Families in Society | Volume 92, No.

1
Family Functioning and Interrelationships

The Juggling Act: Managing Work–Life Conflict and

Work–Life Balance
Soo Jung Jang & Allison Zippay

Family stressors linked to work–life conflict have intensified in recent years with a rise in dual-earner families, female-headed households, and
total hours worked. Tensions associated with managing the demands of employment and home life may have negative effects on mental and
physical health, as well as family and job satisfaction. This article reviews the theoretical and research literature on factors associated with
work–life conflict, and examines the growing empirical literature regarding the effects of formal and informal public and employer-based poli-
cies available to facilitate work–life balance and well-being. Implications for family policy and practice are discussed.

Implications for Practice Background

• Practitioners can draw on knowledge of public and private systems
of family-friendly policies and other social supports, and on evidence
regarding the effects of flex time, formal policies, and supportive
workplace culture to aid individuals in assembling strategies to
reduce work–life role spillovers, stress, and conflict.
• Those working within occupational social work and employee
assistance programs could likewise promote formal and informal
family-friendly policies and work environments.
Work–Life Balance and Conflict
Work–life balance has been described as the self-perceived, satisfac-
tory integration of personal time, family care, and work with a mini-
mum of role conflict (Clark, 2000; Ungerson & Yeandle, 2005). Issues
of work–life balance have received increased attention in recent years
as family roles and work environments have changed to reflect a rise
in the number of dual-earner couples and mothers employed outside
the home, and the evaporation of work–life boundaries as advanced
technologies enable some paid work to take place from locations in-
cluding home, car, vacation, and so on (Valcour & Hunter, 2005). Re-
jecting the notion that balance is possible or desirable, some analysts

T
he challenges of juggling paid work and home responsibilities
have received heightened notice in recent years, and this atten-
tion has increased as labor force participation, the numbers
of hours worked, and the use of technologies that blur boundar-
ies between work and home have accelerated among U.S. families
(Bianchi, Casper, & King, 2005; Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, &
Prottas, 2002). While issues of work–life conflict affect individuals
across class, gender, occupation, and ethnicity, they may be most
pronounced among single parents, women, low-income families,
racial minorities, and employees with care responsibilities for chil-
dren, elders, and those with chronic health problems (Brennan,
Rosenzweig, Ogilvie, Wuest, & Shindo, 2007; Heymann, Boynton-
Jarrett, Carter, Bond, & Galinsky, 2002; Kossek & Lambert, 2005;
Byron, 2005; Scott, Edin, London, & Mazelis, 2001; Waldfogel, 2001).
Work–life conflict is associated with a host of mental and physi-
cal health difficulties including stress, depression, anxiety, family
discord, and hypertension (Dragano et al., 2008; Wang, Lesage,
Schmitz, & Drapeau, 2008). Social workers and other mental health
professionals are likely to confront these effects when working with a
range of families and individuals in counseling, casework, and men-
tal health promotion.
Despite the centrality of employment and work–life balance to the
health and well-being of families and individuals, the social work lit-
erature has given little attention to these issues (Bargal, 2000; Secret
& Sprang, 2001). In this article we review the theoretical and research
literature on factors associated with work–life conflict, examine the
public and employer-based policies available to facilitate work–life
balance, and discuss implications for policy and direct practice.
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services | www.FamiliesinSociety.org
84
prefer the term “work–life integration” to denote the perception that
the multiple demands of paid work and nonwork domains are satis-
factorily resolved (Kossek & Lambert, 2005; Valcour & Hunter).
In contrast to work–life balance or integration, work–life conflict
involves situations in which the demands and responsibilities of paid
work and nonwork roles are incompatible in some respect (Byron,
2005; Messersmith, 2007; Reynolds, 2005). Such conflicts can be bi-
directional: employment demands may interfere with family respon-
sibilities, or personal and family demands may interfere with em-
ployment. For example, a chronically ill child may increase a parent’s
absenteeism on the job, or long hours at work might make it difficult
to attend family functions or complete housework. Numerous studies
have found that work–life conflict is associated with stress, depres-
sion, and a variety of stress-related poor health and mental health ef-
fects, and that such ill health increases work absenteeism, turnover,
and low morale (Emslie, Hunt, & Macintyre, 2004; Grzywacz, Almei-
da, & McDonald, 2002; Lingard, Brown, Bradley, Bailey, & Townsend,
2007). Job strain and work conflict have been associated with somatic
problems, hypertension, substance abuse, some first-time cardiac
events, and short-term illness (Aboa-Eboule et al., 2007; Frone, Rus-
sell, & Cooper, 1993; Van Der Heijden, Demerouti, Bakker, & The
NEXT Study Group, 2008). Psychological strains include anxiety,
chronic stress, emotional exhaustion and depletion, burnout, marital
tensions, and minor and major depression (Dena, Lin, Kooehoorm, &
Goldner, 2007; Dragano et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2008).
