Work-Life Balance in Australia in the New Millennium: Rhetoric Versus Reality

by

Dr Linda Duxbury Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario Canada Dr Chris Higgins Professor, Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

8 April 2008

For more information about this report please contact: Dr Linda Duxbury Professor, Sprott School of Business DDT 915 Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada Email: Linda_Duxbury@carleton.ca Tel: + 613 520 2600 (Extension 2385) Andrew Levy Consultant Beaton Consulting Level 3, The Como Centre 650 Chapel Street South Yarra, Victoria, 3141, Australia Email: andrew.levy@beaton.com.au Tel: + 613 9829 0000 www.beaton.com.au

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................... VI FOREWORD ..................................................................................................................................................... VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 25 1.1 1.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK....................................................................................................................... 26 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 26

CHAPTER 2: SETTING THE STAGE............................................................................................................. 29 2.1 WHAT IS WORK-LIFE CONFLICT? ............................................................................................................... 29 2.2 DO ALL EMPLOYEES EXPERIENCE WORK-LIFE CONFLICT THE SAME WAY? ...................................................... 31 Gender........................................................................................................................................................... 31 Dependent care ........................................................................................................................................... 32 Gender and Dependent Care ..................................................................................................................... 32 Job type ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 Life cycle stage ............................................................................................................................................ 33 Generational cohort..................................................................................................................................... 34 2.3 WHY SHOULD EMPLOYERS AND GOVERNMENTS CARE ABOUT KNOWLEDGE WORKERS WORK-LIFE BALANCE? 36 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 42 3.1 MEASUREMENT OF KEY CONSTRUCTS ......................................................................................................... 42 Demands ....................................................................................................................................................... 42 Work-Life Conflict ........................................................................................................................................ 43 Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................................... 44 Moderators ................................................................................................................................................... 45 3.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSES ............................................................................................................................. 46 CHAPTER 4: PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS .............................................................................................. 49 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE GENDER BY DEPENDENT CARE SAMPLE. WHERE DO THEY LIVE AND WORK? ............. 49 4.2 WORK PROFILE ......................................................................................................................................... 51 4.3 PERSONAL DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................................................................ 53 4.4 POSITION .................................................................................................................................................. 59 4.5 GENERATIONAL COHORT ............................................................................................................................ 61 Generation Y - the childless professional................................................................................................. 62 Generation X - fathers outnumber mothers ............................................................................................ 62 Baby Boomers parenting older children and caring for elderly parents .......................................... 63 4.6 LIFE CYCLE STAGE ..................................................................................................................................... 63 4.7 KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................... 64 CHAPTER 5: THE TIME CRUNCH FACED BY AUSTRALIAN EMPLOYEES ...................................... 68 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 DEMANDS AT WORK AND HOME ................................................................................................................. 68 WHO IS TIME CRUNCHED? EXPLORING BETWEEN GROUP DIFFERENCES IN DEMANDS ................................. 73 KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................... 76 WORK-LIFE CONFLICT IN AUSTRALIAN ORGANISATIONS ............................................................................. 78 BETWEEN GROUP DIFFERENCES IN WORK-LIFE CONFLICT .......................................................................... 80 KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................... 84

CHAPTER 6: JUGGLING WORK AND FAMILY IN WORK-LIFE CONFLICT IN AUSTRALIA . 78

ii

CHAPTER 7: REPORT CARD ON AUSTRALIAN ORGANISATIONS .................................................. 86 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT ................................................................................................................ 86 JOB SATISFACTION .................................................................................................................................... 88 INTENT TO TURNOVER ............................................................................................................................... 90 ABSENTEEISM ............................................................................................................................................ 91 THE DECISION TO HAVE CHILDREN ............................................................................................................ 93 PERCEIVED FLEXIBILITY ............................................................................................................................. 96 SUPPORTIVE MANAGERS ............................................................................................................................ 99 IMPACT OF LIFE CYCLE STAGE ON KEY OUTCOMES AND MODERATORS ...................................................... 102 KEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................... 104 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK-LIFE CONFLICT AND DEMANDS ........................................................ 107 AND SO WHAT? THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK-LIFE CONFLICT AND OUTCOMES ........................... 109 WHAT CAN THE ORGANISATION DO TO REDUCE WORK-LIFE CONFLICT? ................................................. 118 KEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................... 122 THREE TYPES OF PART-TIME WORKERS ..................................................................................................... 125 KEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................... 128 KEY FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................... 130 RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT CAN EMPLOYERS DO TO REDUCE WORK-LIFE CONFLICT?........................... 137

CHAPTER 8: UNDERSTANDING WORK-LIFE CONFLICT AND HOW TO REDUCE IT .............. 107 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.1 9.2 10.1 10.2

CHAPTER 9: WORK-LIFE BALANCE AND THE DECISION TO WORK PART-TIME................... 125

CHAPTER 10: KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................. 130

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 143 APPENDIX A:................................................................................................................................................... 145 APPENDIX B:................................................................................................................................................... 146 APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................................................... 153 APPENDIX D .................................................................................................................................................... 158 APPENDIX E .................................................................................................................................................... 162 APPENDIX F..................................................................................................................................................... 164 APPENDIX G .................................................................................................................................................... 165

iii

List of figures
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................28 Figure 2: Breakdown of Gender by Dependent Care Sample ..........................................................50 Figure 3: Position .......................................................................................................................52 Figure 4: Age Distribution of Sample............................................................................................54 Figure 5: Responsibility for Childcare and Responsilbility for Eldercare............................................57 Figure 6: Generational Cohort: Distribution of Sample by Gender and Dependent Care.62 Figure 7: Life Cycle Stage ...........................................................................................................64 Figure 8: Total Time in Work and Family Per Week by Life Cycle Stage .........................................76 Figure 9: Work-Life Conflict: Total Sample ...................................................................................78 Figure 10: Impact of Position on Role Overload and Work Interferes With Family............................80 Figure 11: Impact of Generational Cohort on Work-life Conflict......................................................82 Figure 12: Impact of Life Cycle Stage on Role Overload and Work Interferes With Family................83 Figure 13: Key Organisational Outcomes: Total Sample.................................................................87 Figure 14: Key Organisational Outcomes: Total Sample................................................................95 Figure 15: Decision to Have Children: Total Sample ......................................................................95 Figure 16: Impact of High Overload on Key Organisational Outcomes .......................................... 111 Figure 17: Impact of High Overload on The Decision to Have Children ......................................... 112 Figure 18: Impact of High Work Interferes with Family on Key Organisational Outcomes............... 113 Figure 19: Impact of High Work Interferes with Family on The Decision to Have Children.............. 114 Figure 20: Impact of High Family Interferes with Work on Key Organisational Outcomes............... 116 Figure 21: Impact of High Caregiver Strain on Key Organisational Outcomes ................................ 116 Figure 22: Impact of High Family Interferes with Work and Caregiver Strain on The Decision to Have Children................................................................................................................................... 118 Figure 23: Relationship Between Work-Life Conflict and Perceived Flexibility/Supportive Management ............................................................................................................................................... 120 Figure 24: Impact of Part-Time Work on Work-Life Conflict of Women with Dependent Care (% High) ............................................................................................................................................... 127

iv

List of tables
Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1: Tenure and Time in Position...........................................................................................52 2: Description of Gender and Dependent Care Status of Position Sample...............................60 3: Work and Non-Work Demands .......................................................................................69 4: Distribution of Time Spent in Work and Non-Work Roles ..................................................71 5: Time Spent By Partner/Spouse in Work and Non-Work Demands ......................................73 6: Impact of Gender and Dependent Care Status on Work-life Conflict ..................................79 7: Impact of Gender and Dependent Care Status on Key Outcomes ......................................87 8: Which Aspects of Their Jobs do Australian Knowledge workers Find Satisfying? .................89 9: Where are improvements needed? .................................................................................89 10: Absenteeism ...............................................................................................................93 11: Perceived Flexibility: Total Sample ................................................................................96 12: Areas Where Knowledge workers Enjoy High Flexibility: Total Sample .............................97 13: Areas Where Flexibility Can Be Increased: Total Sample.................................................97 14: Supportive Management: Total Sample ....................................................................... 100 15: What are managers doing well?.................................................................................. 101 16: Where are improvements needed?.............................................................................. 101

Acknowledgments
As researchers we have been exploring the issue of work-life balance for almost two decades. This research has resulted in the compilation of a large amount of quantitative survey data on Canadian employees working in small, medium and large public, private and not-for-profit sector companies. To increase our understanding of the topic we have also carried out numerous interviews with managers and employees which have resulted in an extensive set of qualitative data on work-life balance. These data have resulted in numerous publications in this area (see Appendix A). Funding by Beaton Consulting Pty Ltd, based in Melbourne, Australia has allowed us to extend the domain of our research to Australia a country that has much in common with Canada. Without their generous support this research would not have been possible. The authors would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the 12,000+ employees who filled out the survey.

vi

Foreword
As the federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, a particular concern of mine is the ability of women and men to juggle their paid work with their family and caring responsibilities. This topic is one of the hottest debates of our time. This report is particularly significant because of the size of the group surveyed, the range of care responsibilities analysed and the insights it provides into daily lives. I congratulate the research team for their efforts in bringing the report to life. It is a must read for all those committed to achieving a healthier Australia. Elizabeth Broderick Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Commissioner responsible for Age Discrimination Sydney 3 April 2008

vii

Executive Summary
What is this executive summary?
This is the executive summary to the report entitled "Work-life balance in Australia in the New Millennium: rhetoric versus reality". The report was written by Canadian academics Dr Linda Duxbury and Dr Chris Higgins and is based on research conducted in Australia in 2007 by Beaton Consulting Pty Ltd in Melbourne.

What questions are addressed in this executive summary?

This executive summary addresses the following questions. The answers are on the pages indicated: Questions What is the purpose of the report? What terms are used in the report regarding "work-life"? Whose work-life balance is examined in the report? Australian knowledge workers have heavy demands on their time How much work-life conflict do knowledge workers have? What does the report tell employers about their employees? What is the impact of work-life conflict? How successful are part-time work arrangements? Is there a "glass ceiling" in Australia? What questions do these results raise for employers and what are the answers? What can employers do to reduce work-life conflict? What can an employer do to help an employee who has heavy work demands? Answers Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page 2 2 4 7 9 13 15 17 18 19

Page 19 Page 21

What is the purpose of the report?

The report is designed to provide Australian governments, businesses, labour leaders, policy makers and academics with an objective "big picture" view of worklife balance in Australia in 2007/2008. The report uses survey data collected in 2007 from a national study of Australian managers and professionals to: Quantify the issues associated with balancing work and family in Australia in 2007/2008 Quantify the benefits to employers and Australian society, of work and family balance and the costs of work and family imbalance Help employees, human resource practitioners and unions make the business case for change in their organisations, and Help organisations identify what they need to do to reduce work-family imbalance in their organisations.

What terms are used in the report regarding "work-life"?

We all play many roles: employee, boss, subordinate, spouse, parent, child, sibling, friend, and community member. Each of these roles imposes demands on us which require time, energy and commitment to fulfil. Work-family or work-life conflict1 occurs when the cumulative demands of these many work and non-work roles are incompatible in some respect, so that participation in one role is made more difficult by participation in the other role2.

In the 1970s through to the early 1990's, researchers studied work-family conflict. In the later part of the 1990's the term was changed to work-life conflict in recognition of the fact that employees non-work responsibilities can take many forms including volunteer pursuits and education, as well as the care of children or elderly dependents. 2 We sometimes use the term work-life balance in this report to mean the opposite of work-life conflict. This reflects the fact that the concept of conflict and balance are frequently viewed as a continuum. Employees with low work-life conflict/high work-life balance are at one end of the continuum while those with high work-life conflict/low work-life balance are at the other.

How is "work-life conflict" used in the report? The report conceptualises the conflict between life inside and outside work broadly. It includes the four elements in this table: Type of work-life conflict Role overload Meaning Examples

Work interferes with family

Role overload occurs when Overloaded people an individual has too much constantly feel rushed to do and too little time to and "time crunched". do it in. Work interferes with family Where long hours in occurs when work paid work prevent a demands and parent from attending responsibilities make it a child's sporting event. more difficult to fulfil Where preoccupation family role responsibilities. with work prevents someone from enjoying family time. Where work stresses spill over into the home and increase conflict with the family. Family interferes with work occurs when family demands and responsibilities make it more difficult to fulfil responsibilities at work. Caregiver strain occurs when an employee experiences physical, financial or emotional strain which can be attributed to the need to provide care or assistance to an elderly dependent. A child's illness prevents attendance at work. Conflict at home makes concentration at work difficult. The need to help parents bath, dress etc, imposes physical strain on many. Watching loved ones mental health deteriorating can emotionally overwhelm the caregiver.

Family interferes with work

Caregiver strain

Whose work-life balance is examined in the report?

What is the size of the sample?
The report uses survey data collected in 2007 from a sample of Australian managers and professionals. The sample is made up of 11,920 men and women who work full-time as "knowledge workers" in Australia. The term knowledge worker was coined by Peter Drucker to describe highly skilled employees whose work is complex, cyclical in nature, and involves processing and using information to make decisions. The report uses the term knowledge workers to describe the respondents to this survey.

What sample distributions are examined in the report?

The report examines sample distributions with respect to state and city of residence, company type, sector and organisation revenue. This examination suggests that the findings from the study can be generalised to the following group: "The population of Australian male and female knowledge workers with and without dependent care responsibilities".

The respondents come from right across Australia

The breakdown of the sample with respect to where the individuals live is virtually identical to that of the country as a whole. That is they are spread around the various states and cities in the same proportion as the general population.

and work in all types of companies

In terms of the type organisations the sample works in, the sample is made up as follows: Just over one in four from the sample work for a private sector company 15% work for an Australian listed public company 12% are employed within a partnership, and 10% work for a government department.

and work in all types of sectors

In terms of sector: Just over one in four (27%) work for a professional services firm One in five (19%) work for an organisation that operates in the government/community sector 15% work in the financial services sector

There is tremendous variation in company size in the sample

In terms of size of organisation: One in three work for a "small business". That is, an organisation with an annual revenue of $5 million or less, and One in four work for a larger organisation. That is, an organisation with an annual revenue of more than $500 million.

The respondents are in high powered positions

This is a very high powered sample, in that: Almost 40% of respondents are professionals One in three are senior executives: 18% are executives and 17% are the CEO or managing partner of their firm, and 12% are managers.

The respondents are financially well off

Consistent with the type of work they do, the respondents in this sample are relatively well off financially: Almost half (49%) say that money is not an issue in their family 38% say that they live comfortably on their financial resources although they have no money for extras, and Just over one in ten (14%) indicated that money is tight in their family although they are able to get by.

The respondents are in the "full nest" stage of their life cycle?

The average age of knowledge workers in this sample is 42.2 years which is in the "full nest" stage of the life cycle and the "fast track" stage of the career cycle.

The majority of the sample is married with children

The majority of the respondents (77.4%) are married. While just over one in three (35.5) do not have any children, one in ten (12%) have one child and one in three (30.1%) have two children. Families with a larger number of children are rare. While the majority (46.7%) are parents of children who are over 18 years of age, a substantive number have younger children at home (17.2% are parents of children less than 3 years of age and 14% are parents of children aged 4 or 5). One in four (26%) are parents of adolescents (i.e. aged 6 to 11) while 35% are parents of teens. The men in the sample (average age of 44.5) are older than the women (average age of 37.0) and more likely to have children (69% of the male sample had children versus 44% of the females).

Work-life balance is no longer just about childcare

This study demonstrates that work-life balance in Australia in no longer just about childcare. A significant percent of the knowledge workers in this sample have responsibilities with respect to eldercare. While only 4% have an elderly dependent living in their home, just over one in three (35%) have an elderly dependant who lives nearby and almost half (46%) have responsibility for an elderly dependent who lives elsewhere. Many knowledge workers have responsibility for more than one elderly dependent.

Many Australian men now share childcare responsibilities with their partner

The men and women in the sample who spend time each week in dependent care have a very similar view of how responsibility for childcare and eldercare is shared in their families (See Figure 1a).
Figure 1a: Responsibility for Childcare
I do It is shared Partner does

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 4 Men

51 44 45

47

8 Women

Just under half agreed that in their family the responsibility for the care of the children is shared. In families where the responsibility for childcare is not shared, the woman is ten times more likely than the man to have responsibility for childcare. Very few of the women in the dependent care sample have a partner who takes responsibility for childcare (8%).

Men are more likely to care for elderly dependents than children

Eldercare is more likely to be shared than childcare (see Figure 1b). In fact, just over half of the respondents agree that within their family, the responsibility for eldercare is shared. When it is not shared, both men and women agree that in their family, the woman has the primary responsibility for eldercare.
Figure1b: Responsibility for Eldercare
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 18 7 Men Women 25 39 57 I do It is shared 54 Partner does

Australian knowledge workers have heavy demands on their time

The respondents are very busy people and so are Australian knowledge workers

The individuals who responded to this survey are very busy people and by extrapolation so are Australian knowledge workers in general. Examination of the data obtained with the total sample indicates that the typical knowledge worker in this sample spends an average of 48.4 hours in paid work each week plus: 5.6 hours each week commuting to and from work 4.2 hours doing extra work at home in the evening and on weekends 9 hours each week in home chores and errands 5 hours each week in childcare (11 hours for those with childcare) one hour each week in eldercare (3.5 hours for those with eldercare), and two hours each week in career development.

The respondents are heavily committed at work and at home

The sample devotes an average of 75.7 hours per week to work and family activities. Given these demands, it is not surprising they have relatively few hours to spend in leisure only 11 hours each week.

How much time do knowledge workers spend working?

Work expectations appear to be very high for knowledge workers in Australia: Just over one in four of the men in the sample and one in five of the women work more than 50 hours each week Approximately 20% of the men and 10% of the women in the sample spend more than 56 hours per week in work The majority (69%) of the sample extend their work day and spend time working from home in the evening and on weekends. These knowledge workers spend approximately 6 hours each week performing unpaid overtime.

Why do knowledge workers spend such long hours in work?

The report does not directly answer the question: Why do Australian knowledge workers work such long hours and donate such a significant amount of their personal time to work? However, from the authors' previous work in this area, they offer the following possible contributing factors: "Organisational anorexia": Downsizing - especially of the middle manager cadre - has meant that there are not enough employees to do the work and managers to strategise and plan Corporate culture: The type of culture that encourages this behaviour includes the following: If you don't work long hours and take work home you will not advance in your career or not keep your job during downsizing Career advancement in many organisations is linked to long hours and never saying no, and Many organisations view hours at work as an indicator of commitment, loyalty to the organisation and productivity and reward those who works long hours.
7

Increased use of technology: The authors' research in Canada has determined that email has increased expectations of response time and availability as well as the volume of work. Global competition: 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. Fear of "not being seen to be a contributor": Professional employees are worried about the consequences of "not being seen to be a contributor" and fear that their career will stagnate if they do not work overtime. Employees want to do a good job: Many managers and professionals subscribe to the protestant work ethic and are intrinsically motivated to do a good job even if that means that they have to take work home with them in the evening to complete.

Hours at work are not a good measure of productivity

Regardless of the root cause, the majority of the Australian knowledge workers in this sample work long hours and bring work home to complete. This is unfortunate as hours per week in work are not a good predictor of productivity. However, they are a good predictor of: Role overload Work interferences with family, and Physical and mental health problems. In fact the strong link between hours in work and role overload, work-life conflict, burnout and physical and mental health problems suggest that these work loads are not sustainable over the long term.

Time in family activities is dwarfed by time in work

The amount of time Australian knowledge workers commit to childcare, eldercare and home chores is substantially less that the time devoted to work. In fact the knowledge workers in this sample are 3.6 times more likely to give priority to their work role than to their family role.

The groups with the highest demands

Which group has the highest demands? The answer to this question depends on which demands you are looking at: Males, workers of both genders and Baby Boomers have heavier work demands Women, workers with child or eldercare, and men in families where responsibilities are shared have heavier demands at home, and Females with dependent care in executive positions and in the Baby Boomer and Generation X groups and women in the sandwich group (meaning those with both childcare and eldercare responsibilities) report the heaviest demands overall.

Knowledge workers with high demands at work and home are at higher risk of work-life conflict

The report finds that knowledge workers in the sandwich group (that is, they have both childcare and eldercare) have higher demands than those in other groups. This
8

is shown in Figure 2, which also shows the relationship between a person's life stage and the time they spend in work and family each week.
Figure 2: Total Time in Work and Family Per Week by Life Cycle Stage
No Dependents 80 70 56 Childcare Only Sandwich 83 69 Eldercare Only 88 81 59

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Total Hours: Male

Total Hours: Female

Many of the men in the sample have lower demands overall

Many of the men in the sample have lower demands overall. Why? The answer is quite simple: they are more likely to have a spouse who works part-time and who has assumed primary responsibility for tasks at home. These men have fewer limits with respect to the number of hours they work. On the other hand, the majority of the women in this sample do not enjoy this kind of support at home. Rather, they are part of a dual-career family where work and non-work demands are shared more evenly in the family. This gender difference with respect to family support for career may help explain gender differences in career success in a sector that has traditionally focused on hours at work as a measure of productivity, contribution, loyalty and engagement.

How much work-life conflict do knowledge workers have?

What contributes to work-life conflict?
There is no straightforward answer to the question How much work-life conflict do knowledge workers have. According to the report, the amount of work-life conflict a knowledge worker experiences depends on: The type of conflict being considered The person's gender Whether or not they spend time each week in child or eldercare (i.e. do they have dependent care responsibilities) The type of dependent care responsibilities they have (i.e. childcare, eldercare or both), and Their position within their organisation.

What conclusions can we draw about the work-life conflict of Australian knowledge workers?
The report shows that: Almost half (42%) of the knowledge workers in the sample report high levels of role overload 29% report high levels of work interferes with family Only 8% of the sample report high levels of family interferes with work and caregiver strain. However, the authors are of the view that the size of the working population with these two specific forms of work-life conflict will grow phenomenally in the next several years as the number of employees with elder care responsibilities increases. The following conclusions can be drawn about the amount of work-life conflict experienced by the Australian knowledge workers in the sample: The person's position plays a role in only some groups: Role overload increases with position for men and women without dependent care and men with dependent care. Position has little to do with the incidence of role overload for women with dependent care 60% of whom experience high levels of role overload regardless of their position (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Impact of Position on Role Overload (% High)

Male - No D 57 48 42 36 33 40 31 46 43 Male - D Female - No D 57 43 Female - D 59

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

CEO/Executive

Manager

Professional

D = dependents (i.e. spend at least one hour per week in childcare and/or eldercare There are consequences of heavy demands at work and bringing work home: Role overload and work interferes with family are due to heavy demands at work and the tendency to bring work home to complete in the evening. Time in childcare, eldercare or home chores has little to do with role overload. Family interferes with work depends on demands at home: Family interferes with work has more to do with demands at home than at work.

10

Caregiver strain arises when one cares for an elderly dependent: Caregiver strain is only related to one type of demand hours per week spent in eldercare

What are the most important predictors of work-life conflict?

The data from this study indicate that the two most important predictors of work-life conflict are dependent care status (see Figure 4) and life cycle stage (see Figure 5).
Figure 4: Work-Life Conflict Depends on Both Gender and Dependent Care Responsibilities
Male - No D
57 43 36 33 21 22 15 5 % High Overload 9 3

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Male - D

Female - No D

Female - D

42 33

% High Work Interferes % High Fam ily Interferes Fam ily Work

Figure 5: Impact of Life Cycle Stage on Work-Life Conflict A: % with high role overload
No Dependents Childcare Sandwich
61 44 40 33 48 42 43

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Eldercare
66

Men

Wom en

11

B: % with high work interferes family

No Dependents Childcare Sandwich Eldercare
44 36 33 21 28 22 38 30

50 40 30 20 10 0

Male

Fem ale

C: % with high family interferes work (FIW)

No Dependents Childcare Sandwich Eldercare
14 10 5 5 0 Male 8 11 9 7 3 Female

20 15

20

Who is at risk of overload?

The following groups are at risk of experiencing higher levels of overload: Women in the sandwich generation, who have both childcare and eldercare (66% with high overload) Women in the childcare only lifecycle stage (61% with high overload) Women in the Generation X cohort (61% with high overload), and Women with dependent care (60% with high overload). Men are less likely than women to experience high levels of role overload.

Who is at risk of work interferes with family?

The following groups are at risk of experiencing higher levels of work interferes with family: Women (44% high) and men (36% high) in the sandwich generation (that is, they have both childcare and eldercare) Female (40% high) and male (35% high) executives Women (41% high) and men (38% high) in Generation X, and Women in the childcare only stage of the life cycle (38% with high work interferes with family).

12

Who is at risk of family interferes with work?

The following groups are at risk of experiencing higher levels of family interferes with work: Women (20% high) and men (11% high) in the sandwich generation (who have both childcare and eldercare), and Women in Generation X (17% high).

Who is at risk of physical and emotional caregiver strain?

The following groups are at risk of experiencing higher levels of physical and emotional caregiver strain: Women (16% high physical and 13% high emotional caregiver strain) and men (10% high physical and emotional caregiver strain) in the Baby Boomer generation, and Female professionals with dependent care (14% high physical and emotional caregiver strain).

What does the report tell employers about their employees?

Many Australian employers will not be competitive
The data collected for the report suggest that many Australian employers will not be competitive in an increasingly competitive labour market. In particular, they will struggle when it comes to attracting and retaining knowledge workers, unless they are able to deal with the issues that are important to their ever changing workforce. This report contains some important findings for employers to consider, including the following.

Two thirds of knowledge workers committed to organisation

Just under two-thirds (63%) of the knowledge workers in the sample are committed to the organisation in which they work. Almost one in ten have very low levels of commitment. Knowledge workers with high levels of role overload and work interferes with family are less likely to report high levels of commitment.

Only half of Australian knowledge workers satisfied with their jobs

Only half (54%) of the knowledge workers are highly satisfied with their jobs. Just over one in three (38%) were moderately satisfied while 8% were dissatisfied. A substantive number of knowledge workers are dissatisfied with workloads, career development and pay. Knowledge workers with high levels of role overload, work interferes with family and family interferes with work are less likely to report high levels of job satisfaction. Work interferes with family, in particular, is associated with a decline in job satisfaction.

13

One in four have high intent to turnover

Almost one in four of the knowledge workers in this sample are thinking of leaving their current organisation once a week or more in fact, 5% indicate that they are thinking of leaving daily, 6% several times a week or more, and 12% approximately once a week. Fewer than half the sample (43.5%) said that they never think of leaving their current firm.

Employees who cannot balance work and family more likely to be thinking of leaving
Knowledge workers who experience three particular forms of work-life conflict (overload, high work interferes with family and family interferes with work) are approximately three times more likely to report high intent to turnover than those with lower levels of these three forms of work-life conflict.

Workloads and work-life conflict can be linked to increased absenteeism

Heavy workloads and higher levels of work-life conflict may be taking their toll on Australia's knowledge workers. The majority of knowledge workers in this sample missed at least one day of work in the six months prior to the study being done. Only one in five respondents had a perfect attendance record. Health problems are the main reason knowledge workers give for missing work (57% of the sample missed at least one day of work due to ill health). Knowledge workers with high levels of role overload are more likely to miss work due to ill health. A substantive number of knowledge workers (25%) are missing work due to physical or emotional fatigue. High levels of absenteeism due to mental and emotional fatigue are often the precursor to episodes of burnout. The people in this study who reported higher levels of work-life conflict are more likely to take at least one "mental health day" off work every 6 months. Relatively few knowledge workers (14%) missed work to deal with eldercare issues. Also, knowledge workers find it easier to take time off to care for a sick child than and elderly dependent. Two possible hypotheses for this are: (1) that organisations in Australia make it more difficult for knowledge workers to take time off to deal with eldercare issues or (2) that knowledge workers have fewer eldercare issues than childcare issues. However, with an aging population, eldercare issues will inevitably increase, as will the pressure on employers to accommodate knowledge workers needing time off for eldercare.

Australian men and women reduce family size as a way to cope with work-life conflict
A significant number of socio-economically advantaged men and women in Australia are reducing their family size as a way to cope with career and work demands. Female knowledge workers, in particular, appear to be coping with work-life issues by reducing the demands on the family side (see Figure 6)
14

These data suggest that attention to work-life issues may be one way for Australia to increase their birth rates (especially in the economically advantaged segment of the population).

Figure 6: Decision to Have Children

Male - No D Male - D Female - No D Female - D
24
19

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

36

39

22

25

5 % Have Not Started Fam ily Because of Career

% Had Few er Children Because of Work Dem ands

Flexibility around work schedules is low

Only 40% the workers in this sample have high levels of flexibility with respect to work hours and work location. On the other hand, 16% percent have very low levels of flexibility. This report finds that flexibility with respect to work hours and location helps Australians balance work and life, reduces absenteeism and is a powerful recruitment and retention tool.

Only half the sample work for a supportive manager

It said that "employees do not work for an organisation they work for their immediate manager". While half (55%) of the knowledge workers in this sample perceive high levels of management support, one in ten report to a non-supportive manager and one in three report to a manager who is inconsistent with respect to his or her management behaviour. Data from this study indicate that management support is associated with higher work-life balance and lower absenteeism.

What is the impact of work-life conflict?

Does the impact of work-life conflict differ between the four kinds of conflict?
The report shows that the impact of work-life conflict on organisations and on Australian society in general is different for each of the four kinds of conflict.

15

What is the impact of each kind of work-life conflict?

The report shows that each of the kinds of work-life conflict has the impact shown in this table: Type of work-life conflict Its impact When compared to knowledge workers with low levels of role overload, knowledge workers with high role overload are: 4.5 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work 2.6 times more likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands 2.8 times more likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue Twice as likely to report high levels of absenteeism (specifically, that they have missed 6 or more days in a 6 month period) 1.3 times more likely to be absent from work due to ill health 1.5 times less likely to be satisfied with their jobs 1.3 times less likely to be committed to the organisation When compared to knowledge workers with low levels of work interferes with family, knowledge workers with high work interferes with family are: 5.5 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work 4 times more likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands 2.3 times more likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue 1.6 times more likely to report high levels of absenteeism (specifically, that they have missed 6 or more days in a 6 month period) 2.6 times less likely to be satisfied with their jobs 1.3 times less likely to be committed to the organisation

What is the impact of role overload?

What is the impact of work interferes with family?

16

What is the impact of family interferes with work?

When compared to knowledge workers with low levels of family interferes with work, knowledge workers with high levels of family interferes with work are: 11 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work 2.5 times more likely to have missed 3 or more days of work in the past 6 months due to childcare problems Twice as likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands Twice as likely to have missed 6 or more days of work in the past 6 months (all causes combined) Twice as likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue Half as likely to be satisfied with their jobs Compared to knowledge workers with low levels of caregiver strain, knowledge workers with high levels of caregiver strain are: 4 times more likely to have missed work due to eldercare problems 1.8 times more likely to have missed 6 or more days of work in the past 6 months (all causes combined) 1.5 times less likely to report high levels of job satisfaction

What is the impact of family caregiver strain?

How successful are part-time work arrangements?

What is the context in which to think about part-time work in Australia?

Part-time work is a popular arrangement that is used in an attempt to ease work-life conflict. But there are two important things to consider about part-time work: Australia has the second highest participation of part-time workers in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development or OECD, and Many women work part-time in order to balance work and family.

Are part-timers succeeding in achieving work-life balance?

The report finds that professional women who work part-time in an attempt to balance work and family do not achieve these goals (see Figure 7). Their demands are high (adding work to a demanding personal situation) and their conditions at work are not optimal for career advancement (that is, low flexibility, lower levels of management support, little time for career development).

17

Figure 7: Impact of Part-Time Work on Work-Life Conflict of Women with Dependent Care (% High)
Full time 52 42 36 25 8
Role Overload WIF FIW

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Part time

30

Further, if a family selects this type of part-time arrangement, then they take a "financial hit". Also, the organisations that employ part-timers lose the full-time attention of key knowledge workers.

Is there a "glass ceiling" in Australia?

The data reviewed in the report support the idea that managerial and professional women in Australia face a "glass ceiling" when it comes to career opportunities and advancement. Women with child or eldercare, in particular, appear to be disadvantaged. The following data from this study support this conclusion: Female knowledge workers are less likely than their male counterparts to have children (see Figure 8). Female Gen X'ers are significantly less likely to have children than male Gen X'ers 76% of the men are fathers while only 55% of the women are mothers The females without children: Report the lowest levels of commitment and job satisfaction in the sample Are significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with their pay and their ability to advance in their careers Report the highest levels of intent to turnover Are more likely to take a "mental health day" off work Are more likely to say that they have delayed having children because of the demands of their career.

18

Figure 8: Women less likely than men to have children (% with Children)
Male Female 75 65 50 39 71 62

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

CEO/Executive

Manager

Professional

What questions do these results raise for employers and what are the answers?
These results raise the following questions for Australian employers:

1. Women with dependent care gravitate to certain sectors and other sectors miss out on this source of talent. What can they do?
First, the report finds that dependent care status influences where female knowledge workers live and work in Australia. The fact that these woman are more likely to work in government jobs, smaller firms and sole operator situations, suggests that these sectors may be more family friendly. The report also finds that women with dependent care are less likely to work for larger professional services firms and partnerships. Such firms may, therefore, need to increase their family friendliness if they want to recruit and retain qualified female workers.

