Faculty perceptions of work-life balance: the role of marital/relationship and family status

Abstract

This study examined correlates of work-life balance perceptions for faculty from various marital/relationship and family statuses, using data from the multi-institutional survey of faculty from the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) project at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education. Indicating lower work-life balance among single (rather than married/partnered) faculty, our findings call for colleges and universities to directly address the work-life struggles of single faculty members with and without children. Our findings also underscore the central importance of institutional support for making personal/family obligations and an academic career compatible for all faculty, supports that are correlated with better faculty work-life balance at the level of both individual faculty and the institution. In addition, we argue that institutional supports are particularly important for early-career faculty, who assessed their work-life balance consistently lower than faculty at higher ranks.

In recent years, work-life balance has become a significant focus of conversations concerning faculty well-being in higher education (Sallee and Lester 2017). The majority of this literature has focused on the work-life experiences of faculty mothers and, to a lesser extent, faculty fathers, along with studies on the organizational and policy environments that support or hinder their work-life balance (Denson et al. 2018; O’Meara and Campbell 2011; Sallee 2014; Sallee and Lester 2017; Sallee et al. 2016; Szelényi and Denson 2019; Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2004; Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2012). Although understanding and promoting the work-life balance of faculty parents remain of paramount importance, virtually no studies have investigated the work-life balance of faculty from a wider variety of marital/relationship and family statuses, including single faculty and married faculty without children. As Sallee and Lester (2017) noted: “scholarship and accompanying policy implications, particularly in higher education, has tended to focus exclusively on the needs of individuals navigating parenthood” (p. 357).

This omission in the higher education literature is in stark contrast with studies in other fields, highlighting the enormous importance of examining the work-life experiences of single individuals and those married without children (e.g., Ashburn-Nardo 2017; Blackstone and Stewart 2012; DePaulo 2006; DePaulo and Morris 2006). In fact, for a number of years, it has been clear that the workplace experiences of single people without children can be fraught with stigma, discrimination, and stereotyping—a group of experiences referred to as “singlism.” Singlism refers to the expectation that single people who do not have children have more time and fewer life responsibilities, allowing them to be more committed to their work as compared to their colleagues with partners and/or children (DePaulo 2006). Significant challenges have also been highlighted in the personal and workplace experiences of married people without children (Ashburn-Nardo 2017; Blackstone and Stewart 2012).

Our study is thus guided by the conviction that in order to more fully understand faculty members’ work-life experiences and to provide supportive environments for all faculty, a more inclusive approach that examines the experiences of faculty with a variety of marital/relationship and family statuses is necessary. Drawing on data from a national survey of faculty in the USA, our study examines the ways in which individual and environmental factors are related to the work-life balance perceptions of faculty by marital/relationship and family status, including single faculty with no children, single faculty with children, married/partnered faculty with no children, and married/partnered faculty with children. Our study addresses the following research questions:

• 1. Are there differences in the work-life balance perceptions of faculty who are single with no children, single with children, married/partnered with no children, and married/partnered with children?

• 2. How are demographic factors, characteristics of the work environment, and individual perceptions of departmental and institutional environments related to faculty perceptions of work-life balance?

• 3. In what ways are institutional characteristics and institutional average perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance related to faculty perceptions of work-life balance?

• 4. Do institutional average perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance moderate the relationship between individual perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance and faculty perceptions of their work-life balance?

Faculty work-life experiences: individual backgrounds and environmental factors

Our study builds on research examining the role of individual backgrounds and environmental factors in the work-life experiences of faculty. In terms of faculty demographics, gender and race have been shown to play important roles in shaping faculty work-life balance. Results of multiple studies have pointed to gender inequities in faculty work-life experiences, with women experiencing noticeably more challenges than men (Mason et al. 2013; Misra et al. 2012; Szelényi and Denson 2019). While the literature on faculty work-life balance and race is extremely limited (Denson et al. 2018; Szelényi and Denson 2019), researchers have highlighted important realities in the experiences of faculty from different racial backgrounds, for example, the considerable significance of caregiving, community, and service commitments among faculty of color (Misra et al. 2012; Turner 2002).

Although the existing work-life literature in higher education remains focused predominantly on faculty parents (Sallee and Lester 2017; Wolf-Wendel and Ward 2015), some studies provide a sense of how faculty with a variety of marital/relationship and family statuses—including single or married, with or without children—spend their time. These studies show differences in time allocations in terms of overall amount of time spent on work, with faculty without children committing more hours to their professional positions than women and men with children (Jacobs and Winslow 2004; Misra et al. 2012). Specifically, Misra et al. (2012) found that faculty with children under the age of 12 spend 3.8 h less on work than faculty with no children. A survey conducted at the University of California showed similar findings, noting that faculty mothers work 53 h a week on average, compared with 59 h among childfree faculty women. Corresponding data show 56 h of work time for faculty fathers and 58 h for faculty men without children (Mason et al. 2013).