Because many employed women continue to shoulder more home
and caretaking responsibilities than men, women have been found to
be more likely to experience work–life conflict, and are more vulner-
DOI: 10.1606/1044-3894.4061 | ©2011 Alliance for Children and Families
 Jang & Zippay | The Juggling Act: Managing Work–Life Conflict and Work–Life Balance
able to related stress and ill health (Lindfors, Berntsson, & Lundberg,
2006; MacDonald, Phipps, & Lynne, 2005). These responses may be
more pronounced among single and low-income mothers who lack
the instrumental support or financial resources to supplement or pur-
chase services (such as child care, elder care, or housecleaning) to re-
duce such conflicts (Barnett, Del Campo, Del Campo, & Steiner, 2003;
Bond, Galinsky, Kim, & Brownfield, 2005; Heymann et al., 2002).
Race and ethnicity may also be linked to increased vulnerability and
stressors associated with work–life conflict given the disproportion-
ate representation of Black and Hispanic women and families in low-
income and single-parent households (Bond et al.; Loprest, Acs, &
Ratcliff, 2009).
Labor Force Participation and Role Overload
Focus on work–life conflict has intensified in recent decades as the num-
bers of hours that parents and caregivers spend in the paid labor market
have increased. Based on nationally representative data from the 2002
National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW), the proportion
of married, dual-earner couples rose to 78% in 2002, up from 66% in
1977 (Bond et al., 2002). The combined hours worked by dual-earner
couples with children rose over that time period from 81 to 91 hours per
week. As work hours have risen, dual-earner fathers and mothers have
reduced personal time rather than diminish time spent with children,
with mothers reporting just 0.9 hours of personal time per workday,
compared to 1.3 hours per day for fathers (Bond et al., 2002). Though
mothers in these couples assume the bulk of housework, child care, and
cooking, fathers in the sample had increased the time they spent on
household chores by 42 minutes over the past 25 years.
The numbers of mothers in the workforce also continues to rise. In
2005, 71% of mothers with children under age 18 were in the labor force,
compared to 47% in 1975, and 3 out of 4 worked more than 30 hours
per week. In 2005, 63% of women with children under age 6 were em-
ployed outside the home, as were 59% of mothers with children under
age 3 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2006). Research also indicates that
due in part to increased work requirements and time limits for public
assistance programs, including TANF and food stamps, the numbers
of low-income mothers with a labor market attachment have increased
(Gennetian, Crosby, Huston, & Lowe, 2004; Lane, Mikelson, Sharkey,
& Wissoker, 2003). Analyses of nationally representative employee sur-
veys consistently note that women of color are overrepresented in low-
wage jobs, and have less access to instrumental resources and formal
work supports (Bond et al., 2005; Waldfogel, 2001).
Increased work hours in conjunction with care responsibilities
appear to be contributing to reports of overwork and strain among
many. Telephone surveys with a representative sample of 1,003 wage
and salaried U.S. employees in 2004 found that one in three respon-
dents reported chronic overwork, and that those who were over-
worked were significantly more likely to make mistakes at work; feel
angry at their employers; and report higher levels of stress, clinical
depression, and poor health (Galinsky et al., 2005). A survey of almost
32,000 Canadian workers revealed that one in three said they were in
a high stress job—triple the rate recorded 10 years previously (Higgins
& Duxbury, 2002). Those most likely to report high levels of role over-
load were women, married employees with child care and elder care
responsibilities (the “sandwich group”), and married employees with
child care responsibilities only.
Several studies have reported that some workers view technology,
including cell phones, the Internet, and wireless access, as a double-
edged sword for work–life balance because technology increases ef-
ficiency and flexibility as well as overwork. Almost three quarters of
the respondents in the study of Canadian workers said that technol-
ogy increased their role overload as work demands and multitasking
mounted (Higgins & Duxbury, 2002). People in managerial positions
are more likely to have the flexibility to work from home electronical-
ly, but they are also more likely to perform unpaid overtime because
of this telecommuting (Health Canada, 2008).
Conceptual Frameworks: Roles, Spillovers, and Borders
Several theories and conceptual frameworks have been used to de-
scribe and explain the ways in which families manage demands in
the increasingly intersecting worlds of work and family, including role
theory, spillover, and border theories (Guest, 2002).
Social roles. Role theory has been applied to explain work–life
conflicts: individuals hold multiple roles as employee, mother, father,
caretaker, family member, and so on, with self and socially imposed
expectations regarding the behaviors appropriate to those positions
(Fuegen, Biernat, Haines, & Deaux, 2004; Graham, Sorell, & Mont-
gomery, 2004). Individuals may experience role conflict when their
multiple roles are incompatible in some respect, and role confusion
may occur when an individual is uncertain which normed role be-
haviors to assume in various situations (Thoits, 1991, 1992). As higher
numbers of women and mothers entered the labor force over past de-
cades, the reality of overlapping spheres of family and work collided
with traditional notions of hierarchical and dichotomous work–life
worlds (Bond et al., 2002; Parsons & Bales, 1955).
In recent decades, men as well as women have spent more time in
both work and caretaking roles, with the potential for increased role
stress and tension across gender (Almeida, Maggs, & Galambos, 1993;
Bond et al., 2002). Thoits (1991, 1992) noted that role confusion, con-
flict, and stress are greater when particular role obligations are more
central and meaningful to a self-identity. Researchers have noted that
women traditionally identify more readily with interpersonal rela-
tionships and normed caretaking roles and men with career commit-
ment and roles as employees. This finding helps to explain why work-
ing mothers report more work–life conflict than working fathers, and
why working fathers typically experience greater depression following
unemployment than working mothers (McLoyd, 1989; Thoits, 1991,
1992). Others note that stress among employed mothers is often tied
to the pragmatic burdens of maintaining “the second shift” in which
many women perform the bulk of unpaid work, such as doing house-
work and childcare, after completing a shift of paid work (Cobble,
2004; Hochschild, 1989; Wharton, 1994).
