1. Work-linked couples and work-life balance: resource or liability?
Gail Kinman
University of Bedfordshire, UK

2. Researching the work-home interface
The fulfilment of demands in one role depletes the resources available to meet the demands of other roles
Work-life conflict “.. a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985)
Time, strain, and behaviour-based conflict - negative outcomes
Work roles can also facilitate and enrich non-working life
Resource drain model – resources are finite
Negative outcomes such as psychological and physical health problems, job performance, life and family satisfaction, retention etc

3. Border theory (Ashforth et al, 2000)
The boundaries between work and non-work roles vary in their flexibility and permeability
Two roles (i.e. professional and personal) are:
integrated if the boundary is flexible and permeable
segmented if the boundary is inflexible and impermeable
Blurred boundaries associated with more work-life conflict
BUT role integration is not necessarily damaging
wide variation in the desirability of role integration/segmentation
“goodness of fit” predicts wellbeing and satisfaction
Desrochers – blurred boundaries allows role demands to move across boundaries more easily
Say something about ac findings

4. Dual-career couples Both partners employed in occupations that:
involve investment of time and energy
require a high level of commitment and involvement
have an upwardly mobile professional trajectory
Dual-career relationships more supportive, but more potential for work-life conflict
Communication about work is common: leads to crossover of work-related mood. Also competitive negotiation about career precedence can lead to burnout
Hard to estimate proportion in the UK as dual career/dual earner tend to be used interchangeably
Estimate that >60% UK households comprise dual-career couples
Both partners of comparable educational/occupational status,
A considerable investment of time and energy
Studies found higher levels of instrumental support
Levels of work-life conflict particularly high for dual career couples with children
Crossfield et al. Study of 74 dual career couples. 72% of women and 81% of men said that discussions about work took place every day or almost every day. Wide range of topics discussed (positive and negative). Positive and negative crossover - Work-related anxiety and depression is exacerbated for couples who discuss their work very regularly. Also the crossover of satisfaction
This study focuses on the negotiation process that partners in a couple engage in behind the scenes to negotiate whose career will take precedence in the household and the resulting effort and burnout that individuals experience at work and at home. The author finds that gender moderates the relationship between competitive negotiation tactics and an individual’s career responsibilities. Gender also moderates the relationship between both competitive and cooperative negotiation tactics and the emotional work conducted by one’s spouse or partner. The author also observes a moderating effect of gender between emotional and career effort and burnout—both from one’s job and from one’s relationship. Results suggest that men and women react differently to negotiation tactics used within a couple and tend to be affected by gendered norms regarding the work and family domains.

5. Work-linked couples:
Both partners employed in the same occupation (or the same workplace)
Prevalence has generally increased - particularly common amongst academic employees
c40% academics in USA have a partner in the same profession; rise of “dual hiring policies”
proportion of UK dual-career academic couples is unknown
Little known about how work-linked couples manage the work-home interface
Academics are a particularly appropriate group to study
Study by Schiebinger of 9K professors at 13 leading research universities
Formal dual hiring policies – many universities will find a job for a partner within same or another local university. No. 1 reason for refusing job offer was because their partners were not offered a job at the new location
As well as being more common, ac employees are a particularly appropriate sample

6. Academics and the work-home interface:
Particular problems managing the work-home interface (Kinman & Jones, 2009)
High demand, low support
Intra-professional role overload and conflict
Professional and personal roles highly integrated
The work is “unbounded” and “portable”
High schedule flexibility, but frequent boundary-spanning activities
High job involvement and commitment
Work-life conflict predicted by combined factors
Work-life conflict main predictor of psychological distress
The potential for work-life conflict has increased amongst employees across all sectors – academics have working conditions and developed coping strategies that put them at greater risk
they frequently experience boundary-spanning demands (such as sending and receiving work s at home, marking and writing) (Lewis & Cooper, 2005; Schieman & Young, 2009).
Research finds that job involvement can have negative and positive impact for work-life balance

7. Research questions:
What are the consequences for work-life balance of being in a work-linked relationship?
Are professional and personal roles more highly integrated and work-home boundaries weaker for work-linked couples?
What is the role of communication about work?
What are the implications for work-home boundary management?

8. Work-linked couples and work-life balance: resource or liability?
Potential benefits
Shared interests and mutual goals
Greater understanding of working conditions - more tolerance, understanding and support during stressful times
More mutual schedule flexibility - more efficient juggling
Potential drawbacks
The work role may be more salient during home life and leisure
Job demands may be more likely to spill over into the home
Greater risk of time-based and strain-based conflict
Implications for work-life balance and general wellbeing

9. Aims of research:
Two studies examining the implications for work-life balance of having a work-linked partner
Study 1:
Do academic employees in a work-linked relationship differ in levels of key work-home variables compared to those whose partners do different jobs?
Are work demands more likely to spill over into the personal domain for work-linked academics?
Work-life conflict, integration, boundary strength, working hours, schedule flexibility and over comm to the job role
i.e. is the boundary between the professional and the personal weaker and more permeable for people who do similar jobs? If so, does this translate into poorer work-life balance?