2. Why is it that male knowledge workers outnumber female knowledge workers by 3 to 1?

Secondly, the fact that men in the sample outnumber women by 3 to 1, suggests that Australian firms have not been very successful either in attracting professional women into their ranks, or retaining their services. This could be because: Work-life issues dissuade women from taking professional or management positions in many Australian firms, or The lower levels of flexibility afforded to women with dependent care responsibilities may make it more difficult for them to remain with such firms after they have started their family.

19

3. Why do knowledge workers stay with their organisations for such

a brief period?

Thirdly, few knowledge workers in the sample have been with their firm for an extended period of time. The dearth of experienced women is particularly noteworthy. These results may be due to lack of job security and hiring in the 1990s or higher levels of turnover of knowledge workers. The strong association between work-life conflict and intent to turnover suggests, however, that many knowledge workers leave an organisation that does not support work-life and career development issues. 4. Will firms have problems attracting and retaining staff if they

ignore these issues?

The report indicates that if they do not address issues with respect to work-life balance, then many Australian firms will not be competitive when it comes to attracting and retaining knowledge workers in a much more competitive labour market. 5. Will Australias fertility rates continue to decline? Finally, the report states that if Australian governments do not deal with these issues, then Australia will continue to experience a decline in fertility in socioeconomically advantaged segment of the population.

What can employers do to reduce work-life conflict?

What approach is required?
The data reviewed in the report leave little doubt that: There is no "one size fits all solution" to the issue of worklife conflict, and Different policies, practices and strategies will be needed to reduce each of the four components of worklife conflict.

What concrete things can employers do?

That being said, the report identifies three concrete things that employers can do to reduce work-life conflict: 1. Increase perceived flexibility 2. Increase the number of supportive managers within their organisation, and 3. Reduce workloads. These three strategies must be implemented hand in hand, not piecemeal. The reason for this, is that the data show that, through their behaviour, managers are the ones who make workers believe that they are able to exert some degree of control over their work schedule, and hence to reduce work-life conflict.

20

What will be the results if employers do these things?

The report finds that employers who focus on these three areas should see the following results: Significant reductions in employee role overload and work interferes with family Moderate reductions in family interferes with work, and Some increased ability for knowledge workers to cope with caregiver strain.

What can an employer do to help an employee who has heavy work demands?
How can an employer increase an employee's sense of control over their work?

If an employer wants to help an employee to deal with heavy work demands, then they should introduce initiatives that increase the employee's sense of control over their work. To achieve a sense of control, the literature suggests that an employer should investigate a number of approaches. Key approaches include: Increased autonomy and empowerment at the individual employee level Increased use of self-directed work teams Increased employee participation in decision-making Increased communication and information sharing Time management training Training on how to plan and prioritise one's work demands Increased flexibility with respect to work hours and work location.

What are some practical things employers can do to help employees gain control over work?

The following recommendations should help employers address the dual problems of an employee meeting their work demands while also achieving a sense of control over their work: 1. Start to track, measure and record the actual costs of unrealistic work demands: Employers need to recognise that unrealistic work demands are not sustainable over time and come at a cost to the organisation. The report gives several examples of these costs, including increased absenteeism, increased intent to turnover, lower commitment and high work-life conflict. Often, these costs are neither recognised nor tracked. As a result, the authors recommend that employers start to record the costs of understaffing and overwork. For example, employers should start to track and record the costs of greater absenteeism, higher prescription drug use, greater employee assistance program use, increased turnover and hiring costs. Once they have this data, employers can make informed decisions about these issues.

21

2.

Hire more staff where the employer relies too much on unpaid overtime: Employers need to analyse workloads and hire more people in areas where the organisation is overly reliant on unpaid overtime. Start to collect overtime data and overtime and turnover costs: Employers need to: track the amount of time employees spend working paid and unpaid overtime capture the number of hours it actually takes to get various jobs done collect data that reflect the total cost of delivering high quality, on time work in various areas. For example, the cost of paid and unpaid overtime, subsequent turnover, employee assistance program use and absenteeism. This data should be longitudinal, as the results of poor people management often do not appear until 6 to 12 months after the event. This type of data should improve planning and priority setting, as well as allow senior executives to make better strategic, long-term decisions. Develop appropriate email etiquette especially for after hours work: Employers need to develop etiquette around the appropriate use of office technologies such as email, laptops and mobile phones. For example, employers need to set limits on the use of technology to support after-hours work and set realistic expectations about response times. Limit the amount of work that employees take home: Employees need to try and limit the amount of work that they take home to complete in the evening. And employees who do bring work home, should make every effort to separate time in work from family time for example, do work after the children go to bed or have a home office. Paid time off work for training: Employers should give employees paid time off work to attend relevant training sessions, courses and conferences. Introduce new performance measures and rewards: Organisations need to introduce new performance measures. These measures need to focus on objectives, results and output. That is, they need to move away from a focus on hours to a focus on output. It is very difficult if not impossible to increase perceived flexibility in organisations where the focus is on hours rather than output and presence rather than performance. So, to increase perceived flexibility, employees need to reward output not hours and reward what is done, not where it is done. They also need to reward people who have successfully combined work and non-work domains and not promote those who work long hours and expect others to do the same.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

22

8.

Increase the number of supportive managers within the organisation: Employers need to increase the number of supportive managers within their organisations and simultaneously reduce the number of managers who are seen to be non-supportive. Specifically, employers need to increase the number of managers within their organisation who consistently: Make work expectations clear Are effective at planning the work to be done Provide constructive feedback when performance standards not met Ask for employees input before making decisions that affect their work Have realistic expectations about the amount of work that can be done in a given amount of time, and Do not expect their employees to put in long hours, just because they do.

9.

Commit resources to improving people management and the number of supportive managers: Organisations need to commit resources to improving their "people management" practices and skills. They can do this, and increase the number of supportive managers within the organisation, by giving managers at all levels: The skills they need to manage the "people" part of their job The tools they need to manage people The time they need to manage this part of their job, and Incentives to focus on the "people part" of their jobs. That is, measurement and accountability around the people piece of the job including 360 feedback and rewards focused on recognition of good people skills.

10. Challenge the long hours culture: Organisations need to challenge the type of culture that encourages attitudes like: If you don't work long hours and take work home you will not advance in your career or not keep your job during downsizing Career advancement is linked to long hours and never saying no, and Hours at work is an indicator of commitment, loyalty to the organisation. They can do this by focusing on output and deliverables rather than hours and being seen. 11. Increase perceived flexibility: To help employees cope with work-life conflict, employers need to make it possible for their staff to arrange their work schedule to: Meet personal/family commitments Interrupt their work day for personal/family reasons and return to work Take their holidays when they want to Be home in time to have meals with their family, and Vary their hours of work.

23

What principles should employers follow when introducing increased work flexibility? Here are some of the principles that employers should follow when introducing the kinds of flexibility just described: The criteria under which flexibility in each of these areas can be used should be mutually agreed and transparent. There also needs to be mutual accountability around the use of the criteria. That is, employees do need to meet job demands but organisations also need to be flexible with respect to how work is arranged The process for changing hours of work, location of work and vacation time should wherever possible be flexible. The increased use of flexible work arrangements would have the added benefit of reducing the amount of time spent commuting to and from work, which is an important predictor of role overload. What are the results of greater work flexibility? Greater flexibility in these areas should: Increase employees ability to cope with role overload and work interferes with family, and Produce additional advantages for employers outside the work-life arena, as a result of employers concretely demonstrating to their employees that their employer trusts them, is listening to them and recognises their demands outside of work.

24

Chapter 1: Introduction
The issues associated with balancing work and family are of paramount importance to individuals, the organisations that employ them, the families that care for them, the unions that represent them and governments concerned with global competitiveness, citizen wellbeing and national health. Despite the popular presses fixation on the topic (reflecting its readers interest) there is, at this time, little sound empirical data available to inform the debate. This is unfortunate as credible research in this area has the power to change how governments and employers think about the issue and how they formulate and implement human resource, social and labour policy. The research outlined in this report, done in partnership with Beaton Consulting of Australia, was designed to provide Australian governments, businesses, labour leaders, policy makers and academics with an objective big picture view of worklife balance in Australia. As such, it will allow interested parties to separate the rhetoric from the reality with respect to work-life conflict. The term knowledge workers is used throughout the report and refers to highly 3 skilled knowledge workers who were respondents of this survey . Specifically, this paper uses survey data from a national study of Australian knowledge workers to address the following objectives: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Quantify the issues associated with balancing work and family in Australia in 2008. Quantify the benefits to employers and Australian society of work/family balance. Quantify the costs to employers and Australian society of work/family imbalance. Help employees, human resource practitioners and unions make the business case for change in their organisation, and Help organisations identify what they need to do to reduce work-family imbalance in their organisations.

In other words, this research examines the issues associated with work-life conflict, identifies who is at risk, articulates why key stakeholders (e.g. governments, employers, unions) should care and provides direction on ways to move forward. This research should:

3 Peter Drucker (1999) coined the term knowledge workers to describe highly skilled employees whose work is complex, cyclical in nature, and involves processing and using information to make decisions. The following types of knowledge workers are examined in this study: executives, managers and professional workers.

25

provide a clearer picture of the extent to which work-family conflict is affecting Australian knowledge workers, help organisations appreciate why they need to change how they manage their employees by linking conflict between work and life to the organisations bottom line, expand the overall knowledge base in this area, and suggest appropriate strategies that different types of organisations can implement to help their employees cope with multiple roles and responsibilities.

1.1 Theoretical Framework

There is a vast academic literature dealing with the issue of work-life conflict. A complete review of this literature is beyond the scope of this report and counter to our primary objective which is to get easily understood and relevant information on work-life conflict to key stakeholders (governments, policy makers, employees, employers, unions). That being said, readers who are interested in the theoretical underpinnings of this research are referred to in Figure 1. This theoretical framework incorporates both fundamental concepts from the research literature and the key insights we have gained from our years of research in this area. This research is based on the premise that an individuals ability to balance work and life will be associated with both work and non-work demands (i.e. time in and responsibility for various work and non-work roles) as well as a number of key demographic characteristics (i.e. gender, dependent care status, job type, generational cohort, life cycle stage). Further, it is hypothesised that an employees ability to balance work and life demands will be associated with organisational (i.e. commitment, job satisfaction, intent to turnover, absenteeism) and societal (decision-making around having children) outcomes. Finally it is postulated that these relationships will be moderated by factors under the control of the organisation in which the employee works: work-time and work location and supportive management.

1.2 Structure of the Report

This report is organised into ten chapters which roughly correspond to the model shown in Figure 1. Chapter 1, the Introduction, has framed the study and outlined key research objectives. Chapter 2 provides the reader with relevant background material on the topic such as how work-life balance is defined and why Australian firms and governments should be concerned with their employees ability to balance work and life. Details on the methodology used in the study are covered in Chapter 3. Included in this chapter is information on the measurement of the different constructs in this study as well as details on how the data was analysed and reported.
26

The sample is described in Chapter 4 of the report. Chapter 5 explores the issue of demands. Specifically it seeks answers to the following questions: What types of demands do Australian knowledge workers face at work? Outside of work? Which groups face higher demands at work? At home? Work-life conflict is explored in detail in Chapter 6. The following issues are addressed in this chapter: How prevalent are the various forms of work-life conflict in the Australian knowledge workforce at this time? Which groups are at risk with respect to the various forms of work-life conflict? Chapter 7 sets the stage for our discussion of the aetiology of work-life conflict by describing the outcomes and moderators included in Figure 1. Chapter 8 provides answers to the following questions: What is the link between demands at work at home and work-life conflict? Why should organisations and society care about the various forms of work-life conflict? What can organisations do to reduce work-life conflict in their work force? Chapter 9 explores the relationship between part-time work and work-life balance. Relevant conclusions and recommendations on how to support working families in the 21st century are presented in the final chapter of the report, Chapter 10.

27

MODERATOR Perceived flexibility Supportive manager

WORK DEMANDS Hours in work per week Hours in SWAH per week Hours in education per week Hours in commute per week WORK-LIFE CONFLICT Role overload Work interferes with family Family interferes with work Caregiver strain

WORK OUTCOMES Commitment Job satisfaction Intent to turnover Absenteeism

NON WORK DEMANDS Hours in home chores per week Hours in childcare per week Hours in eldercare per week Responsibility for: o Childcare o Eldercare Hours in leisure per week

SOCIETAL OUTCOMES Delayed having children Had fewer/no children

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework

28

Chapter 2: Setting the Stage

This chapter puts the research into context. It is divided into three parts. Relevant definitions are given first. This is followed by an examination of various factors that may increase the probability that an employee will experience higher levels of worklife conflict. The chapter ends with an examination of why work-life conflict is an issue for Australia and Australians at this point in time.

2.1 What is Work4-life Conflict?

Within society, we all play many roles: employee, manager, spouse, parent, child, sibling, friend, and community member. Each of these roles imposes demands on us which require time, energy and commitment to fulfil. Work-family or work-life conflict5 occurs when the cumulative demands of these many work and non-work roles are incompatible in some respect so that participation in one role is made more difficult by participation in the other role6. Conclusions about the prevalence and impact of work-life conflict depends very much on how it is defined and how it is measured. To get a comprehensive view of work-life conflict and to understand its effects, one has to examine the phenomena from a number of different angles. Otherwise we will draw the wrong conclusions with respect to the prevalence of work-life conflict within the Australian workforce, its impact and who is at risk. Work-life conflict broadly defined in this study Various theoretical frameworks are used in the research literature to look at the relationship between work and life. The most well known of these models include role conflict and role spill-over. Briefly, the role conflict model is based on the assumption that the more roles one occupies the higher the potential for stress and strain due to the incompatibility of the demands imposed by the different roles and the fact that the different responsibilities compete for time and energy (i.e. role overload, role interference). Spill-over theory, on the other hand, postulates that the experiences an individual has when performing one set of roles impacts their performance of other roles (i.e. work to family spill-over). While spill-over can, in theory, be either positive or negative, the majority of research in this area is based
Throughout this report the term work refers to paid employment. From the 1970s through to the early 1990's, researchers studied work-family conflict. In the later part of the 1990's the term was changed to work-life conflict in recognition of the fact that knowledge workers non-work responsibilities can take many forms including volunteer pursuits and education, as well as the care of children or elderly dependents. 6 We sometimes use the term work-life balance in this report to mean the opposite of work-life conflict. This reflects the fact that the concept of conflict and balance are frequently viewed as a continuum. Knowledge workers with low work-life conflict/high work-life balance are at one end of the continuum while those with high work-life conflict/low work-life balance are at the other.
5 4

29

on the assumption is that spill-over is undesirable. This body of research frequently talks about role strain which refers to the negative interference an employee experiences when the demands associated with one domain affects their performance in the other domain (e.g. caregiver strain). This report conceptualises work-life conflict broadly to include:

Role overload: This form of work-life conflict occurs when the total demands on time and energy associated with the prescribed activities of multiple roles are too great to perform the roles adequately or comfortably. Role Interference: occurs when incompatible demands make it difficult, if not impossible, for an employee to perform all their roles well. Role interference is conceptualised as having two distinct facets: o Work interferes with family (WIF): This type of role conflict occurs when work demands and responsibilities make it more difficult to fulfil family role responsibilities (i.e. long hours in paid work prevent attendance at a child's sporting event, preoccupation with the work role prevents an active enjoyment of family life, work stresses spill over into the home environment and increases conflict with the family). o Family interferes with work: This type of role conflict occurs when family demands and responsibilities make it more difficult to fulfil work role responsibilities. (i.e. a child's illness prevents attendance at work; conflict at home makes concentration at work difficult).

Caregiver strain: Caregiver strain is a multi-dimensional construct which is defined in terms of "burdens" in the caregivers day-to-day life. This can be attributed to the need to provide care or assistance to someone else who needs it (Robinson, 1983)7. Three types of caregiver strains are examined in this study: emotional strain (i.e. depression, anxiety and emotional exhaustion), physical strain and financial strain.

In other words, work-life conflict is defined in this report as having two major components: the practical aspects associated with time crunches and scheduling conflicts (e.g. role interference), and the perceptual aspect of feeling overwhelmed, overloaded or stressed by the pressures of multiple roles (e.g. role overload and caregiver strain).

It should be noted that research on caregiver strain has typically focused on strains associated with the provision of eldercare or care for a disabled dependent rather then those linked to childcare itself. Consistent with past practices, in this study, caregiver strain was used to measure strain and burden associated with eldercare only.

30

2.2 Do all employees experience work-life conflict the same way?

To fully appreciate how employees ability to balance work and non-work demands have changed over the past decade, it is necessary to recognise that factors such as gender, dependent care and job type may have a strong impact on their experiences. Consequently, we broaden our analysis by examining the extent to which following demographic variables impact the demands, attitudes and outcomes being examined in this study: (1) gender, (2) dependent care status, (3) job type, (4) generational cohort, (5) and life cycle stage. While this list is by no means exhaustive, it does focus on those factors which previous research has shown influence both the nature of an individuals participation in work and family roles and/or shape the meaning individuals give to family and work and the identities they develop. For policy makers and employers this chapter identifies those individuals who may be at greatest risk for work-life conflict and facilitates the development of solutions which are specific to the various groups. Our rationale for examining between group differences in each of these areas in this study is given below.

Gender
Available research suggests that the movement of women into the paid labour force (workforce) has not resulted in sweeping changes in family roles. For many families, a womans paid employment is still viewed as secondary to her unpaid caring work, particularly when the womans earnings are less than those of her spouse (Scott, 2000). Available research (see Hochsfield, 1989) would suggest that womens paid employment has lead to the expansion of womens roles (i.e. the second shift) rather than a redefinition of gender roles: ... men have a long way to go before they catch up with their wives who still do by far the greatest share of housekeeping, even when they are also working in the paid labour force (Vanier Institute, 2000, pg. 144). There is a large body of literature to confirm women experience higher levels of work-life conflict than do men. Why this is so is still the topic of some debate. Some suggest that women may be biologically programmed (through sex-based hormonal systems, for example) to respond differently to stressors. This hypothesis is borne out by differences in symptomatology shown by women versus men (i.e. whereas women tend to respond to stress by exhibiting emotional symptoms, such as depression, mental illness, and general psychological discomfort, men tend to respond by manifesting physiological disease, such as heart disease and cirrhosis).

31

Others argue that gender differences in the stress response are attributable to differences in socialisation processes and role expectations that expose women to a higher level of stressors. In the home, women, irrespective of their involvement in paid work, are significantly more likely than men to bear primary responsibility for home-chores and childcare. In the workplace, women are disproportionately represented in occupations with built-in strain such as clerical work, which couples high work demands with little discretionary control. Although it is difficult to determine which of these mechanisms is most responsible for womens differential response to stress, there is little doubt that women are exposed to different (if not more) stressors than men at both work and at home.

Dependent care
To gain a better appreciation of how dependent care influences the demands and conflicts faced by employed Australians, we compare the work-life experiences of those with dependent care responsibilities (defined as an individual who spends at least one hour a week caring for a child and/or an elderly dependent) to those without any type of dependent care (defined as an individual who spends no time per week in childcare or eldercare). A large body of research links the parental responsibilities of working couples to the incidence of work-family conflict. This research suggests that parents will have more difficulties with respect to balance than non-parents as they have more demands and less control over their time. In the new millennium dependent care is not just a question of care for children. Concern over elder-care responsibilities (defined as providing some type of assistance with the daily living activities for an elderly relative who is chronically ill, frail or disabled) is now increasing as the parents of Baby Boomers enter their 60s, 70s and 80s.

Gender and Dependent Care

Gender and dependent care status are considered simultaneously in this analysis to accommodate the literature which suggests that motherhood is different than fatherhood. Virtually all of the literature in the work-life arena notes that working mothers assume a disproportionate share of family responsibilities and that even in the new millennium society judges womens worth by their performance of family roles (e.g. mother, eldercare giver, cook, homemaker) while mens merit is judged by their success as a breadwinner. The research that is available in the area suggests that women also assume a disproportionate share of the responsibility for eldercare. All of the between group comparisons done in this report also take gender and dependent care status into consideration. Such an analysis recognises that Australian men and women are likely to have different realities and that it may be these realities, rather than gender itself, that impact the attitudes and outcomes

32

being examined in this analysis. This type of analysis should be invaluable to policy makers who need to know if the supports and interventions should be targeted to a particular group (i.e. women) or an environmental condition (i.e. being a parent).

Job type
This study explores the extent to which the type of job an individual holds moderates the demands, attitudes and outcomes being examined in this analysis. Three types of jobs are explored in this study: CEO/executive, manager and professional. Much of the research in this area indicates that work demands and expectations increase as one moves up the organisational hierarchy. Other research suggests that work time and work location flexibility and personal control over the timing of work also increase as one moves up the hierarchy. This increased flexibility and control facilitates the commitments of parenting and other non-work activities for those in professional jobs. Finally, one can also hypothesise that those at the top of an organisation may have an advantage in balancing work and home life as their jobs offer greater extrinsic rewards (e.g. salary) which can offset some of the costs that demanding jobs entail (i.e. allow those with higher incomes to purchase goods and services to help them cope). Job type also may act as a surrogate measure for other important variables such as education, income, commitment, and identification with the work role which are linked to work-life conflict and stress. Education, remuneration, the amount of time and energy devoted to the work role, job mobility, organisational commitment and work involvement also typically increase with level in the organisation. Each of these factors has, in turn, been linked to an increased ability to cope with work-life conflict and stress, and more positive work outcomes (i.e. higher commitment, higher job satisfaction).

Life cycle stage

The dictionary of sociology8 notes that the term life cycle is a widely used metaphor denoting the passage of an individual through the successive stages of life. It is an attempt to relate the place where an individual is in the course of his/her life with the kind of issues that the person is facing and with the kind of resources s/he will have available to face those issues. And, eventually, the kind of disturbance s/he could develop in case s/he fails to cope successfully with those issues. Researchers rarely use age alone to define stages in the life cycle. Instead the more common approach is to use marital status and the presence of children. Demographic analysts identify fewer life-cycle groups than would sociologists: for them the two dependent groups are children under 15 years and old people aged 65 (or 60) and over, who are supported financially and otherwise by the population of working age or active population.

8 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-lifecycle.html

33

In this analysis we compare the demands, attitudes and outcomes of knowledge workers who are in the following life cycle stages: no dependent care (i.e. no time per week in child and/or eldercare), childcare only (i.e. one or more hours a week in childcare, no time in eldercare), sandwich generation (i.e. one or more hours a week in childcare as well as one or more hours a week in eldercare) and eldercare only (i.e. one or more hours a week in eldercare, no hours a week in childcare). Looking at these four life cycle groups will help us understand the relationship between different forms of dependent care and work-life conflict. It should also provide valuable information on two groups of employees that are anticipated to increase in number in the next several decades: employed eldercare providers and those in the sandwich generation. Australias population is aging, influenced largely by the baby boom of the 1950's and early 1960's and the baby bust of the late 1960's and early 1970's. The aging of the population has a number of implications for the country, not the least of which is a greater proportion of Australian knowledge workers responsible for the care of elderly dependents. The challenges associated with caring for ones parents have also increased in complexity due to the fact that over the past couple of decades Australians have become more mobile and many now live miles away from other family members and friends. Furthermore, it has been predicted that work-life conflict will become more problematic over the next decade as baby boom and baby bust generations assume responsibility for both dependent children and aging parents. Employees with these dual demands have become known as the sandwich generation or sandwich group and typically experience extraordinary challenges balancing work and family demands. It has also been suggested that the number of employees who are in the sandwich generation will increase over the next decade as Australians delay family formation and childbirth.

Generational cohort
A generational cohort has been defined as "the aggregation of individuals who experience the same event within the same time interval".9 The notion of a group of people bound together by the sharing of the experience of common historical events due to their birth in a particular period of time was first introduced by Karl Mannheim in the early 1920s. Today the concept has found its way into popular culture through well known epitomes like "Baby Boomer", "Generation-X" and Generation Y or Echo Boomer.

9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics#Generational_cohorts

34

The demands, attitudes and outcomes of three generational cohorts are compared in this report: Baby Boomer (age 45 to 60), Generation X (age 30 to 44) and Generation Y (age 20 to 29). The rationale for looking at the impact of generational cohort is given below. Research in the area suggests that Baby Boomers hold decidedly different values regarding the place of job or career in their lives than workers in other generations. This generation has been described as driven with a work oriented value system. Other research suggests that Generation X value greater equality for women, more accepting of diverse family structures, and are more committed to flexibility, individualism and diversity. Researchers are also seeing a different set of attitudes in individuals just entering the workplace (the so called Generation Y or Echo Boomers). These individuals tend to be the children of parents who both held jobs. While they benefited from the extra family income being in a dual-income family entailed, many felt that they were deprived of their parents company - a situation that is exacerbated by a very high percent of them are the children of divorce (Conger, 1998). Many in this new generation of workers say that they do not want the sort of lives their parents led. Rather, they want to spend more time with and be more available to their families (Conger, 1998). As Conger (1998, pg. 21) notes: In a nutshell, they distrust hierarchy. They prefer more informal arrangements. They prefer to judge on merit rather than on status. They are far less loyal to their companies. They are the first generation to be raised on a heavy diet of workplace participation and teamwork. They know computers inside and out. They like money but they also say they want balance in their lives. Research also indicates that this group wants choice, flexibility and increased control over both their jobs and the work-life interface (Conger, 1998). This increased desire and quest for a real balance between work and private life has major implications for todays workplace, especially with respect to recruiting and retaining this cohort. This generation can be expected to insist that organisations find more flexible ways to integrate time for family and private lives into demanding careers (Conger, 1998). The business practices that motivated the homogeneous, male breadwinning workforce of the past, therefore, may simply not work for this group of knowledge workers. Conger (1998) also suggests that this yearning for life balance may increase conflict for this new generation of workers as their value for interesting work (which is often accompanied by longer hours and greater demands) conflicts with their desire for happy marriages, meaningful family time and weekends they can call their own.

35

2.3 Why Should Employers and Governments Care About Knowledge workers Work-Life Balance?
Many organisations feel that helping knowledge workers balance competing work and non-work demands is not their responsibility. Rather, they subscribe to a somewhat dated view called the myth of separate worlds that is based on the premise that work is work and life is life and the domains do not overlap. Such organisations (and many knowledge workers within these organisations) argue that it was the employees choice to have a family so balancing competing demands is their problem not ours. Such organisations also note that they are in the business of increasing shareholder value and serving customers and not helping knowledge workers cope with stress. In other organisations knowledge workers without dependent care responsibilities interpret family friendly as favouritism and complain that they are being unfairly or inequitably treated. Such knowledge workers feel that their colleagues with childcare or eldercare responsibilities are getting away with less work and that the needs of childless knowledge workers are being ignored. This backlash against family friendly makes it harder for organisations who wish to address the issue. Our research (and the research of others) debunks the above preconceptions and supports an alternative hypothesis - that the inability to balance work and family is every ones problem. High work-life conflict negatively impacts the employer, the knowledge workers colleagues, the employee, the knowledge workers family, and society as a whole. From the employers perspective, the inability to balance work and family demands has been linked to reduced work performance, increased absenteeism, higher turnover, lower commitment and poorer morale (see Appendix A for relevant references). Work-life conflict has also been linked to productivity decreases associated with lateness, unscheduled days off, emergency time-off, excessive use of the telephone, missed meetings, and difficulty concentrating on the job. A recent study by the authors of this report suggests an inability to balance work-life, estimated the direct cost of absenteeism in Canadian firms to be just under $3 billion dollars per year (Report Two, Appendix A). This same study determined that knowledge workers with high work family conflict missed an average of 13.2 days of work per year - a substantially higher number than the 5.9 days missed by knowledge workers with low work-life conflict. Conflict between work and family demands is also a problem for knowledge workers and their families. Our research links high work-life conflict to marital problems, reduced family and life satisfaction, and an increased incidence of perceived stress, burnout, depression (measured as depressed mood in our research) and stressrelated illnesses. Often knowledge workers with families miss career opportunities when they need to put their family responsibilities ahead of their work. In addition, fatigue, work related accidents and repetitive strain injuries are all related to long hours of work.

36

Caregiver strain, a relatively new form of work-life conflict, has been found to be significantly related to psychological distress and the health of the caregiver. Research has linked high levels of caregiver strain to increased levels of depression, anxiety, fatigue, anger, family conflict, guilt, self-blame, emotional strain, and sleep loss. It has also been linked to financial problems, psychosomatic disorders, health problems and feelings of isolation. A link can also be made between work-life conflict and burgeoning demands on national health care systems. A recent study by the authors (see Report Three, Appendix A) found that in Canada the extra trips to the doctor made by knowledge workers with high work-life conflict cost the nation at least $425 million annually. This study also determined that knowledge workers with high work-life conflict also made more hospital visits and hospital stays, had more medical tests, made more use of other medical practitioners (i.e. nurses, physiotherapists, psychologists) and spent more on prescription drugs. Thus, reducing the level of work-life conflict within Australias workforce may represent an important step toward improving the health of working Australians and reducing health care expenditures. Other research also suggests that society will benefit if employees are able to devote more time and energy to their roles of parent, neighbour and volunteer. Both families and communities will benefit if people have the time and energy to develop meaningful relationships with their neighbours and actively participate in the lives of their spouses and children. As the Vanier Institute (2000, pg. 84) states: Each person in the labour force, when considered as a family member, is a vital strand in the web of relationships that sustain not just the economy but also our families, our communities and our nation. It would appear that there is a real need for change in this area - but the question remains: How does one motivate this change? Many organisations have, for decades, ignored the moral case for change. Current accounting practices mean that the bottom line costs of organisational inaction with respect to work and family (i.e. reduced productivity, higher use of EAP, greater turnover, higher absenteeism) often go unrecognised. The main objective of this report, therefore, is to empirically make the case for change. It does this in two ways. First, it quantifies the prevalence of various forms of work-life conflict. Second, it reveals the hidden costs of imbalance to key stakeholders (i.e. employees, families, organisations, and governments) and the costs of inaction. In other words, the data presented in this report can be used to make the business case for change. What will likely happen if Australian organisations and governments do not deal with the issue of work-life conflict? What are the ramifications for the employee? For families? For Australian organisations ability to compete globally? Again the answers to these questions remain unavailable to key decision-makers. It is clear, however, that the need to address this issue has increased in the new millennium as an impending labour shortage and changing attitudes towards work make it more
37

difficult for organisations to recruit and retain workers. These changes have provided a powerful impetus for companies to turn to more flexible, family-friendly and supportive workplaces as a means of retaining and energising key employees and meeting strategic objectives. The data presented in this study will, hopefully, give them additional reasons to address this issue. Work-life Balance Through the 90s To what extent is work-life conflict a problem in Australia? The answer to this question is not clear. Anecdotally, we know that people are having more difficulties balancing work and life. The popular press and the media have been preoccupied over the past several years with things such as the time crunch, going back to a simpler lifestyle and coping with stress. There are, however, a number of reasons to believe that work-life conflict has increased in Australia over the past several decades. These reasons are summarised in the section below. Traditionally, work and family life have been treated as mutually exclusive domains, segregated both by geography and by gender. Organisations have had little reason to be concerned with an employee's family or personal situation or the negative consequences of work-life conflict on their employees or on the organisation. Ambitious employees worked long hours and were easily relocatable for the right opportunity within the organisation. Family duties, such as childcare, cooking and housework were the domain of the employee's wife and not a concern for the organisation. Dramatic demographic and social changes of the past few decades have led to what has aptly been described as a work and lifestyle revolution. There are now more: (1) dual-income families, (2) working heads of single-parent families, (3) working women of all ages, (4) working mothers, particularly mothers of young children, (5) men with direct responsibility for family care, (6) workers caring for elderly parents or relatives, and (7) workers in the sandwich generation with responsibility for both childcare and eldercare. The workforce of today is also older and more ethnically diverse than in the past. These substantial changes in the composition of the Australian workforce are creating a new emphasis on the balance between work and family life as employees of both sexes are now coping with care-giving and household responsibilities that were once managed by a stay-at-home spouse. Such employees are not well served by traditional one-size fits all human resource policies which can impose rigid time and place constraints on employees or reward long work hours at the expense of personal time. Clearly, the old model of coordinating work and family, which assumes that one's work role is separate from (and takes precedence over) one's family role (referred to by Kanter (1977) as the myth of separate worlds) is no longer valid for the majority of Australian employees. Employees in families where both partners work no longer have the option of a gendered division of labour among partners when it comes to the organisation of work and family. Women are increasingly being forced to deal with job-related demands which place limits on the performance of their family role. Men are becoming more involved with their family
38

and are experiencing a shift in their priorities away from work. The new reality has had a marked effect on what is required of each family member and on what employers can expect from employees. As the U.S. Bureau of National Affairs (1988, pg. 7) notes: "Caring for elder parents, children or both is not new. Combining it with a career is." The literature also suggests a number of economic factors that may have contributed to an increase in work-life conflict for Australian employees. These factors include the following. First, over the past several decades the need to compete globally led many organisations to aggressively downsize, right size and do more with less. More work was demanded from the fewer employees that survived these initiatives. These higher workloads made work-life balance more difficult. Second, the evidence suggests that in many cases organisational flexibility has been pursued at the expense of employee flexibility. This has lead to an increase in the use of inflexible non-standard forms of work (i.e. part time, temporary and contract position) which are associated with higher levels of work to family interference. Third there has been a substantial decline in secure, life long career employment and perceived job security. Employees who are worried about finding and keeping a job (i.e. those without the education and skills to compete in the new economy, those whose family situation makes it difficult to relocate, those whose families are highly dependent on their incomes) may be more likely to accept non-supportive and abusive working conditions - conditions which can increase work-life conflict and stress. Fourth, technological advances have fundamentally changed the nature of work in Australia. Work tools such as laptops, Blackberrys, email and mobile phones have altered when and where Australians work, blurred the boundaries between work and non-work, sped up the pace of work, increased expectations with respect to response time and availability and changed service delivery. Unfortunately, despite the media attention accorded this issue and the prevalence of the problem, many employed mothers and fathers have had to cope with the mounting stress of balancing work and family demands in the absence of outside aid and support. As in most transition periods, changing behaviours often outpace social and organisational structures. Such is the case for today's working parents and caregivers of the elderly who have experienced the burden of both working and caring for dependents in a world that has been largely unresponsive to their realities. The evidence suggests that both governments and employers have been slow to respond to the changing social and economic pressures on employees and their families. Organisational inertia has exacerbated work-life conflict issues for many workers who have, for the most part, been left on their own to cope with the new realities of the workplace. While the rhetoric of management throughout the 1990s was one of putting people first, human capital and competitive advantage through people, the data would suggest that management practices throughout the past decade tended to move in the opposite direction (i.e. massive downsizing,
39

restructuring, delayering, re-engineering, redeploying and reskilling of employees). In the absence of supportive government policies (i.e. Australia lacks a government funded, university, maternity leave policy) and organisational practices, families have struggled to accommodate job demands at the expense of their family role obligations and their own well-being. The result has been an increase in work-life conflict and stress. Difficulties associated with balancing work and family responsibilities have been compounded by a diffusion of responsibility in which each part of the system believes that it is someone else's problem. Management often holds the view that it's a workers' problem, men think it's a women's issue, and older parents and/or nonparents believe it's a concern for younger parents. Workplaces have tended to act as if wives were still at home managing the multiple roles of homemaking and child rearing. Governments, as legislators and policy makers, have reacted cautiously to the changing workplace. A study done by the US government over a decade ago, for example, noted that: Many politicians have talked a lot about family but few have made the crucial issues, childcare, job security, family leave, flexibility, a legislative priority. (BNA, 1989, pg. 5) Impending Labour Force Shortages: The Burning Platform For Change An important factor contributing to the increased importance organisations are giving to the issue of work-life balance is the changing demographics of the labour force. Several decades ago the Hudson Institute caught the attention of the business world with its publication of Workforce 2000 (Johnston & Packer, 1987), a compelling description of anticipated changes in the work world and in workforce demographics. Well, it is now 2008 and many of the changes predicted in Workforce 2000 have indeed materialised in developed nations globally. As predicted, the workforce of the new millennium is quite different from the one organisations are used to managing (i.e. the male dominated workforce of the past). The new workforce is older, more ethnically diverse, and has a larger proportion of working women, working mothers, dual-income families, employees with responsibilities for the care of aging parents, fathers with dependent care responsibilities, and sandwich employees (i.e. those with both childcare and eldercare responsibilities). In a growing number of dual-income families, employees of both sexes are now juggling with care-giving and household responsibilities that were once managed by a stay-at-home spouse. Such employees are not well served by traditional one-size fits all human resource policies which can impose rigid time and place constraints. Traditional promotional practices, which reward long work hours at the expense of personal time, often generate stress, and detract from the pleasures of parenting and the enjoyment of personal life. Similarly, organisational cultures which focus on doing more with less, presence versus performance, hours rather than output, where work is done not how much work is done and dictate that work takes priority over family and life make it difficult for many employees to achieve a balance.

