Work-Life Conflict in Canada in the New Millennium
A Status Report

Dr. Linda Duxbury, Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University
Dr. Chris Higgins, Professor, Richard Ivey School of Business, U.W.O.

Final Report
October 2003

• Executive Summary

Work-Life Conflict in Canada in the New Millennium
A Status Report Final Report
October 2003
(1,690 KB) in PDF Format 
(How to download PDF documents)

Executive Summary 

As we enter the new millennium, Canadian governments, employers, employees and families face a common challenge-how to make it easier for Canadians to balance their work roles and their desire to have a meaningful life outside of work. The research initiative summarized in this report was undertaken to address this issue. This report conceptualizes work⁴-life conflict broadly to include role overload, work to family interference, family to work interference, work to family spillover and caregiver strain. Answers to the following specific questions are provided in this report:

• How prevalent are the various forms of work-life conflict in Canada at this time (reference year of 2001)? 
• Has the prevalence of the various forms of work-life conflict changed over the past decade? 
• What is the impact of the various forms of work-life conflict on: 
  • Canadian organizations? 
  • Canadian families? 
  • Canadian employees? 
• How does gender, job type, sector of employment and dependent care status affect these issues? 

Demographic Profile of Respondents 

The sample consists of 31,571 Canadian employees who work in organizations of medium size (i.e. 500-999) and large size (1,000+ employees) in three sectors of the economy: public (federal, provincial and municipal governments), private and not-for-profit (NFP) (defined in this study to include organizations in the health care and educational sectors). In total, 100 companies participated in the study: 40 from the private sector, 22 from the public sector and 38 from the NFP sector. The sample is distributed as follows:

• 46% of the respondents work in the public sector, 33% work in the NFP sector, 20% are employed by a private sector company; 
• 55% of the respondents are women; 
• 46% of the respondents work in managerial and professional positions while 54% work in "other" positions (i.e. clerical, administrative, retail, production, technical); and
• just over half (56%) of the respondents have dependent care responsibilities (i.e. spend an hour or more a week in either child care or elder care). The rest (44%) do not. 

The 2001 survey sample is well distributed with respect to age, region, community size, job type, education, personal income, family income and family's financial well-being. In many ways, the demographic characteristics of the sample correspond to national data, suggesting that the results from this research can be generalized beyond this research. Approximately half of the respondents to the survey can be considered to be highly educated male and female knowledge workers. The majority of respondents are part of a dual-income family and indicate that they are able to "live comfortably" (but not luxuriously) on two full-time incomes.

The sample includes a substantial number of employees who may be at risk with respect to work-life conflict. The mean age of the respondents to this survey was 42.8 years of age which puts them in the mid-career/fast-track stage of the career cycle, the "full-nest" stage of the life cycle and the 40's transition stage of adult development. Each of these stages is associated with increased stress and greater work and family demands. Three quarters of the respondents are presently married or living with a significant other and 69% are part of a dual-income family. Eleven percent are single parents. Twelve percent live in rural areas. One in three is a clerical or administrative employee with a lower level of formal education (i.e. reduced job mobility) and lower personal and family income. One quarter of the respondents indicates that money is tight in their family; 29% of respondents earn less than $40,000 per year and just over one-quarter live in families with total family incomes that are less than the Canadian average. One in three of the respondents has a 'high school education or less'.

The majority of respondents have responsibilities outside of work. Seventy percent are parents (average number of children for parents in the sample is 2.1); 60% have elder care responsibilities (average number of elderly dependents is 2.3); 13% have responsibility for the care of a disabled relative; 13% have both child care and elder care demands (i.e. are part of the "sandwich generation"). The fact that these data on non-work demands correspond closely to national data provided by Statistics Canada suggests that the findings from this study can be generalized to all Canadians working for large firms.

What do we know about the prevalence of role overload from this study? 

Role overload is having too much to do in a given amount of time. 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. The following key observations can be drawn regarding role overload from the data reviewed in this report:

High levels of role overload have become systemic within the population of employees working for Canada's largest employers: The majority of employees in our sample (58%) are currently experiencing high levels of role overload. Another 30% report moderate levels of role overload. Only 12% of the respondents in this sample report low levels of overload.