When considering unpaid labor at home, however, research has demonstrated that women faculty spend significantly more time on domestic commitments than men (Sax et al. 2002; Mason et al. 2013). The study of faculty at the University of California, for example, suggested that “faculty mothers put in a total of ninety-four hours a week, far more than the hours worked by men and childless women” (Mason et al. 2013, p. 70), when considering all domestic and professional commitments. This number compares with slightly over 80 h among men with children, 80 h for women without children, and around 75 h among men without children. While these studies do not directly address work-life balance among faculty with different marital/relationship and family statuses, they depict a picture of imbalance when it comes to time spent on work and life commitments depending on gender and parenting responsibilities.

In additional research, Mason et al.’s (2013) study showed that marital status and the presence or absence of children notably shape faculty experiences. For example, women and men faculty who are married are more likely to be promoted to full professor and earn higher salaries than their single counterparts. However, the earnings of women faculty with children decrease with the addition of each child, while men’s salaries are not affected by having children (Mason et al. 2013). Other studies have noted that many faculty mothers and fathers, especially in the humanities and social sciences, appreciate and thrive on the flexibility of the academic career, allowing them to devote more attention to their children while enjoying the ability to accomplish work commitments outside of the 9 am to 5 pm work requirements of many other professional paths (Sallee 2014; Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2012). Interestingly, some research has also found that faculty parents do not experience drops in satisfaction compared to their childless counterparts (Sallee and Lester 2017).

Although limited, some existing research has specifically highlighted challenges faced by single faculty in higher education. Specifically, Mason et al. (2013) noted potential issues with relocating for academic jobs and not being able to integrate into a department’s social life that may be built around the interests of married faculty and faculty with children. The authors also noted that “it is assumed that being single is a convenient excuse for being saddled with more work. Department chairs can easily make requests of unmarried faculty—for instance, teaching evening courses or entertaining job candidates—that they might be less willing to impose on their colleagues who are married or parents” (Mason et al. 2013, p. 81).

The second major area of literature informing our work relates to the structural and cultural factors that contribute to or hinder faculty’s work-life experiences. Some of these studies have looked at disciplinary and institutional differences in faculty work-life balance (Wolf-Wendel and Ward 2006; Wolf-Wendel and Ward 2015), noting the important role of different disciplinary work-life cultures in the experiences of faculty mothers (Wolf-Wendel and Ward 2015) or identifying only few differences in the work-life balance perceptions of faculty from various disciplines (Denson et al. 2018). In relation to institutional type, Wolf-Wendel and Ward (2006) found that academic mothers with young children working at different types of institutions (e.g., research universities vs. liberal arts colleges vs. community colleges) had significantly different work-life experiences.

A growing body of research has also examined how various expressions of institutional culture and support contribute to or hinder faculty’s work-life experiences, with varying levels of emphasis on all faculty or on faculty of specific relationship/marital and family statuses (Denson et al. 2018; Lester 2013, 2015; O’Meara and Campbell 2011; Sallee 2014; Sallee and Lester 2017; Szelényi and Denson 2019). In one study examining the assessments of work-life balance by faculty from different racial backgrounds, perceived institutional support for work-life balance was significantly and positively related to work-life balance among African American, Asian American, Latinx, and White faculty (Denson et al. 2018). In an additional quantitative study, focusing on both faculty race and gender, institutional support for work-life balance was also significantly and positively related to the work-life balance assessments of women and men faculty from Asian American, African American, and Latinx backgrounds (Szelényi and Denson 2019). The importance of supports at the departmental level was also stressed in O’Meara and Campbell’s (2011) study on faculty agency regarding work-life decisions, with the authors explaining two notable findings related to departmental cultures: “First, there is a sense in these departments that it is normal and good for faculty to have families. Second, in supportive departments, colleagues, especially department chairs, help faculty navigate the process around managing workload and family” (p. 460).

The findings of existing studies thus suggest a mixed picture of faculty’s work-life experiences. Some depict married faculty with children as happy, satisfied, and productive (Sallee and Lester 2017), while other research has pointed to the social and stereotyped obstacles faced by single and/or childfree faculty (Kelly and Grant 2012; Mason et al. 2013). Prior research has also noted significant challenges experienced by parents, particularly mothers, in faculty careers and the need for both structural and cultural change in supporting faculty work-life balance (Mason et al. 2013; O’Meara and Campbell 2011; Sallee 2014; Sallee and Lester 2017). Although the findings related to the role of marital/relationship and family status in the faculty experience are complicated, what is clear is that each marital/relationship and family status may bring with it a range of opportunities and challenges that are more important than ever to explore in research. Our study makes contributions to this literature by bringing emphasis to faculty’s perceptions of work-life balance, examining specifically faculty members with different marital/relationship and family statuses.

Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework and selection of variables are guided, first, by the higher education faculty work-life literature (Denson et al. 2018; O’Meara and Campbell 2011; Sallee and Lester 2017; Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2012), focusing on variables such as gender, race, rank, and satisfaction. In addition, we draw on two frequently used theories in the broader literature on work-life balance, including Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) theory of perceived organizational support (POS) and the theory of family-supportive organizational perceptions (FSOP) (Allen 2001). POS outlines employees’ overall perceptions regarding the extent to which they feel valued and supported by their institutions. Specifically, Eisenberger et al. (1986) stated that POS refers to “global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being” (p. 501). In this realm, we included independent variables concerning the collegiality and supportiveness of colleagues and faculty’s perceptions of mentoring.

In contrast to POS’s focus on global perceptions of support, FSOP refers specifically to the extent to which employees feel like they are receiving family-focused support from the organizations for which they work (Allen 2001). Importantly, the FSOP concept is not limited to family life and, instead, includes perceptions of support for a range of life and family commitments. In our study, we included independent variables that emphasize faculty’s perceptions of the (1) departmental and (2) institutional support they receive for balancing their work and life/family commitments. In addition, our analyses include a variable that reflects the institutional average of faculty perceptions of institution-level support making work and personal/family commitments compatible.

Methods

Data source and participants

The data source for this study is the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) project housed at Harvard University. The COACHE aims to improve faculty outcomes in terms of recruitment, development, and retention. For this study, we used the 2011 data from the Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey. Our initial sample consisted of 4362 faculty members from 59 institutions (Benson et al. 2012). Of these, 550 (13%) were single faculty without children, 209 (5%) were single faculty with children, 1095 (25%) were married/partnered without children, and 2508 (58%) were married/partnered with children. Given the disparate sample sizes between the groups, we randomly chose 550 respondents in each of the married/partnered samples. Thus, our final sample consisted of 1859 faculty members from 58 institutions. Of these, 550 (30%) were single faculty without children, 209 (11%) were single faculty with children, 550 (30%) were married/partnered without children, and 550 (30%) were married/partnered with children. In addition, 823 (44%) were women faculty and 1036 (56%) were men. In terms of race, 1510 (81%) were White (non-Hispanic) faculty; 143 (8%) were Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander faculty; and the remaining 206 (11%) were underrepresented faculty of color (consisting of American Indian or Native Alaskan, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, multiracial, and other). Of the 59 institutions, 54 (91%) were public institutions and five (9%) were private institutions. In addition, 17 (29%) of the institutions can be classified as “very high” or “high” research-intensive universities and the other 42 (71%) of the institutions were doctoral/research, masters, and baccalaureate institutions.

Analyses

First, we compared the frequencies of key demographic and background characteristics across the four marital/relationship and family status groups to better understand the sample of faculty prior to running other analyses. Second, we examined whether there were any significant differences in faculty’s work-life balance assessments by marital/relationship and family status using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA; research question 1). Then, to control for the nesting of faculty within institutions, we conducted hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) analyses to examine how faculty characteristics, departmental characteristics, and institutional characteristics predict faculty work-life balance across each of the various marital/relationship and family statuses (research questions 2 and 3), as well as the potential moderating effects of institutional average perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance on the relationship between individual perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance and perceived ability of individual faculty to achieve balance between their work and personal/family time (research question 4). The fourth research question examines whether faculty who are in an institution with a supportive climate of faculty work-life balance (measured by whether the faculty as a whole at the institution agree that their institution is supportive of work-life balance) can strengthen or attenuate the relationship between individual faculty perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance and their own perception of their work-life balance. We checked for multicollinearity by examining the variance inflation factors (VIFs) and tolerance values prior to the statistical analyses. Typically, VIF statistics over 10.0 and tolerance values 0.01 or below indicate severe multicollinearity (Afifi and Clark 1984; Neter et al. 1985). In this study, all VIF statistics were less than 2.3 and all tolerance values were greater than 0.45, so multicollinearity was not an issue.

We conducted four separate sets of HLM analyses (i.e., one for each marital/relationship and family status group). In each set of analyses, we first ran a fully unconditional model whereby no predictors were specified at either the student level (level 1) or the institution level (level 2), to examine how much variation in faculty work-life balance lies within and between institutions (represented by Eqs. 1 and 2 below).

$$ \mathrm{Level}\ 1:\kern0.5em {Y}_{ij}={\beta}_{0j}+{r}_{ij}\kern5em {r}_{ij}\sim N\ \left(0,{\sigma}^2\right) $$

(1)

where i = 1, 2,…,n_j students in institution j, and j = 1, 2,…, j institutions. In Eq. 1, each faculty’s rating on work-life balance, Y_ij, is a function of the institutional average of faculty work-life balance, β_0j, and a random effect, r_ij, which is unique to each individual faculty member. The r_ij is random error, which is assumed to be normally distributed with a mean of zero and variance σ². The variance of the random effects (σ²) is the within-institution variance.

$$ \mathrm{Level}\ 2:\kern0.5em {\beta}_{0j}={\gamma}_{00}+{u}_{0j}\kern5.50em {u}_{0j}\sim N\ \left(0,{\tau}_{00}\right) $$

(2)

In Eq. 2, the institutional average of faculty work-life balance, β_0j, is a function of the grand mean of faculty work-life balance across all institutions, γ₀₀, and a random effect, u_0j, which is unique to each institution. The random effect u_0j is also assumed to be normally distributed with a mean of zero and variance τ₀₀. The variance of the random effects (τ₀₀) represents the between-institution variance.