40

The declining labour pool and skills shortages (also predicted in 1987 by Johnson and Packer) have meant that organisations are now competing for a shrinking number of skilled employees who have a different set of priorities, and accordingly, new attitudes toward work and the role it should play in their lives. In many areas, the demand for labour now exceeds the supply. This trend, more than any other, has awakened employers to the business risks inherent in ignoring the needs of this new workforce; a need which includes balance and places a high priority on a meaningful life outside of work (Duxbury, Dyke and Lam, 2000). The reduced supply of entry-level workers will make finding, keeping and developing skilled employees a top priority in the years ahead. Recent research (i.e. Duxbury, Dyke and Lam, 2000; Conger, 1998) would suggest that many employees are attracted to an organisation by its policies and practices supporting work-life balance. As such, employers are now more motivated than ever to explore options that give employees more flexibility and control and are adopting programs which are designed to help employees balance work and life (i.e. flexitime) under the assumption that they will improve recruitment and retention (Lowe, 2000). Recruiting a good workforce is only part of the puzzle. Organisations also have to ensure that workers stay and flourish. Companies with high turnover pay a high price. It has been estimated, for example, that the costs of replacing employees can be up to five times the employees annual salary (VanderKolk and Young, 1991). These costs do not include indirect costs associated with accumulated human knowledge, lost future potential, and poor morale in areas with high turnover. Employee retention helps the company contain the costs associated with identifying, recruiting, retaining and moving talent. Indirect costs associated with client dissatisfaction are also higher in companies with high turnover (Gionfriddo, and Dhingra, 1999). Provision of a supportive work environment which emphasises balance has been shown to partially stem the flow of good employees out of an organisation. As we enter the new millennium governments, employers, employees and families face a common challenge - how to make it easier for Australians to balance their work roles and their desire to have a meaningful life outside of work. Obviously more needs to be done to advance workplace and government strategies that assist workers and families. This research initiative is, hopefully, a step in this direction.

41

Chapter 3: Methodology
The Australian National Study on Work-life Balance was undertaken as part of the larger 2008 Annual Business and Professions Study. This study is the largest independent research project in Australia into those professions serving business and government. Conducted by Beaton Consulting with the support of over 20 professional associations, it examines the opinions of clients of, and people working in professional service firms. The research was conducted in October and November 2007. Email invitations to participate in a web-based survey were sent to over 350,000 potential respondents via an email invitation. Respondents were sourced from the member databases of supporting associations and client databases of professional service firms throughout Australia. The sample selection is done to ensure that the cross section of respondents to this survey can be considered a reflection of the broader Australian business community. Respondents received an individually addressed email invitation containing a unique password hyperlink to the web survey. This approach ensured that invited respondents could complete only one survey and that impostors would be unable to access the survey. The password also allowed respondents to complete the survey in multiple sessions if necessary. The survey used a number of techniques to ensure data integrity including instructions on how to complete each question and automatic response logic checking to ensuring all questions were answered correctly. Just over 31,000 individuals responded to the Annual Business and Professions Study survey. This report focuses on the 14,664 respondents who completed the work-life balance section of the survey. This section is divided into two parts. Information on how the key variables examined in this report were measured is described in part one. This is followed by a summary of the types of data analysis undertaken in this research as well as a summary of the reporting protocols followed.

3.1 Measurement of Key Constructs

The variables outlined in our theoretical framework were all measured using well established measures from the research literature10. Details of how each of these constructs were measured in this study are outlined below.

Demands
A number of indicators of work and non-work demands were collected in this study. A brief description of how this was done is given below.
10 The validity and reliability of each of these measures are described in the reports by Duxbury and Higgins summarised in Appendix A.

42

Work demands have been operationalised in this study as follows: Mean hours in job related work per week; Mean hours commuting to and from work per week; Likelihood of performing supplemental work at home or SWAH (defined as overtime work performed at home outside of regular hours - typically this type of overtime is unpaid) and mean hours spent in SWAH per week, and Likelihood of pursuing work-related educational opportunities and mean hours per week spent in work-related educational opportunities. . Non-work demands were measured in this study as follows: Likelihood of performing home-chores and mean hours spent each week in home chores; Likelihood of performing childcare and mean hours per week in childcare; Likelihood of performing eldercare and mean hours per week in eldercare; Likelihood of engaging in leisure activities and mean hours per week in leisure activities. We also asked the respondent to estimate the amount of time their spouse/partner spent per week in paid employment, childcare and eldercare. This allowed us to measure for each respondent: The likelihood that their spouse spent time each week in paid employment and the mean hours their spouse spent in job related work per week; The likelihood that their spouse performed childcare and the mean hours their spouse spent each week in childcare; The likelihood that their spouse performed eldercare and the mean hours their spouse spent each week in childcare. Demand variables were calculated in two ways: for the entire sample, and for only those respondents engaging in a particular activity (referred to as restricted sample in the report). Responsibility: In considering non-work demands it is important to distinguish between participation in domestic activities and responsibility for these activities as responsibility rather than time spent in a role is linked to increased perceptions of stress. Responsibility was quantified in this report by asking respondents to indicate who in their family had the main responsibility for the day-to-day care of: (1) children, and (2) elderly dependents. A five point Likert scale (1 = I do, 3 = it is shared, 5 = partner does) was used to collect responses.

Work-Life Conflict
As noted earlier, this study examines the prevalence and aetiology of four types of work-life conflict. Details on how each was measured are provided below.

43

Overload was assessed in this study using five items from a scale developed by Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981). Role overload was calculated as the summed average of these five items. Higher scores indicate greater role overload. Interference: Work interferes with family and family interferes with work were both measured using 5-item Likert scale developed by Gutek, Searle and Kelpa (1991) and modified by Duxbury and Higgins (see Report Two, Appendix A). In both cases, interference was calculated as the summed average of the five items making up the measure. Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived interference. Caregiver Strain was quantified using a modified four-item version of Robinsons (1983) Caregiver Strain Index (CSI) which measures objective (rather than subjective) burden. Respondents were asked to indicate (using a five point Likert scale) how often they had difficulty in caring for an elderly relative or dependent because of physical strains, financial strains or because it left them feeling completely overwhelmed. Options given included never, monthly, weekly, several days per week or daily. Higher scores indicate greater strain.

Outcomes
This study examined the link between work-life conflict and four work (organisational commitment, job satisfaction, intent to turnover and absenteeism) and two societal (decision to have children) outcomes. Details on each are given below. Organisational Commitment refers to loyalty to the employing organisation. The nine-item short form of the Job Commitment Scale developed by Mowday et al. (1979) was used in this study to assess the employees level of commitment to their employer. Higher scores indicate greater commitment. Job Satisfaction is the degree to which employees have a positive affective orientation toward employment. A nine item version of the "facet-specific" measure of satisfaction originally developed by Quinn and Staines (1979) and modified by Duxbury and Higgins (Report Two, Appendix A) was used in this study to measure job satisfaction. High scores on this scale represent greater job satisfaction. Intent to turnover is defined as an individual's desire to leave an organisation. This survey used a measure developed by Duxbury and Higgins to examine intent to turnover. Intent to turnover was measured by asking respondents to indicate how often in the last six months they had thought about leaving their current organisation to work elsewhere. Options given included never, monthly, weekly, several days per week or daily. High intent to turnover is defined in this study as thinking of leaving weekly or more. Absenteeism was measured by asking respondents: In the past six months how many days have you: (1) been unable to work or carry out your usual activities because of health problems? (This item was drawn from the Health and Daily Living
44

Form (HDL; Moos, Cronkite, Billings & Finney, 1988), (2) been unable to work or carry out your usual activities because of children-related problems? (3) been unable to work or carry out your usual activities because of problems concerning elderly relatives? and (4) taken a day off because you were emotionally, physically or mentally fatigued? Responses were collected on a scale that ranged from 0 days to 10 or more days. This report looks specifically at the respondents who reported zero absenteeism and those with high absenteeism (6 or more days in a six month period). Having children: As noted earlier, in 2001 we undertook the 2001 Balancing Work, Family and Lifestyle study in Canada (n = 33,000 employees). This study was funded by Health Canada who asked us to include two questions in the survey which linked work-life conflict to the decision to have children. These questions asked respondents to indicate the extent they agreed with the following statements: I have had fewer children because of the demands of my job. I have not yet started a family because of my career. A five-point scale Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree) was used to collect responses. In all cases, higher scores indicate greater agreement with the statement. These items were also included in the Australian study to determine the extent to which work-life issues influence the fertility of knowledge workers in Australia.

Moderators
Our research (see Report Five, Appendix a) in Canada identified two ways in which organisations could help employees cope with work-life conflict: increase perceived flexibility and work, and develop and support good managers. Details on how these two moderators were measured in this study are provided below. Perceived Flexibility: This is defined as the amount of flexibility respondents perceive they have over their work hours and their work location. A four item measure of perceived flexibility was developed by Duxbury and Higgins for use in their 1991 work-family study. The measure has evolved over time and now includes ten items. Respondents were asked how easy or difficult it was for them to: vary their work hours, spend some of their time working at home, take holidays, take time off to attend a course, interrupt their work day for personal reasons and then return to work, receive personal calls when they are at work, balance work and personal/family commitments, keep family commitments, and take a paid day off when either a child is sick or a crisis occurs with an elderly relative. Respondents responses are captured using a 5 point-scale (where 1 = very difficult, 3 = neither easy nor difficult, and 5 = very easy). Perceived flexibility is calculated as the summed average of these ten items. Higher scores reflect greater perceived flexibility. Supportive Manager: The extent to which the respondents perceived that the individual they reported to, was supportive. (i.e. assisted their efforts to get their job done effectively given their personal circumstances). This was assessed using a 15 item behaviourally based measure (e.g. gives recognition when I do my job well,
45

listens to my concerns, provides me with challenging opportunities) that were developed and tested by Duxbury and Higgins over a five-year period. In all cases, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree that their manager had engaged in each of these 15 behaviours over the past three months. Responses were collected using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly disagree). The Supportive Manager score was calculated as the summed average of the supportive behaviours.

3.2 Statistical Analyses

The following types of analysis are used in this report:

Frequencies: calculated as the percent of the sample giving a particular response (e.g. gender, education, job type, parental status) or the percent of the sample scoring high, moderate or low on a particular construct11. Means: calculated as the samples average response to open ended questions (e.g. years with current organisation, hours per week in childcare, job related work). Correlations: a correlation is a single number that describes the degree of relationship between two variables. Correlations were calculated between the different variables in the model to determine the association between demands and conflict and conflict and outcomes. Crosstabs: a cross tabulation (often abbreviated as cross tab) displays the joint distribution of two or more variables. Whereas a frequency distribution provides the distribution of one variable, a contingency table describes the distribution of two or more variables simultaneously. They are usually presented as a contingency table. Each cell shows the number of respondents that gave a specific combination of responses. Chi square analysis was used to test for significance between groups. In most cases the Chi square was a three by three analysis: high, medium and low work-life conflict versus high, medium and low attitude/outcome (i.e. commitment). Only part of these analyses are shown in the report (i.e. we show the proportion of those with high, moderate and low role work-life conflict who have high levels on the outcome of interest). Given the large sample sizes, almost all differences were significant.

The focus in this report is on significant differences that are substantive in nature12. For the purposes of this report we have defined substantive as being a difference of approximately 5% or more.
11 Population norms were used to divide the sample into three groups: those who had high scores on the construct of interest, those who had moderate scores and those who had low scores (see Duxbury and Higgins, 1998 for a discussion of this procedure). 12 This requirement was necessary as the very large sample size meant that virtually all between group differences were statistically significant.

46

Examination of Between Group Differences The following comparisons were undertaken to determine the impact of gender and dependent care status on the relationships shown in Figure 1. To determine the impact of gender on these relationships we compared men with dependent care to women with dependent care and men without dependent care to women without dependent care (i.e. we hold dependent care status constant). Differences that hold across these two groups can be attributed to gender differences in the relationship. To determine the impact of dependent care on these relationships we compared men with dependent care to men without dependent care and women with dependent care to women without dependent care (i.e. we hold gender constant). Differences that hold across these two groups can be attributed to differences in the relationship due to dependent care status.

To determine the impact of job type (CEO/Executive, manager, professional) on these relationships we undertook the following comparisons: We compared the three types of women (i.e. CEO/Executive, manager, professional) within the women with no dependent care sample to each other. We compared the three types of women within the women with dependent care sample to each other. We compared the three types of men within the men with no dependent care sample to each other. We compared the three types of men within the men with dependent care sample to each other. Differences that hold across these four samples can be attributed to position rather than gender or dependent care status. The procedure used to determine the impact of generational cohort on these relationships was identical to that described for job type except that the focus on was on comparing the demands, attitudes and outcomes of employees in the Generation Y, Generation X and Baby Boomer cohorts. The impact of life cycle stage (no dependents, childcare only, sandwich group, eldercare only) on the relationships in Figure 1 was determined as follows: To determine the impact of gender on these relationships we compared men with no dependent care to women with no dependent care, men with childcare only to women with childcare only, men in the sandwich group to women in the sandwich group, and men with eldercare only to women with eldercare only (i.e. we held lifecycle stage constant). Differences that hold across these groups can be attributed to gender differences in the relationship.

47

To determine the impact of the life cycle stage on these relationships we compared men with no dependent care to men in the childcare only, sandwich and eldercare only groups and women in the no dependent care group to women in the childcare only, sandwich and eldercare only groups (i.e. hold gender constant). Differences that hold across these groups can be attributed to differences in the relationship due to life cycle stage.

Reporting Protocols Followed in this Report All of the differences discussed in the report meet two criteria: they are statistically significant and substantive (i.e. the differences matter in a practical sense). This second requirement was necessary as the large sample sizes meant that differences as small as 0.5% were often statistically significant. In interpreting the data, the reader should use the following rule of thumb: the greater the difference between two groups, the more important the finding. To make the report more readable, not all significant and substantive between group differences in the data are discussed. The following rule of thumb was applied in deciding which differences are worthy of note: Four way comparisons: differences of 3% or greater are noted. All other comparisons (i.e. job type, generation): differences of 5% or greater are noted.

Finally, it should also be noted that the numbers reported in the text have been rounded off to the nearest decimal.

48

Chapter 4: Profile of Respondents

The sample is made up of Australian men and women who work full-time as knowledge workers in Australia.13 This chapter describes these respondents and the organisations that employ them. Since the focus of this report is on how gender and dependent care status influence the aetiology of work-life conflict, the first three parts of this chapter provide a description of the 11,920 men and women who were included in our gender by dependent care analysis. Part one provides information on this sample and then discusses where they work and live. The second part describes their situation at work while part three gives important demographic details on the sample. After giving information on the sample used in the gender and dependent care analysis key details on the job type (part four), generational cohort (part five) and life cycle stage (part six) samples are provided. The final part of this chapter provides a summary of key findings. Finally it should be noted that not all of the data collected for this research study are included in the main body of the report. The interested reader is referred to Appendix B (gender by dependent care), Appendix C (job type) Appendix D (generational cohort) Appendix E (life cycle stage) and Appendix F (part-time).

4.1 Description of the Gender by Dependent Care Sample. Where do they live and work?
Almost 12,000 respondents were included in the sample used to examine the impact of gender and dependent care status on the work-life conflict of full-time knowledge workers in Australia. The majority of these respondents (70%) are male. In fact almost half of 12,000 respondents in this sample were men with dependent care responsibilities (see Figure 2). The men in the sample were significantly more likely to have dependents than were the women (69% of the male sample had dependents versus 51% of the females). The sample is well distributed with respect to residence. One in three (32%) of the respondents live in New South Wales; one in four live in Victoria (24%) and one in five live in Queensland (18%). A substantive number also come from Western Australia (12%) and South Australia (7%). The breakdown of this sample is virtually identical to that of the country as a whole According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 2000, 33% of Australians lived in NSW, 25% in Victoria, 19% in Queensland, 10% in Western Australia, 8% in South Australia, 3% in Tasmania, 2% in the ACT and 1% in the Northern Territories.
13 The following groups were removed from this sample Part-time employees, students, retired individuals, employees who work in technical positions, administrative and shared services positions, and employees who responded to the survey but do not live in Australia.

49

Figure 2: Breakdown of Gender by Dependent Care Sample

50 40 30 20 21.6 10 0 Men 48.2

Dependent Care No Dependent Care

14.5

15.3

Women

The majority of the sample (78%) live in capital cities. The rest of the sample is fairly evenly distributed between major regional cities (12% of the total sample) and rural areas (9% of the total sample). By comparison, in 2000 63% of the total population of Australia lived in major urban areas, 23% lived in other urban areas and 14% lived in rural areas. These data likely reflect the fact that firms who employee professional workers are more likely to be located in the various cities than they are in other regional cities or urban areas. The sample is also well distributed with respect to company type, sector and revenue. In terms of company type, just over one in four of the sample work for a private sector company. Approximately one in ten work for an Australian listed public company (15%), a partnership (12%) or a government department (10%). In terms of sector, just over one in four (27%) respondents work for a professional services firm, one in five (19%) work for an organisation that operated in the government/community sector and 15% work in the financial services sector. Other sectors represented in the sample include primary industry, infrastructure and utilities (13%), manufacturing, retail and wholesale (9%) and property and construction (7%). Just over one in five of the respondents (12%) work in sectors other than those noted above. Finally, the sample is also well distributed with respect to the size of the company as indicated by revenue streams. One in three work for a small business (i.e. revenue per year of $5 M or less) and one in four work for a larger organisation with revenue streams of more than $500 M per year. Gender influences where one works There were a number of interesting gender differences with respect to where knowledge workers in Australia live and work. Men, regardless of whether or not they have dependent care responsibilities, were more likely than women to live in Western Australia and work for a private company and/or a Partnership in primary industry, utilities, manufacturing, retail and wholesale sectors.

50

Women, on the other hand, were more likely than men to work in the professional services sector regardless of their dependent care status. Mothers make difference choices than fathers or women without dependent care For the men in the sample, neither childcare or eldercare responsibilities appear to influence where they live and work. The same cannot be said for the women in the sample as dependent care status is significantly associated with where women live and work. For example women without dependents were more likely to: live in Queensland live in a capital city work in a partnership situation work in a professional services firm work for a firm with revenues of more than $500 M per year (i.e. large business) Women with dependents, on the other hand, were more likely to: work in New South Wales work in sole operator firms work for a government department and in the community sector work for an organisation that has revenues of less than $5 M per year (i.e. small business) We can speculate that these differences may be reflective of situations where it is more or less difficult for women to balance their work and family demands (i.e. mothers gravitate to more family friendly firms).

4.2 Work Profile

We collected three pieces of information from our sample to help give us an understanding of their situation at work: their position, their tenure in the organisation, and their tenure in their job. Positional data for the sample is shown in Figure 3 while data on the tenure and time in current position are given in Table 1. This is a very high-powered sample: almost 40% hold professional positions and designations, one in three are senior executives (18% are executives and 17% are the CEO/Managing partner of their firm) and 12% are managers. The data indicate that the firms in this sample have few knowledge workers who have been with the firm for an extended period of time. This may be due to lack of job security and hiring in the 90s and/or higher levels of turnover of knowledge workers. The findings imply that firms employing knowledge workers need to pay more attention to career development as 5 + years in ones current position cannot not be considered best practice in terms of career development of ones professional workforce.

51

Figure 3: Position
Male No D Male D Female No D Female D 39 31 14 13 14 13 Professional Manager 16 24 18 10 16 22 15

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 43 57

Executive

5 CEO/Partner

Other jobs are not shown D = Dependents

Tenure and time in Position Years in current organisation Years in current job

Men Dependents No Yes 7.3 8.5 6.0 6.6

Women Dependents No Yes 3.8 5.9 3.3 4.9

Total

7.1 5.7

Table 1: Tenure and Time in Position

Men have more work experience than women

The men in the sample have spent more years in their current organisation and have more experience in their current job than their female counterparts, regardless of dependent care status. These differences in tenure and years in current job may be due to the fact that women are more likely than men to take time off work when starting a family (the dependent care sample), and the fact that the women in the sample are younger than the men (the non-dependent care sample). The fact that knowledge workers with dependent care are older than those without is also likely to explain the fact that men and women without dependent care are more likely to work in professional positions while their counterparts with dependent care are more likely to hold positions as executives and CEO/managing partners.

52

Glass ceiling exists in many Australian firms Finally it is interesting to note that women are more likely than their men to work in professional positions within their firm while men are more likely than their women to hold the following positions: executive, CEO, managing partner. The fact that this finding was observed regardless of dependent care status suggests that there may be a glass ceiling for female knowledge workers within many Australian firms.

4.3 Personal Demographics

Many factors can place employees at risk with respect to work-life conflict including age, marital status, parental status, eldercare status, responsibility for child and eldercare and family financial status. How our sample stacks ups with respect to each of these issues is summarised below. Much of the data referred to in this chapter can be found in Appendix B. Respondents in the full nest stage of the life cycle Age can be used to approximate life cycle stage, career cycle stage and adult development stage, all of which can be linked to an individual's ability to balance work and family demands. Life cycle stage is determined by age and normative life events (e.g. marriage, children). Individuals who are in the "full-nest" stage of the life cycle (i.e. have young children at home) or are part of the sandwich generation (childcare and eldercare) are believed to face the greatest challenges in balancing work and family. Career cycle stage (early career, mid career, late career, retirement) is also linked with age. Heavier work demands have been associated with entry into the workforce (20s), early mid career (30s) and fast track career cycle stages (40s). Finally adult development stage is also linked to age. Research in this area indicates that people go through transitional periods where they reevaluate their life and re-create their life structure at around 30, 40 and 50 years of age. Turbulent transitions are called crises. The age distribution of the sample is shown in Figure 4.

53

Figure 4: Age Distribution of Sample

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

50 45 42 41 35 30 23 12 4 Gen Y Gen X

48 36

Male No D Male D Female No D Female D

13 Boomer

12 5 2 2 Veteran

The average age of the knowledge worker in this sample is 42.2 years which is in the full-nest stage of the life cycle and the fast-track stage of the career cycle. The men in the sample (average age of 44.5) are older than the women (average age of 37.0). The sample has a positively skewed distribution with respect to age as a higher percent of knowledge workers in the full nest stage of the life cycle (i.e. Generation X and Baby Boomer) answered the survey than those in the empty nest stage (i.e. Generation Y and Veterans whose children have left home and who do not have eldercare). The skew in age distribution can likely be attributed to the fact that the issue of work-life balance has more relevance to younger knowledge workers who are in the full next stage of the life cycle (or will be soon) than older knowledge workers whose children have left the nest. This interpretation of the data is consistent with the fact that women in their later 20s were more likely to answer the survey than younger men. The data indicate that the women in the sample are much younger than the men. Women are more likely than men to be in the Generation Y and Generation X cohorts. Men are more likely to be Baby Boomers and veterans. Finally, it is interesting to note that very few of the women in the sample (1.6%) were over 60 years of age, indicating perhaps that women in Australia retire earlier than men, or have not had as long a tradition of working as employees in Australian firms. Majority of respondents are married or live with a partner The research literature has also found an association between marital status and work-life conflict. The relationship is, however, by no means a straightforward one and we have a lot to learn in this area. On the one hand, marriage can increase employees non-work demands while simultaneously decreasing the amount of

54

control they have over their time (i.e. greater need to co-ordinate activities with others). On the other hand, a spouse can provide emotional and tangible support in times of stress (e.g. take responsibility for home chores, help out in a crisis), thereby increasing the employees sense of control. Some researchers suggest that it is not the role of marriage per se that is important but rather the quality of the role. The majority of the respondents (77.4%) in this sample are married. Just under one in five of the respondents (16%) are single and 6.8% are separated or divorced. Less than 1% of respondents are widowed. Two thirds of the respondents have children at home As noted earlier in this document, a large body of research links the parental responsibilities of working couples to the incidence of work-family conflict. To get a better comprehension of the dependent care demands experienced by those participating in this research we asked respondents to indicate the number of children they had, the age of these children and how much responsibility they personally had for childcare. Just over one in three (35.5%) of the respondents do not have any children. One in ten (12%) have only one child, one in three (30.1%) have two children. Families with a larger number of children are rare as only 15.9% have three children, and 7% have four or more children. It should also be noted that very large families were very rare in this sample as only 2% of the men and 0.8% of the women had more than four children). While the majority (46.7%) of respondents are parents of children who are over 18 years of age, a substantive number have younger children at home (17.2% are parents of children less than 3 years of age and 14% are parents of children aged 4 or 5). One in four (26%) are parents of adolescents (i.e. aged 6 to 11) while 35% are parents of teens. For both the men and women in the sample, the vast majority of knowledge workers with children who are included in the without dependent care group (i.e. spend no time in childcare) have children who are over 18 and do not require care. The knowledge workers in the dependent care group, on the other hand, were more likely to have younger children (i.e. under 5 years of age), adolescents (i.e. children 6 to 11) and teenagers at home. Work-life issues in Australia no longer just related to childcare Dependent care is not just a question of care for children. Concern over eldercare responsibilities is now increasing. Eldercare is defined as providing some type of assistance with the daily living activities for an elderly relative who is chronically ill, frail or disabled. Eldercare is often complicated by distance as elderly parents often live in different communities. Family members who provide "indirect" care such as frequent visits, phone calls and general management of the elder's affairs from afar have been found to experience tremendous feelings of guilt and increased stress.
55

Furthermore, research suggests that the majority of people who provide eldercare have had to make lifestyle changes since becoming care providers including spending less time with their own family, paying less attention to their own health, and taking fewer vacations. As the Baby Boomer generation moves towards middle age, and their parents toward old age, knowledge workers with such conflicts (often mature employees with substantial work demands) will increase in number. To get a better comprehension of the dependent care demands experienced by those participating in this research we asked respondents to indicate the number of elder dependents they cared for, the type of eldercare they had, and how much responsibility they personally had for eldercare. A significant percent of the knowledge workers in this sample have eldercare. While only 4% have an elderly dependent living in their home (2% of these knowledge workers have more than one dependent living with them) just over one in three (35%) have an elderly depending who lives nearby and almost half (46%) have responsibility for an elderly dependent who lives elsewhere. It should be noted that many knowledge workers have responsibility for more than one elderly dependent. 14% of the sample have responsibility for two dependents that live nearby and 6% have responsibility for three or more elderly dependents who live near to them 17% of the sample have responsibility for two dependents that live elsewhere and 11% have responsibility for three or more elderly dependents who live elsewhere

For both the males and females , knowledge workers with dependent care responsibilities were more likely to be responsible for the care of an elderly dependent than were those without dependent care. It can be assumed that the men and women in the sample who do not spend time each week in dependent care but do have elderly care responsibilities have a family member (i.e. sibling, spouse) who provides care. Examination of the dependent care sample indicates that with one exception (women are twice as likely as men to have at least one elderly dependent living with them) male and female professionals are equally likely to have demands associated with eldercare. In most families responsibilities at home still remain with the woman In considering the division of labour within the home a distinction should be made between participation in domestic activities and responsibility for these activities. When both spouses work, husbands may share in the household tasks, but domestic roles usually remain the principal responsibility of the wife. Responsibility rather than time spent in a role is linked to increased perceptions of stress. An employee who is responsible for childcare or eldercare is accountable within the family for their dependents supervision and well-being. Such an individual has been found to experience significantly greater stress and tension than the individual who "helps
56

out". This increase in stress is associated with the greater number of worries connected with responsibility (i.e. worries about choosing and maintaining child/eldercare arrangements, purchasing clothing, overseeing homework or finances etc.). In this study, respondents were asked to indicate who in their family had the main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children and elderly dependents. These data are shown in Figures 5a (childcare) and 5b (eldercare) and discussed below. Examination of these figures indicates that the men and women in the sample who spend time each week in dependent care have a very similar view of how responsibility for childcare and eldercare is shared in their families. Just under half of the respondents agree that in their family the responsibility for the care of the children is shared. When it is not shared, both men and women agree that in their family the woman (be it them or their partner) has the primary responsibility for childcare (45% of the women say that they have primary responsibility and 51% of the men say that their spouse has primary responsibility).
Figure 5a: Responsibility for Childcare

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 4 Men

I do

It is shared

Partner does

51 44 45

47

8 Women

Figure 5b: Responsibility for eldercare

I do 57 It is shared 54 39 25 18 7 Men Women Partner does

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

57

By contrast, only 4% of the males in the dependent care sample, and 8% of the male partners of the female knowledge workers in the dependent care sample have primary responsibility for childcare. In other words, in families where the responsibility is not shared, the woman is ten times more likely than the man to have responsibility for childcare. Very few of the women in the dependent care sample have a partner who takes responsibility for childcare (8%). In contrast, half the men in the sample have a partner who takes primary responsibility for childcare. These findings support the following conclusions:

the women in this sample with dependent care responsibilities are at higher risk than the men of work-life conflict the men in the sample who share childcare responsibilities (approximately half the male dependent care sample) are be at higher risk of work-life conflict than the men in the sample who do not have such responsibilities at home

Eldercare is more likely to be shared than childcare Just over half of the men and women agree that within their family the responsibility for eldercare is shared. When it is not shared, both men and women agree that in their family the woman (be it them or their partner) has the primary responsibility for eldercare (39% of the women say that they have primary responsibility and 25% of the men say that their spouse has primary responsibility). That being said, a higher proportion of the men in the sample (18%) say they have primary responsibility for eldercare than have such responsibilities with respect to childcare (4%). In other words, men with dependent care are 5 times more likely to have primary responsibility for eldercare, than childcare. Very few of the women in the dependent care sample have a partner who takes responsibility for eldercare (7%). In contrast one quarter of the men in the sample have a partner who takes primary responsibility for childcare. Many overestimating their role at home It is interesting to note that over half of the individuals (both male and female) who spend no time each week in childcare or eldercare (i.e. they are in the no dependent sample) indicate that within their family these responsibilities are shared. These data suggest that these individuals are significantly over estimating their role at home. Sample well-off financially There are a number of variables that can act as buffers between work and family conditions and positive or negative outcomes. One such variable is financial status. Research in the area has found income to be significantly associated with the ability to cope with work and family demands. Higher income families can usually afford to hire adequate household and childcare help to ease domestic burdens and may
58

more easily purchase services and labour saving devices to reduce demands on their time and energy (e.g. dining out, hiring a housekeeper, household appliances etc.). To get some kind of idea of what these family income data mean in terms of the financial well-being of the families in our study (i.e. income levels are not directly comparable as cost of living varies by location and the need for money varies with dependent care status), we asked respondents to circle the response that best described their familys situation (respondents who lived alone were asked to answer the question from their own perspective). Respondents were given the following options: our familys financial resources are not enough to get by on, we get by on our familys resources but it is tight, we live comfortably on our familys financial resources but do not have enough money for extras, we live more than comfortably on our familys financial resources and have money for extras, money is not an issue for our family. The responses to this question were collapsed into three categories: money is tight, live comfortably but no money for extras, and money is not an issue. Consistent with the type of work they do, the respondents in this sample are relatively well-off financially. Almost half (49%) say that money is not an issue in their family and 38% say that they live comfortably on their financial resources although they have no money for extras. Just over one in ten (14%) indicated that money is tight in their family although they are able to get by. Dependent care places financial pressures on a family There is no strong connection in this sample between gender and families financial status. The connection is stronger between family finances and dependent care responsibility. Knowledge workers with dependent care are more likely to say money is tight or that they have no money for extras. Those without dependents, on the other hand, are more likely to say that, in their families, money is not an issue.

