Workplace Culture. The Australian Work and Life Index 2008 AWALI. Natalie Skinner and Barbara Pocock CENTRE FOR WORK + LIFE

Transcription

1 Work, & Life Workplace Culture The Australian Work and Life Index 2008 AWALI Natalie Skinner and Barbara Pocock CENTRE FOR WORK + LIFE Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies University of South Australia

2 Work, & Life Workplace Culture The Australian Work and Life Index 2008 AWALI Natalie Skinner and Barbara Pocock CENTRE FOR WORK + LIFE Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies University of South Australia INDUSTRY PARTNERS:

3 July 2008 Published by the Centre for Work + Life Hawke Research Institute University of South Australia STREET ADDRESS St Bernards Road Magill SA 5072 Adelaide POSTAL ADDRESS GPO Box 2471 Adelaide, SA 5001 Australia Authors: Natalie Skinner and Barbara Pocock Title: Work, Life and Workplace Culture: The Australian Work and Life Index 2008 ISBN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AWALI 2008 was funded through an Australian Research Council Linkage grant in partnership with the South Australian (through SafeworkSA) and Western Australian Governments (through the State Health Advisory Committee on Work Life Balance). In addition, in 2008 the sample size for AWALI was doubled with the generous support of the Victorian Government (through Industrial Relations Victoria). We acknowledge the generous support and practical assistance of these bodies. We thank Michelle Hogan, Tony Macarper and Peter Hampton (all from SafeworkSA), Cheryl Davenport (Chair of the Western Australian Department of Health State Health Advisory Committee on Work Life Balance), Sharon Winocur, Leonie Morgan and Warren Fridell from Industrial Relations Victoria, for their advice and support. We thank John Kingsmill for his assistance with layout and printing. We especially thank Mark Cully (General Manager, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research) and Michael Alexander (Principal Research Fellow, Australian Institute for Family Studies) for their commentary on an earlier draft of this report. Of course, responsibility for the final text rests with the authors.

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary... 5 Self-employment... 7 Occupation... 7 Overload at work... 7 Casual jobs... 7 Short working hours... 7 Long working hours (48+ a week)... 8 An ideal working week: 35 hours... 8 The gap between actual and preferred hours and its impact... 8 Long working hours are a problem... 9 The preference for part-time work... 9 Unsocial working hours... 9 Flexibility: who has it and how much does it matter? Does working unsocial hours mean more flexibility? Organisational culture Putting it all together: what makes a difference to work-life interaction? Implications for policy and practice Section 1: Introduction The changing landscape for work and life in Australia What AWALI measures Methodology of AWALI Statistical conventions in this report The work-life index Overview of AWALI 2007 findings New themes for AWALI Structure of this report Section 2: The AWALI 2008 sample, its representativeness and general characteristics Section 3: Work-life interaction in the Australian workforce. How men and women are faring A model of work-life interaction Work-life interaction in 2008 analysis of individual work-life items Life outside work Time with family and friends Community engagement Time pressure Satisfaction with work-life balance The work-life index Australian s work-life interaction in 2007 and Summary Section 4: Personal and household characteristics, location and work-life interaction Age Education Parenting responsibilities and work-life interaction Income Location Summary Section 5: Employment characteristics and work-life interaction Public and private sector Self-employment Occupation Industry Type of employment contract Workload Summary Section 6: Working hours, the fit between actual and preferred hours and work-life interaction Work hours Actual and preferred hours Preferred working hours The gap between actual and preferred hours Occupation and work hours fit Family structure and work hours fit Work-life interaction and hours fit An unmet need: full-time women workers and mothers preferences to shift to part-time work Section 7 Unsocial work hours, employee-centred flexibility and work-life interaction Gender and unsocial work hours Unsocial work hours and work-life interaction Occupation, family structure and unsocial work hours Employee-centred flexibility Workplace characteristics and perceived flexibility Combining inflexibility with unsocial hours Summary Section 8: Organisational culture and work-life interaction Occupation Work hours Organisational culture and work-life interaction Organisational culture and job quality Summary Section 9: Putting it all together: what makes a difference to work-life interaction? Implications for policy, practice and future research References Appendix A... 63

5 TABLES Table 1 Overview of the (weighted) AWALI 2008 sample (per cent) Table 2 Household and family structure, AWALI 2008 (per cent) Table 3 Work-life interaction by gender, AWALI 2008 (per cent) Table 4 Actual and preferred work hours by gender, AWALI Table 5 Work hours fit with preferences, AWALI 2008 (per cent) Table 6 Organisational culture items by gender, AWALI Table 7 Organisational culture by good/poor work-life interaction, AWALI 2008 (per cent)... 58