The percentage of the workforce with high role overload has increased over the past decade: Fifty-eight percent of the respondents to the 2001 survey report high levels of role overload-an increase of 11 percentage points over what was observed in the 1991 sample. This increase in role overload is consistent with the fact that employees in the 2001 sample spend more time in work and family activities per week than their counterparts in the 1991 sample. Other data from the 2001 survey would suggest that much of this increase in role overload can be linked to new information and communications technology (e.g. laptops, email, cell phones), organizational norms that still reward long hours at the office rather than performance and organizational anorexia (downsizing has meant there are too few employees to do the work). While a full discussion of workload issues can be found in Report One in this series, it is worthwhile to note the following:

"Comparisons done using the 1991 and 2001 samples suggest that time in work has increased over the decade. Whereas one in ten respondents in 1991 worked 50 or more hours per week, one in four does so now; during this same time period, the proportion of employees working between 35 and 39 hours per week declined from 48% of the sample to 27%. This increase in time in work was observed for all job groups and all sectors."

What do we know about the prevalence of work to family interference from this study?

Work to family interference occurs when work demands and responsibilities make it more difficult for an employee to fulfill family role responsibilities. The data reviewed in this report support the following deductions regarding work to family interference:

Work to family interference is a real problem for one in four Canadians working for larger employers: One in four Canadians report that their work responsibilities interfere with their ability to fulfill their responsibilities at home. Almost 40% of Canadians report moderate levels of interference. The proportion of the Canadian workforce with high levels of work to family interference has not changed over the past decade.

What do we know about the prevalence of family to work interference from this study?

Family to work interference occurs when family demands and responsibilities make it more difficult for an employee to fulfill work role responsibilities. The following key observations can be drawn regarding family to work interference from the data reviewed in this report:

Family to work interference is not common in Canada at this time: Only 10% of the Canadians in this sample report high levels of family to work interference. Another third report moderate levels of family to work interference.

Very few Canadians allow their family demands to interfere with the fulfillment of responsibilities at work: Family to work interference has a very different distribution than observed with role overload and work to family interference. While role overload is positively skewed and work to family interference has a normal distribution, family to work interference is negatively skewed. Three times as many Canadians give priority to work at the expense of their family as the reverse (i.e. give priority to their family).

The percentage of working Canadians who give priority to family rather than work has doubled over the past decade: This increase can be attributed largely to the fact that the number of employees with elder care responsibilities has increased over the past decade.

What do we know about the prevalence of caregiver strain from this research?

For the purposes of this study, the term "caregiver" refers to anyone who provides assistance to a disabled or elderly dependent. Caregiver strain is a multidimensional construct which is defined in terms of "burdens" or changes in the caregiver's day-to-day lives which can be attributed to the need to provide care for this dependent. Four types of caregiver strains resulting from stress have been identified: emotional (e.g. depression, anxiety, emotional exhaustion), physical, financial and family strain. The data reviewed in this report with respect to caregiver strain support the following assertion:

Approximately one in four working Canadians experiences high levels of caregiver strain: While the majority of the respondents to this survey (74%) rarely experience caregiver strain, 9% find elder care to be a strain several times a week or daily. Another 17% experience such feelings approximately once a week.

What do we know about the prevalence of work to family spillover from this study?

Work to family spillover arises when work experiences affect an employee's ability to perform non-work roles. Traditionally, researchers have assumed that work will have a negative impact on family (i.e. negative spillover between domains). The concept of spillover included in this study is more comprehensive in that it allows for the possibility that conditions at work might have a positive, a negative, or no impact on the family. The following observations arise from the data on work to family spillover reviewed in this study:

Almost half of the Canadians working for larger firms (44% of this sample) experience negative spillover from work to family: Very few Canadians working for larger firms (only 9% of this sample) perceive that their experiences at work have a positive impact on their family life.

Almost half of the Canadians working for larger firms (47%) are able to compartmentalize-such employees feel that work and family are quite separate domains and that work does not affect their family life: Employees with fewer demands either at work (i.e. those in "other" jobs) and/or at home (i.e. those without dependent care and/or men) are more likely to report that work and family are separate domains.

So ... what can we conclude about the prevalence of work-life conflict in Canada at this time?

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

Who has more problems balancing work and family responsibilities? The evidence is quite clear-employed Canadians with dependent care responsibilities. Employees who have child and/or elder care responsibilities report higher levels of work-life conflict than those without such responsibilities, regardless of how work-life conflict is assessed (i.e. report higher levels of role overload, work to family interference, family to work interference and caregiver strain, and more likely to report negative spillover). None of the other factors examined in this study is associated with all five work-life conflict measures. Employees without dependent care responsibilities are more able to separate work and family. This greater ability to balance can be attributed to two factors: fewer demands outside of work and more degrees of freedom to deal with work issues (i.e. more control over their time).