4.4 Position
The sample used to examine the impact of position on work-life conflict is made up of 10,640 respondents. This sample is broken down as follows: 41% are CEOs, Executives 15% are managers 45% are professionals The male and female CEO/executives in the sample are older employees with considerable work experience. The male and female managers in the sample belong primarily to the Generation X and Baby Boomers cohorts. They too, have substantial

59

work experience. The professionals in the sample tend to be younger knowledge workers, with fewer years of work experience. Data on the gender and dependent care status of this sample are provided in Table 2. A number of observations are suggested by these data. CEO/Executive 19 61 80% 7 13 20% 100% Manager 20 50 70% 15 15 30% 100% Professional 24 39 63% 22 14 36% 100%

Male: No dependents Male: Dependents % of sample male Female: No dependents Female: Dependents % of sample female

Table 2: Description of Gender and Dependent Care Status of Position Sample

Professional women in Australia face glass ceiling First, the fact that the number of women decreases with rank supports the idea that there is a glass ceiling within many Australian firms. Women with child and/or eldercare appear to be particularly disadvantaged. Consider the following:

Women in CEO and Executive positions within Australian firms are less likely than their male counterparts to be parents (three quarters of the men in this position have children versus 65% of women). Women in management positions within Australian are firms less likely than their male counterparts to be parents (71% of the men in this position have children versus 50% of women). Women in professional positions within Australian professional services firms are less likely than their male counterparts to be parents (62% of the men in this position have children versus 39% of women).

These data also suggest that Australian firms have not been very successful either in attracting professional women into their ranks and/or retaining their services as men out number women 3 to 1 even in professional ranks. It may be that work-life issues dissuade women from taking professional or management positions in many Australian firms. Demographic data (see Appendix C) support the following observation with respect to work experience and advancement within Australian organisations:

60

The men in the sample have spent more years with their current organisation and more years in their current job than the females, regardless of position or dependent care. With one exception (age of knowledge workers with children) the women in the sample are younger than the men. For the men and women in the sample without child and/or eldercare, the relationship between years of service within the organisation and advancement through the ranks is fairly straight forward: the more experience, the greater the likelihood that the employee will be at a higher level (i.e. tenure positively associated with years with current organisation). Women with dependent care responsibilities have more experience (i.e. spent more years with their organisation and in their current job) than women without dependent care, regardless of position. With one exception (male professionals) no such difference can be observed for the men in the sample.

These data suggest that having dependent care responsibilities hinders advancement in professional firms for many women and men at more junior levels of the organisation. Data on the relationship between age and position (see Appendix C) support this conclusion. The data also gives us some insights into the relationship between responsibility for childcare and eldercare and position. While having primary responsibility for childcare is not associated with level for either gender, the reasons behind this observation do vary with gender. Very few men, regardless of level have primary responsibly for childcare. Approximately half the women in the sample, on the other hand, have primary responsibility for childcare regardless of position. Also important is the fact that female CEO/Executives are more likely than their female counterparts in managerial and professional positions to have primary responsibility for eldercare in their family. This is likely due to the fact that this group of women are slightly older. While the men in these positions are also older, they are more likely than any other group of men to have a spouse who looks after these responsibilities. Finally, it is interesting to note that dependent care status rather than gender or position impacts family financial status. With one exception (men in CEO/Executive positions) men and women with dependent care, regardless of position, were more likely to say that within their family money was tight. Gender was not associated with family financial status.

4.5 Generational Cohort

Just over 11,000 (11,762) respondents were included in the sample used to explore the relationship between generational cohort and work-life conflict. The distribution
61

of this sample with respect to gender and dependent care status is shown in Figure 6 and discussed below.
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 32 12 Gen Y 12 16 16 Gen X 18 20 5 Boomer 14 46 50 Male No D Male D Female No D Female D 61

Figure 6: Generational Cohort: Distribution of Sample by Gender and Dependent Care

Generation Y - the childless professional

Most of the respondents in this sample are between the ages of 25 and 29. Age is not related to gender and the average age of both the men and women in this group is 26. The men and women in this group have spent an average of 2.5 years with their current employer, all in the same job. Almost all (81%) the Generation Y knowledge workers in the sample are professionals. The rest are managers. Very few of the knowledge workers in this sample (12% of the men and 12% of the women) have child and/or eldercare responsibilities. Those that do, have one child under the age of five. This report will not explore work-life issues for the Generation Y with dependent care in this analysis as the size of the sample is relatively small.

Generation X - fathers outnumber mothers

The sample is well distributed by age within the cohort with 32% between the age of 30 and 34, 35% between the age of 35 and 39, and 33% between the age of 40 and 44. The mean age of the men in this group is 37; the mean age of the women 36. Within the Generation X group the females are significantly less likely than the males to have children (76% of the men are fathers, 55% of the women are mothers). Half of the men and 60% of the women without children are in the 30 to 34 year age group. The rest of the respondents without children are 35 to 39.

62

The men and women in this group have spent an average of 5 years with their current employer, 4 years in the same job. Most are in professional and managerial positions.

Baby Boomers parenting older children and caring for elderly parents
The sample is well distributed by age within the cohort with 40% between the age of 45 and 49, 36% between the age of 50 and 54, and 25% between the age of 55 and 59. The mean age of the men in this group is 52; the mean age of the women 51. The men in the no dependents group are older (42% 55 to 59). Otherwise there are no gender differences in age. The men in this group have spent an average of 11 years with their current organisation and 8 years in the current job. The women in this group have spent 8 years in their current organisation, 7 in their current job. Again, the small sample size means that we will not examine the results for the Baby Boomer women without dependents. Half of these women are parents of children who are over 18 and have left home. The other half are women in senior positions in the organisation who do not have children. Finally, it is interesting to note with one exception (Baby Boomer men), those with dependent care were more likely to than those without to say that in their families money is tight. Male Baby Boomers are less likely to have concerns with respect to their family financial situation.

4.6 Life Cycle Stage

Just over 11,000 respondents (8355 men and 3565 women) were included in the sample used to explore the relationship between work-life conflict and life cycle. The distribution of this sample with respect to gender is shown in Figure 7 and discussed below.

63

Figure 7: Life Cycle Stage

No Dependents Childcare Only Sandwich Eldercare Only 38 31 30 24 18 11 Male Female 18

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

51

Life cycle stage was not associated with years in organisation or years in current job in any straightforward way. Those in the CEO/executive and manager samples were more likely to be in the sandwich stage of the life cycle. Managers and professionals were more likely to be in the children only group, while CEO/executives were more likely to be in the eldercare only group. The male childless group was dominated by those in professional positions. Females without dependent care status, on the other hand, were more evenly distributed between the three jobs types considered in the sample. Again we note that the men in the sample were significantly more likely than the women to have children (half the women in the sample had no dependent care responsibilities). Women were, however, more likely than men to spend time each week in eldercare. These data support our contention that it is more difficult for female knowledge workers to combine a career with children than it is for their male counterparts.

4.7 Key Findings

The sample is made up of 11,920 Australian men and women who work full-time as knowledge workers in Australia. Examination of sample distributions with respect to state and city of residence, company type, sector and revenue suggest that the findings from this study can be generalised to the population of Australian male and female knowledge workers with and without dependent care responsibilities. This is a very high-powered sample: almost 40% hold professional positions and designations), one in three are senior executives (18% are executives and 17% are the CEO/Managing partner of their firm) and 12% are managers. Respondents are relatively well-off financially. Many of the individuals in this sample are likely to have challenges with respect to work-life balance. The average age of knowledge workers is 42.2 years which is in

64

the full nest stage of the life cycle and the fast track stage of the career cycle. The majority of the respondents (77.4%) are married. While just over one in three (35.5) do not have any children, one in ten (12%) have one child and one in three (30.1%) have two children. Families with a larger number of children are rare. While the majority of respondents are parents of children who are over 18 years of age, a substantive number have younger children at home. A significant percent of the knowledge workers in this sample also have responsibilities with respect to eldercare. The men and women in the sample who spend time each week in dependent care have a very similar view of how responsibility for childcare and eldercare is shared in their families. Just under half of the respondents agree that in their family the responsibility for the care of the children is shared. In families where the responsibility for childcare is not shared, the woman is ten times more likely than the man to have responsibility for childcare. Very few of the women in the dependent care sample have a partner who takes responsibility for childcare (8%). Eldercare is more likely to be shared than childcare. The following conclusions are supported with respect to how dependent care is shared within Australian families where at least one member of the couple holds a managerial or professional position.

Child and eldercare is a shared responsibility for approximately half of those employed in professional positions within Australia. The responsibilities of childcare and eldercare are no longer related to just women many professional men are assuming an equal role with respect to care giving. Childcare is still more gendered than eldercare. Men are three times more likely to have primary responsibility for eldercare than for childcare. Female knowledge workers are more likely than their male counterparts to have primary responsibility for childcare and eldercare. In other words, they are more likely to work a second shift. Knowledge workers with dependent care are, regardless of their gender, more likely than those without dependent care to say that in their family money is tight or that they have no money for extras.

There are a number of gender differences in the data that are worthy of note. The men in the sample (average age of 44.5) are older than the women (average age of 37.0) and more likely to have children (69% of the male sample had children versus 44% of the females). With one exception (women are twice as likely as men to have at least one elderly dependent living with them) male and female knowledge workers are equally likely to have demands associated with eldercare.

65

The men in the sample have spent more years in their current organisation and have more experience in their current job than their female counterparts, regardless of dependent care status. These differences in tenure and years in current job may be due to the fact that women are more likely than men to take time off work when starting a family (the dependent care sample), and the fact that the women in the sample are younger than the men (the non-dependent care sample). Finally, the data reviewed in this section indicate that professional women in Australia face a glass ceiling. Women with child and/or eldercare appear to be particularly disadvantaged. The following findings support this conclusion:

Women in CEO and executive positions within Australian firms are less likely than their male counterparts to be parents (three quarters of the men in this position have children versus 65% of women). Women in management positions within Australian are firms less likely than their male counterparts to be parents (71% of the men in this position have children versus 50% of women). Women in professional positions within Australian professional services firms are less likely than their male counterparts to be parents (62% of the men in this position have children versus 39% of women). Women with dependent care responsibilities have more experience (i.e. have spent more years with their organisation and in their current job) than women without dependent care, regardless of position. With one exception (male professionals) no such difference can be observed for the men in the sample. Within the Generation X group, the females are significantly less likely than the males to have children (76% of the men are fathers, 55% of the women are mothers). Half of the men and 60% of the women without children are in the 30 to 34 year age group. The rest of the respondents without children are 35 to 39.

The above results have a number of implications for Australian firms. First, dependent care status influences where female knowledge workers live and work in Australia. The fact that these women are found in abundance in government jobs, smaller firms and sole operator situations suggest that these sectors are more family friendly. Alternatively, the fact that women with dependent care are less likely to work for larger professional services firms and partnerships suggest that these types of organisations need to increase their family friendliness if they want to keep this group of workers. Second, these data suggest that Australian firms have not been very successful either in attracting professional women into their ranks and/or retaining their services as men out number women 3 to 1 even in professional ranks. It may be that work-life issues dissuade women from taking professional or management positions in many Australian firms or do not remain with such firms after they have started their family.
66

Third, the data indicates that the firms in this sample have few knowledge workers who have been with the firm for an extended period of time. The dearth of experienced women is particularly note worthy. These results may be due to lack of job security and hiring in the 90s and/or higher levels of turnover of knowledge workers. Alternatively, it may be that knowledge workers are more mobile and apt to leave an organisation that does not support work-life and career development issues. Finally, the data from this study suggests that many Australian firms will have problems retaining the services of knowledge workers (especially female knowledge workers) in a sellers market for labour.

67

Chapter 5: The Time Crunch Faced by Australian employees

Too Much to Do, Too Little Time
This chapter is divided into three main parts. The first part provides answers to the following questions: What types of demands do Australian knowledge workers face at work? Outside of work? In other words, it quantifies the demands faced by men and women employed full-time in executive, managerial and professional positions in Australia in 2007. The second part looks at how factors such as position, generational cohort and life cycle impact demands at work and home. The chapter concludes with a summary of the key findings.

5.1 Demands at Work and Home

Keeping a home and raising children or caring for an elderly dependent - as anyone who has ever done it knows - is a full-time job. The increasing rarity of the full-time homemaker has done more to reduce everyone's leisure time than any other factor. If both mother and father are working, someone still has to find time to make lunch, attend doctor appointments, shop for groceries and cook. This part of the report looks at how Australian knowledge workers spend their time. Time at work is the single largest block of time which most people owe to others outside their family. Consequently, it is often the cornerstone around which the other daily activities must be made to fit. As a fixed commodity, time allocated to employment is necessarily unavailable for other activities, including time with the family. Thus, time spent at work offers an important and concrete measure of one dimension of employment that affects individuals and their families. When asked to identify their biggest concern in life, working parents typically respond "time". This report also examines time spent in family labour, defined as those tasks required to maintain a household and fulfil child and eldercare responsibilities. Family role demands tend to fall into two areas: allocation of household tasks and child and dependent care responsibilities. A perennial debate for many dual-income families concerns who is to do what task in the household. When work demands press into family life, this debate becomes more complicated. Research has found that for full-time employees of both genders, an increased number of hours spent in dependent care places employees at high risk for work-family conflict. Data on the percent of the sample engaging in the various work and non-work activities considered in this analysis are given in Table 3. Also included in this table are data on the mean number of hours spent per week in each of these activities for the total sample and for the restricted sample14 . Work activities are discussed first. This is followed by a discussion of non-work activities.
14 Defined to include only those individuals who indicated that they spent time in a particular activity.

68

Table 3: Work and Non-Work Demands

Men Women Total Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 15 % of the sample who engage in the following activities : Supplemental work at home 61.2 76.5 50.9 71.8 68.5 (SWAH) Home chores and errands 94.8 98.5 96.8 98.9 97.5 In childcare or activities with 0 93.0 0 94.5 77.4 children In eldercare 0 45.2 0 62.3 31.0 In leisure 95.9 96.1 98.1 93.8 96.0 In career development 47.6 47.3 52.1 52.3 48.8 Mean Hours/week Respondent spends in following activities: (total sample) In paid employment 48.7 49.2 46.7 47.2 48.4 Commuting to and from work 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.6 Supplemental work at home 3.8 4.7 2.7 4.6 4.2 (SWAH) Home chores and errands 7.5 9.6 7.1 11.3 9.0 In childcare or activities with 0 8.5 0 9.1 5.4 children In eldercare 0 1.4 0 2.8 1.1 In leisure 14.5 9.1 14.3 8.3 11.0 In career development 2.2 1.7 2.6 2.3 2.0 Total Hours in Work and Non-work 67.7 80.9 64.9 83.2 75.7 Activities per week (excluding leisure) Mean Hours/week Respondent spends in following activities: (restricted sample) In paid employment 48.7 49.2 46.7 47.2 48.4 Supplemental work at home 6.1 6.1 5.3 6.5 6.1 (SWAH) Home chores and errands 7.5 9.6 7.1 11.3 9.0 In childcare or activities with 0 10.1 0 14.5 10.9 children In eldercare 0 3.1 0 4.6 3.5 In leisure 14.5 9.1 14.3 8.3 11.0 In career development 4.5 3.5 5.1 4.3 4.1

Everyone in the sample indicated that they spent time each week in paid employment, commuting to and from work, home chores and errands and leisure.

15

69

Australian knowledge workers commit numerous hours per week to work and family The individuals who responded to this survey are very busy people. Examination of the data obtained with the total sample indicates that the typical employee in this sample spends an average of 48.4 hours in paid employment each week plus: 5.6 hours per week commuting to and from work, 4.2 hours doing extra work at home in the evening and on weekends, 9.0 hours a week in home chores and errands, 5 hours per week in childcare (11 for those with childcare), 1 hour per week in eldercare (3.5 hours for those with eldercare), and 2 hours per week to career development. In other words, the typical knowledge workers in Australia devotes an average of 75.7 hours per week to work and family activities. Not surprisingly, given these demands, they have relatively few hours per week (11) to spend in leisure. Majority extend their workday and perform supplemental work at home The work ethic and values of knowledge workers working in professional service firms in Australia can be appreciated by considering the fact that: Two thirds of the individuals in this sample regularly extend their workday and spend time working from home in the evening and on weekends. These knowledge workers spend approximately 6 hours each week performing unpaid overtime. Half the sample spend time each week in career development activities. These knowledge workers devote approximately 4 hours a week in learning. Majority of the respondents also have demands outside of work The majority of the respondents also have demands outside of work with three quarters of the sample spending time each week in childcare (eleven hours a week on average) and one in three spending time in eldercare (3.5 hours per week on average). Knowledge workers with dependents have higher demands The following observations can be made by restricting the sample to the individuals engaging in the various activities examined in this study and looking at their demands. Respondents with dependent care responsibilities have more demands on their time than their counterparts without such responsibilities. Both the men and women in the dependent care sample spend significantly more time each week in home chores and errands, childcare and eldercare than their counterparts in the non-dependent care sample. The women in the dependent care sample also spend significantly more hours per week in supplemental work at home (SWAH) than their counterparts without children/elderly dependents.

70

Also, worthy of note is the fact that contrary to stereotypes, the men and women in this sample with child and/or eldercare dependent care spent slightly more hours a week in paid employment than their counterparts without dependent care! Men and women without children and/or elderly dependents have more time in leisure Regardless of gender, respondents without dependent care responsibilities spend significantly more time each week in leisure and career development than do their counterparts with dependent care. Men spend more time in paid employment than women The men in the sample spend approximately two hours more each week in activities associated with their paid employment than do the women, regardless of dependent care status. This difference can be explained by the fact that men, regardless of their dependent care status, are more likely to engage in supplemental work at home than are women. This difference is greater for those without dependent care ( of 10%) than for those with dependent care ( of 5%). Overall, female knowledge workers with child and/or eldercare have the highest demands Women with dependent care responsibilities spend significant more hours per week in home-chores and errands, childcare, elder, and career development and significant less time per week in leisure than their male counterparts. In fact, their demands are by far the highest in the sample.
% of sample in each of following groups: Men Dependents No Yes Women Dependents No Yes 33.7 25.3 23.3 7.3 10.4 100% 0 0 0 0 100% 0 0 33.7 22.0 23.8 7.3 13.0 5.5 17.6 20.9 19.8 36.1 37.7 39.2 23.1 Total

Hours per week in paid employment 35 to 40 26.7 21.4 41 to 45 21.9 21.9 46 to 50 24.9 28.8 51 to 55 9.5 10.8 56 or more 17.0 17.1 Hours per week in childcare (those with childcare only) More than 0 but less than 1 100% 7.0 1 to 4 hours 0 23.8 5 to 9 hours 0 25.2 10 to 14 hours 0 21.5 15 or more hours 0 22.5 Hours per week in eldercare (those with eldercare only) More than 0 but less than 1 100% 54.8 1 to 3 hours 0 33.2 4 or more 0 12.0

26.2 22.5 26.4 9.5 15.4 22.6 18.8 20.3 17.6 20.5 69.0 21.8 9.2

Table 4: Distribution of Time Spent in Work and Non-Work Roles

71

One in four spend more than 50 hours a week in work More information on time in work and family activities and can obtained by looking at the distribution of hours spent per week in work, childcare, and eldercare (Table 4). Work expectations appear to be very high for knowledge workers in Australia. Just over one in four of the men in the sample and one in five of the women work more than 50 hours each week. Approximately 20% of the men and 10% of the women in the sample spend more than 56 hours per week in work. It should be noted that hours per week in work are not a good predictor of productivity. They are, however, a good predictor of role overload and physical and mental health problems. There are relatively few differences associated with dependent care status when gender is taken into account (i.e. men compared to men, women to women). This should reassure employers who perceive that parents (especially parents of younger children) cope with increased demands at home by reducing their efforts at work. Women spend more time per week in childcare Time in childcare for women is positively skewed with almost 60% of the mothers in the sample spending more than 10 hours per week in childcare as compared to 44% of the fathers. The following significant gender differences with respect to time in childcare can be observed in the sample: Men are significantly more likely than women to spend between 1 and 9 hours per week in childcare (49% of the male sample falls in this range versus 39% of the female sample). Women are significantly more likely than men to spend more than 15 hors per week in childcare (36% versus 23%). One in four men spend more than 15 hours a week in childcare That being said, it is important to note that one in four of the men in the sample spend substantive time in childcare a week (15+ hours). These men are in the families where childcare is shared and are likely to experience similar levels of worklife conflict as women. These data also support the idea that younger men are assuming increased levels of responsibility for childcare. Most knowledge workers spend relatively little time per week in eldercare Looking at only those knowledge workers who have eldercare responsibilities it is interesting to note that while the majority of knowledge workers in the sample spend relatively little time a week (i.e. less than an hour) in eldercare (likely making phone calls to check up on them) one in ten spend considerable time in eldercare each week. Women are twice as likely as men to spend 4 or more hours a week in eldercare. Men, on the other hand, are more likely than women to spend less than an hour a week in eldercare.
72

Males more likely to have a partner who assumes responsibility for care giving We also asked the respondents to estimate how much time their spouse/partner spend each week in paid employment, childcare and eldercare. These data, which are summarised in Table 5, indicate that many of the men in the sample are married to women who have reduced their work commitments to spend time on family role activities (i.e. wives work part time and spend a significant amount of time in childcare and eldercare). The women in this sample, on the other hand, do not enjoy this kind of support at home. Rather, they appear to be part of a dual-career family where work and non-work demands are shared fairly evenly in the family. The fact that men have more support at home means that they have fewer restrictions with respect to the number of hours they work. This may help explain their career success in a sector that has traditionally focused on hours at work as a measure of productivity, contribution, loyalty and engagement. Hours/week Partner spends: In paid employment In childcare or activities with children In eldercare Men Dependents No Yes 35.8 28.9 24.9 36.1 5.5 5.6 Women Dependents No Yes 45.6 45.1 1.3 17.3 0.2 4.6

Table 5: Time Spent By Partner/Spouse in Work and Non-Work Demands

5.2 Who is Time Crunched? Exploring Between Group Differences in Demands

The data discussed in this part of the report can be found in Appendix C. Work demands at greatest at the top The data indicate that those holding executive/CEO positions in Australia spend more hours in work per week than their counterparts in managerial or professional positions, regardless of gender or dependent care status. They are also significantly more likely to perform supplemental work from home (virtually everyone at the top levels of the organisation regularly extend their work day) and spend more hours per week in SWAH. The increased time in work does, however, seem to take away from the amount of time they have available for childcare which decreases with level, regardless of gender. Women, regardless of their level have more demands at home Women spend more time per week in childcare and eldercare and less in leisure and career development than their male counterparts, regardless of position or

73

dependent care status. Women with dependent care responsibilities in executive positions within the organisation have the heaviest demands of all. Childcare and eldercare responsibilities are associated with reduced time in work for women at the top Time in work depends on gender, position and dependent care status. Male and female professionals spend the same amount of time each week in paid employment, regardless of dependent care status. Within the managerial sample, on the other hand, knowledge workers without dependent care responsibilities spend more hours in work per week than their counterparts with dependent care, regardless of gender. Within the CEO/executive sample there is no gender difference in time in work for those without dependents. Women in CEO/Executive positions spend fewer hours in work per week than their male counterparts. Female managers, professionals and executives work a second shift at home Women without dependent care look very similar to the men in the sample with respect to the time they have available for career development and leisure. The same cannot be said for the women in the sample with dependent care. These women spend a significant number of hours in work per week and the majority take work home to complete in the evenings. Added to this heavy work responsibly are increased demands at home. These women devote more hours more per week to childcare and eldercare than anyone else in the sample. This time in dependent care takes away from time in leisure and career development activities activities that would help them cope with stress and help their career advancement. This supports our contention that within this sector, having children is a career-limiting move for women. Baby Boomers with dependent care have higher demands Generation Y knowledge workers lower demands Hours in work per week, percent performing SWAH and hours a week in SWAH increases and time in leisure decreases as one goes from the youngest to the oldest generational cohort. Knowledge workers in the Generation Y group spend more hours per week in career development, those in the Generation X group the least. Generation X women with dependent care have very high demands at home In the Generation X group, women spend more hours per week in childcare and eldercare than their male counterparts. No such gender difference is noted in the Baby Boomer group, probably because the children do not require as much care.

74

The women in the sample are, regardless of dependent care status or cohort, married to men who work full-time. With the exception of those in the Generation Y group, the men in the sample are more likely to be married to women who work part-time. Demands are very closely associated with life cycle stage Demands are very closely associated with life cycle stage. For both men and women: Knowledge workers in the sandwich and eldercare groups report the highest number of hours in work per week. This is likely due to the fact that these individuals are older and more senior in terms of level. Knowledge workers in the childcare only group spend more hours a week in childcare than those in the sandwich group. This difference is likely due to the fact that those in the sandwich group tend to have older children. Knowledge workers in the eldercare group spend the same number of hours per week in eldercare as their colleagues in the sandwich group. This suggests that knowledge workers in the sandwich group spend the same amount of time in eldercare as their colleagues without children at home. Those without dependents and those in the eldercare only group spend more hours per week in leisure than their colleagues in the childcare and sandwich groups. This is likely due to fewer demands at home not fewer demands at work. Knowledge workers without any form of dependent care have the fewest demands on their time. Those in the eldercare group also have fewer demands on their time.

Women in the sandwich generation have very high demands Some of the relationships between life cycle stage and demands are associated with gender as can be seen by examining Figure 8. For example: For the female sample, knowledge workers with childcare (i.e. childcare and sandwich) spend more hours in SWAH per week than those without childcare. For the men in the sample the reverse is true as knowledge workers with eldercare spend more hours in SWAH per week than those without. Females in the sandwich and childcare groups spend significantly more hours per week in home-chores. Men in the childcare group, on the other hand, spend more hours in home-chores than those in the other three groups.

75

For the men in the sample, being in the childcare and sandwich groups is equally demanding. For the women in the sample, on the other hand, having responsibility for both childcare and eldercare is very demanding. Childcare, while also demanding, is not as onerous as having duel demands. With one exception, there are no gender differences in home chores when life cycle stage is controlled for. Women in the sandwich generation spend more hours per week in childcare than their male counterparts.

Figure 8: Total Time in Work and Family Per Week by Life Cycle Stage
No Dependents 80 70 56 Childcare Only Sandwich 83 69 Eldercare Only 88 81 59

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Total Hours: Male

Total Hours: Female

5.3 Key Findings

The individuals who responded to this survey (and hence, by extrapolation) are very busy people. The typical knowledge worker in Australia devotes an average of 75.7 hours per week to work and family activities. Not surprisingly, given these demands, they have relatively few hours per week (11) to spend in leisure. Which roles are the most demanding? The least demanding? The picture formed from this data is very clear demands associated with the work role are the most onerous, demands associated with eldercare, the least. Childcare and home-chores for those with dependents at home are also very demanding, but the amount of time knowledge workers commit to these roles pales when compared to the amount of time devoted to work. Work expectations appear to be very high for knowledge workers in Australia. Just over one in four of the men in the sample and one in five of the women work more than 50 hours each week. Approximately 20% of the men and 10% of the women in the sample spend more than 56 hours per week in work. The majority (69%) of knowledge workers in this sector extend their workday and spend time working from home in the evening and on weekends. These knowledge workers spend approximately 6 hours each week performing unpaid overtime.

76

Which group has the highest demands? The answer to this question depends on which demands you are looking at. Men, executives and Baby Boomers have heavier work demands. Knowledge workers with child and/or eldercare, women and men in families where responsibilities are shared have heavier demands at home. Female executives with dependent care, females with dependent care in the Baby Boomer and Generation X groups and females in the sandwich generation report the heaviest demands overall (i.e. work and family combined).

Life cycle stage in particular appears to predict the types of demands an employee will face, with women in the sandwich generation reporting the highest demands of any group examined in this study. Why do the men in the sample have lower demands? The answer is quite simple they are more likely to have a spouse who works part-time and has assumed primary responsibility for tasks at home. These men have fewer restrictions with respect to the number of hours they work. The women in this sample, on the other hand, do not enjoy this kind of support at home. Rather, they appear to be part of a dual-career family where work and non-work demands are shared fairly evenly in the family. This gender difference with respect to family support for career may help explain gender differences in career success in a work environment has traditionally focused on hours at work as a measure of productivity, contribution, loyalty and engagement.

77

Chapter 6: Juggling Work and Family in Work-Life Conflict in Australia

This chapter addresses two questions: How prevalent are the various forms of worklife conflict in Australian workplaces? Which groups are at risk with respect to the various forms of work-life conflict? Prevalence is discussed in part one. The link between demands and conflict is examined in part two. The chapter ends with a summary of the key findings with respect to the work-life balance of knowledge workers in Australia.

6.1 Work-Life Conflict in Australian Organisations

Work-life conflict data for the total sample are given in Figure 9. Figure 9 indicates that conclusions with respect to the incidence of work-life conflict in Australia depend on what form of conflict one is looking at.
Figure 9: Work-Life Conflict: Total Sample
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 % Low % Medium % High

87 78 79

50 42 38 20 Role Overload WIF 33 38 29

42

15 8 FIW

15 7 CS - Em otional

10

CS - Physical

CS - Financial

Almost half (42%) of the knowledge workers in this sample report high levels of role overload (i.e. have too much to do in the amount of time available). While just under one in three (29%) report high levels of work interferes with family (i.e. perceive that the demands they face at work make it very difficult to satisfy their non-work responsibilities), high levels of family interferes with work is relatively rare (only 8% of the sample allow their family demands to interfere with the fulfilment of responsibilities at work). In other words, the data indicate that knowledge workers in Australian organisations are 3.6 times more likely to give priority to their work role than to their family role. High levels of physical (8% high) and emotional (7% high) strain due to eldercare are also rare. Only 3% of the respondents have high levels of caregiver strain that can be attributed to financial issues. This finding is not surprising given the fact that the majority of respondents are relatively well-off financially.
78

Children and elderly dependents make balance problematic Table 6 shows the impact of gender and dependent care on the prevalence of high levels of the various forms of work-life conflict. With one exception (financial caregiver strain) dependent care status is associated with significantly higher levels of work-life conflict for both the men and women in the sample. Compared to their counterparts with no dependent care, men and women with dependent care report significantly higher levels of: role overload (1.3 times higher for both the male and female samples), work interferes with family (1.6 times higher for both the male and female samples), family interferes with work (4 times higher for the female sample and 2 times higher for the male sample), physical caregiver strain (13 times higher for the female sample and 3 times higher for the male sample), and emotional caregiver strain (6 times higher for the female sample and 2.5 times higher for the male sample). % with high levels of: Role Overload Work Interferes with Family Family Interferes with Work Caregiver strain: Physical Caregiver strain: Emotional Caregiver strain: Financial Men Dependents No Yes 32.6 41.6 21.3 32.9 4.8 8.8 2.7 8.3 2.7 6.7 1.7 3.5 Women Dependents No Yes 43.0 56.9 21.5 36.4 3.3 13.4 1.2 13.0 2.3 12.1 1.1 5.5 Total 42.1 29.2 8.0 7.5 6.5 3.3

Table 6: Impact of Gender and Dependent Care Status on Work-life Conflict

Dependent care status is a more important predictor of work-life conflict than gender Women with dependent care responsibilities in particular report very high levels of role overload (57% high) and work interferes with family (37% high). Compared to their male counterparts with dependent care responsibilities women are: 1.4 times more likely to report high levels of role overload 1.7 times more likely to report high levels of family interferes with work 1.5 times more likely than men to report high levels of physical caregiver strain twice as likely as men to report high levels of emotional caregiver strain. Both men and women with dependent care responsibilities are, however, equally at risk when it comes to work interfere with family. These data support the idea that dependent care status is a more important predictor of work-life conflict than gender!