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HIS REPORT summarises findings from the second Australian Work and Life Index (AWALI) survey Tof work-life interaction in Australia. It builds on the findings of the 2007 survey. The core 2008 AWALI survey includes 2831 workers, providing a robust, national, stratified random sample of the Australian workforce. A subset of 1404 respondents answered a further set of questions which in 2008 especially pursue issues related to workplace culture, unsocial work hours and public/private employment. There has been little change in the overall work-life interaction of Australian workers between 2007 and This is not surprising over such a short period of time. Previously in reporting AWALI 2007 findings we adopted a standardised 5-item measure of work-life interaction on which scores were standardised to a distribution similar to that of IQ scores (i.e., mean score of 100, standard deviation of 15). In 2008 we have adopted a simpler and more familiar approach to the index: we average and standardise the same five measures of work-life interaction so that the minimum score on the index is 0 (indicating the best possible work-life interaction) and the maximum score is 100 (the worst possible work-life interaction). Scores above the national mean score of 43 indicate a work-life interaction that is worse than average. Recalculating the 2007 results using this approach, the 2007 average score was In 2008, the average score is 42.8 which is not significantly different. In AWALI 2008 men report higher levels of work-life conflict than women, but when we statistically control for their differences in working hours, women have higher levels of work-life conflict (and this holds whether they are employees or self-employed). Part-time workers, on average, have a better work-life interaction than full-timers. We find that work continues to interfere with the rest of life for a large proportion of workers: over half of all employees felt that work sometimes, often or almost always interferes with activities outside work. A fifth of respondents agree that it interferes often or almost always. The most common type of work-life interference is restriction of time with family and friends due to work. A quarter of employees agree that work often or almost always interferes with enough time with family or friends. Work to community spillover is also widespread with 44.6 per cent of men and 40.2 per cent of women feeling that work sometimes, often or almost always affects their community connections. Around 55 per cent of employees frequently (often/almost always) feel rushed or pressed for time. As in 2007, women are especially rushed and pressed for time. A majority of both full-time and part-time women often or almost always feel rushed. We saw in 2007 how much of this general feeling of pressure amongst women employees related to their caring and domestic responsibilities beyond the workplace. Given how little these have changed in the past decade or more, it is of no surprise that many women

7 6 The Australian Work and Life Index 2008 indeed the majority of working women, whether full-time or part-time continue to feel an overall time strain in their lives. Despite these pressures, most Australians remain satisfied with their work-life relationship: the majority (68.3 per cent) are satisfied with their overall work-life balance and there is no gender difference in satisfaction. Poor work-life interaction is more common for those in their middle years (25-54 years), and for those with higher levels of education. Our findings suggest that work-life issues are much wider than the traditional focus on work-family concerns. Many workers who do not have children have poor work-life interaction. This suggests that a broader conception of work-life interaction is useful. Indeed it is essential to the collection of good evidence about how work is affecting Australians in their broader household and social contexts, and to well developed comprehensive policy responses. Work-family analysis is too narrow in its focus. As expected, mothers and fathers have worse work-life interaction compared to those without parenting responsibilities. Patterns of work hours differ for men and women depending on their parenting status: fathers work longer hours and mothers work fewer hours than their counterparts without children. When these differences in work hours are statistically controlled, gender differences in the impact of parenting on work-life interaction are apparent. Mothers are especially affected by work-life conflict. Controlling for differences in hours, mothers have worse work-life interaction than women without children. However, there is no difference between men s work-life interaction whether they are fathers or not. Single mothers are especially affected even when we allow for their lower work hours: they have the worst work-life scores, higher than any other family type and significantly worse than single fathers. Six out of ten women feel rushed and pressed for time often or almost always. Seven out of ten mothers feel this way frequently. Despite gender differences in the work hours of mothers and fathers (with mothers working less), partnered (married/de facto) working mothers are most likely to report frequent time pressure (74.0 per cent) compared to partnered fathers (57.6 per cent). Controlling for differences in hours, we find that those in lower income households (less than $30,000 a year) as well as those on higher incomes (more than $90,000) have worse work-life interaction than those on incomes in the mid-range. There is considerable discussion about work-life issues amongst professional, managerial and higher income workers. Our findings suggest that there should be more attention to the work-life pressures facing those living on lower incomes and working in workplaces and occupations where wages are relatively low. Differences in average work-life interaction between Australian states are slight. Some trends are evident, however, with South Australian, Western Australian and Tasmanian respondents reporting the best worklife interaction.