Job type is associated with all but one of the measures of work-life conflict. Employees with higher demands at work (i.e. managers and professionals) were more likely than those in "other" jobs to experience high levels of overload, work to family interference and negative spillover (women managers in particular report higher levels of negative spillover). Those in "other" jobs, however, were more likely to report higher levels of caregiver strain due to the financial stresses associated with elder care.

Gender is associated with two out of five of the measures of work-life conflict. Women are more likely than men to report high levels of role overload and high caregiver strain. As noted in Report One, women devote more hours per week than men to non-work activities such as child care and elder care and are more likely to have primary responsibility for non-work tasks.

It is interesting to note that when job type is taken into account and when work-life conflict is broken into its component parts, many of the gender differences in work-life conflict referred to in the research literature disappear. This suggests that many of the gender differences in work-life conflict may be attributed to the fact that women are typically compressed into a different set of jobs than men.

Sector of employment is associated with three out of five of the measures of work-life conflict. Respondents working in the NFP sector are more likely than their counterparts in the public and private sectors to report high role overload, high work to family interference and negative spillover. The elevated levels of work-life conflict in this sector can be attributed to higher work demands (i.e. respondents in this sector spend more hours per week in employment-related activities and are more likely to have to spend week nights and weekend nights away from home on job-related travel) and how work is arranged (i.e. shift arrangements, rigid work schedules). It should be noted that the women in the NFP sector sample had the most difficulties balancing work and family. The data indicate that the women in this sector have three challenges to meet-heavier demands at home, heavier demands at work, and work arrangements that give them little ability to combine work and non-work demands.

Why should organizations care about work-life conflict? 

The majority of Canada's largest employers cannot be considered to be best practice employers: The data reviewed in this report paint a disturbing picture for Canada's larger employers. Only about half of the employees who participated in this study are highly committed to their employer, satisfied with their job and view their organization as "an above average place to work." One in three reports high levels of job stress and one in four is thinking of leaving their current organization once a week or more. Absenteeism (especially absenteeism due to physical and mental health issues) also appears to be a substantial problem for Canadian employers, with half of the respondents reporting high levels of absenteeism (defined as three or more days of absence in the six months prior to the study being conducted). One in four respondents misses three or more days of work in a six-month period due to ill health, while one in ten reports high absenteeism due to emotional, physical or mental fatigue.

Conditions within Canadian organizations have declined over time: High job stress and absenteeism due to ill health have become more problematic over the past decade. Almost three times as many respondents report high job stress in 2001 (35%) than in 1991 (13%). More than half (56%) of those in the 1991 sample did not miss work due to ill health in the six months prior to the study being conducted, while just under one in four (24%) missed three or more days. In 2001, the number of respondents missing three or more days of work due to ill health increased to 28% of the sample while the proportion reporting zero days' absence due to ill health declined to 46%.

During the same time period, job satisfaction and organizational commitment have also appeared to decline. Whereas almost two thirds of employees in 1991 were highly satisfied with their jobs (62%) and committed to their organization (66%), approximately half report high satisfaction (46%) or high organizational commitment (53%) in 2001. Such findings are not surprising given the fact that workloads (see Report One) and work-life conflict also increased over the same time period. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that many of the management practices instituted by Canada's largest organizations over the past decade (i.e. downsizing, re-engineering, focus on hours not output, pay freezes, restructuring) have had a negative impact on how Canadian employees perceive their job and their employer.

How an employee feels about their organization (i.e. commitment, rating of organization as a place to work, intent to turnover) and their job (i.e. job satisfaction, job stress) has more to do with the type of work being done and the work environment (i.e. job type and sector of employment) than demands outside of work (i.e. gender, dependent care status): An employee's view of both their organization and their job, as well as the amount of job stress they experience and their intent to turnover, can be linked to the type of work being done and the work environment (i.e. job type, sector of employment) rather than gender or dependent care status. In other words, it is what you do within the work setting and how you are treated at work rather than responsibilities outside of work or gender that influence key organizational outcomes. Taken as a whole, the data indicate that managers and professionals are more committed to their organizations and satisfied with their jobs than their non-professional counterparts, despite their jobs being associated with higher levels of stress. The data also indicate that employees in the private sector feel more positively about their employer and their jobs than their counterparts in the public and NFP sectors.

