it was in the past. Traditionally, research in this area has determined that women spend more time in child care than men. Such was not the case in this study, as mothers and fathers in 2001 who engaged in child care spent essentially the same amount of time each week in child care-related activities. Further examination of the data determined that over the past decade maternal employment has contributed to a redistribution of labour within Canadian families, with women spending less time in child care than in previous decades.

Employees are now challenged to balance work and the need to provide elder care

This study demonstrates that work-life issues are no longer the domain of employed parents. The percentage of Canadian employees with elder care responsibilities has increased over time - from 5% of the sample in 1991 to almost one-third (31%) of respondents in 2001. The ramifications of this trend are likely to be significant, as the amount of time spent in elder care per week (approximately five hours per week) is not insignificant.

The family dynamics of elder care are different from those of childcare

The 2001 study determined that the family dynamics of elder care are quite different from the dynamics of child care in two important ways. First, men were almost three times more likely to have primary responsibility in their family for elder care than for child care. Second, men and women were both more likely to indicate that within their family, responsibility for elder care was shared more than with respect to child care. Finally, the men and the women with elder care responsibilities spent approximately the same amount of time per week in elder care activities. These findings are very important given the projected increase in the number of working Canadians with elder care responsibilities over the course of the next several decades.

Organizational Attitudes and Outcomes

The data from this body of research paint a disturbing picture for Canada's larger employers. The 2001 survey determined that only half of those employed by larger firms in Canada 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 thought of leaving their current organization once a week or more. Absenteeism (especially absenteeism due to mental health issues) also appears to be a substantive problem for Canadian employers, with half of the respondents reporting high levels of absenteeism (defined as three or more days of absence in the six months prior to the study being conducted). One in four respondents missed three or more days of work in a six-month period due to physical health problems, while one in ten missed a similar amount of time due to mental or emotional fatigue.

Conditions within Canadian organizations have declined over time

Conditions within Canadian organizations declined during the 1990s. Almost three times as many respondents reported high job stress in 2001 (35%) than in 1991 (13%). More than half (56%) of those in the 1991 sample did not miss work due to ill health in the six months prior to the study being conducted, while just under one in four (24%) missed three or more days. In 2001, the number of respondents missing three or more days of work due to ill health had increased to 28% of the sample, while the proportion reporting zero days' absence due to ill health had declined to 44%.

During the same time period, job satisfaction and organizational commitment also declined. Whereas almost two-thirds of employees in 1991 were highly satisfied with their jobs (62%) and committed to their organization (66%), approximately half reported high satisfaction (46%) or high organizational commitment (53%) in 2001. Such workplace conditions diminish Canada's ability to compete globally and will make it harder for Canadian organizations to recruit and retain the 'best and the brightest' as the labour market tightens.

Employee Physical and Mental Health

What does our data tell us about the health of Canadian employees? Extrapolation of key findings from the 2001 study, to the Canadian workforce as a whole, suggests that approximately half of the Canadians working for the country's larger firms suffer from high levels of perceived stress, one in three report high levels of depressed mood and one in three are at risk of burnout. Fewer than half (41%) are satisfied with their lives while one in five are dissatisfied.

The physical and mental health of Canadian employees has deteriorated over time

Overall, the 1990s appears to have been a tough decade for Canadians working for Canada's larger organizations, as the prevalence of high levels of perceived stress and depression in this group increased by approximately 12 percentage points over this time period.

The health of Canadian Families

The research findings paint a mixed picture with respect to the 'health' of the families in which Canadian employees live. On a positive note, in 2001 the majority of respondents were satisfied with their families and their performance as parents. On a more cautionary note, only 38% of respondents were satisfied with their family's well-being and only one in four frequently engaged in activities that have been linked to family stability. Unfortunately, the fact that data on the health of Canadian families was not collected in 1991 means that we cannot draw any conclusions on how these outcomes have changed over time.

Family-friendly policies and practices in Canadian organizations

The 1991 and 2001 national surveys provide excellent benchmark data on the supports available within Canadian organizations. The effectiveness of these various policies and practices aimed at reducing work-life conflict are evaluated in the complete report.

The use of alternative work arrangements in Canada is relatively low at this time

Canadian firms look much like they did a decade ago with respect to the use of alternative work arrangements. In 2001, over half (59%) of the employees in our sample worked a 'regular' work day (i.e. little to no formal flexibility with respect to arrival and departure times; no work location flexibility). Just under one in four (23%) used flextime, 14% worked a compressed work week and 4% worked a part-time arrangement. Formal job sharing and telework programs were rare as only 1.3% of the 2001 sample were able to job share while 1% formally worked from home. It would appear that, despite the talk, employers' willingness to implement flexible work arrangements lags behind employees' need for a diversity of work schedules. In fact, for many Canadian employees, work schedule flexibility has declined over time as the percentage of the workforce who worked schedules known to increasework-life conflict and stress (i.e. rotating shifts, fixed shifts, atypical work arrangements) increased between 1991 and 2001.

Paradoxically employees with the greatest need for flexible work arrangements are the least likely to have access to them

Access to flexible work arrangements is not evenly distributed throughout the Canadian workforce. An examination of the 2001 survey data indicates that those employees who have the greatest need for flexible work arrangements (i.e. parents and employees with elder care responsibilities) do not have access to them. This suggests that despite all the talk about 'family-friendly' and 'employer of choice', many of Canada's largest employers have not delivered.

While some Canadians enjoy high levels of work-time and location flexibility, many do not

Our previous research in this area observed a large gap between how an employee's work day was actually arranged (i.e. flextime) and the amount of flexibility an employee perceives that they have. The 2001 study included measures that made it possible for us to examine the perceived flexibility. While a plurality (39%) of the employees in our 2001 sample had moderate levels of informal flexibility and one in three respondents had high flexibility, a substantial percent (29%) felt that they had little to no control over when and where they worked.

Half of the Canadians employed in larger firms report to a supportive manager

Our research has shown that the behaviour of an employee's immediate manager is a more important predictor of key work attitudes and outcomes and employee physical and mental health, than where they work. The 2001 survey allows us to quantify the prevalence of supportive management in Canada's larger organizations. On a positive note, almost half of these employees (47%) considered that their managers were supportive. On a more challenging note, just over one in three (37%) worked for 'mixed managers' who were not consistent with respect to the extent to which they engaged in supportive behaviours (i.e. exhibit some behaviours but not others) while approximately one in five (16%) worked for managers who rarely displayed any of the supportive actions included in the supportive manager measure.

The data paint a mixed picture with respect to the availability of family-friendly benefits

Data from the 2001 study allow us to benchmark the availability of a number of 'family-friendly' benefits and supports in Canadian organizations. Five benefits were widely available in Canada's larger firms in 2001: unpaid leave of absence (LOA, 84%), psychological/health counselling (EAP, 83%), the ability to take an unpaid emergency day off work (76%), the ability to take time off work instead of overtime pay (75%) and the ability to take short-term personal/family leave without pay (66%). These five benefits share two characteristics. First they are reactive in nature (i.e. employees can only use them after they have experienced problems). Second, they are very cost effective for the employer as the employee is not paid when they have to take time off work to deal with personal/family issues.

Progressive benefits are less widely available

Less positive is the fact that progressive benefits such as flexible work arrangements (49%), part-time work with pro-rated benefits (45%), supportive relocation policies (44%), personal days off with pay (42%), and telework (20%) were available to fewer than half of the employees in the 2001 sample. Furthermore, virtually none of Canada's larger employers helped employees deal with dependent care obligations (i.e. only 8% of employees had access to employers that provided on-site day care, while 7% were offered childcare referral services and 6% were given eldercare referral).