8 The Australian Work and Life Index Living in regional/rural Australia does not appear to provide any general protective effect from work-life conflict: both men and women have very similar work-life index scores regardless of their urban or rural location. Some workplace characteristics appear important to work-life interaction but many make little difference. For example, workers in both the public and private sectors have similar work-life outcomes, as do the self-employed and employees. Self-employment It might be assumed that the self-employed can gain better control of their working time and better reconcile work and family than employees who are effectively under the control of others. Our 2007 results did not support this proposition and nor do those for There was no difference on the worklife index between employees and the self-employed for men, women, or all workers. The self-employed did report more frequent work-to-life spillover than employees, although the differences are small. However, significant effects on work-life interaction are apparent when workers regularly put in longer hours, have a poor match of actual and preferred hours, have less flexibility or are placed in a workplace unsupportive of their work-life relationship. Occupation In general, those at the upper end of the occupation scale have worse work-life interaction compared to less skilled workers. Work-life interaction is poorest for managers and professionals, and for those who work in information, media and telecommunications and mining. When we control for hours, differences persist between higher skilled occupations (professionals, managers) and lower skilled occupations (labourers, machinery operators, sales workers). Overload at work More than half of those surveyed in both 2007 and 2008 felt overloaded at work: 54.5 per cent of respondents in both years strongly or somewhat agreed that they often had too much work for one person to manage. These feelings of overload at work are strongly associated with poorer work-life interaction, and also with an unsupportive workplace culture. Casual jobs The suggestion that casual workers have better work-life interaction than permanent workers is not supported by our findings: casual workers have worse work life interaction than permanent workers when we statistically control for casuals lower working hours. In addition casual workers have no greater access to flexibility about when they work than permanent workers. Casual terms do not protect workers from feeling overloaded: they have the same incidence of perceived overload as permanent employees. Short working hours Part-time work (less than 34 hours a week) is associated with better work-life interaction for both men and women. Both short part-time hours (1-15 hours a week) and long part-time hours (16-34 hours) are

9 8 The Australian Work and Life Index 2008 associated with lower work-life conflict for men and women, compared to full-time hours (35-47 hours). However, these differences, while significant, are modest. Much wider differences arise when we compare work-life interaction for those working long full-time hours. Long working hours (48+ a week) Many Australians continue to work long hours: 22.5 per cent of all respondents worked 48 hours or more. Almost a third (31.7 per cent) of male respondents worked more than 48 hours a week while 11.9 per cent of women did so. Those working longer hours have worse work-life interaction, as was also observed in AWALI Significant differences in work-life index scores are associated with these long hours. Keeping in mind that higher work-life index scores indicate worse work-life interaction, those working long hours had an average index score of 53.0 compared to 41.6 for those working standard full-time work (35 + hours). The differences between part-time and full-time work are much smaller, with those working long parttime hours scoring 37.3 and short part-time hours, The negative effect arising from very long hours is more marked for women than for men. An ideal working week: 35 hours We asked respondents about the hours they worked and those they would prefer to work, taking into account the difference this would make to their income. The average preferred working week was 34.6 hours. However, actual average hours are almost four hours longer at 38.2 a week. Women, on average, would prefer to work 30 hours per week (36 hours for full-time women, 23 hours for part-time women), whereas men would prefer to work 38 hours per week (41 hours for full-time men, 26 hours for part-time men). Not surprisingly, it is those working very long hours who especially seek fewer hours, and those (many fewer) working short hours who seek to increase them. The gap between actual and preferred hours and its impact Just over half of all respondents did not have a good hours fit between their actual and preferred hours, applying a fairly generous definition of fit (we define a mismatch as at least four hours or half a day different from preferred hours). Five out of ten men and women have a mismatch between actual and preferred hours of half a day or more. This is one of the most significant findings in this study. Most of those with a mismatch want to work less: 79.4 per cent of men and 70.7 per cent of women. Partnered workers with children (especially fathers) are least likely to have a good fit between their actual and preferred hours. Those working more than they prefer have significantly worse work-life interaction than others. This finding has important policy implications: measures which help workers find a better fit between actual