Absenteeism due to child care and elder care problems is associated⁵ with gender and the number of demands an employee has outside of work (i.e. dependent care status) while absenteeism due to emotional, physical and mental health problems is associated with sector of employment: The link between absenteeism and the context variables under examination in this study (i.e. gender, job type, sector of employment, dependent care status) is more complex. Absenteeism due to child care and elder care (and total absenteeism because it is made up of these two kinds of absenteeism) is strongly associated with gender and demands outside of work (i.e. women and employees with dependent care responsibilities are more likely to report high levels of these types of absenteeism and, as noted in Report One, high family demands). Absenteeism due to poor emotional, physical and mental health, however, is associated primarily with sector of employment (i.e. work environment), with Canadians in the public sector reporting the highest levels and private sector employees reporting the lowest levels of absenteeism due to these causes.

High work-life conflict is associated with increased absenteeism and substandard organizational performance: The data reviewed in this study leave little doubt that high work-life conflict is associated with a number of indicators of substandard organizational performance and increased absenteeism costs. In other words, high work-life conflict negatively affects an organization's bottom line. The data reviewed in this report indicate that the four⁶ components of work-life conflict examined in this phase of the study have different impacts on the organization. These differences are worthy of note in that they provide quite different motivations for addressing this issue as well as different prescriptions with respect to change.

Role overload is positively associated with physical and mental health problems: Employees who have high role overload are less committed to their organization, report higher job stress, are less satisfied with their jobs (due largely to dissatisfaction with workloads, hours worked and work schedules), are more likely to be absent from work (due largely to physical and mental health problems), are more likely to be thinking of leaving the organization (to escape frustrating and non-supportive work environments and to get more time for themselves and more recognition for their efforts), and have a less favourable view of their employer. In other words, organizations which have a higher proportion of their workforce with high levels of this form of work-life conflict are likely to have difficulties recruiting and retaining employees and increased costs associated with poor physical and mental health (i.e. greater absenteeism, higher prescription drug costs, greater employee assistance program use). The dimensions of the problem can be assessed by considering the following data. Compared to their counterparts with low levels of role overload, employees with high role overload are:

• 5.6 times more likely to report high levels of job stress; 
• 3.5 times more likely to have high levels of absenteeism due to emotional, physical or mental fatigue; 
• 2.3 times more likely to report high intent to turnover; 
• 1.6 times more likely to have high levels of absenteeism, all factors considered, and to miss three or more days of work in a six-month period due to ill health; and 
• 2.8 times more likely to miss work due to child care problems. 

In addition, employees who report low levels of role overload are 1.3 times as likely as those with high role overload to be highly committed to their employer, 1.7 times as likely to have a positive view of their employer and 2.0 times as likely to report high levels of job satisfaction.

Work to family interference is negatively associated with recruitment and retention: The impact of work to family interference on the organization is very similar to that observed with respect to role overload. This is not surprising given the high correlation between these two constructs. It should be noted, however, that the respondents with high levels of work to family interference report the lowest levels of commitment (only 44% with high commitment), the lowest levels of job satisfaction (only 24% are highly satisfied with their jobs), the highest levels of job stress (66% report high job stress) and the highest intent to turnover (44% are thinking of leaving weekly or more, with 24% thinking of leaving several times a week or daily!) of any of the respondents in the study. Organizational commitment, intent to turnover and rating of the employer have all been found to be strongly associated with recruitment and retention issues.

The data indicate that work to family interference affects how people feel about their employer. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that employees who perceive that they have to put work ahead of family (e.g. feel that they have to make a choice between career advancement and family or between job security and family) are not as loyal and committed as employees who do not perceive that such a choice is necessary.

Family to work interference is positively associated with absenteeism due to child care problems. From the organization's perspective, the main consequence of high family to work interference is higher absenteeism due to child care problems. Respondents with high levels of family to work interference were seven times more likely to miss three or more days of work in a six-month period due to child care than those with low levels of this form of work-life conflict. This suggests that organizations could reduce this form of absenteeism by making it easier for employees with dependent care responsibilities to vary when and where they work.

Caregiver strain is positively associated with absenteeism due to elder care problems and emotional, physical or mental fatigue: Employees with high caregiver strain were 13.0 times more likely than those with low caregiver strain to miss three or more days of work in a six-month period due to elder care problems and 1.8 times more likely to miss work because they were emotionally, physically or mentally fatigued.