We then ran a series of conditional models which included all the student-level (level 1) and institution-level (level 2) predictors (represented by Eqs. 3 and 4 below). All level 1 predictors have been group-mean centered and all level 2 predictors have been grand-mean centered so that the intercept term (β_0j) represents the institutional average of faculty work-life balance (unadjusted mean) for institution j.

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}\mathrm{Level}\ 1:{Y}_{ij}={\beta}_{0j}+{\beta}_{1j}\ \left(\mathrm{gender}\right)+{\beta}_{2j}\ \left(\mathrm{Asian}\ \mathrm{faculty}\right)+{\beta}_{3j}\ \left(\mathrm{underrepresented}\ \mathrm{faculty}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{color}\right)+{\beta}_{4j}\ \left(\operatorname{rank}\right)\\ {}\kern5.75em +{\beta}_{5j}\ \left(\mathrm{collegial}\ \mathrm{and}\ \mathrm{support}\mathrm{ive}\ \mathrm{colleagues}\right)+{\beta}_{6j}\ \left(\mathrm{mentoring}\ \mathrm{in}\ \mathrm{department}\right)\\ {}\begin{array}{l}\kern5.75em +{\beta}_{7j}\ \left(\mathrm{departmental}\ \mathrm{support}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{WLB}\right)+{\beta}_{8j}\ \left(\mathrm{departmental}\ \mathrm{fit}\right)\\ {}\kern5.75em +{\beta}_{9j}\ \left(\mathrm{intellectual}\ \mathrm{vitality}\right)+{\beta}_{10j}\ \left(\mathrm{satisfaction}:\mathrm{teaching}/\mathrm{learning}\right)\\ {}\begin{array}{l}\kern5.75em +{\beta}_{11j}\ \left(\mathrm{satisfaction}:\mathrm{students}\right)+{\beta}_{12j}\ \left(\mathrm{satisfaction}:\mathrm{teaching}\right)\\ {}\kern5.75em +{\beta}_{13j}\ \left(\mathrm{satisfaction}:\mathrm{research}\right)+{\beta}_{14j}\ \left(\mathrm{satisfaction}:\mathrm{service}\right)\\ {}\begin{array}{l}\kern5.75em +{\beta}_{15j}\ \left(\mathrm{satisfaction}:\mathrm{admin}\right)+{\beta}_{16j}\ \left(\mathrm{general}\ \mathrm{satisfaction}:\mathrm{inst}/\mathrm{dept}\right)\\ {}\kern5.75em +{\beta}_{17j}\ \left(\mathrm{institutional}\ \mathrm{support}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{WLB}\right)+{\beta}_{18j}\ \left(\mathrm{satisfaction}:\mathrm{inst}\ \mathrm{support}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{grants}/\mathrm{res}/\mathrm{scho}/\mathrm{creative}\ \mathrm{works}\right)+{\beta}_{19j}\ \left(\mathrm{institutional}\ \mathrm{support}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{leadership}\right)\\ {}\begin{array}{c}\kern5.75em +{r}_{ij}\kern22.50em {r}_{ij}\sim N\ \left(0,{\sigma}^2\right)\\ {}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}} $$

(3)

In the level 2 model, the intercept (β_0j) was specified as random, and all other coefficients were specified as fixed. The coefficient β_17j represents the institutional average of institutional support for work-life balance for institution j, which consists of γ₁₇₀ and γ₁₇₁. The coefficient γ₁₇₀ represents the level 1 relationship between the institutional average of institutional support for work-life balance and individual faculty work-life balance. The coefficient γ₁₇₁ represents the cross-level effects of the extent to which the institutional average perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance affects the relationship between individual faculty perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance and the perceived ability of individual faculty to achieve balance between their work and personal/family time (research question 4).

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}\mathrm{Level}\ 2:{\beta}_{0j}={\gamma}_{00}+{\gamma}_{01}\ \left(\mathrm{Control}:\mathrm{Private}\right)+{\gamma}_{02}\ \left(\mathrm{Very}\ \mathrm{high}/\mathrm{high}\ \mathrm{research}\ \mathrm{university}\right)\\ {}\kern5.5em +{\gamma}_{03}\ \left(\mathrm{Institutional}\ \mathrm{average}:\mathrm{institutional}\ \mathrm{support}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{WLB}\right)+{u}_{0j}\kern0.5em {u}_{0j}\sim N\ \left(0,{\tau}_{00}\right)\end{array}} $$

(4)