10 The Australian Work and Life Index and preferred hours are likely to result in less work-life conflict. Long working hours are a problem These findings suggest a widespread problem around working time for Australian workers, especially around long hours. Three-quarters of those working long full-time hours would like to work different hours, almost all of them less. Only a quarter of long hours workers are within half a day of their preferred hours. The large proportion of men and women who work long hours when they would prefer not to, even taking into account the effect upon their pay packets, makes support for workers to work reasonable hours important to better work-life outcomes in Australia. The suggestion that most long hours workers are working their long hours by choice is contradicted by these findings. Most would prefer to work less even allowing for the impact on their earnings. Given these findings, policy initiatives that reduce long hours and help give workers more say about the length of their working hours are important. The preference for part-time work In March 2008, 44.5 per cent of Australian women worked part-time (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008c). Many full-timers would like to join them. Almost a third (30.6 per cent) of full-time women in our sample would like to work part-time (36.7 per cent of full-time mothers). This is much higher than amongst full-time men (13.8 per cent). Such a high level of unmet demand for part-time work (more than one in three full-time mothers) suggests that the Australian labour market is inflexible in responding to employee preferences. Unsocial working hours AWALI 2008 investigates patterns of unsocial work hours. These are assessed by the reported frequency (never, rarely, often, almost always) with which respondents work on weekends or evenings/nights past 9pm. Regular unsocial hours are defined when either of these schedules are often or almost always worked. The majority of respondents (61.2 per cent) work weekdays, before 9pm. The most common form of unsocial work scheduling is weekends (19.3 per cent), followed by a combination of weekends and evenings/nights (15.2 per cent). Only 4.1 per cent of employees work on night/evening shifts. Men are more likely to work unsocial work hours than women. Regularly working a combination of weekends and evenings/nights, or just working regular evenings/ nights, is associated with the worst work-life interaction. All combinations of unsocial work scheduling are associated with worse work-life interaction compared to working during the week before 9pm. Furthermore, regularly working weekends plus evenings/nights has a stronger negative impact on worklife interaction for women compared to men. Adding long hours to the mix makes work-life interaction significantly worse for those who regularly work weekends, but it adds little additional conflict for those regularly working at nights/evenings or a combination of weekends and nights/evenings.

11 10 The Australian Work and Life Index 2008 Flexibility: who has it and how much does it matter? There is much talk in the employment literature and public discourse about flexibility, and the need for it in workplaces. In AWALI 2008 we examine flexibility that meets employee needs and preferences. We do this by examining two issues: how much flexibility workers have over when they work, and how much control they have over working times to meet their requirements. Almost half (46.4 per cent) of all employees (and more women than men) reported that they had low flexibility in their jobs (i.e., they somewhat or strongly disagree that working times can be flexible to meet their needs, and they have a lot of freedom to decide when they do their work). Differences in access to flexibility have a significant effect on work-life interaction. Those with higher levels of flexibility have better work-life interaction than those with a lack of control over their working time. This effect is consistent for men and women, across occupations, and for full-time and part-time workers. Does working unsocial times mean more flexibility? We find that unsocial patterns of work are not associated with employee-centred flexibility. Those workers particularly affected by the flexibility revolution of the past two decades those who work on weekends or evenings/nights are not finding their work more flexible. The majority (56.1 per cent) of employees working unsocial hours (weekends, evening/nights or a combination of both) have low flexibility, whereas the majority (59.0 per cent) of employees working weekdays before 9pm have some control over their work scheduling. This outcome contradicts the view that those who work outside normal hours have more flexible jobs: in fact in our survey they have less flexibility. Many workers face inflexibility in their jobs. Unfortunately women workers (both part-time and fulltime) are more negatively affected than men. This is interesting given parents and carers mainly women greater need for flexibility. Those who need it most, get it less. Given these findings, further dissolution of the boundary around a standard Monday to Friday working week is likely to be associated with increased work-life conflict. The notion of standard hours has traction in analysis of work-life conflict with non-standard working arrangements at unsocial times associated with worse work-life interaction. Organisational culture We assess organisational culture by investigating both the culture prevailing at the point of direct, first line supervision, and the culture prevailing more generally in the organisation. The specific measures address employees perceptions of the extent to which their supervisor accommodates personal and family needs, the perceived level of active support the organisation gives to employees in addressing work-life conflict, and the perception that there is an expectation in the workplace that work is prioritised over personal and family life. The majority of workers surveyed in AWALI 2008 are positive about the extent to which their supervisors

12 The Australian Work and Life Index and their employing organisations support their work-life relationship. However, over a third of employees report a workplace expectation that work should be prioritised over personal/family life; slightly more men than women, and especially machinery operators and drivers. Those in workplaces with unsupportive cultures have more work-life conflict. They are also more likely to experience work overload and to have little control over their working time (employee-centred flexibility). This suggests that supportive workplace cultures make a significant difference to work-life interaction. Putting it all together: what makes a difference to work-life interaction? We conducted a multivariate analysis (OLS regression) in which all the individual factors discussed so far were entered into a single analysis to compare each factor s strength as a predictor of work-life interaction, whilst controlling for all other factors in the analysis. Our analysis shows that the strongest predictors of poor work-life interaction are an unsupportive organisational culture and work overload, controlling for a range of employment and socio-demographic factors. Implications for policy and practice We draw a series of policy implications from the above analysis. First, many women, especially mothers, feel rushed or pressed for time despite their fewer hours in paid work compared to men. This indicates that parenthood, and unpaid work and care, have a stronger impact on women s work-life interaction. Women, on average do twice as much unpaid domestic and care work as men (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008b). Our findings suggest that the onus of responsibility for managing the work-life relationship of a household or family is falling heavily on women s shoulders. Second, there is evidence that many Australian workers are working very long hours, and that these hours are associated with poor work-life interaction. There is a good case for containing long hours in the interests of supporting a healthy work-life relationship for Australian workers. Third, reducing working hours will assist the many workers who would like to work less. Stronger protection and rights to refuse unreasonable long hours will assist these workers. Australia lags behind many other industrialised countries in this respect. Without such protection, very long hours are affecting over a fifth of workers and almost a third of men. Fourth, there is a widespread mismatch between the hours that Australian workers have to work and those they want to work. Firmer employee rights around controlling their working time will be beneficial: our analysis suggests a better fit will result in better work-life interaction. Such entitlements will especially benefit parents, but they will also be useful to those who are not parents, many of whom do not have a good match between actual and preferred working hours. Our analysis supports the case for new policy approaches, such as a formal right for employees (and not only parents) to request changes in working hours, as well as measures to ensure that this right has real life in workplaces through the wide provision of good information and meaningful review of requests that are refused.