10. Method:
644 FT academics in a dual-career relationship (61% male) - 45% (n=291) in a work-linked relationship
Measures
Job demands (Kinman & Jones, 2004)
Average working hours
Work-life conflict (Netemeyer et al, 1996)
Professional/personal role integration (current and ideal)
Boundary strength
Schedule flexibility
Organisational support for work-life balance
Over-commitment to the job role (Siegrist, 1996)
(general and job-specific)3 item scale for support

11. Differences between groups
Group Mean (SD) Sign. Work-life conflict WL 4.88 (1.30) NWL 4.38 (1.43) .001 Role integration (current) WL 6.55 (1.95) NWL 5.20 (2.24) .001 Role integration (ideal) WL 3.57 (2.04) NWL 3.30 (2.02) ns Boundary strength WL 2.16 (0.88) NWL 3.82 (0.94) .01 Working hours WL 2.85 (1.11) NWL 2.38 (1.56) .01 Over-commitment WL 3.22 (0.54 NWL 2.70 (0.58) .001 Org. support for WLB WL 3.05 (1.35) NWL 3.45 (0.98) .05
WL – in a work-linked relationship; NWL non work-linked relationship
Role integration – 9 point scale with lower scores representing lower levels of integration
Sign. Difference in current levels of integration between professional and personal roles, but no differences in ideal levels (as can be seen, participants generally wanted considerably less integration than they currently experienced.)
No sign. Differences in levels of schedule flexibility so not shown

12. Significant interaction effects p<.001
Evidence found to support this in that participants who were in a work-linked relationship had stronger relationships between work demands and work-llife conflict, suggesting they were more likely to import the negative impact of work demands into home environment
Significant interaction effects p<.001

13. Study 2: Aims
To explore the work-home interface for employees in a work-linked relationship in greater depth
Thematic content analysis of qualitative data
Particular focus placed on:
Satisfaction with work-life balance
Mutual understanding of work-related issues
Communication about work
The impact of being in a work-linked couple on the work-home interface (positive and negative)
Crossover effects
Talking about work with partners is common and related to wellbeing, but perceived understanding and helpfulness is a key predictor of wellbeing (Crossfield et al, 2005)

14. Method:
45 academics in a work-linked relationship provided data on-line (43% male; 79% in relationship for at least 6 years)
Questions:
Satisfaction with work-life balance (participant and partner)
Mutual understanding of working tasks and conditions
Communication about work (frequency, content and helpfulness)
Impact of partner having a good/bad day
Critical incidents where being in a work-linked relationship has helped/hindered work-life balance
Cohabit with another academic working FT
Also asked about Working hours & working practices, schedule flexibility, working at home)
Role integration (current/ideal); boundary strength
Work-life conflict
Recovery strategies utilised by participant and partner
But findings not reported here
Questions were for participant and on behalf of partner

15. Work-life balance
Personal WLB - 59% scored either 1 or 2 on a 6 point scale only 10% scored 5 or 6 (where 1 = very dissatisfied and 6 = very satisfied)
Perceptions of partners WLB – 3% very dissatisfied, nobody scored 2, whereas 55% scored 5 or 6.
Participants clearly believe that their partners are more satisfied with their work-life balance than they themselves are
To what extent are you satisfied with your work-life balance?
To what extent is your partner satisfied with his/her work-life balance

16. Mutual understanding of working conditions
Evidence found that understanding of issues faced at work is rather one sided. Participants perceived a high level of understanding of their partners working conditions (with 90% scoring 5 or 6 indicating complete understanding) whereas the perceived level of understanding from their partners was moderate at best d
To what extent do you understand the issues your partner faces at work?
To what extent does your partner understand the issues you face at work?

17. Frequency of discussion about work with partner
Work-related discussions with partners are frequent with 62% discussing work issues with their partner every day or almost every day (scoring 5 and 6 on a 6 point scale)

18. Work discussions with partner: content and helpfulness
For most, work-related discussions with partner were equally positive and negative (67%) , but for a considerable proportion (28%) they are mainly negative
Work-related discussions with partner were generally considered to be helpful with 65% reporting they were always or almost always helpful

19. Topics of communication
Wide range of topics discussed – for some, “everything!”
Intrinsic aspects of the job: e.g. research and teaching
Extrinsic aspects of the job: e.g. salary, promotion
Wider organisational factors: e.g. corporate politics
Information sharing and updating
Relationships with (behaviour and performance of) colleagues and management
Personal successes and failures
Amusing incidents and gossip
General worries and concerns
Workload, stress, frustration, annoyances, bureaucracy, increased expectations and demands on time
Aspects of the job such as research and teaching
Research – debates in field – dependent on similarity of area of expertise between partners)
Behaviour of management and colleagues most common
Information sharing – guidance on policy and regulations
(major and minor successes
Amusing incidents – vagaries of colleague, management and student behaviour