Employers could substantially decrease absenteeism in their organizations if they reduced work-life conflict. Our calculations indicate that employers could reduce absenteeism in their organization by:

• 24.2% if they eliminated high levels of role overload; 
• 6.5% if they eliminated high levels of work to family interference; 
• 3.5% if they eliminated high levels of family to work interference; and 
• 8.6% if they could eliminate high levels of caregiver strain. 

The direct costs of absenteeism due to high work-life conflict are approximately $3 to $5 billion per year: The data collected in this study provide us with the opportunity to estimate the potential financial cost of work-life conflict to Canadian organizations. Our estimates suggested that, in 2001, the direct costs of absenteeism due to work-life conflict are roughly $3 to $5 billion. When both direct and indirect costs are included in the calculations, work-life conflict costs Canadians approximately $4.5 to $10 billion per year. Specifically:

• The direct costs of absenteeism due to high role overload are estimated to be approximately $3 billion per year. Direct and indirect costs of absenteeism due to role overload are estimated to be between $4.5 (conservative estimate) and $6 billion per year. 
• The direct costs of absenteeism due to high levels of work to family interference are estimated to be almost $1 billion per year in direct costs alone (costs increase to $1.5 to $2 billion if one also includes the indirect costs of this absenteeism). 
• The direct costs of absenteeism due to high levels of family to work interference are estimated to be just under $0.5 billion a year in direct costs (approximately $1 billion per year when indirect costs are also included in the total). 
• The direct costs of absenteeism due to high levels of caregiver strain are calculated to be just over $1 billion per year (indirect costs are estimated at another $1 to $2 billion). 

Why should families care about work-life conflict? 

The data in this report paint a mixed picture with respect to the "health" of the families in which Canadian employees live: On a positive note, the majority of respondents are satisfied with their families and their performance as a parent and engage in behaviours associated with positive parenting several times a week or more. On a more cautionary note, only 38% of respondents are completely satisfied with their family's well-being and only one in four frequently engages in activities which have been linked to family stability.

Women are less satisfied than men with their performance as a parent: Men are more likely than women to indicate that they are satisfied with their abilities as a parent. This gender difference is particularly interesting because women spend more time in child care than men. These findings suggest that many women judge their performance as a parent using outdated and perhaps unrealistic standards (e.g. compare themselves to their own mothers).

Family outcomes decline as family responsibilities increase: In other words, family well-being and stability decline as family responsibilities increase. Neither job type nor sector are associated with any of the family outcomes examined in this study.

High work-life conflict is associated with diminished levels of family and parental satisfaction and impaired family functioning: The data reviewed in this study leave little doubt that high work-life conflict is associated with a number of indicators of impaired family functioning (i.e. lower levels of family well-being and stability, poorer performance of parenting roles) and reduced satisfaction with the family domain (lower levels of family life and parental satisfaction). In other words, high work-life conflict negatively affects employees' abilities to enjoy and nurture their families.

Role overload and work to family interference have the most negative impact on the family: In both forms of work-life conflict, employees with high levels of conflict are less satisfied with their family life and their ability to parent, less likely to feel that their families are well (i.e. report lower family adaptation) and less likely to feel that their families are stable and work well together.

Family to work interference is negatively associated with family life satisfaction, parental satisfaction and family well-being: Surprisingly, employees who put family ahead of work are also less likely than those with low levels of family to work interference to be satisfied with their family lives and their abilities as a parent. They are also less likely to be happy with their family's well-being. In fact, this group reports the lowest levels of family life satisfaction, parental satisfaction and family well-being in the study. The fact that family to work interference is not associated with family integration suggests that either people who put family ahead of work are doing so to keep their family units intact or the strategy of putting family first maintains family integrity. The costs of this strategy are clear, however-lower levels of satisfaction with the family domain.

Caregiver strain is negatively associated with positive parenting behaviours: Employees with high caregiver strain are less likely to engage in positive parenting behaviour. This suggests that the time and energy devoted to elder care activities are interfering with the time available for one's children.

Why should employees care about work-life conflict?

Many Canadians working for Canada's largest employers are in poor mental health: Over half of the employed Canadians who responded to our survey report high levels of perceived stress; one in three reports high levels of burnout and depressed mood. Only 41% are satisfied with their lives and one in five is dissatisfied. Almost one in five perceives that their physical health is fair or poor. These data are disturbing as they can be considered to be a "best case scenario" and reflect the mental health status of employed Canadians, many (if not virtually all) of whom can be considered to have a "good" job, in one of the "best countries to live in the world!" This begs the following question: If a substantial number of employed Canadians can be considered to be in poor mental health, what is the prevalence of mental health problems in those groups that are considered to be at risk with respect to stress, depression and poor physical health (e.g. contingent workers, the unemployed, those on social assistance)?