Though much of this literature focuses on negative and conflictual
aspects of multiple roles, other researchers promote an expansionist
theory to posit that multiple work–life roles reflect a positive reality
for women and families, and must be examined in light of social and
structural shifts that can promote an appropriate work–life balance
(Barnett & Hyde, 2001).
Spillover theory. Developed primarily by organizational behavior
researchers, spillover theory explores the intersections of paid work
and family life, and tests factors that influence employees’ emotional
states both at work and at home (Keene & Reynolds, 2005; Mennino,
Rubin, & Brayfield, 2005). It has been applied to identify the causes
and mediating influences of positive and negative emotional out-
comes in work and home environments as, for example, when manda-
tory overtime results in a tired parent being irritable at home, or when
a colicky newborn and sleeplessness negatively affect job performance
(Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Mennino et al.). Though much of this lit-
85
Families in Society | Volume 92, No. 1

Table 1. Key Provisions of the Federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Employers covered Private employers of 50 or more employees in at least 20 weeks; public agencies and public schools (regardless of number of employees)
Employees eligible Worked for employer for at least 12 months; worked at least 1,250 hours; employed at employer worksite with 50 or more employees,
which is within 75 miles of worksites that taken together have a total of 50 or more employees
Length of leave Up to a total of 12 weeks during a 12-month period; intermittent leave permitted for serious health conditions
Wage replacement Unpaid leave
Leave requests To be made by employee at least 30 days prior to date of leave
Reasons for Birth and care of their newborn child; care of their adopted or foster child; serious illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condi-
employee leave tion involving incapacity or treatment connected with inpatient care in hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility; or continu-
ing treatment by a health care provider involving a period of incapacity; care for an immediate family member with a serious illness
Reinstatement rights Must be restored to same position or one equivalent with all benefits
Maintenance of health Same conditions as prior to leave
benefits during leave
Medical certification May be required by employer for request for leave because of a serious health condition
Note. Adapted from “Federal Versus State Family and Medical Leave Laws,” by the U.S. Department of Labor (2008). Available from http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/fmla/index.htm

erature focuses on negative spillovers, the influences may be positive
as well; for example, when a supportive and cohesive family life gener-
ates job motivation and commitment (Grzywacz & Marks). Studies of
Hispanic and Black working families, for example, found that tradi-
tional male and female gender roles increased negative family to work
spillover for employed women, while shared household tasks had a
positive effect on work and life satisfaction among women (Broman,
1988; Roehling, Jarvis, & Swope, 2005).
Border theory. While spillover theory focuses on emotional in-
terconnections between work and family life, border theory (Clark,
2000) pertains to the ways in which individuals manage the physical,
temporal, and psychological “borders” that separate work and family.
Clark posits that these borders are permeable and flexible, and that
employees are daily “border crossers” who negotiate with “border
keepers” (such as work supervisors or day care providers) to affect
work–life situations. Within this model, work–life balance is present-
ed as a product of interpersonal relationships as well as organizational
and structural factors, and theorists assume that employees actively
shape, in part, the nature of their work and home domains. View-
ing employment and family as interfacing environments, Voydanoff
(2004, 2005) draws on person–environment fit and boundary theory
to examine ways in which perceptions of work–life fit can be influ-
enced by boundary-spanning resources and strategies. As with Clark,
Voydanoff posits individuals as active participants in assembling such
strategies as, for example, hiring household services, reducing hours
to part-time, or using flex-time.
Public and Employer-Based Policies
Policies and efforts aimed at assisting employees with work–life bal-
ance—and managing multiple roles, spillovers, and border cross-
ings—include formal public policies, formal employer-based policies,
and informal personal and interpersonal arrangements.
to return to the same or an equivalent position, pay, and benefits at the
conclusion of the leave. Several states have opted to pass their own FM-
LAs, with expanded coverage in some areas, such as leave period.1 At
the time this article was composed, only California, Washington, and
New Jersey provide some level of paid leave. Covered employers are re-
quired to comply with the federal or state provision that provides the
greatest benefit to their employees (U.S. Department of Labor, 2008).
In addition to FMLA, a handful of states offer temporary disabil-
ity insurance (TDI) benefits, which provide partial wage replacement
for nonjob-related injury or illness, with pregnancy and childbirth
included in most definitions of coverage (U.S. Social Security Ad-
ministration, 2007).2 San Francisco is unique as a city government in
which all employers in the municipality are required to offer paid sick
leave to full- and part-time employees, and sick leave can be used for
the care of a family member who is ill or receiving medical treatment
(Levitt, 2007).3
Employer-Based Policies: Formal and Informal
Within the United States, employer-based work–life balance policies
vary widely from company to company. These are often called “fami-
ly-friendly policies” and formal initiatives may include: employer-de-
termined leaves for childbirth, parenting, or care for an ill or elderly
relative; dependent care benefits including onsite or consortium child
care, financial assistance for child care, or long-term care insurance
and dependent care assistance plans (DCAPs) that allow employees to
use pretax dollars for dependent care; and flexible work arrangements
including job sharing, part-time work, flexible work hours or days,
work at home, compressed work weeks, and extended lunch hours
(Bond et al.). There also exist informal workplace policies such as a
supportive workplace culture and supervisory support in which, for
1
The following 10 states and the District of Columbia have implemented legislation
similar to the federal FMLA: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Public Policies
The most widely available public policy addressing work–life issues is
the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA; see Table 1).