Coping with stress

Canadian employees use four kinds of personal strategies to cope with stress, anxiety and depression:

• social support (i.e. talk to colleagues and/or family, seek help from colleagues and family),
• active coping techniques aimed at the reduction or elimination of the sources of conflict (i.e. prioritize, schedule, organize and plan, delegate),
• avoidance (try and forget about it, find another activity to take one's mind off things), and
• reactive coping techniques that focus on alleviating the symptoms of stress (i.e. have an alcoholic drink, take prescription drugs, work harder, reduce the quality of things one does).

The majority of Canadians use active coping strategies to cope with stress

Many employed Canadians use active coping strategies to cope with work-life conflict. A majority (69%) of employees indicated that they frequently coped with stress by prioritizing. Almost half (47%) of employees frequently coped by scheduling, organizing and planning their time more carefully. Unfortunately, these findings are not as positive as they appear on the surface, as the data show that most Canadians who cope by scheduling, organizing and planning their time more carefully give a higher priority to work than to family, a strategy that is not sustainable in the long term. The third coping strategy within this grouping, delegation, is not widely used (i.e. only 27% of the sample frequently delegate work to other while 55% rarely delegate). While it is hard to determine why the use of delegation is low, it may be that Canadian employees have no one to delegate to in the time-crunched workplace.

The majority of employed Canadians do not rely on social support networks for help

The 2001 study showed that the majority of employed Canadians try and deal with stress on their own - they do not rely on social support networks for help. Two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they rarely turned to their colleagues at work for help as a way to cope with stress, anxiety and depression. While a third of the sample said that they talked to colleagues at work as a way to alleviate their stress, only half this number (16%) asked their colleagues for help. Similarly, while 45% of respondents indicated that they attempted to cope with stress by talking with family and friends (half did not), only one in four actually sought help from friends. Compare this with the fact that just over half of the sample said that they never coped with stress by seeking help from family and friends.

Why are Canadian employees reluctant to seek support from others? We can only surmise the answer. On the work front, these findings may reflect the fact that people are just too busy at work to build the relationships necessary for social support. On the family side of the equation, these results may be due to the fact that all of the employee's friends and family are in the same situation and have little time or energy to support others.

A substantive number of Canadian employees rely on escapist coping strategies

On a positive note, relatively few Canadians use emotionfocused avoidance strategies to cope with stress. Less positive is the fact that the number of employees who frequently use escapist strategies to cope with stress is substantial (i.e. one in three frequently seek out other activities to try and take their mind off the stressor; one in five frequently 'just try and forget about it'). These findings are unfortunate as such strategies are typically less effective at reducing stress as the stressor typically remains unchanged and hence problematic.

One in ten Canadian employees use reactive coping strategies

Approximately one in ten of the employed Canadians in our sample coped with stress by frequently (i.e. several times a week, daily) having an alcoholic drink (12%), using prescription, over-the-counter, or illegal drugs (11%), and reducing the quality of the things they did (10%). These strategies are reactive ways of dealing with the emotions aroused by stress, and problematic both socially (linked to greater physical illness, costs to the healthcare system, and family dysfunction) and economically (related to reduced productivity and increased absenteeism). Of particular concern is the fact that approximately half of the respondents to the 2001 survey (43%) frequently used the fourth reactive strategy included in this study, and tried to cope by 'just trying to do it all/working harder'.

Employed Canadians cope by limiting their family size

The 2001 study suggests that the decline in Canada's birth rate over the past several decades can be linked to higher levels of work-life conflict. This claim can be substantiated by the fact that one in four of the employed Canadians surveyed stated that they had had fewer children because of demands at work. A further 28% indicated that they had delayed starting a family/decided not to have a family because they could not balance the demands of their career with a family. These findings need to be put in the appropriate context. All of the respondents to this study were employed and the majority (70%) lived in families with incomes of $40,000 per year or more. In other words, most of the individuals who used these coping strategies were economically well positioned with respect to having children but had chosen to limit their family size in an attempt to cope with work-lifeconflict. These findings imply that governments who wish to increase their birth rates need to deal with the issue of work-life conflict.

Many Canadian employees involve their families in their attempts to cope with stress

Canadian families use five different sets of coping strategies in their attempt to deal with work-life conflict:

• restructure and redefine family roles (i.e. encourage children to help each other, get children to help with household tasks, cover household responsibilities for each other, try to be flexible, plan family time together),
• put family first (limit job involvement to allow time for family, modify work schedule, plan work changes around family needs, identify one partner as responsible for family, leave work problems at work),
• sacrifice personal needs and standards (leave things undone around the house, get by on less sleep, cut down on outside activities, buy more goods and services),
• seek social support (rely on extended family or rely on friends for help), and
• procure outside help (i.e. hire help to care for the children, or for elderly dependents).

Eight of the eighteen family coping strategies were used by the majority of the sample. Tellingly, 88% of these high-use family coping strategies fall into two main groupings: restructure family roles and sacrifice personal needs.

The majority of Canadians cope by re-restructuring family roles and sacrificing their personal needs

Approximately three-quarters of the employed Canadians in our sample attempted to cope with work-life issues by engaging in three activities that typify restructuring family role expectations: 76% tried to be flexible, 72% covered household responsibilities for each other and 71% encouraged their children to help each other. Half coped by participating in the other two behaviours in this grouping: getting children to help with household tasks (53%) and planning family time together (48%).

Likewise, just over three-quarters of the respondents in 2001 coped with work-life issues by sacrificing their personal needs (77%) and leaving things undone around the house, while half coped by cutting down on outside activities (56%), getting by on less sleep (54%) and buying more goods and services (45%).

These strategies all have one thing in common - employees who use them try and cope with work-life issues by making accommodations within their personal and/or family lives. The fact that these two sets of strategies are commonly used substantiates our contention that the first line of defence against high levels of work-life conflict is to put work first - to meet work demands at the expense of family and/or personal life.

Many Canadian families try and buy work-life balance

Many of the Canadians in our 2001 sample attempt to deal with work-life conflict issues by purchasing help from outside the family unit. Just under half hired help from outside to care for their children (42%) and bought goods and services (45%). Just over one in four (26%) hired help to care for elderly dependents. It is interesting to note that Canadians are more likely to try to 'buy' balance than they are to ask extended family (30%) or friends (17%) for help.

One in three Canadian employees copes by putting family first

A substantive minority of respondents seem to buck the trend of expecting family members to adapt to their work situation and instead use coping strategies that put family first. In 2001 they did this by trying to leave work problems at work (i.e. 50% tried to psychologically separate their work and non-work domains), limiting their job involvement to give time to the family (37%), planning work changes around family needs (36%), identifying one partner as being responsible for household tasks (31%) and by modifying their work schedule to accommodate their family schedule (24%). While laudable, these strategies may limit the employee's promotion opportunities as they run counter to the dominant cultural norms in Canadian organizations.

Caregiver Strain: A Primer

Dr. Linda Duxbury, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Christopher Higgins, Ivey School of Business, U.W.O, London, Ontario, Canada

Caregiver strain is defined as feeling overwhelmed, overloaded or stressed by the pressures associated with the role of employed elder caregiver. There are three types of strains associated with the care of an elderly dependent: physical strain, financial strain, and the sense of being overwhelmed emotionally.

One in four respondents reports high levels of caregiver strain

While the majority of the respondents to this survey (74%) rarely experience caregiver strain, 9% find elder care to be a strain (physically, financially and mentally) several times a week or daily, while 17% experience such feelings approximately once a week. In other words, approximately one in four working Canadians experience what can be considered to be high levels of caregiver strain.

We cannot determine if the prevalence of caregiver strain has increased over time because this was not measured in 1991. The fact that both family interferes with work, and the proportion of Canadians with elder care responsibilities, have increased over the past decade would suggest that high caregiver strain has also become more common. We can also expect that this form of work-life conflict will increase dramatically over the next several decades as more employees become 'at risk' (the aging of the Canadian population means that more employees will take on elder care responsibilities).