79

6.2 Between Group Differences in Work-Life Conflict

Gender is a more important predictor of role overload and WIF than position Data on the relationship between position and role overload and work interferes with family are shown in Figure10. Two important conclusions can be drawn from these data. First, role overload increases with position for men and women without dependent care and men with dependent care. This relationship is not observed in the women with dependent care sample, 60% of whom experience high levels of role overload regardless of their position. Second, women in executive and managerial positions with child/eldercare report higher levels of work interferes with family than their male counterparts. No such difference was noted for those in the professional sample.
Figure 10: Impact of Position on Role Overload and Work Interferes With Family a: % with high role overload
Male - No D 57 48 42 36 33 40 31 46 43 Male - D Female - No D 57 43 Female - D 59

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

CEO/Executive

Manager

Professional

80

b: % with high work interferes family (WIF)

Male - No D 40 35 29 26 26 30 21 19 Male - D 37 33 21 Female - No D 36 Female - D

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 CEO/Executive

Manager

Professional

Neither family interferes with work nor eldercare strain are associated with position within the organisation. Generation X employees report higher, Generation Y employees lower work-life conflict Given the strong relationship between work-life conflict and gender/dependent care status one needs to take these two factors into account when examining the impact of generational cohort on work-life conflict. The results of such an analysis are shown in Figure 11. These data support the following conclusions. With one exception (work interferes with family) women with child/eldercare report higher levels of work-life conflict than their male counterparts, regardless of generational cohort. Gender was not associated with work-life conflict levels, however, for those knowledge workers who did not have dependent care responsibilities. Men and women in the Generation X cohort with dependent care report significantly higher levels of role overload, work interferes with family and family interferes with work than their counterparts in the Baby Boomer cohort with dependent care. Women with dependent care in the Generation X cohort report extremely high levels of work-life conflict (amongst the highest in the sample). Role overload and family interferes with work are particularly problematic for these women. Generation X men and women with dependent care responsibilities are at higher risk of work interferes with family.

While not shown in the Figure 11, the data in Appendix D indicate that men and women in the Baby Boomer cohort are significantly more likely than their

81

Generation X counterparts to report high physical caregiver strain (16% of the women and 10% of the men in this group report high levels of this form of strain).
Figure 11: Impact of Generational Cohort on Work-life Conflict a: % with high role overload
Male - No D Female - No D Male D
61 54 42 29 39 43 45 33 40

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Female D

Generation Y

Generation X

Baby Boomer

b: % with high work interferes family (WIF)

Male - No D Female - No D
38 27 23 17 19 21

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Male D
41

Female D

32

32

Generation Y

Generation X

Baby Boomer

c: % with high family interferes work (WIF)

Male - No D Female - No D Male D
17 11 7 5 0 3 3 Generation X 4 Baby Boomer 7

20 15 10 5

Female D

10

Generation Y

82

Life cycle stage is an important predictor of work-life conflict The relationship between life cycle stage and work-life conflict is shown in Figure 12. This relationship is the same for both men and women: Those in the sandwich group have the highest levels of role overload, work interferes with family and family interferes with work while those with no dependents have the lowest levels. With respect to the other two groups, knowledge workers with childcare only have higher levels of all three forms of work-life conflict than those with eldercare. Only those with eldercare responsibilities have problems with respect to caregiver strain (9% of the men and 10% of the women in this group report high caregiver strain).

The following gender differences are observed in the data: Women report higher levels of role overload than men, regardless of life cycle stage. Gender is not associated with role interference for those without dependents (both men and women without dependents report low levels of work interferes with family and family interferes with work). Women in the childcare and sandwich groups report higher work interferes with family and family interferes with work than their male counterparts. There are no gender differences in interference in the eldercare only group.

Figure12: Impact of Life Cycle Stage on Role Overload and Work Interferes With Family a: % with high role overload
No Dependents Childcare Sandwich
61 44 40 33 48 42 43

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Eldercare
66

Men

Wom en

83

b: % with high work interferes family (WIF)

No Dependents Childcare Sandwich Eldercare
44 36 33 21 10 0 Male Female 28 22 38 30

50 40 30 20

c: % with high family interferes work (FIW)

No Dependents Childcare Sandwich Eldercare
14 10 5 5 0 Male 8 11 9 7 3 Female

20 15

20

6.3 Key Findings

Conclusions with respect to the prevalence of work-life conflict depend on the type of conflict being considered. Almost half (42%) of the knowledge workers in this sample report high levels of role overload while 29% report high levels of work interferes with family. High levels of family interferes with work and caregiver strain are relatively rare. Conclusions with respect to prevalence of the various forms of work-life conflict also depend on the gender of the knowledge workers, whether or not they have dependent care responsibilities at home, the type of dependent care responsibilities they have (i.e. childcare, eldercare or both) and their position within the organisation. The data from this study indicate that the two most important predictors of work-life conflict are dependent care status and life cycle stage. Regardless of gender, knowledge workers who have dependent care responsibilities, are in the sandwich

84

stage of the life cycle, and are in the Generation X cohort are significantly more likely to report higher levels of all forms of work-life conflict examined in this study. While role overload increases with position for men and women without dependent care and men with dependent care, this relationship is not observed in the women with dependent care sample, 60% of whom experience high levels of role overload regardless of their position. Women in executive and managerial positions with child/eldercare report higher levels of work interferes with family than their male counterparts. No such difference was noted for those in the professional sample.

85

Chapter 7: Report Card on Australian Organisations

This chapter describes the sample with respect to a number of key organisation (commitment, job satisfaction, absenteeism, intent to turnover) and societal (decision to have children) outcomes. It also presents data on the two moderators of work-life conflict explored in this analysis: perceived flexibility and supportive management. The data reviewed in this chapter sets the stage for our discussion of the etiology of work-life conflict in Chapter 8. The following questions are addressed in this chapter: How committed are Australian knowledge workers to their organisation? How satisfied is Australian knowledge workers with their jobs? How often are Australian knowledge workers thinking of leaving their current jobs? How often are Australian knowledge workers absent from work: in total, due to ill health, due to childcare, due to eldercare, due to emotional, mental or physical fatigue? What is the link between work demands and the decision to have children? How much flexibility do knowledge workers in Australia have with respect to when and where they work? How much support do knowledge workers in Australia perceive that they receive from their immediate manager? What is the impact of gender, dependent care status and life cycle stage on each of these outcomes/moderators?16

This chapter is divided into nine parts. Parts one to seven provides a summary of how Australian employers are doing with respect to each of the key outcomes/moderators noted above. Part eight looks at the impact of life cycle stage on the above outcomes and moderators. Key findings as well as relevant conclusions are summarised in part nine.

7.1 Organisational Commitment

Organisational commitment measures an employees loyalty to the organisation. An individual who has high organisational commitment is willing to exert extra effort on behalf of the organisation, and has a strong desire to remain with the organisation (Mowday et al, 1982). Commitment is particularly critical to organisations as it is
16 The impact of position and generational cohort on the outcomes and moderators examined in this analysis is not discussed in this section. The data is however available for the interested reader in Appendix C and D.

86

linked to productivity (those with high commitment tend to work longer hours, work more paid and unpaid overtime) and retention (knowledge workers who are more committed to their employer are less likely to leave the organisation). From the organisations perspective, the greater the proportion of the sample reporting high organisational commitment, the better. What do the data collected in conjunction with this study tell us about the organisational commitment of Australian knowledge workers? Two thirds of Australian knowledge workers committed to their employer Almost two-thirds (63%) of the respondents to this survey are committed to the organisation where they work. Almost one in ten, on the other hand, have very low levels of commitment (see Figure 13).
Figure 2: Key Organisational Outcomes: Total Sample
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
8 Com m itm e nt 8 Job Sa tisfa ction Inte nt to Turnove r 29 38 35 24 63 54 42

% Low % Medium % High

The relationship between commitment and gender/ dependent care status is shown in Table 7. % with high levels of: Organisational commitment Job satisfaction Intent to turnover Men Dependents No Yes 60.7 65.3 56.1 22.7 53.9 22.3 Women Dependents No Yes 55.8 64.9 53.4 28.8 53.8 23.0 Total 62.8 54.3 23.5

Table 7: Impact of Gender and Dependent Care Status on Key Outcomes

87

Knowledge workers with dependent care report higher commitment Knowledge workers with dependent care, regardless of gender, are more likely than those without to report high levels of commitment. Women without dependent care responsibilities report lower levels of commitment than either their male or female counterparts.

7.2 Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is the degree to which an individual feels positively or negatively about various aspects of their job. It represents the personal meaning or perceived quality of ones job and associated work experiences. Of particular relevance to this research is the negative association between work-life conflict and job satisfaction. A number of authors feel that this occurs because the inconveniences and irritations caused by work-family interference (i.e. not being able to segregate or integrate the work and family systems) or role overload (i.e. excessive work and family demands) produce conflicts which spill over into the work domain. Such conflicts make a person too tired, too preoccupied or too stressed to enjoy his/her job. Although work can be a source of satisfaction and self-esteem, it can also foster dissatisfaction, depressed feelings and despair. Research has shown a negative relationship between job satisfaction and work stress, family conflict, role overload, absenteeism, and intent to quit. A positive relationship has been found between job satisfaction and marital satisfaction, life satisfaction, organisational commitment, morale and mental and physical health family conflict. A negative relationship between work-life conflict and job satisfaction has also been reported in the literature. Half of the knowledge workers in this sample satisfied with their jobs Approximately half of the Australian knowledge workers in this sample (54%) were highly satisfied with their jobs. Just over one in three (38%) were moderately satisfied while 8% were dissatisfied (see Figure 13, Table 8). What do Australian knowledge workers like about their jobs? What do they dislike? Data addressing these questions, while not critical to this report, are provided for the interested reader in Tables 8 and 9.

88

% with high levels of satisfaction with: Job in general The sorts of things they do on the job The amount of job security you have The schedule of their work hours Your ability to meet your career goals Training/development offered by organisation The number of hours they work Amount they are paid Your current workload

Men Dependents No Yes 70.6 72.0 66.8 71.6 70.4 62.1 57.2 56.1 52.4 51.0 45.6 67.5 59.1 54.9 53.1 46.9 51.6 38.9

Women Dependents No Yes 64.9 70.4 63.2 71.3 72.5 60.0 53.1 58.3 53.6 48.7 45.2 70.0 56.3 56.5 59.3 47.5 51.6 42.3

Total

70.4 69.3 68.8 59.7 55.4 55.0 59.7 51.0 42.9

Table 8: Which Aspects of Their Jobs do Australian Knowledge workers Find Satisfying?

Knowledge workers love the job itself What do knowledge workers like about their jobs? The majority say that they are satisfied with their job in general, what they do at work, the amount of job security they have, their work schedule, their ability to meet their career goals, the amount of training and development they are offered, the number of hours they work and their pay. Fewer than half, however, are satisfied with their current workload, a finding that is consistent with the hours in work data presented earlier. % with high levels of dissatisfaction with: Your current workload The number of hours they work Amount they are paid Training/development offered by organisation Your ability to meet your career goals The schedule of their work hours Men Dependents No Yes 23.9 29.2 21.8 25.3 22.1 21.2 19.6 20.1 16.2 13.0 18.0 14.0 Women Dependents No Yes 26.1 31.4 21.9 28.3 27.3 25.3 20.2 18.2 22.0 14.3 21.1 19.5 Total

28.4 24.8 22.6 19.5 19.2 14.3

Table 9: Where are improvements needed?

89

One in four are dissatisfied with their workloads

Australian firms need to note that approximately one in four of their knowledge workers are dissatisfied with their workloads, the number of hours they work and the amount they are paid. Furthermore, one in five are dissatisfied with the training and development opportunities they are offered by their organisation, and their ability to meet their career goals. In other words, a substantive number of knowledge workers are dissatisfied with workloads, career development and pay. They do, however, seem to really enjoy the job itself and what they do at work. Knowledge workers with dependent care are more likely to be dissatisfied with work loads Knowledge workers with dependent care, regardless of gender, were more likely than those without dependent care to report high levels of satisfaction with their job in general and the sorts of things they do on the job. They were, however, less likely than those without dependent care to report high levels of satisfaction with the amount of job security they have, the schedule of their work hours, the number of hours they work and their current workload. In fact, these knowledge workers were more likely than those without dependent care to be dissatisfied with the number of hours they work, their current workload, and their ability to meet their career goals. Women with dependent care responsibilities were more likely than any other group to be dissatisfied with the number of hours they work (28% dissatisfied) and the schedule of their working hours (20% dissatisfied). These findings are not surprising given the fact that these women report very high levels of work-life conflict. Women less likely to be satisfied with pay and career development Regardless of dependent care status, the women in the sample were more likely than men to be dissatisfied with the amount they are paid and their ability to meet their career goals. Women with no dependent care responsibilities in particular were dissatisfied with these aspects of their jobs. These data support the idea that there is a glass ceiling for female knowledge workers in Australian firms.

7.3 Intent to turnover

Intent to turnover is defined as an individual's desire to leave an organisation. From the employees' point-of-view, there are three major reasons to leave a job: (1) a better offer elsewhere, (2) a way of coping with undesirable job conditions (i.e. withdrawal), or (3) a poor work-family fit. No matter what the cause, turnover has a number of undesirable implications for organisations including the costs of losing an experienced worker, recruiting and retraining a successor (retraining is estimated to cost 1.5 times the employees annual salary), the lower productivity of a new worker, and secondary morale effects on managers, peers and subordinates.

90

Another set of problems may occur when knowledge workers with high intent to turnover do not leave the organisation. Such people tend to have lower commitment, be more dissatisfied with their jobs and reduce morale in the area in which they work. Many such retire on the job (i.e. do not do their share of the work) which causes workload problems for others in their area. What do we know about the intent to turnover of knowledge workers working in Australia? The answer to this question can be found by examining the data in Figure 14 and Table 9. One in four Australian knowledge workers have high intent to turnover The intent to turnover data indicates that many of the knowledge workers in Australian businesses are not happy with their current place of work. Almost one in four are thinking of leaving their current organisation once a week or more (5% indicate that they are thinking of leaving daily, 6% several times a week or more, and 12% approximately once a week). Fewer than half the sample (43.5%) said that they never think of leaving their current firm). Women without dependent care responsibilities were significantly more likely than any other group to report high levels of intent to turnover.

7.4 Absenteeism
Many organisations use absences from work as a measure of productivity (if workers are not on the job, the work is definitely not being done). While companies expect a certain amount of absenteeism and recognise that some absenteeism is even beneficial to the employee, too much absenteeism can be costly in terms of productivity and is often symptomatic of problems within the workplace. Days absent from work have, for example, been found to be positively associated with an inability to balance work and family demands and stress and negatively associated with loyalty, job satisfaction, and morale. Several types of absenteeism were assessed in this study: (1) absenteeism due to ill health, (2) absenteeism due to family-related problems (i.e. sick child, eldercare), (3) absenteeism due to physical, emotional or mental fatigue (referred to in this document as a mental health day) and (4) total absenteeism (total days off due to ill health, childcare, eldercare and physical and emotional exhaustion). Absenteeism data for the total sample due to each of these causes can be found in Table 11. This table also provides data on absenteeism broken down by gender and dependent care status. What do the data collected in conjunction with this research tell us about absenteeism of knowledge workers within Australian firms? One in five knowledge workers report high levels of absenteeism The majority of knowledge workers in this sample missed at least one day of work in the six months prior to the study being done. Only one in five respondents had a perfect attendance record. A plurality of respondents (39%) missed two to five days

91

of work in a six-month period. Almost one in ten (7%) of the respondents had very high absenteeism (10+ days in a six month period). An additional 13% had high absenteeism (six to nine days in a six month period). Health problems are the main reason knowledge workers give for missing work (57% of the sample missed at least one day of work due to ill health). In the past six months, one in four knowledge workers in this sample missed worked due to childcare issues and one in four took at least one mental health day off work. Perhaps more disturbing is the finding that 15% of the sample have missed two or more days of work due to mental, physical or emotional fatigue in the past six months. Relatively few knowledge workers (14%) missed work to deal with eldercare issues. Women more likely than men to be absent from work Regardless of dependent care status, women were more likely than men to miss work due to health care problems, physical or emotional fatigue and in total. While the number of days off work due to childcare is not associated with gender, women were more likely than men to miss work due to eldercare concerns. Women with dependent care responsibilities were significantly more likely than other knowledge workers to report high levels of absenteeism (27% missed 6 or more days of work in the past six). Women without dependent care were more likely than any other group to miss work due to ill health.

92

Days unable to work in past six months due to: Health Problems No days One day Two to five days Six to nine days Ten plus days No days One day Two to five days Six plus days No days One day Two to five days Six plus days No days One day Two to five days Six plus days No days One day Two to five days Six to nine days Ten plus days

Problems with children

Problems with eldercare

Physical or emotional fatigue (mental health day) Total Absenteeism (all causes)

Men Dependents No Yes 48.0 47.2 16.3 19.0 30.7 28.6 2.7 2.8 2.2 2.5 95.4 60.6 0 18.3 0 19.1 0 2.0 92.2 82.6 0 18.1 0 7.8 0 1.5 78.1 79.4 9.0 8.2 10.1 9.9 2.8 2.5 23.2 19.8 25.0 20.7 35.4 39.1 11.8 12.5 4.6 7.7

Women Dependents No Yes 29.6 36.0 18.1 19.0 42.3 35.8 5.9 4.1 4.1 4.0 98.2 63.6 0 13.4 0 19.5 0 3.3 94.0 76.5 0 10.0 0 10.7 0 2.7 62.6 66.5 17.3 14.1 17.7 15.1 2.5 4.4 19.1 15.3 19.5 16.6 42.7 41.2 14.1 15.1 4.6 11.8

Total

43.2 18.3 32.2 3.5 2.9 74.3 11.4 12.7 1.6 85.5 6.3 6.6 1.6 74.7 10.6 11.9 2.8 19.6 20.6 39.4 13.1 7.3

Table 10: Absenteeism

7.5 The Decision to Have Children

Fertility refers to the actual number of live births in a given period relative to the size of the population (as distinct from the physical ability to reproduce). The fertility rate refers to the number of births per woman per year. The total fertility rate (TFR) is a measure of current fertility.17 According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2006) the total fertility rate in Australia was at its highest point in 1961 at 3.6. Australia's TFR dropped below replacement level (2.1 babies per woman) in 1976. It has remained below replacement level and declined further since then. This means that under current age-specific fertility rates the average number of babies born to a woman throughout her reproductive life would not be sufficient to replace herself and her partner. The TFR in Australia reached 1.8 by 1996. Since then, the TFR in Australia has been relatively stable, varying between 1.7 and 1.8. Australia's fertility rate hit a ten-year high for the year ended 30 June 2005. There were 257,900 births
17

ABS (2006), Year Book Australia, 2006- Fertility (No. 1301.0)

93

registered in the year ended 30 June 2005. For this period, the preliminary total fertility rate was 1.797 babies per woman, the highest rate since 1994-95 (1.841). Unfortunately this still fall-below the TFR needed for replacement of 2.1. Research by ABS (2006) has determined that falling fertility rates can be associated with the following factors: the increasing age of mothers (delaying childbirth), declining family size, childlessness and an inability to balance work and family. The issue of low fertility is a significant problem for employers as countries that fail to address this issue are likely to experience significant labour force shortages. This part of the report looks at the link between declining birth rates and work-life conflict. It does so by looking at the responses given to two questions in the survey: I have had fewer children because of the demands at work, and I have not yet started a family/decided not to have a family because of my career.

As noted in one of Australias Fact Sheets on Fertility,18 delaying child bearing reduces overall fertility in two ways. First, it stretches out each generation, resulting in fewer children overall in a given time period. Second, later commencement of child-bearing is associated with lower individual lifetime total fertility. The current low level of fertility in Australia is related to the fact that marriage and childbirth are occurring at older ages in life than has occurred in the past. The age at which women start to bear children is an important determining factor of overall lifetime size of a family. With fewer reproductive years available, it has been shown that women who start having children later in life tend to have fewer children than those who start having children at younger ages. Delaying childbearing also increases the risk of lifetime childlessness. The trend towards delaying childbearing in Australia is evident in the fact that the median age of for both mothers and fathers has increased constantly over the past two decades. In 1983, the median age of all mothers who gave birth in that year was 26.9 years. By 1993, these had increased to 28.9 years. Ten years later, in 2003, the median age was 30.5 years. Comparative OECD data indicates that the average age of women at first birth in Australia is now amongst the oldest in the world (FaCS, 2001). Decreasing family size as evidenced by the declining number of women who have given birth to three or more children in their lifetime is another factor contributing to low fertility level (ABS, 2006). As most children are born to women aged under 40 years, the number of children already born to women aged in their 40s is a good indication of the number of children they will ever have (ABS, 2006). The proportion of women aged 40-49 years in Australia with three or more children declined from 54% in 1976 to 46% in 1986 and 37% in 1996. Over this period, the proportion of women having only two children increased from 24% in 1976 to 30% in 1986 and
Department of Family and Community Services FaCS sheet (2001) Australias fertility rate: trends and issues, number 9, p.2
18

94

37% in 1996. Similarly, the proportion with one child increased from 8% to 10% over the period (ABS, 2006). The number of women who, whether by choice or circumstance, had not given birth to a child has also increased significantly over the past couple of years. The Census of Population and Housing in Australia recorded in 1996 that 11% of women between the ages of 40-49 had not given birth (ABS, 2006). The proportion of women in Australia aged under 30 years who have not given birth has also increased as women delay childbearing. For instance, of women aged 25-29 years in 1976, 15% had not given birth compared with 40% of women the same age in 1986 and 54% in 1996 (ABS, 2006).
Figure 14: Key Organisational Outcomes: Total Sample
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
8 Com m itm e nt 8 Job Sa tisfa ction Inte nt to Turnove r 29 38 35 24 63 54 42

% Low % Medium % High

Figure 3: Decision to Have Children: Total Sample

Male - No D Male - D Female - No D Female - D 24
19

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
22 25 36

39

9 5 % Ha ve Not Sta rte d Fa m ily % Ha d Fe we r Childre n

Highly educated women in Australia are having fewer children Female knowledge workers in Australia appear to be coping with work-life issues by reducing the demands on the family side (see Figure14). One in four of those in the dependent care group and one in five in the no dependent group have had fewer
95

children because of the demands at work. Even more significant is the fact that just over one in three (36%) of those in the no dependent care group and just under 40% of those in the dependent care group have delayed fertility due to career demands19. It is also interesting to note that approximately one in four of the men in the sample have also delayed the start of their family and put career interests first. These data suggest that attention to work-life issues may be one way for Australia to increase their birth rates (especially in the economically advantaged segment of the population).

7.6 Perceived Flexibility

One of the most problematic aspects of the issue of time is what has been termed schedule incompatibility. Since society makes certain events possible only at certain times, timing becomes important in determining the effects of working hours. Work schedule incompatibility affects members of a family and their ability to spend time together. Conflict is also caused by the clash of an employee's work schedule with events at school and the ability to access necessary services (e.g. doctor, dentist). Work time and work location flexibility have the potential to balance work and family demands by increasing an employees ability to control, predict and absorb change in work and family roles. If the organisation provides flexibility with regards to when and where work is performed, then the employee can select the most efficient hours and locale according to work style, the demands of other family members, and the scheduling of leisure activities. In many organisations, patterns of informal accommodation are evolving as a normal part of the interaction among employees. These informal accommodations are permitted by the employer but are not the result of any formal organisational policy. Instead they are negotiated or provided on a case-by-case basis (typically they depend on who your manager is). Data on perceived flexibility as assessed using the total measure is given in Table 11. % with the following levels of perceived flexibility: Very low flexibility Moderate flexibility High flexibility Men Dependents No Yes 12.6 15.6 38.4 43.4 49.0 41.0 Women Dependents No Yes 15.6 19.5 39.0 42.4 45.4 38.0 Total

15.5 41.5 43.0

Table 11: Perceived Flexibility: Total Sample

Women and those with dependent care like likely to have high levels of perceived flexibility Just over 40% of the knowledge workers in this sample have high levels of flexibility with respect to work hours and work location. 16% have very low levels of flexibility.
19

The women in the dependent care group who are delaying fertility have eldercare but no children.

96

Perceived flexibility is strongly associated with both gender and dependent care. Who is more likely to report high levels of flexibility? Men and women without dependent care responsibilities. Who is less likely to have control over their work hours? Women and men with dependent care. Taken together these data indicate that the knowledge workers who have the greatest need for flexibility at work are the least likely to have access to such flexibility. Examination of the individual items that make up this measure give us an idea of where Australian knowledge workers enjoy relatively high levels of flexibility (Table 12) and where improvements can be made (Table 13). % saying it is easy for them to: Vary your working hours Have meals with your family Take a paid day off work when a child is sick Take time off to attend a course or conference Interrupt your work day for personal/family reasons and then return to work Take your holidays when you want Take a paid day off work when an elderly dependent is sick Spend some of your work day working at home Be home when their children get home from school Total 62.3 60.0 60.0 59.9 56.3 50.5 48.3 32.4 20.7

Table 12: Areas Where Knowledge workers enjoy High Flexibility: Total Sample

% saying it is difficult for them to: Be home when their children get home from school Spend some of your work day working at home Take your holidays when you want Take a paid day off work when an elderly dependent is sick Interrupt your work day for personal/family reasons and then return to work Take time off to attend a course or conference Take a paid day off work when a child is sick Vary your working hours Have meals with your family
Table 13: Areas Where Flexibility Can Be Increased: Total Sample

Total 62.1 49.8 24.9 23.7 20.1 20.0 18.9 18.9 18.9

Knowledge workers in Australia have relatively high work time flexibility Knowledge workers in Australia have relatively high levels of flexibility with respect to varying their work hours, getting home at a reasonable hour so they can eat with their family, taking paid time off work to care for a sick child and/or an elderly dependent, being able to take their holidays when they want and have the ability to interrupt their work day to deal with personal/family issues and then return. Despite

97

this, however, one in five knowledge workers have little control over their work hours (i.e. cannot interrupt their work day and return to work, take time off for a conference, vary their work hours, take paid day-off work to care for sick child, be home in time to have a meal with their family). Knowledge workers in Australia have relatively low work location flexibility The majority of knowledge workers in Australia have little ability to telework and be home when their children get home from school. The inability to telework is interesting given the high amount of work this group performs at home in the evening and on weekends. It would appear that knowledge workers are trusted to do on their own time at home, but not on the organisations time. It is easier to take time off to care for a child than an elderly dependent It is also interesting to note that Australian firms seem to have done more to recognise the need for employees to take paid time off to care for sick children than provide eldercare to a sick dependent (knowledge workers are 1.3 times more likely to say it is easy for them to take paid day-off to care for sick child than to care for an elderly dependent). The challenges with respect to eldercare are further illustrated by noting that almost one in four of the respondents say that they cannot take paid time off to care for an elderly dependent. This is cause for concern given the fact that the Australian population is aging and the number of employed Australians who have elderly care is likely to increase dramatically over the next several decades. One on four cannot take their holidays when they want Also worthy of note is the fact that one in four respondents indicate that they cannot take their holidays when they want. Australian firms will need to address this perception if they want to recruit and retain Generation X and Y knowledge workers in a sellers market for labour. Knowledge workers who need greater flexibility less likely to perceive that they have it Finally, it is interesting to note the impact of gender and dependent care status on the individual items that make us our measure of perceived flexibility. The following observations can be drawn from these data: Knowledge workers with dependent care are significantly less likely to find it easy to engage in all of the activities examined. There were no gender differences in perceived flexibility for those in the no dependent care sample.

98

With two exceptions (paid day-off when child is sick and paid day off when elderly dependent is sick) men in the dependent care sample reported higher levels of perceived flexibility than their female counterparts. Women with dependent care responsibilities were, however, more likely than their male counterparts to perceive that they could take time off to care for a sick child. Respondents without childcare or eldercare were the most likely to feel that they could take a paid day-off to look after a sick child or elderly dependent. This is likely due to the fact that they have never tried to take a paid day off for either of these purposes.

Why do male and female workers with dependent care perceive that they have less flexibility? Since it is unlikely that Australian men and women with dependent care responsibility are overtly discriminated against with respect to the types of flexibility available to them in their firm, we have to look at other possible reasons for the above differences in perceived flexibility. First, it is highly likely that knowledge workers with dependent care responsibilities are more aware of what types of flexibility are actually available (i.e. aware of the differences between policy and practice). Second, it is also possible that the culture of many Australian firms makes it more difficult for knowledge workers with dependent care to vary their work hours and location to respond to issues at home. Organisations have traditionally had a culture of hours for their knowledge workers in that they equate presence at work with commitment, loyalty and productivity. The results may be due to the fact that individuals with child and eldercare in general and women in particular are more sensitive to the impact taking advantage of any of these forms of flexibility would have on their ability to progress in their career. In other words, the fact that men and women without dependent care responsibility report significantly higher levels of flexibility may be attributed to the fact that these individuals are less concerned with the optics of adjusting their work time and their work hours than are their colleagues with children and/or elderly dependents.

7.7 Supportive Managers

Our research has clearly demonstrated that work and family policies are ineffective if supervisors do not support them (see Report 5, Appendix A). While employees want increased work-time and work location flexibility, simply offering flexible work arrangements and family friendly benefits, is not enough. There is a tremendous amount of inequity in organisations today as supervisors act as gatekeepers to many of the benefits offered by the firm. Who you work for within an organisation has become more important than where you work. Employees who work for "supportive" supervisors who trust and respect their employees and who base their decisions on circumstances rather than "the book" report less stress and greater productivity than employees who work for managers who deny their employees any sort of flexibility (even when such arrangements are technically available). Formal policies alone are insufficient to ensure that employed parents are able to satisfy the role demands of work and family. Our research indicates that organisations need to alter the
99

behaviour of their managers and supervisors to facilitate any form of permanent change. They also have to measure progress in these areas and make managers accountable for how they treat their people. In this part of the report we report the percent of Australian knowledge workers who perceive their immediate manager to be supportive. Key data are shown in Table 15 and discussed in below. % with the following levels of support: Low levels of support Mixed levels of support High levels of support Men Dependents No Yes 8.8 9.8 34.6 36.1 56.6 54.1 Women Dependents No Yes 9.6 12.0 35.1 33.2 55.1 54.8 Total 9.9 35.2 54.9

Table 14: Supportive Management: Total Sample

The majority of Australian knowledge workers perceive their manager to be supportive The majority (85%) of the respondents to our survey report to another individual. Women without dependent care are significantly more likely (95%) and men with dependent care (81%) are significantly less likely to report to another individual. These data show that while just over half (55%) of the respondents in this sample report high levels of management support, one in ten report to a non-supportive manager and one in three report to a manager who is inconsistent with respect to his or her management behaviour. Management support is not associated with either gender or dependent care status. What are managers of Australian knowledge workers doing well? What are managers of knowledge workers doing well? To determine this we flagged two groups of behaviours: supportive behaviours experienced by at least 50% of the sample, and non-supportive behaviours which were rarely experienced. These data are summarised in Table 15 and reviewed below.

100

% agreeing that their manager: Is available to answer questions Supports my decisions with clients, upper management Listens to my concerns Gives recognition when I do my job well Shares information with me Asks me for input before making decisions that affect my work Provides me with challenging opportunities % disagreeing that their manager: Puts me down in front of others Makes me feel guilty for time off for personal/family reasons Only talks to me when I make a mistake Focuses on hours of work not output
Table 15: What are managers doing well?

Total 68.6 68.6 66.3 63.9 61.3 57.8 60.0 81.5 72.9 74.1 67.5

Australian managers treat knowledge workers with respect and communicate effectively The data supports the idea that the majority of managers in the Australian firms in this sample treat their knowledge workers with respect, communicate effectively with their them (i.e. listen well, involve them in decision-making, share information with them, provide positive feedback) and provide coaching and mentoring. There were no substantive gender or dependent care differences in these findings. What behaviours do managers of knowledge workers need to improve? What behaviours do managers of knowledge workers need to improve? To determine this we flagged two groups of behaviours: supportive behaviours experienced by less than 50% of the sample, and non-supportive behaviours experienced by at least 20% of the sample. These data are summarised in Table 16 and reviewed below. % disagreeing that their manager: Is effective at planning the work to be done Makes it clear what is expected of me (i.e. good at communicating goals and objectives) Asks me for input before making decisions that affect my work Provides constructive feedback when performance standards not met % agreeing that their manager: Puts in long hours and expects me to do the same Has realistic expectations about how much work can be done in a given time period
Table 16: Where are improvements needed?