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{\beta}_{1j}={\gamma}_{10}\\ {}:\kern2em :\\ {}\begin{array}{l}:\kern2em :\\ {}{\beta}_{16j}={\gamma}_{160}\\ {}\begin{array}{l}{\beta}_{17j}={\gamma}_{170}+{\gamma}_{171}\ \left(\mathrm{Institutional}\ \mathrm{average}:\mathrm{institutional}\ \mathrm{support}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{WLB}\right)+{u}_{17j}\kern0.5em {u}_{17j}\sim N\ \left(0,{\tau}_{00}\right)\\ {}{\beta}_{18j}={\gamma}_{180}\\ {}{b}_{19j}={\gamma}_{190}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}} $$

Measures

Following Rantanen et al.’s (2011) overall appraisal approach in examining work-life balance, the dependent variable was a single item which asked faculty to rate their level of agreement with the statement, “I am able to find the right balance, for me, between my professional life and my personal/family life” (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

The level 1 independent variables consisted of faculty characteristics, departmental characteristics, and individual perceptions of institutional characteristics. The faculty characteristics consisted of gender (0 = male; 1 = female), race/ethnicity (a categorical variable recoded into Asian American, underrepresented faculty of color (combined due to small sample sizes), and White/Caucasian faculty [reference group]), and rank (an ordinal variable, 1 = instructor/lecturer/other, 2 = assistant professor, 3 = associate professor, 4 = professor or full professor).

The departmental characteristics consisted of 12 variables. The first three variables reflected faculty’s assessment of the extent to which their colleagues are collegial and supportive (3 items; α = .815), the effectiveness of the mentoring they received from someone in their department (1 = very ineffective to 5 = very effective), and agreement with the statement that faculty’s departmental colleagues do what they can to make personal/family obligations (e.g., childcare or eldercare) and an academic career compatible (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The next eight variables asked about their satisfaction with various aspects of their department: fit with their department, intellectual vitality of faculty in the department, teaching and learning conversations, number of students they advise/mentor, and time spent on teaching, research, service, and administrative tasks (all on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied). The last variable (3 items; α = .856) was their general satisfaction with their department and institution.

Individual perceptions of institutional characteristics consisted of agreement with: My institution does what it can to make personal/family obligations and an academic career compatible (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree); institutional support for leadership roles (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree); and institutional support for grants/research/scholarly/creative work (7 items; α = .803).

The level 2 institutional characteristics consisted of institutional control (1 = private; 0 = public) and Carnegie classification (1 = very high and high research universities; 0 = all others). The final item was the institutional average perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance, which was an aggregate measure of the faculty responses for each institution on the same level 1 variable.

Limitations

Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, the dependent variable is represented by a single item (the only item available in the COACHE survey), which reflects individual faculty’s overall assessment of their ability to find the right balance between their professional and personal/family life, reflecting Rantanen et al.’s (2011) overall appraisal approach. While a single-item dependent variable is not ideal, such an approach has been recognized as a useful indicator of global assessments of work-life balance (Haddon et al. 2009). Single-item measures have also been successfully used to indicate other outcomes, such as self-esteem and job satisfaction (Brailovskaia and Margraf 2018; Wanous et al. 1997). In addition, considering the limited quantitative literature on faculty work-life balance, this approach provides a useful starting point to contributing to this growing area of research.

Second, due to small sample sizes, especially for single faculty with children, it was not possible to include disciplinary affiliations as independent variables. Third, the COACHE dataset we used only includes two possibilities for gender identification. Therefore, we were unable to include a wide variety of gender identities as independent variables in our study. Fourth, a number of independent variables asked faculty about their satisfaction with time spent on various activities (e.g., teaching, research, service) instead of actual time spent on various activities as the latter were not available in the COACHE dataset. Fifth, no community colleges were included in the survey administration, thus the findings of our study are only generalizable to faculty at four-year institutions. Last, the data we used were collected in 2011 and while there is overlap with many faculty members today, the findings may not be completely generalizable to all current faculty. Despite these limitations, this research is unique in offering a large-scale quantitative examination of faculty work-life balance across varying marital/relationship and family statuses.

Results

Table 1 presents the frequencies of key demographic and background characteristics of the faculty across the four marital/relationship and family status groups. In terms of age, married/partnered faculty with children were the youngest (M = 47), followed by single faculty both with and without children (M = 50), with married/partnered faculty without children being the oldest (M = 55). In the two single faculty groups (both with and without children), the faculty were mostly women (60–62%), while the two married/partnered faculty groups (both with and without children) were mostly men (66–68%), indicating a gender disparity among the faculty groups. In terms of children and/or dependents, a small proportion of faculty across all four groups had caregiving responsibilities for a dependent adult (10–15%). While the two faculty groups with children (i.e., single and married) had children in a range of ages, more married faculty with children had children who were of infant, toddler, or pre-school age (34%) as compared to single faculty with children (12%).