Who is at risk with respect to caregiver strain?

A number of very strong conclusions with respect to the prediction of caregiver strain can be drawn from the 2001 data. Key conclusions include the following:

• Caregiver strain can be predicted with a great deal of certainty if we know an employee's life cycle stage. Employees who are older and in a life cycle stage that involves elder care are more likely to report high levels of caregiver strain, regardless of where they live, where they work, their income, job type, etc. This finding is not a surprise given that caregiver strain is defined as a strain from caring for an elderly dependent. Who can be expected to have the most problems with respect to the caregiver role? The data identify three groups of employees who are at higher risk: those with elder care responsibilities, those in the sandwich group (i.e. multigenerational care giving responsibilities) and single caregivers.
• Caregiver strain has little to do with an individual's socio-economic or socio-demographic circumstances, but instead is related to the passage of time (i.e. life cycle stage). Virtually all employees will face this challenge when they reach a certain point in their lives (i.e. when their parents require care), regardless of their other life circumstances.
• Caregiver strain is positively associated with the time demands associated with looking after an elderly dependent (first) and having this form of responsibility (second). The greater the responsibility (i.e. only child, parent lives in home, siblings do not assume their share, lack of community support), the higher the level of this form of conflict.
• Women are more likely to report high levels of caregiver strain than men. Older women, in particular, are at higher risk with respect to this form of work-life conflict.
• Caregiver strain is the only form of work-life conflict that is not associated with either work demands or organizational culture.

What is the impact of high caregiver strain on Canadian organizations?

From the organization's perspective, the main consequence of high caregiver strain is higher absenteeism due to elder care problems and physical, mental and emotional fatigue. Compared to their counterparts with low levels of caregiver strain, employees with high levels of caregiver strain are 13 times more likely to have missed three or more days of work in a six-month period due to elder care problems and 1.8 times more likely to have missed three or more days of work due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that this is the only type of work-life conflict that is associated with absenteeism due to elder care problems.

The data collected in the 2001 survey provided us with the opportunity to estimate the potential financial cost of caregiver strain to Canadian organizations. Our calculations indicate that, in 2001 the direct costs of absenteeism due to high levels of caregiver strain were just over $1 billion per year. Indirect costs were estimated at another $1 to $2 billion.

Our calculations also determined that employers could reduce absenteeism in their organizations by 8.6% if they could help employees cope with caregiver strain.

What is the impact of high caregiver strain on Canadian employees?

Care giving responsibilities place employed Canadians at a higher risk with respect to physical and mental health problems. Respondents in this study with high caregiver strain reported the highest levels of perceived stress (80% with high caregiver strain reported high stress) and depressed mood (60% with high caregiver strain reported high depressed mood) of any group in the sample. They were also more likely to suffer from impaired physical health (28% with high caregiver strain reported their health as fair/poor). It would appear that strains of caring for elderly dependents, while employed, are exceeding Canadians' ability to cope.

What is the impact of high caregiver strain on Canadian families?

While caregiver strain has a negative impact on family life satisfaction, positive parenting and family well-being, the relationships are not as strong as were observed with the other three forms of work-life conflict. Employees with high caregiver strain do, however, spend less time engaging in behaviours associated with positive parenting than any other group in the sample. These phenomena can be explained by the fact that about one in three of the respondents in the high caregiver strain group are in the 'sandwich group', with responsibility for children as well as elderly dependents. In these families, the time and energy devoted to elder care activities appears to be interfering with the time available for children.

What is the impact of high caregiver strain on Canada's health care system?

Employed Canadians with higher levels of caregiver strain are in poorer physical health. They were more likely than any other group examined in this study to visit their personal physician and to have spent time in hospital on both an inpatient and an outpatient basis. They also made the highest use of the emergency room and spent the greatest amount on prescription medication. It would appear from these data that caregiver strain is associated with an increased incidence of illness that requires treatment and prescription drugs.

The data from this study also determined that the health care costs associated with high caregiver strain are substantial. We calculated that the direct cost of physician visits due to high caregiver strain to be approximately $1 billion per year, the direct costs of inpatient hospital care due to high caregiver strain to be approximately $4 billion per year and the direct costs of visits to a hospital's emergency department due to high caregiver strain to be approximately $100 million per year. Similarly we calculated that Canada could reduce the number of days spent in hospital by approximately 18% per year, the number of visits to the family physician by approximately 8% per year, and the number of visits to the emergency department by 14% per year if high levels of caregiver strain could be reduced.

It would appear that the need to provide elder care is overwhelming employees' ability to cope with both work and life demands. If nothing is done to alleviate the demands placed on these workers, ill health due to this form of work-life conflict is likely to increase dramatically in the next decade as more baby boomers assume responsibility for the care of their parents. These findings indicate that if business does not take strategic action with respect to this issue soon, the government should step in and take action to help employees deal with elder care issues. The country cannot afford to pay the healthcare costs incurred by organizational inaction in this area.

What is the impact of high caregiver strain on prescription drug use?

In 2001, the average employee with high caregiver strain spent approximately $236 per year on prescription medicine: 1.6 times more than the $172 per year spent by those with low caregiver strain. The higher drug expenditures reported by those suffering from this form of work-life conflict are not surprising, given the fact that they are more likely than respondents with other forms of work-life conflict to have sought care in a hospital setting (either as an inpatient, in the emergency department, or as an outpatient) in the six months prior to the study being done. It would appear that caregiver strain is associated with an increased incidence of illness that requires medical treatment and prescription drugs.

What is the impact of high caregiver strain on fertility?

Women with high levels of caregiver strain were substantively more likely than their counterparts with lower levels of strain to decide to delay or not to have children. This implies that one way to increase Canada's birth rate is to help employees deal with caregiver strain, perhaps by providing elder care support mechanisms within the community.

What can employers do to help employees cope with work interferes with family?

There is only one high-impact strategy available to organizations that wish to reduce the levels of caregiver strain in their workforce: provide elder care referral services. The relationship between the use of this benefit and caregiver strain is very strong. The fact that the association is positive indicates that employees with higher strain are more likely to seek such assistance than those who have less caregiver strain. Again, while we cannot tell from this study the extent to which such a benefit helps employees cope with the demands associated with elder care, the data does tell us that employees themselves perceive this benefit helps them cope.

The use of two other benefits, short-term personal leave and family/personal days off work, also has an impact on caregiver strain. The negative relationship between caregiver strain and short-term personal leave indicates that this benefit does help employees cope with the strains associated with the care of an elderly dependent. The positive relationship between personal days off work and caregiver strain, on the other hand, indicates that employees need to take time off work when caregiver strain gets high. This benefit makes it easier for employees to use this strategy.

Employees who use flextime arrangements report substantially lower levels of caregiver strain. Employees who work a fixed schedule, on the other hand, report the highest levels of this form of work-life conflict. Unfortunately, this means that organizational actions that minimize caregiver strain will maximize family interferes with work.

Finally, it is worth noting that increasing perceived flexibility does give employees with dependent care responsibilities some small degree of protection against caregiver strain. Specifically, the ability to be home in time for dinner with the family, vary one's work hours, interrupt one's work day and return to work later, and arrange one's work day to meet family or personal needs, all seem to help employees cope with caregiver strain.

What can individuals do to cope with caregiver strain?

Very few of the individual coping strategies examined in this study were effective at helping employed Canadians deal with caregiver strain. In fact, three of the most common coping strategies used by employed Canadians to deal with caregiver strain are: reducing the quality of things one does, working harder and just trying to forget about things, makes things worse rather than better (i.e. strain increases concomitant with the use of these strategies).

It is also important to note that employees who turn to prescription medicine to help them cope with caregiver stain will experience some relief. Such a solution is not, however, sustainable over the long term.

What can families do to cope with work interferes with family?