13 12 The Australian Work and Life Index 2008 Fifth, our analysis of employee-centred flexibility suggests that many workers lack the capacity to effect when they work or to have some control over working time to meet their needs. Employers who can provide more employee-centred flexibility provisions will support and enable a better work-life interaction for their employees. Those who do not are likely to contribute to higher levels of work-life conflict for their employees. Sixth, workplace cultures matter a great deal to work-life interaction. Many workplaces are perceived to have supportive cultures, both at the level of line supervisor, and in the organisation more generally. However, where these are not in place, unsupportive cultures are strongly associated with poorer work-life interaction. Seventh, casual work does not emerge from this analysis as associated with employee-centred flexibility. Instead, it is associated with worse work-life interaction, when differences between casuals and permanent employees work hours are controlled. At the same time, many workers would like to reduce their hours of work and become part-time. Our analysis suggests that high levels of casual employment in Australia are not assisting work-life interaction and may contribute to a deterioration in many employees work-life relationship. In this light, measures to reduce casual work and increase the availability and accessibility of quality part-time work are likely to be of great assistance to workers, especially mothers and women, given that so many would like to reduce their working hours. Organisational, individual and government action To summarise, our analysis points to seven issues of particular significance to work life interaction: 1. Good first line supervisory and general workplace support for employees around work-life issues; 2. Avoiding work overload; 3. Avoiding long hours; 4. Avoiding unsocial working hours; 5. Providing permanent rather than casual employment; 6. Providing employee-centred flexibility (especially measures that give workers some say over when they work and to adjust work time to fit their needs); 7. Providing the means whereby workers can get a good fit between their actual and preferred hours. Each of these is important in any workplace that wants to support and facilitate good work-life interaction. They are also important to individuals who seek more positive reconciliation of work with the rest of their lives. They suggest particular lines of policy responses which governments can also pursue to improve work-life interaction in Australia.

14 The Australian Work and Life Index SECTION 1: Introduction The changing landscape for work and life in Australia INCE WE PUBLISHED the first Australian Work and Life Index (AWALI) survey results in July 2007, S several things have changed. Australia has a new Commonwealth Government, committed to getting the balance right between fairness and flexibility in the workplaces of the nation; and to ensure by that and by other practical assistance to working families in Australia that the great Australian fair go has a future and not just a past (Rudd 24th November 2007). The new Government has moved quickly to reform labour regulation (through its Workplace Relations Amendment (Forward with Fairness) Act 2008 and publication of its National Employment Standards. It has announced an Inquiry into the optimal way of providing parental leave in Australia (Productivity Commission 2008), and given priority to the reform of early childhood education and care, especially in Indigenous communities. AWALI 2008 was thus collected against a new political background. It also occurred in an environment of low unemployment and high rates of labour force participation. In March 2008 official unemployment was 4.1 per cent (female unemployment was 4.5 per cent), the lowest in more than three decades. The labour force participation rate of women was at a historic high: 58.1 per cent in March 2008 compared to 53.6 per cent ten years earlier (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008c). Women s increasing participation continues to underpin the overall rise in national participation rates (now at a high of 65.2 per cent), more than compensating for a fall amongst men. The demands of unpaid work also contribute to work-life pressures. Recent data from the ABS tell us that key gender dynamics are unchanging on this front in Australia. Men s and women s unequal contributions to unpaid work and childcare remain fairly consistent compared to 14 years earlier (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008b). In 2006, women contributed on average around double men s efforts (27 hours a week compared to 14). In terms of unpaid domestic work specifically, men contributed about the same number of weekly hours (11 hours) as they did in This compares to 20 hours for women in 2006, down an hour from In terms of childcare, both women and men have increased their efforts on average but the gender gap remains wide. At both a national and international level, a high level of interest in work-life issues continues. Late in 2007, the OECD published its synthesis of thirteen individual country reviews of work and family policy (including Australia), examining tax/benefit policies, parental leave systems, childcare support, and workplace practices around the world. In launching the report, the OECD observed striking a balance between going to work and raising children is not just a concern for families. Getting the balance wrong reduces birth rates, labour supply and gender equity, and can even harm child development. It puts the shape of society in the future in question (OECD 2007, p. 1).