Table 1 Demographic and background characteristics by household status (N = 1859)

Regarding race/ethnicity, the majority of the faculty were White across all four marital/relationship and family status groups. However, the single faculty with children group had the largest proportion of underrepresented faculty of color (i.e., 22%), as compared to 8% among married/partnered faculty with or without children and 14% among single faculty without children. In terms of rank, married/partnered faculty without children had the highest proportion of full professors (52%), with single faculty without children having the lowest (26%). Among faculty with children (both single and married/partnered), about one-third (33–34%) were full professors. The vast majority of faculty across all four groups were at a public institution (87–93%) as compared to a private institution (7–13%). In addition, most faculty across all four groups were also at a research university with “very high” or “high” research activity (55–65%) as compared to any other institution (35–45%).

Table 2 presents the ANOVA results and mean comparisons. An examination of the means across the four faculty groups shows that married/partnered faculty with no children have the highest reported work-life balance, followed by married/partnered faculty with children, then single faculty with no children, with single faculty with children reporting the lowest work-life balance. The ANOVA and post-hoc comparisons, however, show that married/partnered faculty report better work-life balance than single faculty, regardless of whether they have children or not. Thus, it appears that being married/partnered (or not) is more related to faculty perceptions of being able to balance their professional and personal/family life.

Table 2 Mean differences in work-life balance by marital/relationship and family status (N = 1859)

Table 3 presents the HLM results by the four marital/relationship and family status groups. The results of the level 1 analyses indicate that in terms of faculty demographic and academic background characteristics, women faculty reported less work-life balance than men across all groups except for single faculty with children. There were no differences in work-life balance between underrepresented faculty of color and White faculty. However, single Asian American faculty with children had lower work-life balance than single White faculty with children. Higher rank was consistently associated with greater work-life balance for all faculty.

Table 3 Correlates of work-life balance by marital/relationship and family status (N = 1859)

Two of the variables reflecting faculty’s perceptions of various aspects of their departments were associated with assessments of work-life balance. First, having departmental colleagues that do what they can to make personal/family obligations and an academic career compatible was associated with better work-life balance for all faculty except for single faculty with children. Interestingly, having collegial and supportive colleagues was associated with lower work-life balance for married/partnered faculty.

Faculty satisfaction with various tasks, their department, and their institution were significantly related to work-life balance, although with differing patterns across the four faculty groups. For example, satisfaction with the number of students faculty advise/mentor was associated with better work-life balance for single faculty without children, while satisfaction with department fit was associated with better work-life balance for only married/partnered faculty without children. Satisfaction with time spent on research, by contrast, was associated with better work-life balance for married/partnered faculty only. And, satisfaction with time spent on service was associated with better work-life balance for single faculty with children, and satisfaction with time spent on administrative tasks was associated with better work-life balance for all faculty except for married/partnered faculty with children. Lastly, satisfaction with the intellectual vitality of faculty in the department was associated with lower work-life balance for single faculty without children.

In terms of perceived institutional characteristics, higher agreement that the institution does what it can to make personal/family obligations and an academic career compatible was associated with better work-life balance for all faculty, regardless of marital/relationship and family status. In addition, the institutional aggregate faculty perceptions that the institution does what it can to make personal/family obligations and an academic career compatible, a level 2 variable representing the institutional culture, was also associated with better work-life balance for all faculty. Both of these findings illustrate the importance of institutional support in nurturing a healthy balance between personal/family and work domains. Perceptions that the institution does what it can to help faculty who take on additional leadership roles so that they can sustain other aspects of their faculty work was associated with better work-life balance for married/partnered faculty with children, but was associated with lower work-life balance for single faculty with no children. For all faculty, neither institutional control nor institutional type had any association with perceived work-life balance.

Interestingly, there was a moderating effect of institutional average perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance on the relationship between individual perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance and perceptions of work-life balance for single faculty with no children only. In other words, for single faculty without children, being at an institution where their colleagues as a whole feel that their institution supports work-life balance strengthens the positive association between individual perceptions of institutional support for work-life balance and perceived work-life balance. Thus, a supportive institutional culture can be particularly beneficial for single faculty without children, amplifying the relationship between institutional support and better work-life balance. This last finding is key, given that single faculty have lower work-life balance as compared to their married faculty counterparts.

Discussion and implications

This study breaks significant new ground in the examination of faculty work-life balance in higher education, with a particular focus on marital/relationship and family status. Although a multitude of studies exist on the work-life experiences of faculty parents (Lester 2015; O’Meara and Campbell 2011; Sallee 2012, 2014; Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2012; Wolf-Wendel and Ward 2015), our study is the first to quantitatively examine the relationship between individual and environmental factors and the work-life balance assessments of faculty with different marital/relationship and family statuses.