This study identified only two family coping strategies that were substantively associated with caregiver strain: hire help to care for dependents and get by on less sleep.

The relationship between caregiver strain and get by on less sleep is relatively straightforward - the greater the use of the strategy the greater the strain. The relationship between hiring help to care for elderly dependents and caregiver strain is more complex. For the men in the sample, the greater the strain, the greater the tendency to procure assistance from outside the family. For women, on the other hand, moderate use of this coping strategy is associated with an increased ability to cope with caregiver strain. Daily use of hired help to care for elderly dependents, on the other hand, is associated with higher levels of caregiver strain. This suggests that when caregiver strain is acute, outside support does little to alleviate the strain.

Role Overload: A Primer

Dr. Linda Duxbury, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Christopher Higgins, Ivey School of Business, U.W.O, London, Ontario, Canada

Role overload can be defined quite simply as having too much to do and not enough time in which to do it. It is feeling rushed and time crunched, feeling physically and emotionally exhausted and drained, and not having enough time for oneself.

A majority of Canadians working at larger firms are overloaded

High levels of role overload have become systemic within the population of employees working for Canada's largest employers. In our 2001 survey of over 30,000 Canadians, we found that the majority of survey respondents (58%) reported high levels of role overload - an increase of 11% compared to what was observed in the 1991 sample.

Who is at risk with respect to role overload?

Work culture is the key determinant of role overload for both men and women. In fact, the unwritten rules, norms and expectations placed on an employee by the organization in which he or she works (i.e. organizational culture) is a better predictor of role overload than objective circumstances at work (i.e. job type, position), circumstances at home (i.e. family type, life-cycle stage) or the actual amount of time spent in work or family roles. Organizational cultures that are non-supportive on balance, that emphasize hours and being present, and link career advancement to putting work first, are linked to increased role overload for both men and women.

Role overload goes hand in hand with increased work demands. The most important determinants of role overload for both men and women include the amount of time spent in unpaid overtime per month and the total number of hours spent in work per week. Other key predictors of role overload for the men in the sample included whether or not they had to supervise the work of others, and the number of hours per week spent in supplemental work at home. For the women in the sample, on the other hand, role overload increased dramatically with the amount of time spent in job-related travel (i.e. hours per week spent commuting to and from work, weekend nights away from home per month on business, week nights away from home per month on business). Taken together, these findings indicate that the relationship between role overload and work demands depends on the gender of the employee.

Finally it is important to note that role overload has little to do with the demands the employee faces outside of work. Nor can it be linked to objective facts about an employee's family, community or work situation. This finding challenges many of the assumptions made with respect to the risk factors of role overload (e.g. that mothers are more overloaded).

What is the impact of high role overload on Canadian organizations?

The data from this study is unequivocal - overload negatively impacts the organization's bottom line. Employees who have high role overload are less committed to their organization, report higher work stress, are less satisfied with their jobs (due largely to dissatisfaction with workloads, hours worked and work schedules), are more likely to be absent from work (due largely to physical and mental health problems), are more likely to be thinking of leaving the organization (to escape frustrating and non-supportive work environments and to get more time for themselves and more recognition for their efforts), and have a less favourable view of their employer. In other words, organizations that have a higher proportion of their workforce with high levels of this form of work-life conflict are likely to have difficulties recruiting and retaining employees and to face increased costs associated with poor physical and mental health (i.e. greater absenteeism, higher prescription drug costs, more frequent EAP use).

These findings suggest that the downsizing strategies followed by many employers throughout the 1980s and 1990s and the concomitant increase in employee workloads have backfired. The data reviewed in this study indicate that the savings in payroll costs (i.e. salary and benefit dollars) obtained through downsizing may be offset by substantial increases in dollars lost due to higher absenteeism for the 'survivors'. It would appear that employers who consistently overload their employees pay a price (whether they recognize this or not), and the costs associated with this strategy are substantial and affect their bottom line. These costs include:

• $3 to $6 billion per year in absenteeism costs alone,
• difficulties recruiting and retaining employees, and 15
• costs associated with poorer physical and mental health (i.e. greater absenteeism, higher prescription drug costs, greater EAP use).

What is the impact of high role overload on Canadian employees?

Employees with high levels of role overload are more likely to be in poor mental health. Compared to their counterparts with low role overload, employees with high role overload are 12 times more likely to report high levels of burnout, 3.5 times more likely to report high levels of perceived stress, 3.4 times more likely to report high levels of depressed mood, 3.1 times more likely to report that they are in poor physical health and half as likely to report high levels of life satisfaction.

What is the impact of high role overload on Canadian families?

Role overload has a negative impact on Canadian families. The 2001 survey data determined that employees with high levels of role overload were less satisfied with their family life and their ability to parent, were less likely to feel that their families were well (i.e. reported lower family adaptation), were less likely to feel that their families were stable and worked together, and were more likely to be concerned about the well-being of their family. The extent to which role overload impacts family function can be appreciated by noting that employees with low role overload were 1.4 times more likely than their counterparts with high role overload to report high levels of family life and parental satisfaction and family integration, and twice as likely to perceive high levels of family well being. It would appear from this research that employees who are rushed and exhausted (largely due to their heavier work demands) do not have the time to enjoy their family lives or engage in activities to enhance their family experiences.

What is the impact of high role overload on Canada's health care system?

The findings from this body of research are unequivocal - overloaded employees made greater use of Canada's health care system than those with low levels of role overload. Compared to their counterparts with low levels of role overload, employees with high levels of role overload, in the six months prior to the study, were:

• 2.6 times more likely to have sought care from a mental health professional,
• 2.4 times more likely to have received care on an outpatient basis three or more times,
• 1.8 times more likely to have seen a physician three or more times,
• 1.6 times more likely to have sought care from another type of medical provider four or more times,
• 1.5 times more likely to have had to spend at least one night in the hospital, and
• 1.4 times more likely to have visited a hospital emergency room

The data from this study also determined that the direct cost of:

• physician visits due to high role overload is approximately $1.8 billion per year,
• inpatient hospital care due to high role overload is approximately $4 billion per year, and
• visits to a hospital's emergency department due to high role overload cost approximately $250 million per year.

Calculations also found that a reduction in the number of people with high role overload would result in a 25% decline in visits per year to the family physician, a 17% decline in the number of days spent in the hospital per year and a 23% reduction in the number of visits made to the emergency department per year.

Taken together, these data support our contention that the health of Canadians (especially their mental health) would improve if overload could be reduced. These data also provide a further incentive for governments and policy makers to focus on reducing role overload in our population: lowering demands on Canada's healthcare system. The data from this research support the idea that strategies to reduce role overload should help Canada deal with its current physician shortage, reduce the problems many hospitals have with respect to availability of beds and substantially reduce wait times at hospitals and demands on health care personnel.

What is the impact of high role overload on prescription drug use?

Employees with high levels of role overload spend an average of $93 every six months (or $186 per year) on prescription drugs. This is significantly higher than the $75 in six months ($150 per year) spent by those with moderate levels of role overload and the $69 in six months ( $138 per year) spent by those with low role overload. Extrapolation suggests that companies who pay for 100% of their employees' prescription drug expenditures (80% of the companies in the 2001 sample) could save an average of $36 per employee per year if they reduced role overload levels from high to moderate levels.

What is the impact of high family interferes with work on fertility?

This study implicates role overload and increased workloads in the decline in Canada's birth rate over the course of the past several decades. We found a very strong, positive association between role overload and the decision to have fewer children because of work demands, and the decision to delay having children or not to have children because of career demands and role overload. This makes intuitive sense - why would overloaded individuals decide to add another set of demands to their already full plates?

What can employers do to help employees cope with role overload?