The physical and mental health of Canadian employees has deteriorated over time: Overall, the 1990s appears to have been a tough decade for Canadians working for medium and large organizations. Comparison of the 1991 and 2001 samples indicates that the prevalence of high levels of perceived stress and depression in the Canadian labour force has increased in the past decade. In 1991, 44% of the respondents to our survey reported high levels of perceived stress; this had increased to 55% with high levels of perceived stress in 2001. In 1991, 24% of the respondents to our survey reported high levels of depressed mood compared to 36% in the 2001 sample. This decline in mental health over the past decade is not surprising given the increase in work demands noted in Report One. Taken as a whole, these data suggest that the increase in work demands over the past decade, as well as the proliferation of work-life conflict, are having a negative impact on the mental health of employees.

Women report higher levels of perceived stress, burnout and depressed mood than men: The data are unequivocal-women are more likely than men to report high levels of perceived stress, burnout and depressed mood. The fact that these gender differences were observed when job type, dependent care status and sector of employment are taken into account suggests that such differences have more to do with gender differences in socialization than in either work or non-work demands. These findings may, for example, be due to women being more likely to self-examine their emotional feelings and acknowledge problems with respect to their mental health. Alternatively, it may be that women are less able to cope effectively with multiple stressors within their environment. Finally, these gender differences in mental health may exist because women who work for pay outside of the home have added stressors associated with paid employment to their lives with little concomitant decrease in the stressors associated with their family roles.

Managers and professionals are in better mental and physical health than employees working in clerical, administrative, technical and production positions within the organization: Managers and professionals can be considered to be in better overall mental health (i.e. less likely to be depressed, more likely to be satisfied with their lives) and physical health (i.e. more likely to describe their health as very good to excellent) than employees who occupy blue and pink collar jobs (i.e. clerical, administrative, production positions). This finding is particularly striking given the fact that the managers and professionals in our sample are more likely than the blue and pink collar employees to work long hours, take work home with them and report high role overload, high work to family interference, negative work to family spillover and high job stress-conditions which are generally a recipe for poorer mental health. Taken in concert, these findings suggest that managerial and professional employees are more able than their non-professional counterparts to cope with these higher work demands. These findings are consistent with the literature presented in Report One which suggests that employees in professional positions have a greater perception of control than non-professionals and that it is these higher levels of control that help them cope with heavier work demands. Unfortunately, we still do not know what contributes to this increased sense of control. Possible explanations include better working conditions, more interesting work, higher levels of flexibility, higher job security, increased job mobility (linked to their higher levels of education) and higher socio-economic status (i.e. more formal education, higher incomes). These data also suggest that the physical and mental health issues we observed in the other group may be more a function of their work environment, the types of jobs they do and their working conditions than the time spent in work itself.

Female managers and professionals are more likely than females in "other" positions to report high levels of burnout: The data suggest that managerial and professional positions and motherhood are not compatible in that they both impose heavy demands. Women who work in managerial and professional positions are more likely to experience symptoms of burnout than any other group of employees. These higher levels of burnout can be attributed to the fact that this group of women appears to be in a "no win" situation with respect to work and family-they have heavier work demands than other women and heavier family demands than men. In other words, female managers and professionals are more likely than workers in any other group to try to "burn the candle at both ends"-succeed at a high-level job while not sacrificing standards at home. Such a strategy appears to be unsustainable over time.

Employees who have no dependent care responsibilities are in better physical and mental health than employed Canadians who spend time each week in child and/or elder care: The data are also unequivocal with respect to the impact of parenthood and/or elder care on employee physical and mental health. The greater the number of non-work demands assumed by an employee, the more likely they are to report that they are stressed, burnt out and that their health is fair or poor. In other words, the job of parent/elder caregiver can be considered to be a high-demand, low-control position-one which we know challenges an individual's ability to cope. Individuals or couples without children or elder care responsibilities can act relatively independently as they do not have the constraints or the demands of caring for children or elderly dependents. The addition of the parent/elder caregiver role complicates an employee's life situation as it places greater demands on them at the same time as it adds constraints. These data suggest that efforts to more proactively manage a more diverse workforce and implement policies and programs to help working mothers and fathers and those with elder care issues have had no appreciable impact on this group of employees.