In one of our most compelling sets of findings, our results show support for in-depth examinations of the work-life balance experiences of faculty with different marital/relationship and family statuses. In our analyses, single faculty reported significantly lower work-life balance than married/partnered faculty (regardless of having children or not). This finding indicates that married/partnered faculty overall report being better able to find the right balance between their professional and personal/family life than single faculty. This difference is not due to age, as married/partnered faculty with children were younger overall as compared to single faculty. Although our study does not directly answer the question of why single faculty assess their work-life balance as lower than married/partnered faculty, we find it important to differentiate between single faculty with and without children as we discuss possible reasons that explain these findings. Among single faculty without children, the higher number of hours they commit to professional endeavors likely plays a role in their lower work-life balance assessments (Jacobs and Winslow 2004; Mason et al. 2013; Misra et al. 2012). Other contributing factors may be related to the possibility that departments convey different work expectations to single faculty without children as opposed to married/partnered faculty and single faculty with children (Mason et al. 2013). Consistent with the larger literature on single individuals, the notion of “singlism” (DePaulo 2006), consisting of stereotyped stigma that promotes higher work expectations toward single people, may be at play in higher education as well, especially when it comes to single faculty members without children.

We recognize the work-life experiences of single faculty with children separately. It is clear from the broader literature, and a very limited number of studies in higher education, that employees who are single parents often have fewer resources in terms of time, flexibility, and caregiving (Nieuwenhuis and Maldonado 2018). In a study of pharmacy faculty members, for example, single faculty with children were the most likely to experience role strain, as expressed in their high agreement with the statement, “After a frustrating day at work I remain distracted for the rest of the day” (Nair and Gaither 1999, p. 6). In the same study, single faculty with children noted significantly lower life satisfaction than their counterparts who were married without children (Nair and Gaither 1999). Given these concerns, it is not surprising that single faculty with children in our study indicated particularly low work-life balance. What is noteworthy in our findings is that the challenges experienced by single faculty with and without children, although widely disparate, appear to lead to similar outcomes in terms of the two groups’ work-life balance assessments.

Our findings also speak to the various ways in which having a partner might positively shape one’s perceptions of work-life balance, given that married/partnered faculty reported higher work-life balance than single faculty. Perhaps married/partnered faculty, by virtue of having a partner with whom they can share the ups and downs of their life and work events, are shielded to some extent from the challenges of balancing their personal and professional commitments. Overall, it appears that, like single employees in other occupations (DePaulo 2006), single faculty face unique challenges as they navigate balancing the personal and professional aspects of their lives. And while it is not surprising that single faculty with children experience these challenges, the fact that single faculty without children also rate their work-life balance lower than married/partnered faculty is an eye-opening contribution to our understanding of the work-life complexities apparent in faculty life.

When examining the relationship between individual background variables and work-life balance, our findings show several differences among the four marital/relationship and family status groups examined. For example, women faculty reported less work-life balance as compared to men faculty in all marital/relationship and family status groups except for single faculty with children. The finding that the majority of women faculty report lower work-life balance is consistent with past research and points to the continuing importance of addressing the gendered nature of higher education institutions (e.g., Lester 2015; Sallee and Lester 2017).

For the most part, there were no differences in perceptions of work-life balance among faculty by racial/ethnic background, except for single Asian American faculty without children reporting lower work-life balance than their White counterparts. This finding may indicate that marital/relationship and family status plays an especially important role in the work-life experiences of faculty, regardless of racial background, thereby bringing an important nuance to our understanding of work-life balance among faculty of different races and ethnicities (Denson et al. 2018; Szelényi and Denson 2019).

Faculty rank, however, was positively associated with work-life balance across all marital/relationship and family statuses, indicating that faculty are better able to balance their professional and personal/family life as they achieve higher ranks. This finding is promising since as more faculty in higher professional ranks achieve better work-life balance, they may be more likely to change the work-life culture of their departmental surroundings and even their institutions. However, the fact that attaining work-life balance represents a particularly intense struggle among faculty in lower ranks, especially pre-tenure faculty, remains a significant issue for higher education institutions. In fact, our findings point to severe concerns related to the intense pressures often felt by early-career faculty to be productive, driven by the “publish or perish” imperative in academic life that is marked by high levels of competitiveness (Müller 2014). The results of our study are also in line with Cannizzo and Osbaldiston’s (2016) quantitative research on faculty work-life noting that “not only does the stress and time-pressure associated with working as an early career academic raise concerns over one’s health and personal relationships, but further that academic labour has haemorrhaged into both domestic ‘life’ and leisure time” (p. 903). The work-life experiences of early-career faculty, linked clearly to the substantial work pressures at this career stage, need to be widely recognized as a central priority for higher education institutions.

In terms of individual faculty perceptions, satisfaction with fit with the department was positively associated with work-life balance for married/partnered faculty without children only. This finding indicates that married/partnered faculty who do not have child care responsibilities may have more time to interact and socialize with their colleagues both within and outside of work, which makes fit with the department more important or, as Mason et al. (2013) would suggest, easier to achieve than for their colleagues who are single.