Total 27.6 21.8 19.2 19.1

26.3 19.5

101

Managers need to work on planning skills and communication skills The data indicates that a substantive number of managers in these types of organisations have unrealistic expectations around the amount of work that can be done. Their staff do not think that they are effective at planning the work to be done, making expectations clear, seeking employees input in decision-making and providing constructive feedback on performance. They also believe that their manager expects employees to work long hours just because they do. All of these factors have been found to be associated with higher workloads and increased worklife conflict. There were two important differences in these findings that are worthy of note. First, the women with dependent care responsibilities were more likely to than any other group in the sample to perceive that their manager has unrealistic expectations about how much work can be done in a given time period. Similarly the men and women with dependent care in the sample were more likely to agree that their manager puts in long hours and expects me to do the same.

7.8 Impact of Life Cycle Stage on Key Outcomes and Moderators

As noted previously, life cycle stage is strongly associated with both demands and work-life conflict. It is also strongly associated with generational membership. This part of the report explores the association between life cycle stage and the outcomes and moderators included in Figure 1. The data discussed in this chapter can be found in Appendix E. Key outcomes associated with lifecycle stage The relationship between life cycle stage and organisational commitment, job satisfaction and intent to turnover is the same for both men and women. Knowledge workers in the childcare only group report the highest levels of job satisfaction and commitment. Knowledge workers in the sandwich and eldercare groups report the lowest levels of job satisfaction and commitment. Knowledge workers in the eldercare group also report higher levels of intent to turnover. Female knowledge workers with no dependents report the highest levels of intent to turnover (one in three thinking of leaving weekly or more).

Women more likely than men to be absent from work, regardless of life cycle stage Generally speaking women are more likely to be absent from work than men regardless of life cycle stage. That being said, there are no gender difference in

102

absenteeism due to ill health and childcare within the sandwich group. The lack of gender differences in these cases can be attributed to the fact that the women in this group have lower levels of absenteeism due to these causes than do women in other life cycle stage. Why this is the case is hard to determine. It may be that family responsibilities are more likely to be shared in these families. Alternatively it may be that women in these family situations are more likely to purchase supports from outside the home to help them deal with their heavier family demands. Absenteeism due to eldercare is not associated with gender. It is however strongly associated with life cycle stage as only those in the sandwich and elder care stages of the life cycle report significant levels of such absenteeism. Those in the eldercare stage of the life cycle are also significantly more likely to be absent due to physical, emotional or mental fatigue. Women in this life cycle stage in particular report high levels of absenteeism due to fatigue. Knowledge workers in sandwich and childcare stages of life cycle stage more likely to report high absenteeism Finally, it is important to note that men and women in the childcare and sandwich stages of the life cycle are more likely than those without dependents or with eldercare only to report high levels of absenteeism (i.e. 6 + days in past six months). Women more likely than men to reduce fertility as way of dealing with career and work demands In terms of social outcomes, women are more likely than men to indicate that work and career demands have influenced their decision-making around the number of children they plan to have as well as when to have children (if they plan on having children at all). Support for eldercare may increase fertility in Australia That being said, one in five of the men in the sample with no dependents and one in four of the men in the eldercare group said that they have delayed having children because of the demands of their careers. For comparison purposes, 34% of the women without dependents and 40% of the women with eldercare also agree that they have pursued this strategy. This suggests that support for eldercare may increase fertility in Australia. Times have changed For the men in the sample, as well as the older women, decision-making around how many children to have does not appear to have been related to circumstances at work. On the other hand, with one exception (older women with eldercare) one in four of the women in the childcare only sample and 28% of the women in the sandwich group indicated that the demands they face at work have contributed to their decision to have fewer children. In other words, they attempt to reduce work103

family conflict by reducing demands at the family end. This appears to be a relatively new coping strategy. Knowledge workers in the sandwich group have very low levels of flexibility Men and women with no dependents are more likely than those with in the other three life cycle stages to perceive that they have high levels of flexibility. The men and women in the Sandwich group, on the other hand, report significantly lower levels of flexibility (38% of the men in this group and 34% of the women report high flexibility). These data point out that knowledge workers with higher requirements for flexibility (i.e. those with more demands at home) are more likely to encounter situations where they cannot get the flexibility that they need to manage demands outside of work. Those with less of a need for flexibility, on the other hand, perhaps have an overly optimistic opinion of what is possible. There are no gender differences in perceived flexibility in the Sandwich and Childcare groups (both have very low levels of flexibility). Men with no dependent care and men with elder care report higher levels of perceived flexibility than their female counterparts. These findings are consistent with the work-life conflict data presented earlier. Less support available for knowledge workers with eldercare Men and women in the no dependents and childcare groups are more likely to perceive that their managers are supportive than are men and women in the sandwich and eldercare groups. Again, this suggests that support is more likely when an employee has either no responsibilities outside of work, or when they have children at home that require care. Knowledge workers with either heavier demands (i.e. both childcare and eldercare) or with eldercare demands do not, however, perceive the same levels of support perhaps because they require more support or different, non-traditional forms of support. It may be that support for eldercare is not well understood and supported within the organisational context as such demands have only recently become an issue (i.e. this is the first group of workers who do not have a spouse at home to deal with eldercare and longevity has only recently made this an issue). Childcare, on the other hand, has been a source of concern since the 1970s when women entered the work force in larger numbers.

7.9 Key Findings

The data collected for this study suggest that many Australian firms will not be competitive with respect to attracting and retaining knowledge workers in a much more competitive labour market. Consider the following. Just under two-thirds (63%) of the respondents are committed to the organisation where they work. Almost one in ten, on the other hand, have very low levels of commitment.

104

Only half (54%) of the Australian knowledge workers in this sample are highly satisfied with their jobs. Just over one in three (38%) are moderately satisfied while 8% are dissatisfied. A substantive number of the knowledge workers in this sample are dissatisfied with workloads, career development and pay. Almost one in four of the managerial and knowledge workers in this sample are thinking of leaving their current organisation once a week or more (5% indicate that they are thinking of leaving daily, 6% several times a week or more, and 12% approximately once a week). Fewer than half the sample (43.5%) said that they never think of leaving their current firm).

Knowledge workers with dependent care, regardless of gender, are more likely than those without to report high levels of commitment and are very satisfied with their job in general and the sorts of things they do on the job. They also report lower levels of intent to turnover. The data on absenteeism suggests that heavy workloads and higher levels of worklife conflict may be taking their toll on Australias professional workforce The majority of knowledge workers in this sample missed at least one day of work in the six months prior to the study being done. Only one in five respondents had a perfect attendance record. Health problems are the main reason knowledge workers give for missing work (57% of the sample missed at least one day of work due to ill health). In the past six months, one in four knowledge workers in this sample missed worked due to childcare issues and one in four took at least one mental health day off work. Employers should also note that 15% of respondents missed two or more days of work due to mental, physical or emotional fatigue in six months prior to the study being done. High levels of absenteeism due to mental and emotional fatigue are often the precursor to episodes of burnout. While relatively few knowledge workers (14%) missed work to deal with eldercare issues this may have as much to do with the fact that organisations in Australia appear to make it difficult for knowledge workers to take time off to deal with these types of issues as it does to a lack of difficulties in this area. This research also supports a link between lower fertility rates and work-life issues. Our findings indicate that a significant number of socio-economically advantaged men and women in Australia are reducing their family size as a way to cope with career and work demands. Female knowledge workers in Australia, in particular, appear to be coping with work-life issues by reducing the demands on the family side. These data imply that attention to work-life issues may be one way for Australia to increase their birth rates (especially in the economically advantaged segment of the population). Flexibility with respect to work hours and location helps knowledge workers balance work and life and is a powerful recruitment and retention tool. Unfortunately only 40% the knowledge workers in this sample have high levels of flexibility with respect to work hours and work location. 16% have very low levels of flexibility.

105

It is said that employees do not work for an organisation they work for their immediate manager. While just over half (55%) of the respondents in this sample perceive high levels of management support, one in ten report to a non-supportive manager and one in three report to a manager who is inconsistent with respect to his or her management behaviour. The data indicate that many Australian firms may have problems recruiting and retaining female knowledge workers in a more competitive labour market, regardless of whether or not they have child/eldercare. Consider the following. First, the women with dependent care responsibilities in our sample were more likely than any other group to be dissatisfied with the number of hours they work (28% dissatisfied) and the schedule of their working hours (20% dissatisfied). They were also more likely to perceive that their manager has unrealistic expectations about how much work can be done in a given time period and expects them to work long hours simply because they do. They have lower levels of flexibility and were more likely than anyone else to report high levels of absenteeism (27% missed 6 or more days of work in the past six) and to miss work due to eldercare concerns. Their findings are consistent with the fact that these women report very high levels of work-life conflict. Second, the female knowledge workers without children in this sample report the lowest levels of commitment and job satisfaction in the sample and are significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with their pay and their ability to advance in their careers. They also report the highest levels of intent to turnover and are more likely to take a mental health day off work. These women are also more likely to say that they have delayed having children because of the demands of their career. Taken together, these findings support our contention that there is a glass ceiling in many Australian firms.

106

Chapter 8: Understanding Work-life Conflict and How To Reduce It

This chapter provides answers to three important questions: What is the link between demands at work and at home and work-life conflict? Why should organisations and society care about the various forms of work-life conflict? What can organisations do to reduce work-life conflict in their managerial and professional work force? This chapter provides answers at each of these questions in the context of the data collected for this study. This chapter is divided into four main parts. Part one looks at work and non-work demands. Included in this chapter is a discussion of the association between demands and the four forms of work-life conflict. The second part addresses question two why should organisations and society care about work-life conflict? Part three examines the extent to which supportive management and higher perceptions of flexibility are associated with lower levels of work-life conflict. The chapter ends with a summary of key findings with respect to these three important issues. The correlation data referred to in this part of the report are included in Appendix G.

8.1 The Relationship Between Work-life Conflict and Demands

Employees have multiple obligations and responsibilities to others, both at work (i.e. to their employer, their superior, their colleagues, their subordinates) and outside of work (i.e. to their spouse, their children, their parents, their friends, their community) that are likely to impact their levels of work-life conflict. Within the work-family literature, in fact, a major assumption is that work demands (often conceptualised as work hours) interfere directly with family life and vice-versa. What do our data say about the link between the demands an employee faces at work and at home and work-life conflict? Higher work demands associated with increased overload and work interferes with family As noted earlier in the report, work demands appear to be very high for knowledge workers in Australia. Just over one in four men in the sample and one in five women work more than 50 hours each week. Approximately 20% of the men and 10% of the women in the sample spend more than 56 hours per week in work. The majority (69%) of knowledge workers in this sector extend their workday and spend time working from home in the evening and on weekends. These knowledge workers spend approximately six hours each week performing unpaid overtime. What are the consequences of these long work hours in work? The data from this study point to a very strong association between work demands and increased levels of work interferes with family and role overload and lower levels of job satisfaction (due largely to dissatisfaction with workload and hours at work). Longer hours in
107

work are also associated with higher levels of family interferes with work, lower levels of organisation commitment, and an increased likelihood that the knowledge workers will delay starting their family because of demands at work. Who is more likely to work long hours? Who is more likely to perform SWAH? Four groups of individuals are implicated from our analysis. Group one includes knowledge workers who work for a non-supportive manager (focuses on hours not output, works long hours and expects employees to do the same) and have lower levels of perceived flexibility (i.e. little control over when and where they work). This group is probably performing SWAH because they have to. Group two is made up of individuals who are highly committed to their organisation. This group probably work long hours because they care about the success of the organisation. The third group includes individuals with high demands with respect to eldercare. This group is likely taking work home to complete in the evenings to cope with inflexible demands outside of work. Group four includes knowledge workers who are spending time in career development activities (i.e. taking courses, attending conferences). This group is made up of younger knowledge workers in the full nest stage of the lifecycle (i.e. have childcare and/or eldercare) and unmarried knowledge workers with fewer personal demands on their time. In both cases, however, increased time in education is accompanied by increased time in SWAH, perhaps because they are attending school during regular work hours. Role overload and work interferes with family has little to do with demands at home Neither role overload nor work interferes with family, the two most prevalence forms of work-life conflict in our study, are related to any of the non-work demands included in our study. In other words, role overload and work interferes with family are due to heavy demands at work and the tendency to bring work home to complete in the evening, not time in childcare, eldercare or home chores. Family interferes with work associated with demands at home Family interferes with work has more to do with demands at home than at work. The data shows that this form of work-life conflict is more likely to occur in knowledge workers who have dependent care responsibilities and more to do at home (i.e. significantly associated with hours per week in childcare, eldercare and home chores). The higher the family demands, the more likely the individual is to perceive that their family interferes with their ability to meet work expectations. Knowledge workers with young children cannot do it all Examination of the variables that correlate with time spent in childcare give us additional information on how knowledge workers in Australia try and combine being a parent with work. Time spent in childcare is positively associated with family interferes with work (+.16), hours per week in eldercare (+.17), hours per week in
108

career development (+.10), Total Absenteeism (+.10) and hours per week in SWAH (-.09). These knowledge workers tend to be younger and many are in the sandwich generation (i.e. have childcare and eldercare). Despite the fact that these people are more likely to have heavier demands at home (i.e. spend more hours per week in childcare and eldercare) they are also more likely to be seeking career advancement (data not shown) and spend time each week in career development activities to increase the chances of success in this regard. The data suggests that these strategies may perhaps backfire as these knowledge workers also have fewer hours to spend in SWAH and are more likely to be absent from work. Knowledge workers with eldercare responsibilities at risk of caregiver strain Work demands have virtually no association with caregiver strain. In fact this form of work-life conflict has strong associations with only one demand hours per week spent in eldercare. The data from this study suggest that there are two groups of knowledge workers who spend a lot of time in eldercare: older knowledge workers (who cope with their eldercare by increasing the amount of work they bring home to complete) and those in the sandwich group. The consequence of higher eldercare demands is similar for knowledge workers in both groups: higher levels of caregiver strain, family interferes with work and absenteeism. Increased demands at work and home mean less time for leisure Not surprisingly, employees who work long hours and bring work home to complete in the evening have less time for leisure. These employees tend to work for a nonsupportive manager and have lower levels of perceived flexibility. They also have more problems balancing work and family (i.e. report higher levels of role overload, work interferes with family and family interferes with work) and are less satisfied with their jobs.

8.2 And So What? The Relationship Between Work-life Conflict and Outcomes
What will likely happen if Australian organisations and governments do not deal with the issue of work-life conflict? What are the ramifications of high levels of role overload, work interferes with family, family interferes with work and caregiver strain on Australias ability to compete globally? This part of the report explores this issue by examining the link between work-life conflict and a number of key organisational (i.e. commitment, job satisfaction, intent to turnover, absenteeism) and societal (fertility) outcomes. Who is likely to reduce their family size? delay starting a family? Examination of the data in Appendix G support the idea that an inability to balance work and life and heavy demands at work are contributing to lower levels of fertility in Australia. Who is reducing their fertility? Overloaded individuals with elder care

109

issues who are spending longer hours at work and whose work interferes with their personal life. These individuals are more likely to work for a non-supportive manager and have very low work time and work location flexibility. They report lower levels of job satisfaction (attributable do their dissatisfaction around their work schedule and their hours of work) and higher levels of absenteeism. Knowledge workers who have children but have decided not to have more because of demands at work (these knowledge workers already have very high levels of work-life conflict) also report high levels of family interferes with work and lower levels of commitment. What is the impact of high role overload on the organisation and Australian Society? This study determined that 42% of Australian knowledge workers report high levels of role overload. Furthermore, it identified the following groups of knowledge workers as being at risk with respect to this form of work-life conflict: females in the sandwich stage of the lifecycle (66% high), females with childcare responsibilities (61% high), females with dependent care responsibilities (57% high), men in the sandwich stage of the life cycle (44% high) and men with dependent care (43% high). The question then becomes: What impact does high role overload have on key organisational outcomes and the fertility of knowledge workers in Australia? Higher levels of role overload will negatively impact the organisations bottom line The data indicate that role overload is negatively20 associated with organisational commitment and job satisfaction and positively associated with intent to turnover, total absenteeism, absence due to emotional fatigue and absence due to ill health. These relationships are shown in Figure 16.

A negative association means that as the levels of work-life conflict increase, the levels of the outcome decrease (i.e. as overload increases, commitment decreases). A positive association, on the other hand, means that as the levels of work-life conflict increase, so do the levels of the organisational outcomes (i.e. as overload increases, so does absenteeism).

20

110

Figure 16: Impact of High Overload on Key Organisational Outcomes a. Commitment, Job Satisfaction, High Absenteeism (6 or more days in 6 months)
Low Overload

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
% High Com m itm ent % High Job Satisfaction

79 71 64 58 61 54

Moderate Overload High Overload

13

17

26

% High Absence

b.

Absenteeism due to Mental, Emotional or Physical Fatigue and Poor Health

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Low Overload Moderate Overload High Overload

50

56

67

36 13 22
% w ith > 1 day off w ork: Poor Health

% w ith > 1 day off w ork: Mental Health

Compared to their counterparts with low levels of role overload, knowledge workers with high role overload are: 2.8 times more likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue, 2.7 times more likely to have high intent to turnover, Twice as like to report high levels of absenteeism (missed 6 or more days in six month period), 1.3 times more likely to be absent from work due to ill health, 1.5 times less likely to be satisfied with their jobs, 1.3 times less likely to be committed to the organisation.

Higher role overload associated with smaller family size The data from this study is very clear the higher the overload, the more likely a knowledge worker is to agree that they have not started a family because of career
111

demands (+.33) and they have had fewer children because of the demands at work (+.31). Compared to their counterparts with low levels of role overload, knowledge workers with high role overload are: 4.5 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work, 2.6 times more likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands.

These relationships are shown in Figure 17. They suggest that one way to increase fertility rates within Australia is to reduce workloads at the organisational level.
Figure 4: Impact of High Overload on The Decision to Have Children
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Low Overload 44 Moderate Overload High Overload 24 17 4 Not started family because of work 7 18

Reduced family size because of work

What is the impact of high work interferes with family on the organisation? This study determined that 29% of Australian knowledge workers report high levels of work interferes with family. We also identified the following groups of knowledge workers as being at risk with respect to this form of work-life conflict: females in the sandwich stage of the lifecycle (44% high), females with childcare responsibilities (38% high), females with dependent care responsibilities (36% high), men in the sandwich stage of the life cycle (36% high) and men with dependent care (33% high). The question then becomes: What impact does high work interferes with family have on key organisational outcomes and fertility of knowledge workers in Australia? Knowledge workers with high work interferes with family are more likely to be absent from work The impact of work interferes with family is very similar to that observed with role overload. Work interferes with family is negatively associated with organisational commitment and job satisfaction and positively associated with intent to turnover,

112

total absenteeism and absence due to emotional fatigue. These relationships are shown in Figure 18.
Figure 5: Impact of High Work Interferes with Family on Key Organisational Outcomes
Low Work Interferes Fam ily M oderate Work Interferes Fam ily High Work Interferes Fam ily

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 71 61 56

77

53 36 30 16 20 25 26 16
% > 1 Day Off Work: M ental Health

% High Com m itm ent

% High Job Satisfaction

% High Absenteeism

Compared to their counterparts with low levels of work interferes with family, knowledge workers with high work interferes with family are: 2.8 times more likely to have high intent to turnover, 2.3 times more likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue, 1.6 times more likely to report high levels of absenteeism (missed 6 or more days in six month period), 2.6 times less likely to be satisfied with their jobs, 1.3 times less likely to be committed to the organisation.

These data support the following conclusion - higher levels of work interferes with family are likely to negatively impact the organisations bottom line. The strong association between this form of work-life conflict and job satisfaction in particular is worthy of note. Closer examination of the data indicates that this finding is largely due to the fact that people with high levels of work interferes with family have substantially lower levels of flexibility with respect to when and where they work and are significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with their work schedules and their workloads. Higher work interferes with family associated with a reduction in family size The link between work interferes with family and decision-making with respect to having children is virtually the same as that observed with role overload - the higher the interfere from work to family, the more likely a knowledge workers is to agree that they have not started a family because of career demands (+.43) and they
113

have had fewer children because of the demands at work (+.39). Compared to their counterparts with low levels of work interferes with family, knowledge workers with high levels of this form of interference are: 5.5 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work, 4 times more likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands.

These relationships are shown in Figure 19.

Figure 6: Impact of High Work Interferes with Family on The Decision to Have Children
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 14 Not started family because of work 4 8 30 22 55 Low Work Interferes with Family Moderate Work Interferes with Family High Work Interferes with Family

Reduced family size because of work

These data suggest that one way to increase fertility is to reduce the extent to which work intrudes on family time. Ways in which this could be accomplished are discussed later in this report. What are the impacts of high family interferes with work and caregiver strain on the organisation? Only 8% of the knowledge workers in this sample report high levels of family interferes with work; approximately the same percentage who experience high levels of physical and emotion caregiver strain on a daily basis. Women in the sandwich generation (20% high) women with childcare (14% high) and men with dependent care (9% high) are more likely to experience higher levels of family interferes with work. Female Baby Boomers, on the other hand, are more likely to report higher levels of physical (16% high) and emotional (13% high) levels of caregiver strain. What impact do these high levels of family interferes with work and caregiver strain have on key organisational outcomes and fertility of knowledge workers in Australia?

114

Knowledge workers with high levels of family interferes with work and caregiver strain are more likely to be absent from work The data indicate that the mechanism through which these two forms of work-family conflict impact the organisation is different from what was observed with respect to role overload and work interferes with family. Neither family interferes with work nor caregiver strain are associated with commitment. Both of these forms of work-life conflict are, however, strongly associated with job satisfaction, intent to turnover and absenteeism. Compared to their counterparts with low levels of family interferes with work, knowledge workers with high levels of family interferes with work are: 2.5 times more likely to have missed 3 or more days of work in the past six months due to childcare problems, twice as likely to report high intent to turnover, twice as likely to have missed six or more days of work in the past six months (all causes combined), twice as likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue, and half as likely to be satisfied with their jobs.

Compared to their counterparts with low levels of caregiver strain, knowledge workers with high levels of caregiver strain are: 4 times more likely to have missed work due to eldercare problems, 1.8 times more likely to have missed six or more days of work in the past six months (all causes combined), and 1.5 times less likely to report high levels of job satisfaction.

It is interesting to note that these higher levels of absenteeism and lower levels of job satisfaction were observed for both physical and emotional caregiver strain. These relationships are shown in Figures 20 and 21.

115

Figure 7: Impact of High Family Interferes with Work on Key Organisational Outcomes
Low Fam ily Interferes Work M oderate Fam ily Interferes Work High Fam ily Interferes Work

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 32
% High Job Satisfaction

66

49 45 22 38 18 20
% > 1 Day Off Work: M ental Health

38 28 21

32

% High Absenteeism

% > 1 Day Off Work: Childcare

Figure 8: Impact of High Caregiver Strain on Key Organisational Outcomes a. Physical Caregiver Strain (PCS)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0
% High Job Satisfaction

Low PCS M oderate PCS High PCS

56 45 37 20

53

36 26 13
% High Absenteeism

34

% >1 Day Off Work: Eldercare

116

b.

Emotional Caregiver Strain (ECS)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0
% High Job Satisfaction

Low ECS M oderate ECS High ECS

56 44

51

35 34 20 27 14

33

% High Absenteeism

% >1 Day Off Work: Eldercare

In other words, family interferes with work and caregiver strain are highly associated with increased absenteeism. The etiology of this absenteeism does, however, appear to be different between these two forms of work-life conflict. Those with high family interferes with work appear more likely to miss work due to issues with respect to childcare. Those with higher levels of caregiver strain, on the other hand, are more likely to miss work due to eldercare issues. The strong link between these two forms of work-life conflict and absence from work provides a strong incentive for organisations to help employees balance work and family demands. Higher family interferes with work associated with a reduction in family size Caregiver strain has little to do with the decision to have children. Neither physical caregiver strain nor emotional caregiver strain are significantly associated with decision-making with respect to how many children to have. Physical caregiver strain also has little to no impact on the decision when to have children. Family interferes with work, on the other hand, is linked to both these decisions as follows: Compared to their counterparts with low levels of family interferes with work, knowledge workers with high levels of this form of interference are: 11 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work, Twice as likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands.

Compared to their counterparts with low levels of emotional caregiver strain, knowledge workers with high levels of this form of caregiver strain are 2.6 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work. These relationships are shown in Figure 22.
117

Figure 9: Impact of High Family Interferes with Work and Caregiver Strain on The Decision to Have Children
Low Family Interferes Work 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5 Not started family because of work Reduced family size because of work 26 13 36 55 Moderate Family Interferes Work High Family Interferes Work

55

a.

Family Interferes with Work

Low ECS Moderate ECS High ECS 55 38 21

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Not started family because of work

b.

Emotional Caregiver Strain (ECS)

These findings are consistent with the fact that knowledge workers in the sandwich and childcare groups of the life cycle experience very high levels of caregiver strain while female Baby Boomers with dependent care are at high risk of emotional caregiver strain. The women in both of these groups already have children - and as such, the strategy to delay starting a family is not viable. They can, however, (and do) decide not to have any additional children. This would suggest that reducing in family interferes with work and emotional caregiver strain may lead to larger families and hence increased fertility rates.

8.3 What Can the Organisation Do To Reduce Work-Life Conflict?

As noted earlier, this study examines two possible moderators of work-life conflict: perceived flexibility and supportive management.

118

What is the relationship between higher levels of perceived flexibility and work-life conflict? Data dealing with this issue are summarised in Appendix G and discussed in the section below. Increases in perceived flexibility benefits employees, employers and Australian society Just over 40% of knowledge workers in this sample have high levels of flexibility with respect to work hours and work location. 16% have very low levels of flexibility. Perversely, the individuals in the sample with the highest need for flexibility at work (men and women with dependent care responsibilities) are the ones who are least likely to have such flexibility. What are the implications of these findings? The findings from this research are unequivocal increases in perceived flexibility benefit employees, employers and Australian society. At the individual end, three of the four forms of work-life conflict examined in this study decrease concomitant with increased levels of flexibility. Compared to their colleagues with low levels of perceived flexibility, employees with high levels of flexibility are: 1.7 times more likely to report low levels of role overload, 3.3 times more likely to report low levels of work interferes with family, 2.5 times more likely to report low levels of family interferes with work.

Alternatively, compared to their colleagues with high levels of perceived flexibility, employees with low levels of perceived flexibility are: 5 times more likely to report high levels of role overload, 10 times more likely to report high levels of work interferes with family, 3.8 times more likely to report high levels of family interferes with work.

These relationships are shown in Figure 23.

119

Figure 10: Relationship Between Work-Life Conflict and Perceived Flexibility/Supportive Management a. Role Overload

100 80 60 40 20 0 % w ith supportive m anager % w ith high flexibility 60 57 45 90 76 52 4

Low Overload Moderate Overload High Overload

20

% w ith low flexibility

b.

Work Interferes with Family

Low Work Interferes Fam ily 66 53 42 40 20 4 % w ith supportive m anager % w ith high flexibility 12 38 Moderate Work Interferes Fam ily High Work Interferes Fam ily

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 67

% w ith low flexibility

c.

Family Interferes with Work

Low Fam ily Interferes Work Moderate Fam ily Interferes Work 79 55 47 45 33 22 % w ith supportive m anager % w ith high flexibility 19 9 % w ith low flexibility 34 High Fam ily Interferes Work

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

This decline in work-life conflict may be partly due to the fact that knowledge workers with higher levels of perceived flexibility spend less time commuting to and from work each week, more time in leisure and work for a more supportive manager. Knowledge workers with higher levels of flexibility are equally likely as their peers with low flexibility to spend time outside of work hours working at home

120

and are no more likely to be absent from work. In other words, there is no indication that knowledge workers abuse higher levels of flexibility. What benefits do higher levels of flexibility have at the organisational end? Knowledge workers with higher levels of flexibility are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs (+.51) and committed to the organisation (+.29) factors that are critically important in a sellers market for labour. Australian society also is likely to benefit from increased flexibility at work as knowledge workers with higher levels of flexibility are less likely to delay starting a family because of career demands (-.26) and less likely to reduce their family size because of demands at work (-.23). Perceived flexibility does not, however, appear to help knowledge workers deal with caregiver strain. Supportive management key to addressing issues of work-life balance Previously we observed that while just over half (55%) of the respondents in this sample report high levels of management support, one in ten report to a nonsupportive manager and one in three report to a manager who is inconsistent with respect to his or her management behaviour. Management support is not associated with either gender or dependent care status. What implications does this variation have in terms of the outcomes being examined in this study? Employees who work for a supportive manager are more likely than their counterparts with lower levels of support to enjoy high levels of flexibility at work and increased levels of work-life balance. Compared to their colleagues with a nonsupportive or mixed manager those with supportive managers are 1.3 times less likely to report high levels of role overload, 1.6 times less likely to report high levels of work interferes with family, and 1.7 times less likely to report high levels of family interferes with work. Also important to note is the fact that employees with supportive managers are less likely to be absent from work (-.10), more committed to the organisation (+.52) and satisfied with their jobs (+.56). It should be acknowledged that these associations can be explained in two ways. First, it is possible that employees with supportive managers work fewer hours and as such report lower levels of work-life conflict. Second, the findings could support the idea that supportive management makes it easier for employees to cope with the demands that they do have. The fact that hours per week in work or hours per week in SWAH is not associated with management support lends credence to the second interpretation of the data and reinforces our contention that employees who work for a supportive manager are more able to cope with work-life conflict that employees who do not. It would appear then, that supportive management offers a win-win situation for both employers and employees.

121

8.4 Key Findings

The data from this study support the following conclusions with respect to the relationship between demands and work-life conflict. People with higher work demands are more likely to report higher levels of role overload and work interferes with family and lower levels of job satisfaction and organisation commitment. Neither role overload nor work interferes with family are related to any of the non-work demands included in our study. Role overload and work interferes with family are due to heavy demands at work and the tendency to bring work home to complete in the evening not time in childcare, eldercare or home chores. People with higher family interferes with work are significantly more likely to spend more time each week in childcare, eldercare and home chores. The higher the family demands, the more likely the individual is to perceive that their family interferes with their ability to meet work expectations. Family interferes with work has more to do with demands at home than at work. Work demands have virtually no association with caregiver strain. In fact this form of work-life conflict has strong associations with only one demand hours per week spent in eldercare. There seems to be two groups of knowledge workers who spend a lot of time in eldercare: older knowledge workers (those who cope with their eldercare by increasing the amount of work they bring home to complete) and those in the sandwich group.

What is the impact of high levels of work-life conflict? This study determined that the impact depends on the form of work-life conflict being examined. Compared to their counterparts with low levels of role overload, knowledge workers with high role overload are:

4.5 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work, 2.6 times more likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands, 2.8 times more likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue, 2.7 times more likely to have high intent to turnover, Twice as like to report high levels of absenteeism (missed 6 or more days in six month period), 1.3 times more likely to be absent from work due to ill health, 1.5 times less likely to be satisfied with their jobs, 1.3 times less likely to be committed to the organisation.

In other words, higher levels of role overload are likely to negatively impact the organisations bottom line and fertility rates in Australia.

122

Compared to their counterparts with low levels of work interferes with family, knowledge workers with high work interferes with family are: times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work, 4 times more likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands, 2.8 times more likely to have high intent to turnover, 2.3 times more likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue, 1.6 times more likely to report high levels of absenteeism (missed 6 or more days in six month period), 2.6 times less likely to be satisfied with their jobs, 1.3 times less likely to be committed to the organisation.

In other words, higher levels of work interferes with family are likely to negatively impact the organisations bottom line, make it harder for firms to retrain key knowledge workers, and for governments to increase fertility rates. Compared to their counterparts with low levels of family interferes with work, knowledge workers with high levels of family interferes with work are: 11 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work, 2.5 times more likely to have missed 3 or more days of work in the past six months due to childcare problems, twice as likely to report high intent to turnover, twice as likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands, twice as likely to have missed six or more days of work in the past six months (all causes combined), twice as likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue, and half as likely to be satisfied with their jobs,

Compared to their counterparts with low levels of caregiver strain, knowledge workers with high levels of caregiver strain are: 4 times more likely to have missed work due to eldercare problems, 1.8 times more likely to have missed six or more days of work in the past six months (all causes combined), and 1.5 times less likely to report high levels of job satisfaction.

In other words, family interferes with work and caregiver strain are highly associated with increased absenteeism. This study examines two possible ways in which organisations can help employees cope with work-life conflict: perceived flexibility and supportive management. The
123

findings from this research are unequivocal increases in perceived flexibility benefit employees, employers and Australian society. Compared to their colleagues with low levels of perceived flexibility, knowledge workers with high levels of flexibility are: 1.7 times more likely to report low levels of role overload, 3.3 times more likely to report low levels of work interferes with family, 2.5 times more likely to report low levels of family interferes with work.

Knowledge workers with higher levels of flexibility are also less likely to delay starting a family because of career demands and to reduce their family size because of demands at work and more likely to be satisfied with their jobs (+.51) and committed to the organisation (+.29) factors that are critically important in a sellers market for labour. The data also indicate that increasing the number of supportive managers within the organisation is key to addressing issues of work-life balance. Knowledge workers who work for a supportive manager are more likely than their counterparts with lower levels of support to enjoy high levels of flexibility at work and increased levels of work-life balance. These knowledge workers are also less likely to be absent from work (-.10), more committed to the organisation (+.52) and satisfied with their jobs (+.56). Hours per week in work is not, however, associated with management support. It would appear then, that supportive management offers a win-win situation for both employers and employees.