15 14 The Australian Work and Life Index 2008 The aging population in many industrialised nations increasingly draws attention to work-life issues that relate to employment into older age, and care for older citizens. At a local level, the South Australian Government, has received a report from a Select Committee on Balancing Work and Life Responsibilities (tabled 9 April 2008) which unanimously recommended structural, cultural and practical areas for action on work-life issues at a state level (Select Committee on Balancing Work and Life Responsibilities 2008). At the same time, research evidence continues to mount about the dimensions and effects of work-life interaction, both internationally and in Australia (Duxbury & Higgins 2008; Geurts & Demerouti 2003). This body of research confirms that work affects life beyond work in complex and significant ways, with good arguments for a greater response from employers, governments and trade unions, and considerable agreement around the causes and consequences of poor work-life interaction and interventions that can help counter it (Geurts & Demerouti 2003 provide a good summary). In this second national report of work-life interaction in Australia, we describe the results of the second AWALI survey conducted in March 2008, comparing overall results with those of a year earlier. What AWALI measures As described in our 2007 report (Pocock, Williams & Skinner 2007) AWALI contains a number of questions which directly assess perceptions of work-life interaction. Given that our 2007 survey revealed that work-to-life spillover is much greater than life-to-work spillover, we have refined AWALI in 2008 to focus only on the work-to-life relationship. AWALI measures two dimensions of work-life interaction: first, the impact of work on respondents capacity to satisfactorily engage in the activities and responsibilities of the non-work sphere (which we term a general interference effect) and, secondly, the time available to spend on activities outside work (which we view as a time strain effect). AWALI measures work-life interactions that include, but are not confined to, work-family issues. Those without children also experience spillover from their working lives onto their relationships, recreation, households, health and well-being. AWALI also measures the effects of work on community connections. Putting more hours into paid work affects our relationships beyond home, including our capacity to build friendships and support networks in the broader community, but these are generally not investigated in assessments of work-life interaction. AWALI also employs a commonly used single measure of time pressure (feeling rushed or pressed for time) in daily life, which is an indirect measure of work-life fit. Finally, AWALI includes a general assessment of satisfaction with work-life balance. In sum, AWALI measures perceptions of work-life interaction focussing on: i. general interference (i.e., the frequency that work interferes with responsibilities or activities outside work), and ii. time strain (i.e., the frequency that work restricts time with family or friends);

16 The Australian Work and Life Index iii. Work-to-community interaction, measuring the frequency that work affects workers ability to develop or maintain connections and friendships in their local community; iv. Satisfaction with overall work-life balance ; v. Frequency of feeling rushed or pressed for time. Further detail on the construction of the work-life index items and other AWALI measures is provided in the AWALI technical report (Pocock, Williams & Skinner 2007). In AWALI 2008 we bring together these five measures of work-life interaction to arrive at an overall work-life index that is scaled from 0 (best work-life interaction) to 100 (worst work-life interaction). The index provides an easily understood general measure of work-life interaction. While we recognise that work-to-life and life-to-work interactions have both positive and negative effects, AWALI concentrates upon negative interactions given that these are of most immediate policy interest, and that limited resources constrain what we can measure. AWALI, we hope, makes a new and useful contribution to the literature and policy in five ways: 1. It includes a random sample of working Australians, permitting analysis of work and family issues, but extending more broadly to work-life issues as they affect all Australian workers across the life-cycle; 2. It is annual in nature, allowing analysis of change over time, based on a representative crosssection of working Australians; 3. It includes work-to-community effects; 4. Across the annual data collections it analyses a wide range of life issues (including, care responsibilities, relationships and health outcomes) with a wide range of work effects (including hours of work, job quality, forms of employment, industry, occupation, unionisation). This analysis is set in the context of spatial, personal and household factors (including gender, age, education, location and commuting time). 5. Each annual AWALI data collection contains a core set of items relating to employment and social demographics, the work-life index items and an additional set of questions on one or two particular themes. The 2007 data collection included items on life-to-work interaction, and the extent of commitments outside of work (caring responsibilities, domestic work, volunteer work). The 2008 data collection contains items on unsocial work hours (weekends and evenings/nights) and organisational culture. Methodology of AWALI The concepts, methods, literature, measures and pre-tests underpinning AWALI are set out in Pocock, Williams and Skinner (2007). AWALI surveys a randomly selected cross-section of the Australian population by means of computerassisted telephone interviews (CATI). Of those successfully contacted by phone, 46.2 percent participated in the 2008 survey.