Enacted in 1993, eligible employees in covered companies must be
granted up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for reasons including the birth
and care of their newborn child, care of their adopted or foster child,
care for an immediate family member with a serious health condition,
or personal medical leave because of a serious health condition. Em-
ployees are entitled to have their benefits maintained, but they must
continue to pay their portion during the leave, and they have the right
86
2
Five states have TDI systems or require employers to offer TDI, which provides
partial wage replacement to employees who are temporarily disabled for medical
reasons, including pregnancy- or birth-related medical reasons: New York, Califor-
nia, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Hawaii. TDI is funded by employee or employer
contributions or both, and ranges in coverage from 26 to 52 weeks.
3
Regulations include: (a) all employers must provide paid sick leave to each
employee including temporary and part-time employees who work in San Fran-
cisco; (b) paid sick leave shall begin to accrue 90 days after the commencement of
employment; (c) for every 30 hours worked, an employee shall accrue one hour of
paid sick leave; and (d) employees are entitled to paid sick leave for their own medi-
cal care and also to aid or care for a family member or designated person.
 Jang & Zippay | The Juggling Act: Managing Work–Life Conflict and Work–Life Balance
example, a supervisor might informally allow an employee to leave
work early to take a child to a doctor’s appointment (Bond et al., 2002;
Schwartz, 1994).
Research on Policy Effects
Public Policies
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL; 2006) estimates that almost 60%
of U.S. private sector employees work in businesses covered under
FMLA, though the majority of private sector employers—89%—are not
covered by the Act. This statistic reflects the fact that the majority of em-
ployees work for large business establishments, although the majority of
employers are comprised of small companies. Citing results from sur-
veys of private sector employees conducted in 2000, the DOL reported
that an estimated 16.5% of employees had taken some form of publicly
supported family leave in the 18 months prior to the survey—a number
that counts leaves of a few days as well as those extending over many
weeks. Primary reasons for the leaves were personal health (52%), care
for an ill child (12%), care for a newborn or newly adopted child (19%),
care for an ill parent (13%), and maternity leave (8%). Compared to all
employees, leave takers were more likely to be female, have children liv-
ing at home, and be married or living with a partner. Two in five of the
leave takers said they cut their leave short because it was unpaid and
they could not sustain a situation of lost pay.
The DOL surveys also found that about 3.4% of respondents report-
ed they had needed a leave, but did not take one. Among those, 78%
said they did not take a leave because they could not afford to. Others
noted that they feared their job would be lost, job advancement would
suffer, or that they were not eligible for leave. Compared to all em-
ployees, “leave-needers” were more likely to be separated, divorced,
or widowed; have children living at home; and be hourly rather than
salaried employees.
Numerous researchers have noted that low-income employees,
particularly single mothers, are among those least likely to access the
FMLA (Barnett et al., 2003; Phillips, 2004; Waldfogel, 2001). In ad-
dition, the unpaid nature of the leave often produces income-related
stressors among employees from a range of socioeconomic levels.
Regulations regarding eligible employees (1,250 hours of work over 12
consecutive months) and employers (50-plus employees) leave uncov-
ered those most apt to be working in lower wage, irregular, part-time
jobs. Low-income women, especially TANF beneficiaries who are
likely to work in low-wage jobs and require child care, are less likely to
access the FMLA (Ruhm, 1997; Waldfogel).
Employer-Based Policies
Several surveys, including the 2005 National Study of Employers, a
representative sample of for-profit and nonprofit employers with 50
or more employees, indicate that formal family-friendly policies are
most common among large, economically healthy companies with
more than 1,000 employees (Bond et al., 2005; Schwartz, 1994). Small-
er businesses often rely primarily on informal supports, and are typi-
cally able to provide more personalized, flexible work and schedule
options. Employers with 50 to 99 employees are significantly more
likely to have a highly supportive workplace culture (including super-
visory support of personal and family life) than large employers with
1,000 or more employees. Managers, professionals, and persons with
higher incomes have the greatest access to formal family-friendly pol-
icies, and Whites report greater access to flexible work arrangements
and leave benefits than minority respondents (Bond et al.).
Nationally representative data from the 2002 National Study of the
Changing Workforce reports the availability of family-friendly op-
tions among its sample of 3,000 employees (Bond et al., 2002). In terms
of flex time, for example, about half of employees said they had access
to an extended lunch break, and 44% said they could work less one
day and make up the time later. Only 29% reported that they could set
their own hours, and about one quarter said they could do some work
at home regularly. Dependent care benefits were reportedly offered by
about 28% of the companies represented, and near or onsite child care
was accessible to 10% of employees. Though 80% of respondents said
they had access to family leave, few had access to paid leave, including
maternity leave.