124

Chapter 9: Work-Life Balance and The Decision to Work Part-time

In Australia many mothers work part time when their children are young. According to the ABS21 in 2003 36.6% of couple families with dependents under 15 were in a situation where one parent worked full time, the other part time. This same year, in 31% of families one parent was employed full-time, one part time while in 20% of cases both parents were employed full-time. In most couple families with dependent children where only one parent was employed, the employed parent was the father in 89% of cases22. According to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (2005) in Australia 2003 in Australia, 35.5 per cent of all mothers were employed part time, 25.1 per cent were employed full time and just under 40 per cent not employed. This is very different from Canada, for example, where in most cases both parents of young children are in the labour force23. In fact, Australia has the second highest participation of part-time workers in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The 2005 report Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission report notes that the many of these women work part-time in order to combine motherhood and paid work. In other words, to achieve a higher level of work-life balance. This chapter examines to what extent this work arrangement is, in fact, associated with increased work-life balance. The chapter has two parts. Key findings are summarised in part one while key conclusions are given in part two.

9.1 Three types of part-time workers

The sample used in this analysis is the 1,070 individuals who responded to the survey who indicated that they worked part-time/worked fewer than 35 hours per week. Consistent with what was noted above, the majority of the respondents in the part-time sample (58%) are females. The majority (88%) of these women had dependent care responsibilities. The male part-time sample, on the other hand, was fairly evenly distributed between those with (53%) and those without (47%) dependent care. Examination of the data on the part-time sample (see Appendix F) indicates that there are three, very different, groups of part-time workers. Older males who work part-time have high work-life balance The first group of part-time workers is largely made up of older men (near retirement age) who are likely engaging in part-time work as a form of phased retirement. This group makes up 40% of the part-time sample. These men are married and have older children. Those who engage in dependent care are largely responsible for the care of elderly dependents. This group of men are economically well-off. They spend about 20 hours in work per week, do another five hours of
21 ABS (2003). Family Characteristics, Cat. No. 4442.0, Pg. 27 22 Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (2005), Striking the Balance: Women, Men, Work and Family, p.15 23 Public Health Agency of Canada, Division of Child and Adolescence, Employment and Work Environment, Retrieved July 2006 from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dca-dea/publications/healthy_dev_partb_2_e.html

125

SWAH and a couple of hours of career development. They have a large number of leisure hours per week. These men have high levels of work-life balance: their overload is very low as is their interference between work and family. These men have high levels of flexibility, find their manager supportive, and are highly committed to their organisation. They are also very satisfied with their jobs and have very low intent to turnover. Absenteeism in this group, especially with respect to mental or physical fatigue is relatively low. Work demands had very little impact on decision-making around family size for these men which is consistent with the fact that this group is older and typically had a spouse who cared for the family. Younger women work part-time while furthering education The second group of part-time knowledge workers is a fairly small group of younger women (7% of part-time sample) who appear to work part time while furthering their education. This group spends about 20 hours in work per week, 3 hours in SWAH and another 10 hours per week in career development activities. These women have very few responsibilities outside of work (most are not married and have neither childcare nor eldercare). They are committed to the organisation and satisfied with their jobs. The majority enjoy high flexibility and work for a manager they perceive to be supportive. Despite this, one in five of these women have high intent to turnover perhaps to a firm which is more supportive of women with children. This last conjecture is supported by the fact that 30% agree that they have delayed having a child because of career and work demands. These women also have a high degree of balance between their work and their lives. Despite this fact, absenteeism in this group is higher than for other part-time workers mainly due to the higher number of days off due to mental, emotional or physical fatigue. Younger women work part-time in an attempt to achieve balance The final group of part-time knowledge workers in our sample is made up of younger married women with younger children. Almost half of these women are in the sandwich generation in that they have both childcare and eldercare. These women have very heavy demands all things considered. They work 23 hours per week on average. On top of this they spend 3 hours per week in SWAH, 20 hours in home chores, 29 hours in childcare, 3 three hours in eldercare. In other words, they devote 75 hours per week to work and family activities time demands which are very similar to those observed for many full-time knowledge workers without dependent care. Not surprisingly, they have little time for personal leisure (only 5 hours per week the lowest observed in any group considered in this study) and career development 1 hour per week). These women are married to a partner with heavy work demands (48 hours in work per week on average) who assumes little responsibility for dependent care (82% of the women in this part-time sample have primary responsibility for childcare in their families and 50% have primary responsibility for eldercare). In other words, these families have a traditional gendered division of labour with one exception the woman has also added the work role to the tasks that she traditionally performs.

126

Part-time work not a panacea when it comes to balancing motherhood and career The women who try and combine a part-time career with full-time dependent care have very high levels of role overload and role interfere, despite the fact that they work part-time (see Figure 24). The results from this research indicate that while part time employment reduces interference between work and home for female professions it comes at a cost increased levels of role overload and family interferes with work. In fact, the family interferes with work exhibited by this group of women (30% high) is the highest seen in this study (3.75 times higher than the levels of this form of conflict reported by those working full time). These results suggest that professional women who chose to put their family first by working part (rather than full) time perceive that this arrangement is hindering their ability to meet work role expectations and hence, advance in their careers. When compared to the other groups of part-time workers, these women have lower levels of flexibility and are less likely to perceive their manager as supportive. It should be noted, however, that the levels of flexibility and management support reported by these women are higher than those reported by women working full-time with dependent care. While the majority are satisfied with their jobs and committed to their organisation, their scores are significantly lower than was observed in the other part-time samples. This is consistent with the fact that this group of women are more likely to be thinking of leaving their jobs (one in five with high intent to turnover). These women have higher levels of absenteeism due to childcare suggesting that parttime work does not help them better manage this aspect of motherhood.
Figure 11: Impact of Part-Time Work on Work-Life Conflict of Women with Dependent Care (% High)
Full time 52 42 36 25 8
Role Overload WIF FIW

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Part time

30

127

Finally, it is interesting to note that these women are less likely to agree that they have delaying having children or reduced their family size because of their career or work. It would appear that women who put family first and have children are also the ones who are more likely to reduce to part-time status. As such, it is not surprise that they are also the ones to report high family interferes with work. It is also interesting to note that families who make this decision appear to suffer a financial penalty as they are less likely to agree that in their families money is not an issue and more likely to say that they live comfortably but have no money for extras. Taken as a whole, these data suggest that professional women who work part-time in an attempt to balance work and family do not achieve their goals. Their demands are high (add work to a demanding personal situation) and their conditions at work not optimal for career advancement. In addition, families who select this type of arrangement take a financial hit and the organisations that employ them lose the services of key knowledge workers. It would appear that Australia needs to rethink their reliance on part-time work if they wish to remain competitive in a globally competitive labour market.

9.2 Key Findings

This study identified three groups of part-time workers: Older, economically advantaged men (near retirement age) who engage in parttime work as a form of phased retirement (40% of sample). Younger, professional females who are who are working part-time while furthering their education (7% of sample). Younger married women in the sandwich cohort who have younger children and older parents. These women are married to men who have a very demanding job and have live in families that, with one exception (the woman has added 26 hours of week in paid employment to the tasks to her role set) have a traditional gendered division of labour. These women have not delayed having children/reduced their family size as a way of coping with work demands. Instead, they have reduced to part-time status. This third group is very common in Australia which has the second highest participation of part-time workers in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Most of those who work part-time in Australia are women who have chosen to work part-time in an effort to combine motherhood and paid work. While part-time work is associated with greater work-life balance for the first two types of part-time knowledge workers, the data from this study indicates that this work arrangement makes balance more, rather than less, problematic for those women who try and combine a part-time career with full time dependent care. These women report higher rather than lower levels of role overload and family interferes with work. In fact, the family interferes with work exhibited by this group of women (30% high) is the highest seen in this study. Additionally, these women have higher levels of absenteeism due to childcare suggesting that part-time work does not help them better manage this aspect of motherhood.
128

Taken as a whole, these data suggest that professional women who work part-time in an attempt to balance work and family do not achieve their goals. Their demands are high (add work to a demanding personal situation) and their conditions at work not optimal for career advancement (i.e. low flexibility, lower levels of management support, little time for career development). Families who select this type of arrangement take a financial hit and the organisations that employ them lose the services of key knowledge workers. It would appear that Australia needs to rethink their reliance on part-time work if they wish to remain competitive in a globally competitive labour market.

129

Chapter 10: Key Findings and Recommendations

This chapter is divided into two main sections: Key findings from this study are summarised in part one. A set of recommendations suggested from the data are provided in part two.

10.1 Key Findings

The sample is made up of 11,920 Australian men and women who work full-time as knowledge workers in Australia. Examination of sample distributions with respect to state and city of residence, company type, sector and revenue suggest that the findings from this study can be generalised to the population of Australian male and female knowledge workers with and without dependent care responsibilities. What conclusions can be drawn with respect to work-life conflict of Australian knowledge workers in 2008?

Knowledge workers have multiple obligations and responsibilities to others, both at work and outside of work that impact their levels of work-life conflict. In many dual-career families in Australia responsibility for childcare and eldercare is no longer the womens role. In fact, child and eldercare is a shared responsibility for approximately half of those employed in professional positions within Australia. For these knowledge workers, the traditional male breadwinner model of work-life balance is not applicable. Female knowledge workers are more likely than their male counterparts to have primary responsibility for childcare and eldercare. In other words, they are more likely to work a second shift. Men are three times more likely to have primary responsibility for eldercare than for childcare. Knowledge workers with dependent care are, regardless of their gender, more likely to say money is tight or that they have no money for extras than those without dependent care. Australian knowledge workers have heavy demands at work and home. The typical Australian knowledge worker devotes an average of 75.7 hours per week to work and family activities. Not surprisingly, given these demands, they have relatively few hours per week (11) to spend in leisure. Work expectations in particular appear to be very high for knowledge workers in Australia. Just over one in four of the men in the sample and one in five of the women work more than 50 hours each week. Approximately 20% of the men and 10% of the women in the sample spend more than 56 hours per week in work. The majority (69%) of knowledge workers in this sector extend their

130

workday and spend time working from home in the evening and on weekends. These knowledge workers spend approximately 6 hours each week performing unpaid overtime.

The amount of time Australian knowledge workers commit to childcare, home chores and eldercare is substantially less that the time devoted to work. The knowledge workers in this sample are 3.6 times more likely to give priority to their work role than to their family role. Which group has the highest demands? The answer to this question depends on which demands you are looking at. Males, executives of both genders and Baby Boomers have heavier work demands. Women, knowledge workers with child and/or eldercare, and men in families where responsibilities are shared have heavier demands at home. Females with dependent care in executive positions and Baby Boom and Generation X cohorts and women in the sandwich group report the heaviest demands overall (i.e. work and family combined). If you know an employees life cycle stage, you will be able to predict the types of demands they are likely to face. Knowledge workers in the sandwich group report the highest demands overall, those without dependents the lowest demands. Knowledge workers with childcare report higher demands than those with eldercare. Women in the sandwich generation report the highest demands of any group examined in this study.

Conclusions with respect to the prevalence of work-life conflict depend on the type of conflict being considered as well as the gender of the employee, whether or not they have dependent care responsibilities at home, the type of dependent care responsibilities they have (i.e. childcare, eldercare or both) and their position within the organisation. Almost half (42%) of the knowledge workers in this sample report high levels of role overload while 29% report high levels of work interferes with family. Only 8% of Australian knowledge workers report high levels of family interferes with work and caregiver strain at this time. The percent of the working population with these two forms of conflict is, however, expected to grow phenomenally in the next several years as the percent of employees with elder care responsibilities increases. The data from this study indicate that the two most important predictors of work-life conflict are dependent care status and life cycle. Regardless of gender, knowledge workers who have dependent care responsibilities, are in the sandwich stage of the life cycle, and are in the Generation X cohort are
131

significantly more likely to report high levels of all forms of work-life conflict examined in this study.

Role overload increases with position for men and women without dependent care and men with dependent care. Position has little to do with the incidence of role overload for women with dependent care - 60% of whom experience high levels of role overload regardless of their position. Role overload and work interferes with family are due to heavy demands at work and the tendency to bring work home to complete in the evening - not time in childcare, eldercare or home-chores. Family interferes with work has more to do with demands at home than at work. Caregiver strain has strong associations with only one demand hours per week spent in eldercare The following groups are at risk of experiencing higher levels of overload: o Women in the sandwich generation (66% with high overload), o Women in the childcare only lifecycle stage (61% with high overload), o Women in the Generation X cohort (61% with high overload), and o Women with dependent care (60% with high overload). Men are less likely than women to experience high levels of role overload. The following groups are at risk of experiencing higher levels of work interferes with family: o Women (44% high) and men (36% high) in the sandwich generation, o Female (40% high) and male (35% high) executives, o Women (41% high) and men (38% high) in the Generation X cohort, and o Women in the childcare only stage of the life cycle (38% with high WIF). The following groups are at risk of experiencing higher levels of family interferes with work: o Women (20% high) and men (11% high) in the sandwich generation, and o Women in the Generation X cohort (17% high). The following groups are at risk of experiencing higher levels of physical and emotional caregiver strain: o Women (16% high physical caregiver strain and 13% high emotional caregiver strain) and men (10% high physical and emotional caregiver strain) in the Baby Boomer group, and o Female professionals with dependent care (14% high physical and emotional caregiver strain). Just under two-thirds (63%) of Australian knowledge workers are committed to the organisation where they work. Almost one in ten, on the other hand, have very low levels of commitment. Knowledge workers with high levels of role

132

overload and work interferes with family are less likely to report high levels of commitment.

Only half (54%) of the Australian knowledge workers in this sample were highly satisfied with their jobs. Just over one in three (38%) were moderately satisfied while 8% were dissatisfied. Knowledge workers with high levels of role overload, work interferes with family and family interferes with work are less likely to report high levels of job satisfaction. Work interferes with family, in particular, is associated with a decline in job satisfaction. A substantive number of the knowledge workers in this sample are dissatisfied with workloads, career development and pay. Almost one in four of the knowledge workers in this sample are thinking of leaving their current organisation once a week or more (5% indicate that they are thinking of leaving daily, 6% several times a week or more, and 12% approximately once a week). Fewer than half the sample (43.5%) said that they never think of leaving their current firm). Knowledge workers who are overloaded and experience high work interferes with family and family interferes with work are approximately three times more likely to report high intent to turnover than those with lower levels of these three forms of work-life conflict. Heavy workloads and higher levels of work-life conflict appear to be taking their toll on Australias professional workforce. The majority of knowledge workers in this sample missed at least one day of work in the six months prior to the study being done. Only one in five respondents had a perfect attendance record. Health problems are the main reason knowledge workers give for missing work (57% of the sample missed at least one day of work due to ill health). Knowledge workers with high levels of role overload are more likely to miss work due to ill health. A substantive number of knowledge workers (25%) are missing work due to physical or emotional fatigue. High levels of absenteeism due to mental and emotional fatigue are often the precursor to episodes of burnout. Knowledge workers with higher levels of work-life conflict examined in this report are more likely to take at least one mental health day off work. While relatively few knowledge workers (14%) missed work to deal with eldercare issues this may have as much to do with the fact that organisations in Australia appear to make it difficult for employees to take time off to deal with these types of issues as it does to a lack of difficulties in this area. A significant number of socio-economically advantaged men and women in Australia are reducing their family size as a way to cope with career and work demands. Female knowledge workers in Australia, in particular, appear to be coping with work-life issues by reducing the demands on the family side. These data suggest that attention to work-life issues may be one way for Australia to

133

increase their birth rates (especially in the economically advantaged segment of the population).

Only 40% the knowledge workers in this sample have high levels of flexibility with respect to work hours and work location. 16% have very low levels of flexibility. Data from this study show that flexibility with respect to work hours and location helps knowledge workers balance work and life, reduces absenteeism and is a powerful recruitment and retention tool. While half (55%) of the knowledge workers this sample perceive high levels of management support, one in ten report to a non-supportive manager and one in three report to a manager who is inconsistent with respect to his or her management behaviour. Data from this study indicate that management support is associated with higher work-life balance and lower absenteeism. The impact of work-life conflict depends on the form of conflict being examined. Compared to their counterparts with low levels of role overload, knowledge workers with high role overload are: o 4.5 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work o 2.6 times more likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands o 2.8 times more likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue, o Twice as like to report high levels of absenteeism (missed 6 or more days in six month period) o 1.3 times more likely to be absent from work due to ill health o 1.5 times less likely to be satisfied with their jobs o 1.3 times less likely to be committed to the organisation Compared to their counterparts with low levels of work interferes with family, knowledge workers with high work interferes with family are: o 5.5 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work o 4 times more likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands o 2.3 times more likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue, o 1.6 times more likely to report high levels of absenteeism (missed 6 or more days in six month period) o 2.6 times less likely to be satisfied with their jobs o 1.3 times less likely to be committed to the organisation Compared to their counterparts with low levels of family interferes with work, knowledge workers with high levels of family interferes with work are: o 11 times more likely to agree that they have reduced their family size because of demands at work,
134

o o o o o

2.5 times more likely to have missed 3 or more days of work in the past six months due to childcare problems Twice as likely to agree that they have delayed starting a family because of career demands twice as likely to have missed six or more days of work in the past six months (all causes combined), twice as likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to physical, mental or emotional fatigue, and half as likely to be satisfied with their jobs.

Compared to their counterparts with low levels of caregiver strain, knowledge workers with high levels of caregiver strain are: o 4 times more likely to have missed work due to eldercare problems, o 1.8 times more likely to have missed six or more days of work in the past six months (all causes combined), and o 1.5 times less likely to report high levels of job satisfaction. Professional women who work part-time in an attempt to balance work and family do not achieve this goal. Their demands are high (add work to a demanding personal situation) and their conditions at work not optimal for career advancement (i.e. low flexibility, lower levels of management support, little time for career development). Families who select this type of arrangement take a financial hit and the organisations that employ them lose the full-time attention of key knowledge workers. Many Australian firms will not be competitive with respect to attracting and retaining knowledge workers in a much more competitive labour market if they do not address issues with respect to work-life balance. In particular they need to rethink their reliance on part-time work.

The data reviewed in this report support the idea that managerial and professional women in Australia face a glass ceiling with respect to career opportunities and advancement. Women with child and/or eldercare appear to be particularly disadvantaged. The following findings support this conclusion:

Women in CEO and Executive positions within Australian firms are less likely than their male counterparts to be parents (three quarters of the men in this position have children versus 65% of women). Women in management positions within Australian are firms less likely than their male counterparts to be parents (71% of the men in this position have children versus 50% of women). Women in professional positions within Australian professional are services firms are less likely than their male counterparts to be parents (62% of the men in this position have children versus 39% of women).

135

Women with dependent care responsibilities have more experience (i.e. have spent more years with their organisation and in their current job) than women without dependent care, regardless of position. With one exception (male professionals) no such difference can be observed for the men in the sample. Within the Generation X group the females are significantly less likely than the males to have children (76% of the men are fathers, 55% of the women are mothers). In Australia, men in management and professional positions are significantly more likely than their female counterparts to have a spouse who has reduced the amount of time they spend in paid employment (i.e. work part time) and has assumed primary responsibility for tasks at home. These men have fewer restrictions with respect to the number of hours they work. The women in this sample, on the other hand, do not enjoy this kind of support at home. Rather, they are overwhelming found in dual-career families where work and non-work demands are shared fairly. This gender difference with respect to family support for career may help explain gender differences in career success in an occupation which has traditionally focused on hours at work as a measure of productivity, contribution, loyalty and engagement. It would appear from this study that knowledge workers in Australia are expected to maintain their output at work regardless of demands at home. One consequence of these expectations (which have been referred to in the research literature as the myth of separate worlds) is that knowledge workers with child and/or eldercare: o are more overloaded than their counterparts as their family demands have increased with no concomitant decline in work demands, o report higher work interferes with family because long hours and supplemental work at home conflicts with the performance of family role responsibilities, and o report higher family interferes with work because responsibilities at home make it more difficult for them to attend meetings at the beginning and end of the day, travel for work, etc. Knowledge workers who share responsibilities at home are at higher risk of each of these forms of work-life conflict. As noted earlier, female knowledge workers are more likely than their male counterparts to live in such families. The female knowledge workers without children report the lowest levels of commitment and job satisfaction in the sample and are significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with their pay and their ability to advance in their careers. They also report the highest levels of intent to turnover and are more likely to take a mental health day off work. These women are also more likely to say that they have delayed having children because of the demands of their career.

The above results have a number of implications for Australian firms. First, this study determined that dependent care status influences where female knowledge workers live and work in Australia. The fact that these women are found in over abundance
136

in government jobs, smaller firms and sole operator situations suggest that these sectors are more family friendly. Alternatively, the fact that women with dependent care are less likely to work for larger professional services firms and partnerships suggest that these types of organisations need to increase their family friendliness if they want to recruit and retain qualified female workers. Second, the fact that men out number women 3 to 1 in the sample suggest that Australian firms have either not been very successful either in attracting professional women into their ranks and/or retaining their services It may be that work-life issues dissuade women from taking professional or management positions in many Australian firms. Alternatively, the lower levels of flexibility afforded to women with dependent care responsibilities may make it more difficult for them to remain with such firms after they have started their family. Third, the data indicates that the firms in this sample have few knowledge workers who have been with the firm for an extended period of time. The dearth of experienced women is particularly noteworthy. These results may be due to lack of job security and hiring in the 90s and/or higher levels of turnover of knowledge workers. The strong association between work-life conflict and intent to turnover suggests that many knowledge workers leave an organisation that does not support work-life and career development issues. Finally, the data from this study suggest that many Australian firms will have problems in a more competitive labour market recruiting and retaining engaged knowledge workers, of either gender, if they do not address issues with respect to work-life balance.

10.2 Recommendations: What can Employers Do To Reduce Work-Life Conflict?

The data reviewed in this study leave little doubt that there is no one size fits all solution to the issue of worklife conflict and that different policies, practices and strategies will be needed to reduce each of the four components of worklife conflict. That being said this study identified three concrete things that employers can do to reduce work-life conflict: increase perceived flexibility, increase the number of supportive managers/decrease the number of non-supportive managers within their organisation, and reduce workloads. These three strategies must be implemented hand in hand, as our data show that managers are, through their behaviours, the ones who make employees believe that they are able to exert some degree of control over their work schedule. Employers that focus on these three areas, should see significant reductions in employees 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. As increased levels of flexibility and supportive management help all employees cope with these forms of work-life conflict, progress in these areas should produce the maximum return on investment. Recommendations with respect to work demands also have broad

137

applicability as work demands are strongly associated with three out of four forms of worklife conflict, caregiver strain being the exception). Recommendations that deal with work demands To reduce role overload, work to family interference and family to work interference, employers need to focus their efforts on making work demands and work expectations realistic for their employees. Work demands, rather than demands from outside work, are the key predictors of role overload and work to family interference, the two most common forms of worklife conflict in Australia at this time. While employers often point with pride to the many programs available in their organisation 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. Therefore, employers and governments need to recognise that the issue of worklife conflict cannot be addressed without addressing the issue of workloads. Further research is needed to determine why work demands on employees are so high. Competing explanations from our previous work in the area include: organisational anorexia (downsizing - especially of the middle manager cadre has meant that there are not enough employees to do the work and managers to strategise and plan), corporate culture (if you do not work long hours and take work home, you will not advance in your career, not keep your job during downsizing), increased use of technology such as e-mail increases expectations with respect to response time and availability, global competition (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), the speed of change has increased to the point that many organisations have lost their ability to plan and prioritise - workloads increase when organisations practice crisis management, and Employees are worried about the consequences of not being seen to be a contributor and may worry that their career will stagnate if they do not work overtime, take work home in the evening etc.

Employers can help employees deal with heavy work demands by introducing initiatives which increase an employees sense of control. The research in this area (see, for example, work by Karasek, 1979) is quite clearemployees can cope with greater demands if they have a greater sense of control. The literature suggests a number of mechanisms which should be investigated, including increased autonomy and empowerment at the individual employee level, the increased use of selfdirected work teams, increased employee participation in decision-making, increased communication and information sharing, time management training, training on how to plan and prioritise, etc. Increased flexibility with respect to work hours and work location should also increase an employees sense of control.
138

The following recommendations should help employers address the issue of demand and control: 1. Employers need to examine workloads within their organisations. If they find that certain employees are consistently spending long hours at work (50 + hours per week), they need to determine why this is occurring (e.g. ambitious staff, unbalanced and unrealistic work expectations, poor planning, too many priorities, lack of tools and/or training to do the job efficiently, poor management, organisational culture focused on hours not output). Once they have determined the causal factors, they need to determine how workloads can be made more reasonable. 2. Employers need to recognise that unrealistic work demands are not sustainable over time and come at a cost to the organisation which is often not recognised or tracked (examples from this report include increased absenteeism, increased intent to turnover, lower commitment, high work-life conflict). Accordingly, we recommend that the employer start recording the costs of understaffing and overwork (i.e. greater absenteeism, higher prescription drug costs, greater employee assistance program use, increased turnover and hiring costs), so they can make informed decisions with respect to this issue. 3. Employers need to identify ways to reduce the amount of time employees (especially women) spend in job-related travel (e.g. increase their use of virtual teams and teleconferencing technology). In particular, they need to reduce their expectations that employees will travel on their personal time and spend weekends away from home to reduce the organisations travel costs. 4. Employers need to analyse workloads and hire more people in those areas where the organisation is overly reliant on unpaid overtime. 5. Employers need to track the amount of time employees spend working paid and unpaid overtime and capture the number of hours it actually takes to get various jobs done. They should also collect data which reflect the total costs of delivering high quality work in various areas on time (i.e. paid and unpaid overtime, subsequent turnover, employee assistance program use, absenteeism). Such data should be longitudinal in nature, as many of the consequences of poor people management do not appear until 6 to 12 months after the event. This type of data should improve planning and priority setting, as well as allow senior executives to make better strategic, long-term decisions. 6. Employers have to develop etiquette around the use of office technologies such as e-mail, laptops and mobile phones. They need, for example, to set limits on the use of technology to support after-hours work and make expectations regarding response times realistic. 7. Employees need to try to limit the amount of work taken home to be completed in the evenings. Knowledge workers who do bring work home should make every

139

effort to separate time in work from family time (i.e. do work after the children go to bed, have a home office). Increase perceived flexibility The findings from this research are unequivocal increases in perceived flexibility benefit employees (associated with lower work-life conflict), employers (associated with lower absenteeism and higher commitment and job satisfaction) and Australian society (associated with higher fertility). The following recommendations are offered as to how employers can increase perceived flexibility within their organisation. 8. To help employees cope with work-life conflict organisations need to make it possible for jobholders to: arrange their work schedule to meet personal/family commitments, interrupt their work day for personal/family reasons and return to work, take their holidays when they want to, be home in time to have meals with their family, and vary their hours of work. The criteria under which flexibility in each of these areas can be used should be mutually agreed upon and transparent. There should also be mutual accountability around their use (i.e. employees need to meet job demands but organisations should be flexible with respect to how work is arranged). The process for changing hours of work, location of work, vacation time should, wherever possible, be flexible. The increased use of flexible work arrangements would have the added benefit of reducing the amount of time spent commuting to and from workan important predictor of role overload. 9. Employers should give employees paid time off work to attend relevant training sessions, courses and conferences. The strong association between an inability to participate in career development opportunities outside of work hours and both role overload and work interferes with family indicate that employees with dependent care responsibility who try to maintain their professional credentials or increase their learning on their own time pay a price - increased work-life conflict. Of course, those who do not engage in learning activities pay a different price - a lack of career mobility and reduced economic benefits and job insecurity. These findings give organisations another incentive to deal with the issue of role overload: an increased ability to recruit and retain talent. Greater flexibility in these areas should give employees an increased ability to cope with role overload and work interferes with family. Implementation of these benefits should also produce additional advantages for employers outside the work-life arena as they concretely demonstrate to employees that their employer trusts them, is listening to them and recognises their demands outside of work. Our previous works in this area also indicate that such policies are positively associated with increased levels of commitment and engagement.

140

10. Organisations need to introduce new performance measures that focus on objectives, results and output (i.e. move away from a focus on hours to a focus on output). It is very difficult (if not impossible) to increase perceived flexibility in organisations where the focus is on hours rather than output and presence rather than performance. To do this, employees need to reward output not hours and reward what is done, not where it is done. They also need to reward people who have successfully combined work and non-work domains and not promote those who work long hours and expect others to do the same. Increase the number of supportive managers within the organisation Increasing the number of supportive managers within the organisation is also key to addressing issues of work-life balance. This study determined that knowledge workers who work for a supportive manager are more likely than their counterparts with lower levels of support to enjoy high levels of flexibility at work and increased levels of work-life balance. These knowledge workers were also less likely to be absent from work, more committed to the organisation and satisfied with their jobs. Accordingly we recommend the following: 11. Employers need to increase the number of supportive managers within their organisations while simultaneously reducing the number of managers who are seen to be non-supportive. Specifically they need to increase the number of managers within their organisation who consistently display the following behaviours: o Make work expectations clear. o Are effective at planning the work to be done. o Provide constructive feedback when performance standards not met. o Ask for an employees input before making decisions that affect their work. o Have realistic expectations with respect to the amount of work that can be done in a given amount of time. o Do not expect their employees to put in long hours, just because they do. 12. Organisations should commit resources to improving people management practices within their organisation. They can increase the number of supportive managers within the organisation by giving managers at all levels: a.

the skills they need to manage the people part of their job (i.e. communication skills, conflict resolution, time management, project planning, how to give and receive feedback), the tools they need to manage people (i.e. appropriate policies, the business case for support, training on how to implement alternative work arrangements, web sites and other resources on how to handle different human resource problems, referral services to help employees deal with specific problems such as child care and elder care),
141

b.

c.

the time they need to manage this part of their job (people management has to be seen as a fundamental part of a managers role, not just an add on that can be done in ones spare time - an overworked manager finds it difficult, if not impossible, to be a supportive manager), incentives to focus on the people part of their jobs (i.e. measurement and accountability around the people piece of the job, 360 feedback, rewards focused on recognition of good people skills, performance of the people part of the job should be part of promotion decisions, hiring decisions, etc. public recognition of supportive supervisors, measurement of management support and non-support should be tied into the managers performance appraisal system).

d.

142

References
Bohen, H. & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing Jobs and Family Life: Do flexible Work schedules help? Philadelphia: Temple University Press (pg. 80). BNA, (1988), Employers and Elder-Care: A New Benefit Coming of Age, The Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, D.C. BNA, (1989), The 101 Key Statistics on Work and Family for the 1990s, The Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, D.C. Conger, J. (1998). How Gen X Managers Manage, Strategy and Business, First Quarter, 21-29. Drucker, P. (1999). Knowledge Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge, California Management Review, 41, (2) Duxbury, L., Dyke, L., and Lam, N. (2000). Managing High Tech Employees, Carswell Press: Toronto Gionfriddo, J. and Dhingra, L. (1999) Retaining High Tech Talent, Compensation and Benefits Review, Sept/Oct.), 31-35. Gutek, B., Searle, S., & Kelpa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560-568. Hochsfield, A. (1989), The Second Shift, Viking Penguin: New York. Johnston, W. and Packer, A. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute. Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Sage: New York. Lowe, G. (2000) The Quality of Work: A People Centred Agenda, Oxford University Press: Toronto. Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. C., Billings, A. G., and Finney, J. W. (1988). Health and Daily Living Form Manual, Social Ecology Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University. Mowday, R., Steers, R., and Porter, L. (1979). The Measurement of Organisational Commitment, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 14, 224-247. Quinn, R., and Staines, G. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbour, MI. Robinson, B. (1983). Validation of a caregiver strain index, Journal of. Gerontalogy, 38., 344-348 (553).

143

Scott, K. (2000) Work Family and Community: Key Issues and Directions for Future Research, Labour Bureau, HRDC, Ottawa. (Also see http://labour.hrdcdrhc/gc/ca/doc/wlb-ctp/ccsd-ccds/c1-en.html) Vanderkolk, B. and Young, A. (1991). The work and family revolution: How companies can keep knowledge workers happy and business profitable. New York: Facts on File, Inc. Vanier Institute (2000) Profiling Canadas Families II, Vanier Institute of the Family, Ottawa.