What can organizations do to help employees cope with role overload? The answer from this study is clear:

• Increase the amount of flexibility and control that employees perceive they have over their work hours. Two forms of flexibility in particular seem to be fundamental to the ability to cope with role overload: the ability to arrange one's work schedule to meet personal or family commitments, and the ability to interrupt one's workday to deal with a personal or family matter and then return to work.
• Increase the number of supportive managers within their organizations and reduce non-supportive management. Specifically, organizations need to increase the extent to which managers in their organizations are effective at planning the work to be done, make themselves available to answer their employee's questions, make expectations clear, listen to their employees concerns, and give recognition for a job well done and reduce the extent to which managers place unrealistic work expectations on their employees, make them feel guilty for taking time off for personal/family matters, and focus on hours of work and not on output.

What does not work? This study determined that flexible work arrangements and family-friendly benefits do little to help employees cope with role overload. This is unfortunate as flexible work arrangements and supportive benefits are often the 'strategies of choice' for employers who wish to reduce work-life conflict. This study indicates that such benefits will have little impact when work demands are unrealistic, management is non-supportive and cultures reward and recognize hours at work and 'presenteeism' rather than outputs.

What can individuals do to cope with role overload?

Unfortunately, the findings from this study support the idea that the majority of the individual coping strategies used by Canadian employees do little to help employees cope with role overload. Specifically, our analyses determined that social support does not help individuals deal with role overload. Nor does trying to find another activity to take one's mind off things, scheduling, planning, and organizing, having an alcoholic drink, or off-shifting work with a partner. Finally, when job type is taken into account, there is no relationship between role overload and attempts to cope by prioritizing, delegating, just trying to forget about things, and using prescription medicine.

What then does make a difference? Working harder, reducing the quality of one's work and escapist strategies such as just trying to forget about it. Unfortunately, all of these strategies exacerbate rather than alleviate role overload.

Working harder just makes things worse

Just under half (43%) of the sample copes with stress by just working harder. Unfortunately, the results from this study attest to the futility of such an approach as levels of role overload increase concomitant with the use of this strategy. The results may reflect the fact that people who are overloaded cope by working harder to get things done. Alternatively, they may mean that people who attempt to cope by working harder experience diminishing returns in productivity at higher hours of work (i.e. make more mistakes, work less effectively and efficiently). This then increases rather than decreases their levels of overload - resulting in the need to continue to work harder. In either case, working harder is associated with higher, rather than lower, levels of role overload - suggesting that this strategy does not alleviate overload.

Employees with higher levels of role overload cope by reducing the quality of their work

Just over one in four (28%) of the employees in the 2001 sample say that they cope with stress by reducing the quality of the things that they do. Further examination of the data indicates that employees increase their use of this strategy in response to higher levels of role overload. While the causality of this finding is difficult to ascertain (i.e. people who are overloaded may reduce quality in an attempt to cope, and/or people who cope by reducing quality experience an increase in role overload because they have to re-do some tasks) the conclusion one arrives at in either case is the same: this strategy does not help employees deal with role overload. It also implies that organizations who overload their employees in an attempt to 'do more with less' will not realize significant productivity gains.

'Escapist' coping strategies do not work

The relationship between role overload and the use of escapist coping strategies such as just trying to forget about one's problems is substantive and positive (i.e. employees with higher role overload are more likely to use this strategy than those with lower levels ), suggesting that this strategy is not particularly effective at alleviating overload.

What can families do to cope with role overload?

Unfortunately, the findings from this study support the idea that the majority of the coping strategies used by Canadian families do little to help employees cope with role overload. Specifically, our analyses determined that neither strengthening/ restructuring family roles nor seeking social support helped employees cope with role overload. The following also did not help: hiring help to care for elderly dependents, identifying one partner as responsible for household chores, and limiting one's job involvement. Other conclusions with respect to strategies families should and should not use to cope with role overload are summarized below.

Sacrificing one's personal needs makes things worse

The more an employee copes by getting by on less sleep, and cutting down on outside activities (i.e. by personal sacrifice) the greater the role overload they experience. While the causality of this finding is difficult to ascertain (i.e. people who are overloaded may reduce their sleep and cut down on social engagements in an attempt to cope, and/or people who cope by reducing sleep and their social life experience an increase in role overload because they burn out, become ill, or have to re-do tasks) the conclusion one arrives at in either case is the same: this strategy does not help employees deal with role overload.

Employees who put family first are better able to cope with role overload

The data indicate that role overload decreases as the use of the two strategies associated with coping by 'putting family first' (leave work-related problems at work, and modifying work schedule) increase. Unfortunately, twice as many Canadians cope by sacrificing their personal needs than cope by putting family first.

Moderate use of hired help to care for children helps employees cope with role overload

Hiring help to care for one's children appears to be an effective way to cope with role overload - but only when used in moderation. Employees who do not use hired help to care for their children, as well as employees who use help on a daily basis, both report higher levels of overload while those who employ help once or twice a week report significantly lower levels of overload. These findings raise the question: Why is daily use of childcare associated with higher levels of role overload? It may be that employees with a high reliance on daycare are overloaded by the tasks associated with delivering and picking up children. Alternatively it may be that employees with a moderate reliance on daycare tend to either work part-time or off-shift care with their spouses.

Employees with a partner who covers family chores for them are more able to cope with role overload

Men and women with dependent care responsibilities, who live in families where partners or spouses are willing to cover family responsibilities for each other (i.e. egalitarian families), are more able to cope with role overload than their counterparts who are not able to count on such assistance. These findings make sense and suggest that one can meet heavy expectations at work when someone is available to help out at home. Unfortunately, many families are time-crunched today - and such assistance may come at a cost to the obliging partner.

Family Interferes with Work: A Primer

Dr. Linda Duxbury, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Christopher Higgins, Ivey School of Business, U.W.O, London, Ontario, Canada

Family interferes with work arises because employees cannot be physically and mentally in two places doing two different things at exactly the same time. People who experience this type of work-life conflict resolve competing role demands by giving family priority over work demands (i.e. do not stay late, do not take work home to do in the evening, refuse job-related travel, forgo a promotion, etc) and not vice versa.

Only one in ten Canadians allows family demands to interfere with work

Very few Canadians experience high levels of this form of work-life conflict. In fact, only 10% of the sample reported that their family demands and responsibilities interfered with their ability to meet demands at work (i.e. high levels of interference). Also noteworthy is the fact that three times as many Canadians give priority to work at the expense of their family as do those that give priority to their family over work.

That being said, it is important to note that twice as many working Canadians are putting family ahead of work now than was the case a decade ago. Our analysis indicates that much of this increase can be attributed to a greater need for employees to supply care to elderly dependents.

Who is at risk with respect to family interferes with work?

A number of conclusions with respect to the prediction of family interferes with work can be drawn from this body of research. From most to least important, the key determinants of family interferes with work are the demands the employee faces at home, organizational culture and life cycle stage.

Key predictors of family interferes with work include hours per week spent in providing child care and elder care and having responsibility for child care. Employees with child care and/or elder care responsibilities are at the highest risk of experiencing this form of work-life conflict. Even in this higher risk group, however, the prevalence of this form of work-life conflict is low (i.e. 13% of the women and 11% of the men with dependent care responsibilities reported high family interferes with work). These findings may be useful in dispelling the stereotype that female employees with children or elder care responsibilities give their work responsibilities a lower priority.

Not only is family interferes with work linked to what an employee has to do at home (i.e. non-work demands) but it is also related to how easy it is for the employee to fulfil these responsibilities given the expectations imposed at the level of the organization (i.e. organizational culture). Specifically, family interferes with work occurs when the types of behaviour that the work culture rewards with respect to career advancement (i.e. long hours, putting work first) are at odds with the types of behaviours one would associate with being a suitable parent/elder caregiver (i.e. spending time in family activities, taking family leave).