Informal Policies: The Importance of Workplace Culture
Numerous studies have found that informal workplace policies such
as supervisory support and workplace climate are positively associ-
ated with perceived work–life balance and well-being (Appelbaum,
Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2005; Behson, 2005; Neal & Hammer, 2006;
Secret & Sprang, 2001). Behson used data from the Families and Work
Institute 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW)
to examine 2,248 nationally representative dual-earner families who
had a child under 18 or provided care for someone over 65, and found
that informal workplace supports were more important than formal
work–benefit policies in explaining variance in employee well being.
Specifically, supervisory behavior that did not punish employee at-
tention to families, and allowed employee discretion and autonomy
in work hours or scheduling was associated with reductions in stress,
work–life conflict, and intentions to quit among employees. Mennino
et al. (2005) examined 2,877 wage and salaried workers from 1997
NSCW data, and found that the availability of company policies such
as dependent care benefits and flex time were less effective in reduc-
ing negative work-family spillover than improvements in the informal
supportiveness of workplace climate. In interviews with an availabil-
ity sample of 374 employed parents with children younger than age 18,
Secret and Sprang (2001) found that employees who perceived their
supervisors as being family-friendly were significantly less likely to
report role strain. Interviewing 217 supervisors at a manufacturing
company, Hopkins (1997) found that informal interventions such as
talking and listening were the most common means for assisting trou-
bled employees, and that supervisors’ personal knowledge of formal
systems of care was significantly related to their linking employees to
those resources.
Supervisors often function as gatekeepers and climate-setters, and
their attitudes have been described as “a key factor in regulating em-
ployee access to formal policies” (Appelbaum et al., 2005, p. 68, empha-
sis in original). These researchers have noted that formal work–family
policies will not provide the intended benefits of enhanced employee
satisfaction unless managers and supervisors provide complemen-
tary informal support of these processes. Work culture thus mediates
perceptions of work flexibility and work–life balance. Notably, fam-
ily-friendly supervisors and work flexibility are more often reported
among professional and managerial employees than those in blue col-
lar and clerical positions (Berg, Kalleberg, & Appelbaum, 2003).
Implications for Social Work and Family Practice
The empirical literature indicates that flexible work schedules (in-
cluding flexible or reduced hours, compressed work week, extended
lunch) and a supportive workplace culture (supervisors who support
87
Families in Society | Volume 92, No. 1
employee autonomy and flexibility to attend to family/life issues) are
the factors most strongly associated with perceived work–life bal-
ance and well-being. The availability of these formal and informal
employer-based policies varies widely, but is typically least available
to lower-wage workers. While most employees in the United States
are now guaranteed family leave through FMLA, single parents and
lower-income families are among those least likely to use the pro-
gram because the leave is unpaid. Research indicates that the stress
resulting from role overload and a lack of work–life balance may spill
over into both work and family life and manifest in personal and fam-
ily tensions, and a range of mental and physical health difficulties.
Technology and telecommuting have complicated effects, both fa-
cilitating flexibility and contributing to role overload as work–home
boundaries blur.
Social workers are likely to encounter issues related to work–life
conflict across a number of areas of practice: individual and family
counseling and casework, particularly with second-shift female em-
ployees with child or elder care responsibilities; casework with par-
ticipants in TANF, food stamps, and other service programs requiring
labor force participation; health and mental health promotion; occu-
pational social work; and in supervising public and nonprofit employ-
ees. The stress and health issues related to work–life conflict affect in-
dividuals and families across a range of socioeconomic backgrounds,
with lower-income families more vulnerable, in part, because of less
frequent access to employer-sponsored policies, and fewer resources
with which to purchase support services (such as additional child care
or household help).
Research indicates that employees’ use of supportive resources is
associated with their work, supervisor’s knowledge, and communi-
cation of these systems (Appelbaum et al., 2005; Hopkins, 1997). As
counselors and caseworkers, social workers can draw on knowledge of
public and private systems of family-friendly policies and other social
supports, and on evidence regarding the effects of flex time, formal
policies, and supportive workplace culture to aid individuals in as-
sembling strategies to reduce work–life role spillovers, stress, and con-
flict. That knowledge can be translated into efforts such as assisting
individuals and families with understanding and applying for FMLA
and other state or local leave programs; identifying and seeking jobs
that offer options such as compressed work weeks or reduced hours;
and assembling resources and subsidies to support work-family bal-
ance (child care, respite care, household help, and so on).
Social workers and mental health professionals could also incor-
porate knowledge of these issues and resources into clinical work
with individuals, couples, and families. Given the associations among
work–life conflict and depression, anxiety, and family discord, clinical
assessments could seek information on family and work integration
and imbalance, and survey available formal and informal work–life
resources. Interventions that draw from spillover, border, and social
role theories could frame strategies for considering and negotiating
social and instrumental work-life supports. Researchers have used
a variety of measures to assess work–life conflict and to suggest ap-
proaches to intervention (Bohen & Viveros-Long, 1981; Frone, 2000;
Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991; Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2009; Nete-
meyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). Many intervention materials take
the form of self-help directives focused on general time-management
and stress-relief techniques (e.g., exercise, meditation, healthy diet;
Healthfield, 2008; Mayo Clinic, 2006). More clinically oriented ap-
proaches for treating depression, anxiety, and family tensions asso-
ciated with work–life imbalance have often originated with employ-
88
er-sponsored employee assistance programs (EAPs); some focus on
coping and stress reduction (Catalyst, 2009; Centerpoint, 2009; Sabir,
Cooper, & Faragher, 2003), while others draw on managed behavior-
al care programs for standard treatment of depression and anxiety
(American Psychiatric Association, 2003; Nigam, Murphy, & Swan-
son, 2003; Rahe et al., 2002).