20. Consequences of partner having a “good day” at work
Crossover effects between partners: enhanced mood, contentment and ability to relax
“It makes an enormous difference – if he is cheerier, then so am I”
Impact on activities, communication and family relationships
No real impact
“It is good to know, but doesn’t have a significant impact on me”
Considerable evidence of crossover effects
Enhances facilitation and enrichment effects

21. Consequences of partner having a “bad day” at work
A much stronger impact than a good day
“We cannot not talk about it”
Crossover of negative mood and tension between partners
“One suffers, both suffer”
Impact on activities, communication and relationships
Social/emotional withdrawal, less willingness to do household tasks, complaining/griping, disagreements/arguments
“I have to look for the positive on his behalf which can be exhausting and gives me no escape from thinking or talking about work”
Indirect positive impact
“It makes me stop worrying about my own day and lets me concentrate on something else for a change”
Impossible to ignore – must be dealt with,
She doesn’t sleep well, leading to disturbed sleep for us both”
Make an effort to cheer the partner up – emotionally exhausting
Empathy

22. Work-linked relationships and work-life enrichment/facilitation
Mutual understanding and tolerance
Helping each other cope
“We listen, support and take care of each other”
Schedule flexibility and autonomy
Shared interests, passions and enthusiasm
Working together to help solve work problems
Professional admiration and respect
“I like him more because of the work he does”
Recognising the “danger signs” of over-involvement or lack of perspective on each other’s behalf
Critical incidents
Shared understanding was by far the most common feature
Easier to synchronise family activities and can rearrange schedules to accommodate emergencies such as child care

23. Work-linked relationships and work-life conflict
Busy times can occur simultaneously
“Spending time working at home in different rooms”
… or at different times
“One of us may be working while the other wants to have fun ”
Perceived lack of equity in workloads
“Moaning about his teaching load which is a fraction of mine”
Personal life revolves around work
“Talking shop” with the same friends from work”
Examples of time based and strain based conflict
Considerable variation found – some reported no conflict
Hard to keep up with housework etc
Partner
If I don’t want to talk about work and he does it can cause resentment – expectations can change depending on mood
Personal life revolving around work – as have same friends and talk shop

24. Work-linked relationships and work-life conflict
Mismatched expectations about role boundaries
“My partner is obsessed with work and will talk about it even if I don’t want to”
Boundary spanning activities causing intrusion
Facing the same problems and shared understanding
“Can turn into a mutual moanfest”
Differing philosophies and approaches to work
Manager vs trade union official
Different philosphies – academic manager with a partner who is a shop steward – thankfully work at different institutions
Disagreements can be particularly difficult (particularly if partners work together)
Debates and disagreements can co-exist at work and home – carry over into the holidays

25. Work-linked relationships and work-life conflict
Work disagreements can spill over into home life
“We both have strong views about our shared discipline which can lead to robust debate”
“I was the project manager. He would not meet deadlines, fell out with partners and blamed everybody else. Inevitably it spilled over into our home life and caused a lot of tension”
Career competitiveness
Difficulty finding work in the same geographical area- living apart
Need to separate work and home feelings
Competition more of a problem for people who work in similar disciplines
Some couples had worked many miles away from each other and a few had to live separately during the week

26. Conclusions: Work-home boundaries are weaker for work-linked couples
Time-based and strain-based conflict
Work demands and concerns are more likely to threaten work-life balance for work-linked couples
Many risk factors, but many protective features – linked to job context, working practices, stress management strategies and mutual expectations
Crossover effects: the quality of a partner’s day and working strategies affects wellbeing
The nature, frequency and desirability of work-related communication is important – a good “fit” is required
Examples of time-based and strain-based conflict
The nature of the job = the flexibility of academic work enhances work-life facilitation and engagement in topic enhances enrichment
A good day enhances enrichment and a bad day enhances conflict
Need to have a good fit

27. Future research
Focus on crossover effects and explore potential mechanisms between partners
Use work-linked couples not individuals as the unit of analysis
Explore the role of over-commitment, involvement and social enmeshment in work
Further explore lack of concordance in perceptions of work-life balance between couples, and mutual understanding of working conditions
Develop interventions at the couple level – enhanced negotiation skills needed for dual career couples?
Research included “survivors” only, not those whose relationships had broken down
Maximise positive crossover

28. Questions: Are work-linked couples a “special case”?
If so, are the work-life balance issues they face qualitatively or quantitatively different to other dual career couples?
To what extent would “traditional” work-life balance interventions be useful for work-linked couples?