17 16 The Australian Work and Life Index 2008 AWALI surveys different people each year: it is not a longitudinal survey of the same people. As such it can be seen as taking the temperature of work-life interaction at a point in time, and as a survey conducted annually it allows us to compare results over time. AWALI 2007 surveyed 1435 Australians. In 2008 we have doubled this size for the core work-life questions and demographics, allowing us to undertake a more detailed analysis of results on several criteria, including state and rural/urban location, as well as gender and other factors. The AWALI 2008 sample is a national stratified random sample of 2831 Australian workers conducted using CATI interviews over four weekends in March and April Overall, 2831 (2384 employees; 387 self-employed; 60 undetermined work status) participants answered the core demographic items and the five items that comprise the work-life index; we call these the core sample. A subset of this core sample (1404 respondents) answered both the core questions and an additional set of items relating to organisational culture, unsocial work time and employment sector (public, private); we call them the supplementary sample. As in 2007, Newspoll conducted the survey. In accord with usual Newspoll practice, respondents were selected by means of a stratified random sample process which include a quota set for each capital city and non-capital city area, and within these areas a quota set for statistical divisions or subdivisions. Household telephone numbers were selected using random digit dialling, and there was random selection of an individual in each household by means of a last birthday screening question. Telephone surveys have strengths and weaknesses. They allow fast data collection and increased quality controls through interview controls and clarifications, and they permit data collection from individuals regardless of their reading and writing ability. A system of callbacks and appointments to facilitate a higher response rate and inclusion of responses from people who do not spend a great deal of time at home means that this possible distortion is minimised in AWALI. However, the survey is likely to be biased against those who do not use a telephone at home. Statistical conventions in this report The following statistical conventions are used in this report unless specified otherwise. Following Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) conventions, full-time employment is defined as 35 or more work hours per week. All contrasts discussed in the text are statistically significant (i.e., not likely to be due to chance) at p <.05 unless stated otherwise. The Dunn-Bonferroni correction was applied to multiple comparisons. Work hours have a clear and consistent impact on work-life interaction: as hours increase work-life interaction worsens. Therefore, work hours are entered as a covariate in some analyses in which index scores are compared between groups. This means that the effect of work hours on the index scores is removed, or controlled, to observe the effect of another factor (e.g., gender) on work-life index scores. In this type of analysis we are essentially asking how work-life interaction differs between groups (e.g., men and women) if they work the same hours.

18 The Australian Work and Life Index The dynamics of the interaction between work and life are likely to be different for self-employed persons compared to employees. Therefore, in analyses that do not directly compare self-employed persons and employees, we focus exclusively on employees. Section 5 examines differences between the self-employed and employees. Standard statistical short-hand is used when reporting scale scores in the text: M = mean (average score). As a sample drawn from a much larger population, the estimates presented in this report like all survey data are subject to a degree of sampling bias. That is, the estimates may be different from the figures that would have been reported had all Australian workers been surveyed. Two strategies have been used to address this issue. All reported estimates have been weighted by Australian Bureau of Statistics data on age, highest level of schooling completed, sex and area to adjust for differences between the AWALI sample and Australian population on these key demographics (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007). We also follow the threshold rule used in the HILDA study (Heady, Warren & Harding 2006) which sets a minimum of 20 units (i.e., respondents) that must contribute to the value of a cell for that figure to be considered reliable. Estimates that do not meet this threshold requirement are tagged by an asterisk indicating that this figure should be interpreted with caution. The work-life index In the report of AWALI 2007 we adopted a standardised scale for reporting the work-life index (which averaged five items) following the traditional treatment of IQ scores: we set the average work-life score across the survey at 100 with a standard deviation of 15. Using this approach a score of more than 100 indicated a worse than average work-life interaction. However, we found this scale complex to explain in subsequent public presentations and so we have adopted a simpler and more familiar approach in reporting AWALI in We average and standardise the same five measures of work-life interaction so that the minimum score on the index is 0 (indicating the best possible work-life interaction) and the maximum score is 100 (the worst possible work-life interaction). The 2007 index scores reported here have also been re-scaled to the new scale. The five-item work-life index has a satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach s α =.82). In the 2008 survey the average (mean) score on the index is 42.8, and the median is 40.0 (the middle score). Therefore, scores above the average score of around 43 indicate a work-life interaction that is worse than average, and scores below this level indicate a better than average work-life relationship. Recalculating the 2007 results using this scaling, the 2007 index score mean (average) index score was 42.7 and the median was Overview of AWALI 2007 findings The inaugural AWALI data collection was conducted in March 2007 and surveyed 1435 working Australians. Its scope was broad, and included measures of life-to-work and work-to-life interaction, job quality, commuting, and physical and mental health. The 2007 report (Work, Life and Time: The Australian Work and Life Index 2007) provides an in-depth discussion of the AWALI 2007 findings,