Clearly, such individually directed efforts are framed by a context
of social, political, and structural awareness of issues affecting work–
life balance and well-being. As a result, the research on work–life is-
sues can be applied by social work professionals across a number of
programmatic and policy levels. Social work supervisors working in
public and private organizations could model and enact a support-
ive workplace culture, offer supervisory training, and promote intra-
organizational formal and informal policies such as flex time to en-
hance employee recruitment, retention, and well-being. Occupational
social workers and those who work with EAPs could likewise work
to promote formal and informal family-friendly policies and work
environments. On a broader policy level, numerous research and ad-
vocacy groups address a range of gender and workplace issues related
to work–life conflict, including gendered role and work expectations
and low-wage employment, with a focus on policy solutions (e.g.,
Families and Work Institute, http://www.familiesandwork.org; Sloan
Work and Family Research Network, http://wfnetwork.bc.edu; and
National Association of Social Workers, http://www.socialworkers.
org/advocacy). Other groups have worked with state and national leg-
islators to promote paid family leave through an expansion of FMLA
and various state initiatives (Family Caregiver Alliance, http://www.
caregiver.org).
Much of the literature on work–life balance has been written from
organizational perspectives with a focus on employee productivity
and retention, particularly among middle- and higher-income profes-
sionals (Byron, 2005; Stoeva, Chiu, & Greenhaus, 2002). By contrast,
the populations with which social workers most often engage are less
often targeted in research on work–life balance: poor and low-income
workers; racial and ethnic minorities; parents of special needs chil-
dren; TANF recipients; individuals with serious mental illness; care-
givers of elderly parents, and so on. For example, though numerous
studies have investigated gender-based factors associated with work–
life conflict, few have examined the ways in which race intersects
with gender and income in the management of work and family is-
sues (Broman, 1988; Ericksen, Yancey, & Ericksen, 1979; Loder, 2005;
Roehling et al., 2005). Inquiry within the social work literature could
further examine the unique qualities of work–life conflict, health ef-
fects, and intervention strategies that could enhance family–work
situations and well-being among these various subgroups.
Conclusion
Employment—both its presence and absence—is a component of
the context of most of the individuals and families with whom so-
cial workers engage, with implications for physical, mental, social,
and economic health. It has been observed that employers are silent
partners in the life of families (Hertz, 1999, p. 17 as cited in Secret
& Sprang, p. 22), and loom over family and individual well-being.
Knowledge of extant family-friendly policies and family leave, and an
understanding of the empirical evidence regarding factors associated
with work–life balance and well-being can provide social workers with
a foundation on which to mediate work–life conflict and its health ef-
fects through negotiation, counseling, and policy development.
 Jang & Zippay | The Juggling Act: Managing Work–Life Conflict and Work–Life Balance
References
Aboa-Eboule, C., Brisson, C., Maunsell, E., Masse, B., Bourbonnais, R., Veziha, M.,
… Dagenais, G. R. (2007). Job strain and risk of acute recurrent coronary
heart disease events. JAMA, 298(14), 1652–1660.
Almeida, D. M., Maggs, J. L., & Galambos, N. L. (1993). Wives’ employment hours
and spousal participation in family work. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2),
233–244.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, E., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2005). Organizations and the
intersection of work and family: a comparative perspective. In S. Ackroyd, R.
Batt., & P. S. Tolbert (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of work and organization
(pp. 52–73). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
American Psychiatric Association. (2003). Once again, treatment improves
productivity. Mental HealthWorks (3rd Quarter).
Bargal, D. (2000). The future development of occupational social work. Social
Services in the Workplace, 23(3), 139–156.
Barnett, K. A., Del Campo, R. L., Del Campo, D. S., & Steiner, R. L. (2003). Work
and family balance among dual-earner working-class Mexican-Americans:
Implications for therapists. Contemporary Family Therapy, 25(4), 353–366.
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work and family: An expansionist
theory. The American Psychologist, 56(10), 781–796.
Behson, S. J. (2005). The relative contribution of formal informal organizational
work-family support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 487–500.
Berg, P., Kalleberg, A. L., & Appelbaum, E. (2003). Balancing work and family: The
role of high-commitment environments, Industrial Relations, 42(2), 168–188.
Bianchi, S. M., Casper, L. M., & King, R. B. (Eds.) (2005). Work, family, and well-
being. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bohen, H., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and family life: Do flexible
work schedules help? Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Bond, J. T, Thompson, C., Galinsky, E., Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of the national
study of the changing workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Bond, J., Galinsky, E., Kim, S., & Brownfield, E. (2005). 2005 national study of
employers. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Brennan, E. M., Rosenzweig, J. M., Ogilvie, M., Wuest, L., & Shindo, A. A. (2007).
Employed parents of children with mental health disorders: Achieving
work-family fit, flexibility, and role quality. Families in Society: The Journal of
Contemporary Social Services, 88(1), 115–123.