Family circumstances (i.e. life-cycle stage, family type, age of children at home) is an important predictor of family interferes with work for women and not men. Women with elder care and with younger children at home are at higher risk with respect to family interferes with work. Women who are in non-traditional family configurations (i.e. they work, their partner stays home and looks after the children) report lower levels of this form of interference than other women. These data support the idea that women who have responsibility for the traditional family roles of mother (especially of younger children) and caregiver for an elderly relative are more likely to experience family interferes with work. When these role expectations are reduced (e.g. children are older and/or the spouse has assumed the role of caregiver), this form of interference is reduced, suggesting that this form of conflict is linked to traditional gender role expectations with respect to who should care for children and the elderly.

What is the impact of high family interferes with work on Canadian organizations?

Family interferes with work has minimal impact on the organizational attitudes examined in this study. This form of work-life conflict is, however, strongly associated with high levels of absenteeism (i.e. three or more days' absence in the past six months). Compared to their counterparts with low levels of caregiver strain, employees with high levels of caregiver strain are 6.5 times more likely to have missed three or more days of work in a six-month period due to child care problems and 1.8 times more likely to have missed three or more days of work due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue.

From the organization's perspective, the main consequence of high family interferes with work is higher absenteeism due to problems with childcare. In fact, this form of work-life conflict is the only one that is predictive of absenteeism due to problems with child care. This finding is not surprising given that employees with high levels of this form of interference place a higher priority on family demands as compared to work.

What is the impact of high family interferes with work on Canadian employees?

Employees who put family ahead of work are in better mental health than their counterparts who try to do it all (i.e. role overload) or putting work ahead of family.

What is the impact of high family interferes with work on Canadian families?

Employees with high family interferes with work reported the lowest levels of family life satisfaction, parental satisfaction and family well-being in the study. It is hard to tell the direction of causality here. Is it because these employees are dissatisfied with these dimensions of their life that they have decided to put family first (i.e. trying to remedy the situation)? Or, has the fact that these employees have put family first and work second made them more dissatisfied, critical or resentful of circumstances at home that made such choices/sacrifices necessary? Additional research is needed in this area to answer this question.

What is the impact of high family interferes with work on Canada's health care system?

With one exception, employees with higher levels of this form of work-life conflict make less use of Canada's health care system than their counterparts with higher levels of the other three forms of work-life conflict. That being said, it is important to recognize the high association between family interferes with work and the use of mental health care services (employees with high levels of family interferes with work are twice as likely to seek this form of care than are those with lower levels of interference). Why this is the case is hard to determine from these data, as the direction of causality is not clear. We can speculate that putting family first in a society that materially and socially recognizes the opposite behaviour (i.e. putting work first) is associated with higher levels of stress and lower self-esteem. This explanation assumes that family interferes with work contributes to poorer mental health.

Alternatively, it may be that family is more likely to rise in priority compared to work when there are problems at home or when an individual is stressed or depressed (i.e. in poorer mental health). In this case, poorer mental health is assumed to lead to higher levels of family interferes with work rather than the reverse. Future research should seek to determine the direction of causality of this relationship as it affects how the issue could best be addressed.

What is the impact of high family interferes with work on prescription drug use?

Family interferes with work is not associated with prescription drug use.

What is the impact of high family interferes with work on fertility?

The 2001 data shows that women who have made the decision not to have children because of their work report significantly lower levels of family interferes with work than their counterparts who have not made such a decision. This finding is not surprising since this group of women has fewer constraints to deal with at home.

What can employers do to help employees cope with family interferes with work?

The organization has relatively few options when it comes to reducing family interferes with work in their workforce. That being said, we offer the following advice to organizations who wish to address this issue:

• Organizations who wish to help employees with dependent care cope with family interferes with work should make it easier for these employees to arrange their work schedule to meet personal and family commitments, vary their work hours, and take their holidays when they want. It is, however, important for organizations to recognize that these strategies are only effective at high levels (i.e. employee feels that they can rearrange their schedule and vary their hours at any time) as employees with moderate flexibility in these areas realized no increased ability to cope with family interferes with work.
• Organizations should reduce the extent to which managers make employees feel guilty about time off work for personal or family reasons, and focus on hours of work and not on output.
• Give employees a choice over how their work day is arranged. Employees who work a fixed work day (i.e. start and stop times are the same every day) report substantially lower levels of family interferes with work. This, and the fact that employees who work flextime report the highest levels of this form of conflict, suggests that predictability helps an employee plan family activities so that they do not interfere with work.
• The following family-friendly benefits appear to help employees cope with family interferes with work: a childcare referral program, on-site day care, the opportunity to work part-time/reduced work week, the ability to take a personal day off work with pay, an Employee Assistance Program (EAP), the ability to take a family/emergency day off work, and short- term personal leave. Child care referral and part-time work, in particular, appear to be effective at reducing family interferes with work.

What can individuals do to cope with family interferes with work?

Individual coping strategies such as seek social support, off-shift work with spouse, use alcohol and/or prescription drugs, find another activity to take one's mind off things or active coping (prioritize, and schedule, plan and organize) do not appear to be effective in helping employed Canadians deal with family interferes with work. The relationship between the use of the other individual coping strategies and family interferes with work depends on both gender and dependent care status. The following observations on coping with family interferes with work can be made by looking at these relationships.

• Men and women with child care/elder care who attempt to cope with family interferes with work by reducing the quality of things that they do experience higher (rather than lower) levels of interference. These findings suggest that men and women with dependent care cope with stress at home by lowering their standards at work (i.e. let family interfere with work). The implication of this is that employers who are interested in quality of work need to implement strategies to reduce family interferes with work and enhance work-life balance.
• While working harder helps men and women without dependent care responsibilities cope with family interferes with work, it increases (rather than decreases) family interferes with work for men and women with dependent care responsibilities. It may be that those without child care and/or elder care are able to reduce this form of interference by increasing their efforts at home - a strategy that becomes less effective as demands outside of work increase.
• Delegating work to others is an effective way for men to cope with family interferes with work. This strategy does not, however, help women cope with this form of work-life conflict. Gender role theory suggests that these findings may be due to the fact that women have difficulty giving up responsibility for the family role (i.e. child care, elder care, home chores). Men have no such problems.
• While 'just trying to forget about it' helps men and women without dependent care responsibilities cope with family interferes with work, it increases (rather than decreases) family interferes with work for men and women with dependent care responsibilities. These findings indicate that it is easier for those without caregiving responsibilities to successfully separate family from work.

What can families do to cope with family interferes with work?

Virtually none of the family coping strategies examined in this study were associated with family interferes with work. Only two strategies were substantively associated with family interferes with work: hire help to care for the children, and get by on less sleep. In both cases, however, family interferes with work increased concomitant to the use of the strategy.

Work Interferes With Family: A Primer

Dr. Linda Duxbury, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Christopher Higgins, Ivey School of Business, U.W.O, London, Ontario, Canada

Work interferes with family arises because employees cannot be physically and mentally in two places doing two different things at exactly the same time. People who experience this type of work-life conflict resolve competing role demands by giving work priority over family/personal demands. In other words, they meet work demands at the expense of time for themselves and/or their families (i.e. bring work home to do in the evening, stay late at work, or miss family events due to work demands).

One in four respondents reports high levels of work interferes with family

A plurality of the working Canadians in our 2001 sample (38%) report moderate levels of work interferes with family. While just over one in four of the respondents (28%) report high interference from work to family (i.e. perceive that the demands they face at work make it very difficult to satisfy their non-work responsibilities), 35% are currently experiencing little work interferes with family. The proportion of Canadians employees with high work interferes with family has remained fairly constant over time. While in some senses this is a positive finding (this form of interference has not increased), it is also cause for concern as it indicates that little has been done to address this issue.

Who is at risk with respect to work interferes with family?

A number of conclusions with respect to the prediction of work interferes with family can be drawn from this body of research. From most to least important, the key determinants of work interferes with family are the organizational culture, work demands, sector of employment, socio-economic circumstances, characteristics of work and the community in which the employee lives. Key details on these conclusions are summarized below.