Surprisingly, mentoring from someone in the department had no association with work-life balance for any faculty, but having collegial and supportive colleagues was negatively associated with work-life balance for married/partnered faculty with or without children. Thus, global perceptions of institutional support (POS; Eisenberger et al. 1986) appear to not have consistent associations with faculty work-life balance and, in fact, such global support can sometimes be associated with negative results in the context of work-life balance. It is possible that mentoring and collegial and supportive colleagues focus predominantly on professional issues, rather than the life realm or work-life balance. This emphasis on professional issues, in turn, appears to make mentoring and collegial relationships irrelevant, or even harmful, for faculty’s work-life balance. A key implication thus stresses the importance of rethinking the meaning and reach of mentoring, support, and collegiality in academic departments. In fact, it appears that issues related to work-life balance should claim a more central place in not only mentoring, but also in how faculty colleagues support and interact with each other.

In terms of satisfaction with time spent on various activities, the only consistent pattern that emerged was that satisfaction with teaching and learning conversations, with time spent on teaching, and with institutional support for grants/research/scholarly/creative works, as well as general satisfaction with the institution and department had no association with work-life balance across all faculty groups. For the remainder of the satisfaction items, while satisfaction with time spent on certain activities was positively associated with work-life balance for different faculty groups, there was no consistent pattern of results, emphasizing that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach.

Regarding environmental contexts, our findings suggest that family-supportive organizational perceptions (FSOP; Allen 2001) may be more important than perceived global organizational support (POS; Eisenberger et al. 1986). In particular, our findings show that perceived work-life balance support is significantly related to faculty work-life balance across the four marital/relationship and family statuses at the institutional level, and for three marital/relationship and family status groups (with the exception of single faculty with children) at the departmental level as well. These findings underscore the importance of colleges and universities instituting and maintaining work-life-supportive policies, structures, and cultures at all levels of the institution, for faculty with a variety of marital/relationship and family statuses including, but in no way limited to, faculty with children (Denson et al. 2018; Sallee and Lester 2017).

Our findings related to the importance of support specific to work-life balance may hold different implications for faculty from different marital/relationship and family status groups. For single and married/partnered faculty without children, it may accentuate the need for institutions to confront the stigma and potentially unrealistic work expectations associated with singlism (DePaulo 2006) and the negative stereotypes associated with being married/partnered without children, respectively (Blackstone and Stewart 2012). Equally importantly, for married/partnered and single faculty with children, it may strengthen institutions’ commitment to providing a variety of supports in the form of policies, mentoring, role models, and intentional discussions concerning the work-life needs of faculty with children (Mason et al. 2013; Sallee 2014; Sallee and Lester 2017; Wolf-Wendel and Ward 2015).

Also important to note is that the variable reflecting institutional average scores of faculty’s perceived support for work-life balance was significantly and positively related to the work-life balance assessments of faculty in all marital/relationship and family status groups. This finding demonstrates the importance of higher education institutions striving to create a culture of work-life balance that encompasses interactions and supports across the institution, consistent with the theory of family-supportive organizational perceptions (FSOP; Allen 2001). Our findings indicate that faculty from all marital/relationship and family status groups are attuned to how their colleagues perceive of institutional supports for work-life balance which, in turn, relates to their assessments of their own work-life balance. Another interesting finding was the moderating effect of institutional average perceptions for single faculty without children. For this group of faculty only, the institutional average perceptions for institutional work-life balance support had a strengthening effect on the positive association between their individual perception of institutional support for work-life balance and their ability to find the right balance between their professional and personal/family life, further attesting to the need to acknowledge and cater to the work-life balance needs of single faculty without children.

Future research

While our study answers important questions about the work-life balance assessments of faculty from different marital/relationship and family statuses, our findings also open up a range of future research areas to consider. First, we call for qualitative examinations of how single and married/partnered faculty with and without children conceptualize what it means to them to achieve a healthy balance between their personal and professional commitments. Relatedly, these conceptualizations should form the basis of developing a multi-item construct that more comprehensively measures faculty work-life balance. Although multi-item scales have been used for work-life balance in the literature on faculty (e.g., Stupnisky et al. 2015), more research is needed for the development of scales that more closely reflect the particularities of the faculty work-life construct among faculty with different marital/relationship and family statuses. In addition, we note that the variables in our model were much more likely to be significantly associated with the work-life balance perceptions of married/partnered faculty, both with and without children, than single faculty with either parenthood statuses. This pattern reinforces the need to carefully examine work-life issues among single faculty members, accounting for the complexity of their experiences. Future research should also explore singlism in faculty life (DePaulo 2006), querying the assumptions and expectations surrounding the work patterns of single faculty without children.

In our findings, we noted the important role that faculty in more advanced ranks can play in creating environments that are intentionally supportive of the work-life needs of their pre-tenure colleagues, given the positive association between higher faculty ranks and individual assessments of work-life balance in all four faculty marital/relationship and family status groups. However, it is currently unclear whether and in what ways tenured faculty shape the work-life cultures of their departments and institutions. Therefore, we encourage researchers to explore the actions of tenured faculty in relation to creating or hindering supportive work-life environments. Finally, it is important to explore how an intentional emphasis on work-life balance can enhance mentoring and supportive interactions among colleagues with the explicit purpose of strengthening faculty members’ ability to balance their personal and professional commitments.