Motherhood presents more mental health challenges than fatherhood: Parenthood appears to have a different impact on the life satisfaction of mothers than fathers. Fatherhood is not associated with life satisfaction for men. Mothers, however, are less satisfied with their lives than women without children. Similar findings were observed with respect to depressed mood. Mothers are more likely to report high depressed mood than women without children/elder care. Having either child care or elder care responsibilities is not, however, associated with depressed mood for men. These findings support the research literature in the area which suggests that the role of working mother is qualitatively different from the role of working father and that the "quality" of motherhood as a role is not as high as fatherhood (i.e. dads do the "fun" family tasks while mothers do the "hard stuff"). Further research is needed to determine if these differences are due to social, workplace or family factors (or some combination) so that targeted policies are developed and supports implemented. More equitable sharing of childrearing within the family may lead to better mental health outcomes for working mothers.

Men who work in the public sector report poorer mental health: Men in the public sector sample appear to be exposed to a fairly unique set of stressors. They are more likely than any other group of men to report high perceived stress and depressed mood and less likely to report that they are satisfied with their lives. Further research is needed to determine what conditions within the public sector work environment are impairing the mental health of these men.

High work-life conflict is associated with declines in employee physical and mental health: The data reviewed in this study leave little doubt that high work-life conflict is associated with a number of indicators of physical and mental health problems at the employee level. Employees who are stressed, depressed and burnt out are not as productive as those in good mental health. Perceived stress, depression and burnout are also linked to increased absenteeism, greater use of prescription medicines and employee assistance programs, and lower levels of creativity, innovation and risk taking, which, in turn, can all be expected to negatively affect an organization's bottom line.

The four components of work-life conflict have differential impacts on the physical and mental health of employees: These differences are worthy of note in that they provide quite different motivations for addressing this issue as well as different prescriptions with respect to change.

• Employees with low levels of role overload are in better mental health: Respondents with low role overload appear to be in the best mental and physical health of any of the respondents in the survey. Only 20% of those with low role overload report high stress, only 4% are burnt out and only 14% report high levels of depressed mood. Furthermore, 60% of the respondents with low role overload indicate that they are very satisfied with their lives. These data suggest that the mental health of employed Canadians would be significantly improved if organizations ensured that work demands were more manageable (i.e. hired more staff, reduced travel demands, put limits on the use of technology to support after-hours work). 
• Employees with high levels of role overload are more likely to report high levels of burnout: Role overload is positively associated with perceived stress, burnout and depressed mood, and negatively associated with life satisfaction and perceived physical health. Examination of the data indicates that employees with high role overload are 12 times more likely than those with low role overload to report high levels of burnout. These findings indicate that the long hours that employers expect from their workforce are not sustainable over time. 
• Work to family interference is associated with higher levels of perceived stress, depressed mood and burnout: The respondents with high work to family interference can be considered to be "at risk" with respect to burnout and perceived stress (62% of the respondents with high work to family interference report high levels of burnout and 77% report high levels of perceived stress). Employees with high work to family interference are 5.6 times more likely than those with low levels of work to family interference to report high levels of burnout, 2.4 times more likely to report high levels of depressed mood and 2.2 times as likely to report high levels of perceived stress. These findings suggest that the strategy of "trying to do it all" and "meeting heavy demands at work at the expense of one's personal life" impairs one's mental health. 
• Family to work interference is less problematic for employees than other forms of work-life conflict: The alternative strategy-putting family ahead of work-does not appear to be as harmful to one's mental health as putting work ahead of family. It is, however, still cause for concern. 
• Employees with high caregiver strain are most likely to be depressed: Respondents with high levels of caregiver strain appear to be at the highest risk with respect to perceived stress (80% with high caregiver strain report high stress), depressed mood (60% with high caregiver strain report high depressed mood) and impaired physical health (28% with high caregiver strain report that their health is fair or poor). They are also the least likely to be satisfied with their lives. 

Recommendations 

There is no "one size fits all" solution to the issue of work-life conflict. The data from this study show quite clearly that different policies, practices and strategies will be needed to reduce each of the five components of work-life conflict: role overload, work to family interference, family to work interference, caregiver strain and negative work to family spillover. That being said, the data indicate that there are a number of strategies and approaches that the various stakeholders in this issue (i.e. employers, employees, families, unions and governments) can use to reduce work-life conflict. Thirty-nine such recommendations are provided in the main body of the report. The recommendations fall into two broad groupings: reduce demands (at either work or home) or increase the amount of control the employee has over the work-life interface. Either of these strategies should yield positive results. These recommendations are summarized below.