• Work culture is the key determinant of work interferes with family for both men and women. This research identified three organizational cultures as being problematic with respect to this form of work-life conflict: a culture of hours (employees perceive that it is not acceptable within their organization to say no to more work, and that their career advancement will be limited if they do not work long hours), a culture of work or family (employees feel they have to choose between their family and career advancement, and that family responsibilities and taking family leave will limit their career advancement) and a non-supportive culture (i.e. the organization does not promote an environment that is supportive).
• Demands at work are also a key determinant of work interferes with family. This form of work-life conflict is not, however, just a function of workload. Rather, the work demands that predict work interferes with family all physically remove the employee from the family domain (i.e. job-related travel) and/or take time that is typically reserved for the family (unpaid overtime, supplemental work at home). Key predictors of work interferes with family for both genders include the number of hours spent in unpaid overtime per month, the number of weekend nights spent away from home on business per month, the number of hours per week spent in work, the number of hours per week spent in supplemental work at home (SWAH), and the number of week nights spent away from home on business per month.
• Employees in life cycle stages that entail dependent care responsibilities are at higher risk of experiencing work interferes with family. It should be noted, however, that family demands are not as strong a risk factor for this form of work-life conflict as culture and work demands.
• If we have information on where people live, their family situation, their sector of employment and their socio-demographic circumstances, we will have some understanding of the amount of work interferes with family they will experience. This would indicate that an employee's life circumstances (i.e. their work and life situation) have more of an influence on the 'juggling' aspect of work-life conflict than on the demand (overload) side of the phenomenon. All things considered, who is at the highest risk with respect to work interferes with family? The data indicate that employees with heavier work and/or family demands and lower levels of control (i.e. inflexible work arrangements) such as managers and professionals, employees with dependent care responsibilities and those working in health care and education, are at highest risk.
• Women who feel that they are able to refuse overtime work are significantly less likely to report high levels of work interferes with family than women who do not feel that they can say no to overtime. The ability to say no to overtime is not predictive of work interferes with family for men.

What is the impact of high work interferes with family on Canadian organizations?

High levels of work interferes with family create a major problem for many Canadian companies. Compared to their counterparts with low levels of work interferes with family, employees with high work interferes with family are six times more likely to report high levels of job stress, 2.8 times more likely to report high intent to turnover, and 1.9 times more likely to have high absenteeism due to physical, mental, or emotional fatigue. They are also one-third as likely to report high levels of job satisfaction and half as likely to be committed to and have a positive view of their employer.

The negative consequences of this form of work-life conflict can be appreciated by noting that this study determined that the respondents with high levels of work interferes with family reported the lowest levels of commitment (only 44% with high commitment), the lowest levels of job satisfaction (only 24% were highly satisfied with their jobs), the highest levels of job stress (66% reported high job stress), and the highest intent to turnover (44% are thinking of leaving weekly or more, with 24% thinking of leaving several times a week or daily!) of any of the respondents in the study. Organizational commitment, intent to turn over, and view of the employer have all been found to be strongly associated with recruitment and retention issues.

Finally, the impact of this form of work-life conflict on the organization's bottom line can be appreciated by noting that this study determined that absenteeism, due to high work interferes with family, costs companies approximately $1 billion per year in direct costs alone. We also found that employers could reduce absenteeism in their organizations by 6.3% if they eliminated high levels of work interferes with family.

What is the impact of high work interferes with family on Canadian employees?

The data reviewed in this study can serve as a warning to employees that the strategy of 'trying to do it all' and 'meeting heavy demands at work at the expense of one's personal life' is associated with impaired mental and physical health. Compared to their counterparts with low work interferes with family, employees with high levels of this form of work-life conflict were 5.6 times more likely to report high levels of burnout, 2.4 times more likely to report high levels of depressed mood, 2.4 times more likely to say their health is fair/poor, 2.3 times as likely to report that they were in poor physical health, and 2.2 times as likely to report high levels of perceived stress. They were slightly less than half as likely to report high levels of life satisfaction.

The extent to which this form of work-life conflict poses a mental health risk for employed Canadians can be appreciated when one considers that 62% of the respondents with high work interferes with family reported high levels of burnout, while just over three quarters (77%) reported high levels of perceived stress.

What is the impact of high work interferes with family on Canadian families?

The findings from this research indicate that employees who put work ahead of family can expect to experience serious repercussions on the family front. Such employees are less satisfied with their families and their abilities as a parent, less pleased with their family's well-being, and less likely to live in a stable family unit. It is interesting to note that the relationship between family integration, and work interferes with family, is particularly strong (only 12% of employees with high levels of work interferes with family can find/make the time to engage in meaningful activities with their families).

What is the impact of high work interferes with family on Canada's health care system?

Employees with higher levels of work interferes with family make more use of Canada's health care system than their counterparts who do not experience such interference. Compared to their counterparts with low levels of work interferes with family, employees with high levels of work interferes with family were, in the six months prior to the study:

• 1.7 times more likely to have sought care from a mental health professional,
• 1.7 times more likely to have received care on an outpatient basis three or more times,
• 1.6 times more likely to have seen a physician three or more times,
• 1.5 times more likely to have visited a hospital emergency room, and
• 1.4 times more likely to have had to spend at least one night in the hospital.

The data from this study also determined that the direct cost of:

• physician visits due to high work interferes with family is approximately $650 million per year,
• inpatient hospital care due to high work interferes with family is approximately $2 billion per year, and
• visits to a hospital's emergency department due to high work interferes with family is approximately $144 million per year.

Calculations also found that a reduction in the number of people with high role work interferes with family would result in a 8.5% decline in visits per year to the family physician, a 9% decline in the number of days spent in the hospital per year, and a 12% reduction in the number of visits made to the emergency department per year.

What is the impact of high work interferes with family on prescription drug use?

In 2001, employees with high work-interferes with family spent approximately $188 per year on medication for their own use, $34 per year more than their counterparts with low interference. We have noted previously that employees who put work ahead of family pay a price for this behaviour in terms of increased stress, depressed mood and lower life satisfaction. It appears from these data that the employer also pays a price to their bottom line through increased benefit costs.

What is the impact of high work interferes with family on fertility?

The relationship between work interferes with family and decision-making around having children reinforces our contention that some of the decline in Canada's birth rate may be attributed to increases in work-life conflict. Employees with higher levels of work interferes with family are more likely to agree that they have had fewer children because of work demands, and to agree that they have delayed having children or decided not to have children because of career demands and work interferes with family.

What can employers do to help employees cope with work interferes with family?

What can organizations do to help employees cope with work interferes with family? The answer from this study is quite clear:

• Increase the amount of flexibility and control that employees perceive they have over their work hours. What forms of flexibility should employers implement if they wish to help employees cope with work interferes with family? They should make it easier for employees to arrange their work schedule to meet personal or family commitments, get home from work in time to have meals with their family, interrupt their work day to deal with personal or family matters and then return to work, take paid time off work to attend a course or a conference, take a paid day off to care for a sick child, and take a paid day off to care for an elderly dependent. All of these forms of flexibility give employees greater control over the work-family balance by helping them deal with family or personal issues (both scheduled and unanticipated) during work hours. In other words, they help employees meet personal commitments during what are traditionally considered to be 'work hours.' Given the high costs of this form of work-life conflict, it would appear that allowing employees greater freedom to deal with personal issues during work hours makes good business sense.
• Increase the number of supportive managers within their organization and reduce non-supportive management. The findings from this study are unequivocal - work interferes with family depends more on who you report to within the organization and how they behave, than the organization you work for. Employees who work for a non-supportive manager were significantly more likely to experience high levels of interference, while those reporting to a supportive manager were more likely to report lower levels of interference. Even more striking is the fact that all 16 of the behaviours typifying non-supportive and supportive management were either strongly or moderately associated with this form of work-life conflict. These data indicate that a focus on management behaviour in general, and on reducing non-supportive management in particular, should bring about substantial reductions in work interferes with family
• Do not expect that the introduction of either flexible work arrangements or supportive benefits will solve the problem for you. This study noted that flexible work arrangements and supportive benefits had little impact on the incidence of work interferes with family.
• Implement part-time work arrangements for employees with dependent care responsibilities.
• Reduce your use of shift work arrangements.