Broman, C. L. (1988). Household work and family life satisfaction of Blacks. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 50(3), 743–748.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its
antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 169–198.
Catalyst. (2009). Work stress. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from http://www.catalyst.
org/publication/231/work-stress
Centerpoint. (2009). Employee assistance and development services. Retrieved
August 31, 2009, from http://www.centerpointonline.com/employees/index.
html#referrals
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family
balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747–770.
Cobble, D. S. (2004). Other women’s movements. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Dena, C., Lin, E., Kooehoorn, M., & Goldner, E. (2007). Association of chronic
work, stress, psychiatric disorder, chronic physical conditions with disability
among workers. Psychiatric Services, 58, 652–658.
Dragano, N., Ying, H., Moebus, S., Jockel, K., Erbel, R., & Siegrist, J. (2008). Two
models of job stress and depressive symptons. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 43(1), 72–78.
Emslie, C., Hunt, K., & Macintyre, S. (2004). Gender, work-home, and morbidity
amongst white-collar bank employees in the United Kingdom. International
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11(3), 127–134.
Ericksen, J. A., Yancey, W. L., & Ericksen, E. P. (1979). The division of family roles.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(2), 301–313.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorder: The
national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 888–895.
Frone, M., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. (1993). Relationship of work-family
conflict, gender, and alcohol expectancies to alcohol use/abuse. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14, 545–558.
Fuegen, K., Biernat, M., Haines, E., & Deaux, K. (2004). Mothers and fathers in the
workplace: How gender and parental status influence judgments of job-related
competence. Journal of Social Science, 60(4), 737–754.
Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., Kim, S. S., Backon, L., Brownfield, E., & Sakai, K. (2005).
Overwork in America: When the way we work becomes too much. New York:
Families and Work Institute.
Gennetian, L. A., Crosby, D. A., Huston, A. C., & Lowe, E. D. (2004). Can child care
assistance in welfare and employment programs support the employment
of low-income families? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(4),
723–743.
Graham, C. W., Sorell, G. T., & Montgomery, M. J. (2004). Role-related identity
structure in adult women. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and
Research, 4(3), 251–271.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. E. (2000). Family, work, work-family spillover, and
problem drinking during midlife. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2),
336–348.
Grzywacz, J. C., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. (2002). Work-family spillover
and daily reports of work and family stress in the adult labor-force. Family
Relations, 51(1), 28–36.
Guest, D. E. (2002). Perspectives on the study of work–life balance. Social Science
Information, 41(2), 255–279.
Gutek, B., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for
work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 560–568.
Health Canada. (2008). Reducing work–life conflict: What works? What doesn’t?
Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/occup-
travail/balancing-equilibre/index-eng.php
Healthfield, S. (2008). Understanding stress and workplace stress.
Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://humanresources.about.com/od/
stressandtimemanagement/a/stress_time.htm
Hertz, R. (1999). Working to place family at the center of life’s dual earner and
single parent strategies. The Annals of the Political and Social Sciences,
562(March), 16–31.
Heymann, J., Boynton-Jarrett, R., Carter, P., Bond, J. T., & Galinsky, E. (2002). Work-
family issues and low-income families: Making work pay in the low-income
labor market. Retrieved July 7, 2007, from http://www.economythatworks.
com/reports/ford_analysisfinal.pdf
Higgins, C., & Duxbury, L. (2002, March). The 2001 National work–life conflict
study: Report one. Public Health Agency of Canada. Retrieved May 1,
2008, from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-travail/report1/
index-eng.php
Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home.
New York: Viking Press.
Hopkins, K. H. (1997). Influence on formal and informal supervisor intervention
with troubled workers. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13(1), 33–54.
Keene, J. R., & Reynolds, J. R. (2005). The job costs of family demands: Gender
differences in negative family-to-work spillover. Journal of Family Issues,
26(3), 275–299.
Kossek, E., & Lambert, S. (Eds.). (2005). Work and life integration: Organizational,
cultural, and individual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E., & Sheep, M. (2009). Balancing borders and bridges:
Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(4), 704–730.
Lane, J., Mikelson, K. S., Sharkey, P., & Wissoker, D. (2003). Pathways to work for
low-income workers: The effect of work in the temporary help industry.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(4), 581–598.
Lingard, H., Brown, K., Bradley, L., Bailey, C., & Townsend, K. (2007). Improving
employees’ work–life balance in the construction industry: Project Alliance
case study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(7),
807–815.
Lindfors, P., Berntsson, L., & Lundberg, U. (2006). Total workload as related to
psychological well-being and symptoms in full-time employed female and
male white-collar workers. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 13(2),
131–137.
Levitt, D. (2007). City and County of San Francisco Office of Labor Standards
Enforcement: Rules implementing the San Francisco Paid Sick Leave
Ordinance. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.flex-plan.com/pdf/
SFHCSecOrd.pdf
Loder, T. L. (2005). Women administrators negotiate work-family conflicts in
changing times: An international perspective. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 41(5), 741–776.
Loprest, P., Acs, G., & Ratcliffe, C. (2009). Who are low-wage workers?(ASPE
research brief, Office of Human Services Policy). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
MacDonald, M., Phipps, S., & Lynne, L. (2005). Taking its toll: The influence of paid
and unpaid work on women’s well-being. Feminist Economics, 11(1), 63–94.