What can employers do? 

Employers who wish to address work-life balance need to:

1. identify ways of reducing employee workloads. Special attention needs to be given to reducing the workloads of managers and professionals in all sectors.

2. recognize that unrealistic work demands are not sustainable over time and come at a cost to the organization which is often not recognized or tracked. Accordingly, we recommend that the employer start recording the costs of understaffing and overwork.

3. identify ways to reduce the amount of time employees spend in job-related travel.

4. hire more people in those areas where the organization is overly reliant on unpaid overtime.

5. collect data which reflect the total costs of delivering high quality work on time (i.e. paid and unpaid overtime, subsequent turnover, employee assistance program use, absenteeism).

6. change their accountability frameworks and reward structures.

7. tangibly reward and recognize overtime work.

8. develop an etiquette around the use of office technologies (e.g. laptops, email, cell phones)

9. make alternative work arrangements more widely available within their organization.

10. reduce their reliance on both paid and unpaid overtime.

11. give employees the opportunity to say "no" when asked to work overtime. Saying "no" should not be a career-limiting move.

12. implement time off in lieu of overtime pay arrangements.

13. provide a limited number of days of paid leave per year for child care, elder care or personal problems.

14. provide appropriate support for their employees who work rotating shifts.

15. measure the use of the different supportive policies and reward those sections of the organization that demonstrate best practices in these areas. Investigate those areas where use is low.

16. implement cafeteria benefits packages which allow employees to select those benefits which are most appropriate for their personal situation on a yearly basis.

17. offer child care and elder care referral services.

What can employees do?

Employees should:

18. say "no" to overtime hours if work expectations are unreasonable.

19. try to limit the amount of work they take home to complete in the evenings. If they do take work home, they should make every effort to separate time spent in work from family time (i.e. do work after the children go to bed, have a home office).

20. try to reduce the amount of time they spend in job-related travel.

21. take advantage of the flexible work arrangements available in their organization.

What can governments do? 

To reduce work-life conflict within their constituencies, governments (federal, provincial and municipal) need to:

22. implement legislation: 

• which stipulates that an employer's management rights do not include an implied right to require an employee to work overtime except in the case of an emergency, 
• that gives employees the right to time off in lieu of overtime pay, 
• that entitles employees to up to five days of paid personal leave per year, and 
• includes specific language around long-term unpaid leave for the care of an elderly dependent. 

23. take the lead with respect to the issue of child care by determining how to best help employed Canadians deal with child care issues (i.e. develop appropriate policies for parents of children of various ages, identify and implement relevant supports).

24. take the lead with respect to the issue of elder care by determining how to best help employed Canadians deal with elder care issues (i.e. develop appropriate policies, identify and implement relevant supports).

25. "lead by example" with respect to the availability and accessibility of flexible work arrangements and supportive policies.

26. investigate ways to increase Canadians' awareness of how social roles and responsibilities have changed over the past several decades, what changes still need to happen, and why (e.g. social marketing campaign, education programs in schools, advertisements).

27. examine how they can reduce the "financial penalties" associated with parenthood (i.e. determine how to concretely recognize that this group of employees has higher costs).

What can unions do? 

Unions need to:

28. become advocates of employee work-life balance by undertaking public campaigns to raise awareness of work-life issues and suggest ways in which the situation can be improved. This advocacy should be done outside the collective bargaining process.

29. Include work-life provisions (e.g. flexible work arrangements, family-friendly benefits) in negotiations during the collective bargaining process with the objective of gaining new accommodations in collective agreements.

30. Set up educational campaigns to: 

• increase individual workers' knowledge of work-life balance issue, and
• give employees the tools they need to effectively deal with situations as they arise. 

⁴ Throughout this report, the term "work" refers to paid employment.

⁵ 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, however, means that as the levels of work-life conflict increase, so do the levels of the organizational outcomes (i.e. as overload increases, so does job stress).

⁶ The spillover measure is not used in this report to calculate the costs of imbalance. The way this variable was quantified (i.e. negative spillover, no spillover, positive spillover) makes it inappropriate for these kinds of data analysis.

Work-Life Conflict in Canada in the New Millennium
A Status Report Final Report
October 2003
(1,690 KB) in PDF Format 
(How to download PDF documents)