What can individuals do to cope with work interferes with family?

The majority of the individual coping strategies examined in this body of research do little to help employees cope with work interferes with family. Neither social support (talked with family or friends, talked with colleagues at work, sought help from family or friends, sought help from colleagues at work) nor active coping (i.e. prioritize, delegate, schedule, plan and organize) strategies helped individuals deal with work interferes with family. Nor did trying to find another activity to take one's mind off things, having an alcoholic drink, and using prescription medicine, trying to forget about things or off-shifting work with a partner, lead to a decrease in this type of conflict.

The relationship between working harder and work interferes with family is very strong. Unlike the situation with respect to role overload, however, the effectiveness of this strategy depends on the job type of the employee. Specifically, this study found that this strategy exacerbates rather than alleviates work interferes with family for men and women in managerial and professional positions, but does provide for some degree of relief from work interferes with family for those in other positions within the organization. These findings suggest that managers and professionals cope by devoting more effort to their work role, thereby increasing their feelings of interference on the family front.

Finally, this study found that employees with child and/or elder care, who reduced the quality of things that they did, reported lower levels of work interferes with family. Unfortunately, examination of the data indicates that they achieved this goal by lowering their standards at home.

What can families do to cope with work interferes with family?

Unfortunately, the findings from this study support the idea that the majority of the coping strategies used by Canadian families do little to help employees deal with work interferes with family. Specifically, our analyses determined that neither strengthening/restructuring family roles nor seeking social support helped employees cope with this form of work-life conflict. Hiring help to care for elderly dependents, identifying one partner as responsible for household chores, and limiting one's job involvement also did not help.

That being said, we offer the follow advice to families on how they should/should not cope with work interferes with family:

• Put family first. The data from this study is unequivocal - employees who wish to reduce the amount of interference they experience between work and family need to make a conscious effort to leave work problems at work, and modify their work schedules. The results show that employees who make an effort to separate work time from non-work time, by leaving work problems at work, will realize significant declines in work interferes with family.
• Do not cope by cutting back on sleep. The more an employee copes by getting by on less sleep, the greater the interference between work and family. While the causality of this finding is difficult to ascertain (i.e. people who have high interference between work and family may reduce their sleep and cut down on social engagements in an attempt to cope, and/or people who cope by reducing sleep and their social life experience an increase in interference because work is getting in the way of life) the conclusion one arrives at in either case is the same: this strategy does not help employees deal with this form of interference.
• Do occasionally leave things undone around the house. Women who cope with work interferes with family by leaving things undone around the house once or twice a week experience lower levels of work interferes with family. This strategy is, however, associated with increased interference when used daily and does not alleviate interference for men.
• Do occasionally cut down on outside activities. Moderate (i.e. weekly) use of this strategy is associated with lower levels of interference. This strategy is associated with increased interference when used daily.
• Do not think that you can buy balance. There is a positive relationship between work interferes with family and purchasing goods and services from outside the family. The increase in interference between someone who never purchases outside support and one who does so daily is notable, suggesting that while money can buy happiness it may not be able to buy balance.

Key Recommendations Arising from the Balancing Work, Family and Lifestyle National Study

Dr. Linda Duxbury, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Christopher Higgins, Ivey School of Business, U.W.O, London, Ontario, Canada

The 2001 National Work, Family and Lifestyle Study leaves little doubt that there is no 'one size fits all solution' to the issue of work-life conflict and that different policies, practices and strategies will be needed to reduce each of the four components of strain examined in this analysis. That being said, this research has identified a number of concrete strategies and approaches that key stakeholders (i.e. employers, employees, government and unions) can use to reduce the different types of work-life conflict. Details on these recommendations can be found in the main reports.

What Can Employers Do?

To reduce work-life conflict and to improve their bottom line, employers need to focus their efforts on the following sets of initiatives:

• make work demands and work expectations more realistic,
• increase employee's sense of control,
• provide flexibility around work hours of work,
• focus on creating a more supportive work culture, and
• increase the number of supportive managers in the organization/decrease the number of non-supportive managers.

Decreasing demands, changing the culture to one that supports employees, and increasing perceptions of flexibility and supportive management help all employees cope with these forms of work-life conflict, so progress in these areas should produce the maximum return on investment. Employers that implement some or all of the 33 recommendations outlined in the main report should realize significant reductions in employee role overload and work interferes with family, moderate reductions in family interferes with work and some increased ability for employees to cope with caregiver strain.

What Can Employees Do?

What can individual employees do with respect to work-life balance? While the options in this regard are more limited than what employers can do, this study has identified 20 strategies that employees can try if they wish to gain balance. Specifically, employees should:

• Not attempt to cope with work-life conflict by 'just working harder and trying to do it all', reducing the quality of their work (especially at home) or cutting back on sleep. All three of these coping strategies make things substantively worse, not better.
• Recognize that 'no one can balance your life but you.' Employees need to educate themselves on how to deal effectively with work-life conflict, take advantage of the policies and programs in their workplace, and delegate tasks to others and prioritize.
• Put their needs and the needs of their family first.
• Consult their family physician if they are experiencing challenges balancing work and family roles as 'toughing it out' and 'trying and do it all' often exacerbates rather than alleviates work-life challenges.
• Set boundaries between work and family lives and make a concerted effort to reduce the extent to which work intrudes on family.

What Can Governments Do To Reduce Work-life Conflict?

Governments at all levels have a critical role to play with respect to this issue. Twenty recommendations to governments pertaining to legislative change, child care and elder care, the provision of financial incentives for change, needed health promotion activities, structural changes at the governmental level, and support of relevant research and data collection, are outlined in the main report.

What Can Unions Do To Reduce Work-life Conflict?

Unions have an important role to play in the establishment of family-friendly practices in the workplace. Accordingly, we recommend that unions become advocates of employee work-life balance by undertaking campaigns to raise awareness of work-life issues and include work-life provisions such as flexible work arrangements, family-friendly benefits, and cafeteria-style benefits in negotiations during the collective bargaining process.

Box 1

Findings from the Balancing Work, Family and Lifestyle National Study

•  Report One: The 2001 National Work-Life Conflict Study: puts the series into context by describing the sample of employees who participated in the research and examining the various risk factors associated with work-life conflict.
  Website: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-travail/index.html
•  Report Two: Work-life Conflict in Canada in the New Millennium: A Status Report: makes the business case for change by looking at how high levels role overload, work to family interference, family to work interference, caregiver strain and spillover from work to family affect employers, employees and their families.
  Website: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-travail/report2/index.html
•  Report Three: Exploring the Link between Work-Life Conflict and the Use of Canada's Health Care System: focuses on how work-life conflict affects Canada's health care system (i.e. quantifies the system demands associated with high work-life conflict and attempts to put some kind of dollar value on how much it costs Canada to treat the health consequences of such conflict).
  Website: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-travail/report3/index.html
•  Report Four: Who Is at Risk? Predictors of High Work-Life Conflict: identifies key risk factors for role overload, work interferes with family, family interferes with work and caregiver strain.
  Website: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-travail/report4/index.html
• Report Five: Reducing Work-Life Conflict: What Works? What Doesn't?: examines what employers, employees and their families can do to reduce work-life conflict.
  Website: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/occup-travail/balancing-equilibre/index_e.html