Mayo Clinic. (2006, June). Work life balance: Ways to restore harmony and reduce
stress. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/
work-life-balance/WL00056
McLoyd, V. C. (1989). Socialization and development in a changing economy: The
effects of paternal job loss and income loss on children. American Psychologist,
44(2), 293–302.
Mennino, S. F., Rubin, B. A., & Brayfield, A. (2005). Home-to-job and job-to-
home spillover: The impact of company policies and workplace culture. The
Sociological Quarterly, 46(1), 107–135.
89
Families in Society | Volume 92, No. 1

Messersmith, J. (2007). Managing work–life conflict among information technology Wang, J. L., Lesage, A., Schmitz, N., & Drapeau, A. (2008). The relationships
workers. Human Resource Management, 46(3), 429–451. between work stress and mental disorders in men and women: Cross-
Neal, M. B., & Hammer, L. B. (2006). Working couples caring for children and aging sectional findings from a populations-based study. Journal of Epidemiology
parents: Effects on work and well-being. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Community Health, 62(1), 42–47.
Associates. Wharton, C. (1994). Finding time for the ‘second shift’: The impact of flexible work
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation schedules on women’s double days. Gender & Society, 8(2), 189–205.
of work-family and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(4), 400–410.
Soo Jung Jang, PhD, lecturer, Dankook University. Allison Zippay, PhD,
Nigam, J., Murphy, L. R., & Swanson, N. G. (2003). Are stress management
associate professor, School of Social Work, Rutgers, The State University of New
programs indicators of good places to work? Results of a national survey.
Jersey. Correspondence: sjjang@dankook.ac.kr; School of Social Welfare, Dankook
International Journal of Stress Management, 10(4), 345–360 .
University, Social Science Building 144, San#29, Anseo-dong, Dongnam-gu,
Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process.
Cheonan-si, Chungnam, 330-714, Korea (ROK).
Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Phillips, K. R. (2004). Getting time off: Access to leave among working parents. The
Urban Institute. Retrieved on September 1, 2007, from http://www.urban.org/ Authors’ note. The present research was conducted by the research fund of
publications/310977.html Dankook University.
Rahe, R. Taylor, C. B., Tolles, R., Newhall, L., Veach, T., & Bryson, S. (2002). A
novel stress and coping workplace program reduces illness and healthcare Manuscript received: May 10, 2009
utilization. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 278–286. Revised: September 10, 2009
Reynolds, J. (2005). In the face of conflict: Work–life conflict and desired work hour Accepted: September 18, 2009
adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1313–1331.
Roehling, P. V., Jarvis, L. H., & Swope, H. E. (2005). Variations in negative work-
family spillover among White, Black, and Hispanic American men and
women. Journal of Family Issues, 26(6), 840–865.
Ruhm, C. J. (1997). Policy watch: The Family and Medical Leave Act. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 11(3), 93–105.
Sabir, G., Cooper, C., & Faragher, B. (2003). The development of a framework
for a comprehensive approach to stress management interventions at work.
International Journal of Stress Management, 10(4), 280–296.
Schwartz, D. B. (1994). An examination of the impact of family-friendly policies on
the glass ceiling. Washington, DC: U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission. Retrieved
April 28, 2008, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1127&context=key_workplace
Scott, E., Edin, K., London, A., & Mazelis, J. M. (2001). My children come first:
Welfare-reliant women’s post-TANF views of work-family tradeoffs and
marriages. New York: MDRC. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.
mdrc.org/publications/381/overview.html
Secret, M., & Sprang, G. (2001). The effect of family-friendly workplace
environment on work-family stress of employed parents. Journal of Social
Service Research, 28(2), 21–45.
Stoeva, A., Chiu, R., & Greenhaus, J. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and
work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 1–16.
Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 54(2), 101–112.
Thoits, P. A. (1992). Identity structures and psychological well-being: Gender and
marital status comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(3), 236–256.
Ungerson, C., & Yeandle, S. (2005). Care workers and work–life balance: The
example of domiciliary careworkers. In D. M. Hounston, (Ed.), Work–life
balance in the 21st century. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2006, September). Women in the labor force: A databook.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.bls.gov/
cps/wlf-databook2006.htm
U.S. Department of Labor. (2008, June). Federal versus state family and medical
leave laws. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/fmla/
index.htm
U.S. Social Security Administration. (2007). Temporary disability insurance
program description and legislative history. Annual Statistical Supplement.
Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/
supplement/2007/tempdisability.html
Valcour, P. M., & Hunter, L. W. (2005). Technology, organizations, and work–life
integration. In. E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration:
Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 61–84). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van Der Heijden, B., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., & The NEXT Study Group
coordinated by Hans-Martin Hasselhorn. (2008). Work-home interference
among nurses: Reciprocal relationships with job demands and health. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 62(5), 572–584.
Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family
conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 398–412.
Voydanoff, P. (2005). The differential salience of family and community demands
and resources for family-to-work conflict and facilitation. Journal of Family
and Economic Issues, 26(3), 395–417.
Waldfogel, J. (2001). Family and medical leave: Evidence from the 2000 surveys.
Monthly Labor Review, 124(September), 17–23.

90