144

Appendix A:
Reports Coming from the 2001 National Work, Family and Lifestyle Study
Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., Lyons, S. (2007). Reducing Work-Life Conflict: What Works? What Doesnt? (Report Five) (PDF Version)
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/occup-travail/balancing-equilibre/index_e.html

Duxbury, L. and Higgins, C. (2005). Who is at Risk? Predictors of Work-Life Conflict (Report Four). Health Canada, Ottawa http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-travail/report4/index.html Higgins, C., Duxbury, L., and Johnson, K. (2004). Exploring the Link Between WorkLife Conflict and Demands on Canadas Health Care System (Report Three), Health Canada, Ottawa. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-travail/report3/index.html Duxbury, L. and Higgins, C. (2003). Where to Work in Canada? An Examination of Regional Differences in Work-life Practices, B.C. Council of the Families: Vancouver: B.C. http://www.worklifesummit.com Duxbury, L. and Higgins, C. (2003). Work-Life Conflict in Canada in the New Millennium: A Status Report (Report Two), Health Canada, Ottawa. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/work-travail/report2/index.html Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., and Coghill, D. (2003). Voices of Canadians: Seeking WorkLife Balance, Human Resources Canada, Cat. No. RH54-12/2003, ISBN: 0-66267059-0 http://labour-travail.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/worklife Higgins, C. and Duxbury, L. (2002). The 2001 National Work-Life Conflict Study: Report One, Health Canada, Ottawa. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/work-travail/index.html Duxbury, L. and Higgins, C. (2001). Work-Life Balance in the New Millennium: Where are we? Where do we need to go? CPRN Discussion Paper No. W/12, CPRN: Ottawa. http://www.cprn.org/cprn.html

145

Appendix B:
Results: Gender by Dependent Care Analysis Where the Respondents Life and Work
Men Dependents No Yes Where do the respondents live? State New South Wales 31.2 32.3 Victoria 23.7 24.4 Queensland 17.0 17.4 Western Australia 13.4 12.3 South Australia 6.2 7.2 ACT 3.8 3.7 Tasmania 2.6 1.8 Northern Territories 0.7 0.5 Total 100% 100% Where do the respondents work? Location of City Capital 76.6 77.9 Major regional city 12.7 12.8 Rural Area 10.7 9.3 Total 100% 100% Where do the respondents work? Type of Company Private Company 30.8 29.7 Australian Listed Public 16.8 17.7 Company Partnership 9.8 9.6 Government Dept 10.2 10.6 Sole Operator 5.3 5.0 Non-Australian Listed Public 5.9 4.8 Company Wholly Owned Australian 6.0 6.5 Subsidiary Statutory Authority 5.9 5.6 Unlisted Public Company 3.8 4.3 Other 5.3 5.9 Total 100% 100% Women Dependents No Yes 30.9 24.8 21.1 10.4 5.3 4.6 1.4 1.2 100% 81.1 10.8 8.0 100% 26.1 16.6 17.6 12.2 3.9 5.3 4.3 3.9 3.1 6.9 100% 34.9 24.3 17.2 8.5 7.1 4.3 2.2 1.2 100% 79.1 12.7 8.2 100% 23.7 13.1 13.3 13.8 7.4 3.6 5.9 6.2 2.9 9.9 100% Total

32.4 24.3 17.8 11.7 6.7 3.9 2.0 0.7 100% 78.3 12.4 9.2 100% 28.5 16.7 11.4 11. 3 5.2 5.0 6.0 5.5 3.8 6.5 100%

146

Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes Where do the respondents work? Industry Professional Services 27.0 24.4 33.9 28.4 Government and community 20.1 21.2 20.9 27.9 Finance and insurance 14.2 14.8 14.9 14.9 Primary Industry and 16.8 15.7 12.1 10.2 Utilities Manufacturing, retail, whole 9.2 10.4 6.2 7.1 sale Property and Construction 6.5 7.5 5.0 4.5 Other 6.1 6.1 6.8 7.0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Where do the respondents work? Revenue of the Organisation Under $5 M 26.0 27.4 28.2 34.3 $5 M to $50 M 21.3 22.6 23.7 23.0 $ 50 M to $500 M 23.7 22.9 20.4 21.1 More than $500 M 27.9 27.4 27.6 21.6 Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Total

27.0 21.9 14.7 14.6 9.0 6.5 6.3 100% 27.3 22.6 22.6 26.6 100%

Work Profile
Men Dependents No Yes Position Professional Executive CEO/Managing Partner Manager Other Total Tenure and time in Position Yrs: current organisation Yrs: current job 43.2 16.3 15.8 12.9 11.4 100% 7.3 6.0 31.0 23.5 22.2 14.2 8.3 100% 8.5 6.6 Women Dependents No Yes 56.7 9.5 5.2 13.3 15.2 100% 3.8 3.3 38.8 17.7 14.9 13.8 14.8 100% 5.9 4.9 Total

39.1 18.1 17.2 13.7 11.1 100% 7.1 5.7

147

Personal Demographics
Men Dependents No Yes Age % Under 29 (Generation Y) 22.7 4.0 % 30-44 (Generation X) 29.9 42.3 % 45-59 (Baby Boomer) 34.9 48.3 % 60 or older (Veterans) 12.3 5.4 Marital Status % Never married 24.6 4.3 % Married/live partner 68.6 90.4 % Separated, divorced 6.8 5.4 Parental Status % who are parents 44.1 90.6 Number of Children for the Parents in the Sample % One child 5.7 14.6 % Two children 21.1 42.8 % Three children 12.1 23.6 % Four or more children 5.1 10.6 % With Children in the Following Age Groups 0 to 3 years of age 3.2 20.9 4 to 5 years of age 2.7 17.1 6 to 11 years of age 6.3 30.8 12 to 18 years of age 14.8 39.3 Over 18 years of age 87.3 38.7 Eldercare Status: % With Elderly dependents In home 2.0 4.6 Living nearby(short drive) 18.2 46.3 Living elsewhere 39.2 51.1 Who has Responsibility in Your Family For: Care of I do 10.3 4.4 children It is shared 59.4 44.3 Partner does 30.3 51.4 Care of elderly I do 19.3 18.1 dependents It is shared 53.4 56.6 Partner does 27.3 25.4 Families Financial Status: % who say that in their families Money is tight 11.0 15.2 They live comfortably but no 32.4 39.2 money for extras Money is not an issue 55.6 45.6 Women Dependents No Yes 44.6 41.2 12.8 1.5 39.0 55.9 5.1 9.3 2.6 4.3 1.7 0.8 5.9 1.8 2.9 13.5 85.9 1.6 13.7 35.7 44.1 51.2 4.7 30.2 55.2 14.6 10.9 36.3 52.9 11.9 50.1 36.0 1.7 16.1 70.3 13.7 66.3 19.8 31.0 11.0 4.6 15.8 13.9 27.8 40.9 37.0 8.4 47.4 48.8 45.4 46.5 8.2 39.2 53.6 7.2 16.0 41.3 42.6 Total

15.4 40.6 38.1 5.7 15.7 77.4 6.8 64.5 11.6 30.1 15.9 7.0 17.2 14.2 26.0 35.4 46.7 4.3 35.4 45.8 12.3 47.0 40.8 23.2 55.4 21.4 13.8 37.5 48.7

148

Demands
Men Women Total Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes % of the sample spending time each week in the following activities Supplemental work at home 61.2 76.5 50.9 71.8 68.5 Home chores and errands 94.8 98.5 96.8 98.9 97.5 In childcare or activities with 0 93.0 0 94.5 77.4 children In eldercare 0 45.2 0 62.3 31.0 In leisure 95.9 96.1 93.1 92.8 96.0 In career development 47.6 47.3 52.1 52.3 48.8 Mean hours per week in work and non-work activities (total sample) In paid employment 48.7 49.2 46.7 47.2 48.4 Commuting 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.6 Supplemental work at 3.8 4.7 2.7 4.6 4.2 Home chores and errands 7.5 9.6 7.1 11.3 9.0 In childcare 0 8.5 0 9.1 5.4 In eldercare 0 1.4 0 2.8 1.1 In leisure 14.5 9.1 14.3 8.3 11.0 In career development 2.2 1.7 2.6 2.3 2.0 Total hrs/week work and 67.7 80.9 64.9 83.2 75.7 family (excluding leisure) Mean hours per week in work and non-work activities (restricted sample) Supplemental work at 6.1 6.1 5.3 6.5 6.1 Home chores and errands 7.9 9.7 7.4 11.5 9.2 In childcare 0 10.1 0 14.5 10.9 In eldercare 0 3.1 0 4.6 3.5 In leisure 15.1 9.5 14.6 8.8 11.4 In career development 4.5 3.5 5.1 4.3 4.1 Total hrs/week work and 72.7 87.5 70.3 94.5 87.9 family (excluding leisure) Hours per week partner spends in work and non-work activities (restricted sample) In paid employment 35.8 28.9 45.6 45.5 In childcare 24.9 36.1 26.5 17.3 In eldercare 5.5 5.6 3.3 4.6 Frequency Data: Time in Paid Employment/Week: % of sample in each of following groups 35 to 40 26.7 21.4 33.7 33.7 26.2 41 to 45 21.9 21.9 25.3 22.0 22.5 46 to 50 24.9 28.8 23.3 23.8 26.4 51 to 55 9.5 10.8 7.3 7.3 9.5 56 or more 17.0 17.1 10.4 13.0 15.4

149

Frequency Data: Time in More than 0 but less than 1 1 to 4 hours 5 to 9 hours 10 to 14 hours 15 or more hours Frequency Data: Time in More than 0 but less than 1 1 to 3 hours 4 or more

Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes Childcare/Week: % of sample in each of following groups 100% 7.0 100% 5.5 0 23.8 0 17.6 0 25.2 0 20.9 0 21.5 0 19.8 0 22.5 0 36.1 Eldercare/Week: % of sample in each of following groups 100% 54.8 100% 37.7 0 33.2 0 39.2 0 12.0 0 23.1

Total

22.6 18.8 20.3 17.6 20.5 69.0 21.8 9.2

Work-Life Conflict
Men Dependents No Yes % with high levels of: Role Overload Work Interferes with Family (WIF) Family Interferes with Work (FIW) Caregiver strain: Physical Caregiver strain: Emotional Caregiver strain: Financial 32.6 21.3 4.8 2.7 2.7 1.7 41.6 32.9 8.8 8.3 6.7 3.5 Women Dependents No Yes 43.0 21.5 3.3 1.2 2.3 1.1 56.9 36.4 15.4 13.0 12.1 5.5 Total

42.1 29.2 8.0 7.5 6.5 3.3

Moderators of Work-Life Conflict

Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes Perceived Flexibility: % with the following levels of flexibility Very low flexibility 12.6 15.6 15.6 19.5 Moderate flexibility 38.4 43.4 39.0 42.4 High flexibility 49.0 41.0 45.4 38.0 Supportive Manager% with the following levels of supervisor support Low levels of support 8.8 9.8 9.6 12.0 Mixed levels of support 34.6 36.1 35.1 33.2 High levels of support 56.6 54.1 55.1 54.8 Total

15.5 41.5 43.0 9.9 35.2 54.9

150

Work Outcomes
Men Dependents No Yes Women Dependents No Yes Total

% with high levels of: Organisational commitment 60.7 65.3 55.8 64.9 62.8 Job satisfaction 56.1 53.9 53.4 53.8 54.3 Intent to turnover 22.7 22.3 28.8 23.0 23.5 What aspects of their jobs do knowledge workers find satisfying? % with high satisfaction Job in general 70.6 72.0 64.9 70.4 70.4 Things they do on the job 66.8 71.6 63.2 71.3 69.3 Amount of job security 70.4 66.5 72.5 70.0 68.8 Schedule of work hours 62.1 59.1 60.0 57.3 59.7 Ability to meet career goals 57.2 54.9 53.1 56.5 55.4 Training/development offered 54.1 53.1 58.3 59.3 55.0 by organisation Number of hours they work 52.4 46.9 53.6 48.5 59.7 Amount they are paid 51.0 51.6 48.7 51.6 51.0 Their current workload 45.6 40.9 45.2 43.3 42.9 Where are improvements needed? % with high levels of dissatisfaction Your current workload 23.9 28.2 26.8 30.4 27.4 Number of hours they work 21.8 24.3 21.9 27.3 23.8 Amount they are paid 22.1 21.2 26.3 24.3 22.6 Training/development offered 18.6 20.0 20.2 18.2 19.5 by organisation Ability to meet career goals 16.2 18.5 19.0 19.1 18.3 Schedule of work hours 13.0 14.0 14.3 19.5 14.3

151

Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes Absenteeism: Days unable to work in past six months due to: Health Problems No days 48.0 47.2 29.6 36.0 1 day 16.3 19.0 18.1 19.0 2 5 days 30.7 28.6 42.3 35.8 6 9 days 2.7 2.8 5.9 4.1 10 + days 2.2 2.5 4.1 4.0 Problems: No days 95.4 60.6 98.2 63.6 children 1 day 18.3 13.4 2 5 days 19.1 19.5 6 + days 2.0 3.3 Problems: No days 92.2 82.6 94.0 76.5 eldercare 1 day 18.1 10.0 2 5 days 7.8 10.7 6 + days 1.5 2.7 Physical or No days 78.1 79.4 62.6 66.5 emotional 1 day 9.0 8.2 17.3 14.1 fatigue 2 5 days 10.1 9.9 17.7 15.1 (mental health 6 + days 2.8 2.5 2.5 4.4 day) Total No days 23.2 19.8 19.1 15.3 Absenteeism 1 day 25.0 20.7 19.5 16.6 (all causes) 2 5 days 35.4 39.1 42.7 41.2 6 9 days 11.8 12.5 14.1 15.1 10 + days 4.6 7.9 4.6 11.8

Total

43.2 18.3 32.2 3.5 2.9 74.3 11.4 12.7 1.6 85.5 6.3 6.6 1.6 74.7 10.6 11.9 2.8 19.6 20.6 39.4 13.1 7.3

Social Outcomes
% who agree that: Men Dependents No Yes 21.6 24.9 4.9 9.3 Women Dependents No Yes 33.3 39.2 19.4 23.6 Total

They have not yet started a family because of their career They have had fewer children because of the demands at work

30.0 11.0

152

Appendix C
Job Type Tenure in the Organisation
CEO/Executive Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 10 9 6 7 9 9 5 6 Manager Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 8 9 4 7 5 6 4 5 Professional Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 6 8 3 5 4 6 3 4

Yrs current organisation Yrs in current job

Personal Profile
CEO/Executive Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes Age % Under 29 (Generation Y) % 30-44 (Generation X) % 45 + (Baby Boomer +) Marital Status % Married/have partner Parental Status % with children Elder Care % eldercare - In home % eldercare - Nearby % eldercare Elsewhere 2 23 75 82 69 1 21 44 35 65 92 94 3 50 52 8 50 42 65 24 5 14 45 2 47 51 80 79 7 46 49 Manager Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 14 38 48 75 69 1 21 43 3 50 47 92 94 4 50 52 29 54 17 55 25 0 16 45 6 58 36 72 78 7 46 49 Professional Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 39 32 30 59 27 2 14 36 19 49 33 87 86 6 43 49 57 11 38 53 5 0 13 33 23 45 32 64 56 11 46 49

153

CEO/Executive Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes Responsibility for Childcare Childcare - % they do Childcare - % shared Childcare - % partner does Responsibility for Eldercare Eldercare - % they do Eldercare - % shared Eldercare - % partner does Family Financial Status % - Money is tight % - Live comfortably % - Money not an issue 7 24 70 5 44 51 17 55 29 10 32 58 5 24 71 44 47 9 42 52 6 10 32 58

Manager Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 10 35 55 4 46 50 17 55 28 17 46 37 9 32 59 46 45 9 42 52 6 15 45 40

Professional Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 13 39 48 5 43 52 20 57 23 22 44 34 13 39 48 46 47 7 37 55 8 20 49 31

154

Demands
CEO/Executive Manager Men Women Men Women Dependents Dependents Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Hours in work per week 52 52 52 50 49 48 47 46 Likelihood of engaging in following activities % working SWAH 80 90 76 85 61 74 59 72 % time in childcare 0 91 0 95 0 95 0 96 % time in eldercare 0 47 0 57 0 46 0 62 % time in career development 46 49 57 52 44 47 50 50 Mean hour per week in following activities (restricted sample) Mean hrs/wk SWAH 7 7 8 8 6 5 5 7 Mean hrs/wk home chores 7 9 8 10 8 10 7 11 Mean hrs/wk childcare 0 9 0 14 0 11 0 15 Mean hrs/wk eldercare 0 3 0 5 0 3 0 5 Mean hrs/wk leisure 13 9 14 9 15 9 14 9 Mean hrs/wk development 4 3 4 4 6 3 6 4 Mean hour per week partner spends in following activities (restricted sample) Hours in work/week 34 28 45 46 35 29 46 45 Hours in childcare/week 22 34 5 17 28 38 0 18 Hours in eldercare/week 6 6 5 6 4 5 4 4 Professional Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 47 47 46 46 50 0 0 50 5 8 0 0 16 5 37 29 5 66 95 46 49 5 10 11 3 10 4 30 39 6 44 0 0 52 4 7 0 0 15 5 46 25 2 60 95 66 54 5 12 16 5 9 4 45 16 4

155

Work-Life Conflict
CEO/Executive Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 36 42 48 57 26 35 29 40 5 9 1 12 8 12 6 11 2 5 Manager Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 33 40 46 57 26 30 21 37 4 7 2 15 7 12 6 10 2 3 Professional Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 31 43 43 59 19 33 21 36 5 10 4 15 9 14 8 14 5 7

% with high: Role Overload Work Interferes with Family Family Interferes with Work Caregiver strain: Physical Caregiver strain: Emotional Caregiver strain: Financial

Moderators of Work-Life Conflict

CEO/Executive Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 57 52 56 58 52 44 50 44 Manager Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 51 56 51 56 51 42 55 35 Professional Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 57 53 56 52 46 35 40 33

% with supportive manager % with high flexibility

Work Outcomes
CEO/Executive Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 63 60 58 60 80 76 70 80 15 18 26 16 42 21 18 48 38 20 22 20 56 33 17 53 39 23 31 22 Manager Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 50 52 54 48 55 59 54 59 26 26 30 30 56 24 19 72 39 23 19 19 72 44 16 64 38 28 30 27 Professional Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 52 47 51 46 51 54 52 56 26 27 31 26 57 23 14 58 41 26 22 20 74 37 19 79 36 25 37 30

% high job satisfaction % high commitment % high intent to turnover Absenteeism % Absent: health % Absent: childcare % Absent: eldercare % Absent: mental health % Absent 6 + days

156

Social Outcomes
CEO/Executive Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 23 23 34 35 6 9 28 23 Manager Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 22 20 40 30 5 9 12 25 Professional Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 22 29 37 45 4 10 14 28

% delayed children % had fewer children

157

Appendix D
Generational Cohort
Personal Demographics

% married % divorced Parental Status % with children % children > 5 % children 6 to 11 % children 12 to 18 % children 18% Eldercare Status % Eldercare in home % Eldercare nearby % Eldercare elsewhere Responsibility for Childcare Childcare - % they do Childcare - % shared Childcare - % partner does Responsibility for Eldercare Eldercare - % they do Eldercare - % shared Eldercare - % partner does

Generation Y Men Women Dependents Dependents No No 36 50 0 0 0 1 13 25 0 1 14 32 -

Generation X Men Dependents No Yes 66 92 6 4 15 2 16 38 90 42 47 26 3 4 42 48 2 31 67 18 59 23 Women Dependents No Yes 58 76 5 10 2 2 13 34 68 26 41 88 10 8 45 46 42 47 11 35 57 8

Baby Boomers Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes Yes 85 91 69 10 6 20 81 0 3 17 93 2 25 54 94 4 21 55 63 4 50 56 6 53 41 18 55 26 86 0 14 48 67 10 48 53 51 45 5 47 47 6

158

Generation Y Men Women Dependents Dependents No No Family Financial Status % - Money is tight % - Live comfortably % - Money not an issue
Demands

Generation X Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 11 32 57 17 44 39 10 29 61 17 43 40

Baby Boomers Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes Yes 10 28 61 13 35 51 16 37 42

12 44 44

11 46 43

Generation Y Generation X Men Women Men Women Dependents Dependents Dependents Dependents No No No Yes No Yes Hours in work per week 46 45 49 49 47 47 Likelihood of engaging in following activities % working SWAH 41 43 63 76 64 74 % time in childcare 0 0 0 99 0 99 % time in eldercare 0 0 0 33 0 54 % time in career development 53 54 49 44 51 50 Mean hour per week in following activities (restricted sample) Mean hrs/wk SWAH 4 4 6 6 5 7 Mean hrs/wk home chores 7 6 7 9 7 11 Mean hrs/wk childcare 12 18 Mean hrs/wk eldercare 1 3 Mean hrs/wk leisure 17 15 15 8 15 7 Mean hrs/wk development 6 5 5 4 5 4 Mean hour per week partner spends in following activities (restricted sample) Hours in work/week 40 45 50 27 47 45 Hours in childcare/week 60 0 43 50 40 21 Hours in eldercare/week 3 0 5 6 2 3

Baby Boomers Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes Yes 50 50 48 71 0 0 43 6 8 13 3 33 22 6 79 90 52 47 6 10 7 2 10 3 30 23 5 76 88 65 55 7 13 7 3 8 4 45 11 4

159

Work-Life Conflict

% with high: Role Overload Work Interferes with Family Family Interferes with Work Caregiver strain: Physical Caregiver strain: Financial Caregiver strain: Emotional
Moderators of Work-Life Conflict

Generation Y Men Women Dependents Dependents No No 29 42 17 19 5 3 -

Generation X Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 39 45 43 61 27 38 23 41 7 11 3 17 5 11 4 6 5 10

Baby Boomers Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes Yes 33 40 54 21 32 32 4 7 10 10 16 3 5 7 13

% with supportive manager % with high flexibility

Generation Y Men Women Dependents Dependents No No 62 58 48 42

Generation X Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 56 55 51 55 45 37 45 38

Baby Boomers Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes Yes 55 52 53 49 42 37

160

Work Outcomes

% high job satisfaction % high commitment % high intent to turnover Absenteeism % Absent: health % Absent: childcare % Absent: eldercare % Absent: mental health % Absent 6 + days
Social Outcomes

Generation Y Men Women Dependents Dependents No No 55 55 53 53 29 31 58 25 11 75 40 18

Generation X Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 49 53 50 54 55 62 56 65 26 25 28 22 57 28 16 56 52 11 20 19 70 33 18 66 48 18 31 28

Baby Boomers Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes Yes 58 52 52 66 66 67 20 22 23 47 19 20 50 23 24 20 21 58 32 20 32 29

% delayed children % had fewer children

Generation Y Men Women Dependents Dependents No No 25 37 33 0

Generation X Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes No Yes 22 31 40 45 14 12 35 30

Baby Boomers Men Women Dependents Dependents No Yes Yes 10 10 10 4 7 17

161

Appendix E
Life Cycle Stage
Demands

Male No Childcare Sandwich Dependents Demands: Mean hours per week in: (Total Sample) Hrs in work/week 49 49 50 Hrs/wk SWAH 4 4 5 Hrs/wk home 4 15 10 chores Hrs/wk childcare 0 11 9 Hrs/wk eldercare 0 0 4 Hrs/wk leisure 15 9 9 Hrs/wk 2 2 2 development Total demands 59 81 80
Work-life Conflict

Eldercare

No Dependents 47 3 3 0 0 14 3 56

Female Childcare Sandwich Eldercare

50 5 9 0 4 12 2 70

46 5 14 16 0 7 2 83

48 5 14 13 5 7 3 88

48 4 9 0 5 11 3 69

No Dependents Work Life Conflict: % High Role Overload 33 WIF 21 FIW 5 Caregiver strain 1

Male Childcare Sandwich

Eldercare

No Dependents 43 22 3 1

Female Childcare Sandwich Eldercare

40 33 8 1

44 36 11 1

42 28 7 9

61 38 14 0

66 44 20 3

48 30 9 10

162

Moderators

No Dependents Moderators: % High flexibility Supportive Manager

Outcomes

Male Childcare Sandwich

Eldercare

No Dependents 45 55

Female Childcare Sandwich

Eldercare

50 60

41 55

36 50

44 50

41 55

34 50

38 50

No Dependents Organisational Outcomes High job satisfaction 56 High commitment 61 Intent to turnover 23 Absenteeism % Absent Health 52 % Absent Childcare 2 % Absent Eldercare 2 % Absent mental 22 fatigue % Absent 6 + days 16 Social Outcomes % delayed children 25 % fewer children 4

Male Childcare Sandwich

Eldercare

No Dependents 53 55 30 71 1 6 37 19 40 25

Female Childcare Sandwich Eldercare

56 68 22 53 46 6 19 26 0 9

50 65 21 53 45 31 21 26 0 10

47 60 26 51 3 31 27 22 35 6

60 70 20 60 60 5 29 28 0 25

50 63 22 49 42 29 29 28 0 28

46 50 29 70 2 33 41 25 45 8

163

Appendix F
Part time Sample
Men Dependents No Yes Demographics Mean years in organisation Mean years in job % who are greater than 55 % who are 30 to 49 % married % with children % with primary responsibility childcare % with primary responsibility eldercare % say that within their families money tight % say that they live comfortably on income % say that in their families money not an issue Demands Mean hours in work per week Mean hours in SWAH per week Mean hours in home chores per week Mean hours in childcare per week Mean hours in eldercare per week Mean hours in leisure per week Mean hours in career development per week % performing childcare % performing eldercare % engaged in career development Mean hours in work per week of partner Work life Conflict % with high role overload % with high work interferes with family % with high family interferes with work % with high caregiver strain: physical % with high caregiver strain: financial % with high caregiver strain: emotional Moderators Flexibility: % high Flexibility: % low % with supportive manager Organisational Outcomes % high commitment % high job satisfaction % high intent to turnover % absent due to ill health % absent due to childcare % absent due to eldercare % absent due to mental fatigue % absent all causes % absent more than 6 days in 6 months Social Outcomes % delayed having children due to career % reduced family size due to career 10 10 81 4 82 89 10 21 9 21 80 20 5 10 0 0 17 3 0 0 60 13 9 5 2 0 1 1 82 3 65 68 72 9 40 2 5 12 76 31 12 1 10 7 72 4 86 88 11 20 9 23 78 20 5 12 5 3 16 3 73 64 55 13 10 6 5 10 2 7 80 2 65 68 74 11 40 21 26 18 80 38 12 3 Women Dependents No Yes 4 5 23 38 62 23 43 22 14 30 56 21 3 9 0 0 13 9 0 0 55 43 15 3 2 0 0 0 72 1 62 68 71 16 58 8 5 31 86 25 30 21 6 5 5 80 98 98 82 50 15 45 40 23 3 21 29 3 5 1 98 45 22 48 52 25 30 11 5 10 61 12 62 66 65 20 50 66 14 25 81 27 12 20

164

Appendix G
Correlations
This appendix lists all significant and substantive correlations between the variables in Figure 1. A positive correlation means that the variables move together (i.e. large values of one variable are associated with large values of the other and small with small). A negative correlation, on the other hand, is one in which large values of one variable are associated with small variables on another. For example, overload increases as total hours in work increases; overload decreases as total hours in work decreases. Perceived flexibility, on the other hand, decreases as total hours in work per week increases and vice versa. The correlation coefficient ranges between 0 and +1. The higher the number, the stronger the association. Key associations for each variable are indicated in red.

Predictors - Demands
Correlation between Total hours per week in work and: Perceived flexibility (-.23) Job satisfaction (-.15) Hours per week in childcare (-.09) Hours per week in leisure (-.10) SWAH (+.39) Work interferes with family (+.33) Overload (+.25) Fertility: Not started a family because of career demands (+.15) Family interferes with work (+.14) Organisational commitment (+.12) Correlation between Total hours per week in SWAH and: Hours per week in leisure (-.10) Hours per week in childcare (-.09) Total hours in work per week (+.39) Work interferes with family (+.22) Family interferes with work (+.17) Overload (+.16) Organisational commitment (+.12) Total hours per week in eldercare (+.10) Total hours per week in career development activities (+.10) Correlation between Hours per week commuting to and from work and: Perceived flexibility (-.12) Organisational commitment (-.10) Job satisfaction (-.09) Correlation between Hours per week in home chores and: Hours per week in childcare (+.19) Family interferes with work (+.16) Hours per week in eldercare (+.12) Correlation between Hours per week in childcare and: Hours per week in eldercare (+.17) Family interferes with work (+.16) Hours per week in career development (+.10) Total Absenteeism (+.10) Hours per week in SWAH (-.09) Correlation between Hours per week in eldercare and:

165

Caregiver strain (+.31) Hours per week in career development (+.19) Hours per week in childcare (+.14) Hours per week in home chores and errands (+.12) Total Absenteeism (+.10) SWAH (+.09)

Correlation between Hours per week in career development activities and: Hours per week in eldercare (+.19) Hours per week in childcare (+.10) Hours per week in leisure (+.10) Correlation between Hours per week in leisure and: Role overload (-.19) Work interferes with family (-.19) Family interferes with work (-.19) Fertility: Have had fewer children because of demands at work (-.13) Fertility: Not started a family because of career demands (-.13) Having fewer children (-.12) Hours in work per week (-.10) Hours in SWAH per week (-.09) Perceived flexibility (+.15) Job satisfaction (+.14) Supportive management (+.09) Hours per week in career development (+.10)

Work-Life Conflict - Overload

Correlation between Overload and: Job satisfaction (-.43) Perceived flexibility (-.39) Supportive management (-.22) Hours per week in leisure (-.20) Organisational commitment (-.16) Work Interferes with Family (+.71) Family interferes with work (+.57) Hours in work per week (+.36) Intent to turnover (+.33) Fertility: Not started a family because of career demands (+.33) Fertility: Have had fewer children because of demands at work (+.31) Caregiver strain (+.17) Total Absenteeism (+.17) Hours in SWAH per week (+.16)

166

Work-Life Conflict Work Interferes with Family

Correlation between Work interferes with family and: Job satisfaction (-.47) Perceived flexibility (-.47) Supportive manager (-.25) Hours per week in leisure (-.19) Organisational commitment (-.17) Role overload (+.71) Family interferes with work (+.61) Fertility: Not started a family because of career demands (+.43) Fertility: Have had fewer children because of demands at work (+.39) Hours in work per week (+.33) Intent to turnover (+.31) Hours in SWAH per week (+.22) Caregiver strain (+.17) Total Absenteeism (+.12) Hours commuting per week (+.09)

Work-Life Conflict Family Interferes with Work

Correlation between Family interferes with work and: Perceived flexibility (-.33) Job satisfaction (-.33) Hours per week in leisure (-.21) Supportive management (-.20) Organisational commitment (-.13) Work interferes with family (+.61) Role overload (+.57) Fertility: Have had fewer children because of demands at work (+.40) Caregiver strain (+.27) Intent to turnover (+.25) SWAH (+.16) Total Absenteeism (+.16) Hours per week in childcare (+.16) Hours in work per week (+.14) Hours in home chores per week (+.10) Hours per week in eldercare (+.09) Fertility: Not started a family because of career demands (+.09)

Work-Life Conflict Caregiver Strain

Correlation between Caregiver strain and: Hours per week in leisure (-.21) Perceived flexibility (-.16) Job satisfaction (-.15) Supportive management (-.09) Fertility: Not started a family because of career demands (+.43) Hours per week in eldercare (+.33) Family interferes with work (+.27) Role overload (+.17) Work interferes with family (+.17) Fertility: Have had fewer children because of demands at work (+.15)

Outcomes - Commitment

167

Correlation between Commitment and: o Intent to turnover (-.56) Work interferes with family (-.17) Overload (-.16) Family interferes with work (-.13) Fertility: Have had fewer children because of demands at work (-.12) Job satisfaction (+.60) Supportive Manager (+.51) Perceived flexibility (+.29) Hours per week in SWAH (+.12) Hours per week in work (+.12) Hours per week in SWAH (+.12)

Outcomes Job Satisfaction

Correlation between Job satisfaction and: Intent to turnover (-.53) Work interferes with family (-.46) Overload (-.43) Family interferes with work (-.33) Fertility: Have had fewer children because of demands at work (-.23) Fertility: Not started a family because of career demands (-.20) Organisational commitment (+.60) Supportive Manager (+.56) Perceived flexibility (+.51) Hours per week in leisure (+.10) Total absenteeism (+.09)

Outcomes Total Absenteeism

Correlation between Total Absenteeism and: Job satisfaction (-.10) Absenteeism due to ill health (+.71) Overload (+.17) Family interferes with work (+.16) Caregiver strain (+.16) Work interferes with family (+.12) Fertility: Have had fewer children because of the demands of my career (+.11) Hours per week in childcare (+.10) Intent to turnover (+.10)

168

Outcomes Reduced Fertility

Correlation between had fewer children due to demands of work and:
Perceived flexibility (-.23) Job satisfaction (-.23) Supportive manager (-.15) Organisational commitment (-.12) Hours per week in leisure (-.10) Family interferes with work (+.40) Work interferes with family (+.39) Overload (+.30) Caregiver strain (+.15) Intent to turnover (+.15) Total Absenteeism (+.10)

Correlation between delayed starting a family due to demands of work and:

Perceived flexibility (-.26) Job satisfaction (-.20) Hours per week in leisure (-.13) Supportive manager (-.12) Work interferes with family (+.44) Overload (+.33) Hours per week in work (+.14) Intent to turnover (+.13) Caregiver strain (+.09)

Moderators - Perceived Flexibility

Correlation between perceived flexibility and:
Work interferes with family (-.48) Role overload (-.42) Family interferes with work (-.34) Fertility: Not started a family because of career demands (-.26) Fertility: Have had fewer children because of demands at work (-.23) Hours in work per week (-.23) Intent to turnover (-.22) Caregiver strain (-.16) Hours per week spent commuting to and from work (-.12) Job satisfaction (+.51) Organisational commitment (+.29) Supportive management (+.30) Hours per week in leisure (+.15)

169

Moderators - Supportive Manager

Correlation between supportive management and: Intent to turnover (-.46) Work interferes with family (-.25) Role overload (-.22) Family interferes with work (-.19) Caregiver strain (-.10) Total absenteeism (-.10) Job satisfaction (+.56) Organisational commitment (+.52) Perceived flexibility (+.30) Hours a week in leisure activities (+.10)

170