19 18 The Australian Work and Life Index 2008 which we summarise below. One of the central findings of AWALI 2007 was that most working Australians find achieving a good work-life interaction a challenge. Over half of employees reported that work interfered with their life activities including time with family and friends, and over half also felt rushed or pressed for time on a regular basis. Despite the common experience of negative work-life spillover, three-quarters of Australians were satisfied with their work-life balance in A number of workplace factors emerged from the 2007 analysis as clear influences on work-life interaction. The negative effect of long work hours was clear, especially for those working very long fulltime hours (60+). A poor quality job, as indicated by job insecurity, work overload, a lack of time and task autonomy, inflexible work scheduling and job dissatisfaction, was associated with poorer work-life interaction. Managers, professionals, community and personal service, and technical and trades workers were most likely to experience work-life interference in 2007, while sales, clerical and administrative workers were least affected. Work-related demands beyond the workplace, like commuting, were also associated with poorer work-life interaction. AWALI 2007 also demonstrated the value of a life cycle perspective in understanding the dynamics of work-life interaction. Older workers (aged 55 years and over) and workers aged under 35 years had better work-life interaction than those in their middle years. Caring responsibilities, which often occur most intensely when individuals are in their 30s and 40s, were associated with worse work-life interaction in Specifically, parenting was associated with worse work-life interaction, especially amongst those with younger children (aged four years or less) and more children (two or more children). Consistent with the traditional gender divide in caring roles and responsibilities, parenting and caring responsibilities had a stronger negative effect on work-life interaction for women than for men in There were some differences between Australian states in work-life interaction in However, there was no consistent pattern across the individual work-life items of certain states being generally better or worse for residents work-life interaction. The larger sample size in the 2008 data collection goes some way toward providing a clearer picture of work-life interaction across Australian states and territories. Finally, there was evidence from AWALI 2007 that poor work-life interaction was associated with physical and mental health detriments, including negative impacts on close personal relationships. New themes for AWALI 2008 AWALI 2008 introduces several new lines of analysis in relation to work-life interaction relative to our 2007 survey. We continue our analysis of key social and employment demographics, workload, flexibility, and working hours and the fit between actual and preferred hours. New elements include data on unsocial work hours and the perceived supportiveness of workplace cultures for employees work-life relationship. Structure of this report There are a range of lenses through which a person s work-life interaction can be viewed. In this report we focus on a selection of key individual, social and employment factors that (a) have been identified as important influences on work-life interaction, and (b) provide insight into policy and practice levers that

20 The Australian Work and Life Index governments and organisations can utilise to help support and improve the quality of Australians worklife interaction. Section 2 describes the characteristics of the AWALI 2008 sample by employment and social demographics. Section 3 examines the work-life interaction of employees as a whole, and for men and women. Gender plays a key role in the configuration of a person s work-life relationship, and the likelihood that they will experience work-life pressures and conflicts. Gender differences on the work-life index, and its component items, are discussed and placed in the context of part-time and full-time work patterns. Section 4 reports on various personal and household characteristics that are likely to impact on work-life interaction. Parenthood and the configuration of families (age and number of children) are examined, and a gender lens applied to investigate the extent to which parenthood has a different impact for men and women. The relationship between age, education, and income with work-life interaction are also described. Section 5 examines employment characteristics that have a significant influence on the way in which work is constructed and experienced. Work-life interaction, and other work-life outcomes, are examined by sector, employment type (self-employed, employee), occupation, industry, type of employment contract and workload. Section 6 describes the relationship between work-life interaction and work hours, in terms of the length of work hours and their fit with preferences. These work time variables are examined by occupation and family structure, and we also consider preferences for part-time work. Section 7 examines the scheduling of work, with a focus on unsocial work hours (evenings/nights or weekends) and employee-centred flexibility (employee control over their work scheduling). Employees most likely to be working unsocial work hours, or to have inflexible work schedules, are identified by gender, employment characteristics and occupation. Section 8 describes Australian employees perceptions of their organisational culture, specifically the extent to which their employing organisation has a culture and practices supportive of their work-life relationship. Section 9 provides an integration of the previous sections. The various factors discussed in each section are bought together in a multivariate analysis to identify the strongest predictors of poor work-life interaction. Implications for government and organisational policy and practice are also discussed.