- Email: [email protected]
Work–family conflict among female teachers
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378 www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Work–family conflict among female teachers$ Rachel Gali Cinamona,, Yisrael Richb a
School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel b Bar Ilan University, Israel
Received 10 June 2003; received in revised form 24 March 2004; accepted 9 June 2004
Abstract Work–family conflict was investigated among 187 Israeli women teachers to better understand relationships between teachers’ professional and family lives. The research examined perceived importance of work and family roles and effects of stress and support variables on W-F and F-W conflict. Additionally, effects of teachers’ years of experience and school level (primary, junior and senior high) on work–family conflict were examined. Cluster analysis revealed that many teachers attributed high importance to both roles and had higher W-F than F-W conflict. Relations between teacher stress and support variables and work–family conflict diverged from patterns found in other occupations. School level and teacher experience contributed to explaining the conflict. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher role; Work–family conflict; Teacher career development
1. Introduction Several educational researchers have urged more extensive investigation of the relationships between the professional and family lives of female teachers due to the mutual influences between the two domains (e.g., Acker, 1989; Goodson, 1997; Spencer, 1986). Vocational psychology research suggests that a host of important worker attitudes $
This article is based, in part, on a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Chicago, April 2003. Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 3 6408417. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.G. Cinamon).
and behaviors are affected by family related variables, such as age and number of children and support from spouse (Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Thus, investigation of the relationships between the two domains may provide educational researchers and administrators deeper understanding of teacher thinking and behavior. Despite the appeals of these researchers, the research traditions that have emerged in education and in vocational psychology have not shown sustained interest in investigating the family and professional lives of teachers (Goodson, 1997). While research is relatively scarce on the relationship between work and family roles among
0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.06.009
ARTICLE IN PRESS 366
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
teachers, work–family relations has been an important topic in vocational psychology research on other occupations (Frone, 2003). In particular, researchers have shown interest in the conflicts that arise between an individual’s work and family life roles. Fundamental changes in the world of work, such as rising numbers of dual career couples and mothers with young children who pursue careers, stimulated considerable scholarship related to work–family conflict. Work–family conflict has been defined as a form of inter-role conflict in which pressures from work and family roles are incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Research has shown that this conflict is associated with numerous dysfunctional outcomes in the work and in the family domains. The negative outcomes in the work domain include tardiness, poor role performance, low occupational well-being, job dissatisfaction, burnout, high intention to quit and turnover (Allen, Herst, Burck, & Sutton, 2000; Bruck, Allen, & Spector, 2002; Carlson & Kacmar, 2000). Thus, it is clearly important to know whether teachers experience meaningful work–family conflict and if its antecedents and effects are similar to those of other occupations. Most research that investigated work–family conflict among women focused on demanding managerial and non-traditional professions. This emphasis stemmed, in large part, from the assumption that women in these occupations attribute high importance to their work roles as well as to their family roles (Gilbert & Brownson 1998). Attribution of high importance to both roles increases the likelihood of experiencing considerable stress leading to work–family conflict (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a). In contrast, researchers did not perceive teachers as a fruitful target for study because they expected that teachers experience low levels of work–family conflict. This expectation was probably due to two related assumptions: that the ranks of teachers include a preponderance of women who attribute high importance to family but not to work roles; and that teaching has characteristics that enable compatible relations between work and family roles. However, recent investigations of teacher thinking about their work and analyses of the
teaching profession (e.g., Carter & Doyle, 1996; Van der Berg, 2002) raise serious questions regarding the accuracy of these assumptions. Accordingly, the current study addressed the issue of work–family conflict among women teachers.
1.1. Work and family of teachers Even a cursory examination of women teachers’ family and career lives reveals important associations. Teaching has been perceived as an attractive occupation for women who want to work but strive to allocate maximum time and energy to their family roles. Casey and Apple (1989) describe how women teachers have been depicted as having low occupational commitment and little aspiration for career advancement. These ideas are reflected conspicuously in the writings of leading educational sociologists in the 70s such as Dreeben (1970) and Lortie (1975). Similarly, some prominent organizational sociologists in that era characterized teaching and other female-dominated occupations as ‘‘semi-professions’’ (Etzioni, 1969), implying that teachers display little unique professional knowledge and that they are not very committed to their work (see Spencer, 1997). Thus, teaching was considered an especially appropriate occupation for women because they were not required to invest heavily in work and could presumably combine vocational and family roles with a minimum of conflict. Another widespread assumption about teaching as a profession is that it has many attributes that are especially considerate of family needs and constraints. These include, among others, a relatively short workday at job site, no work on school holidays, no work most of the summer and reduced workload for mothers of small children (in some locations). Many people believe that these job conditions enable teachers to meet their work obligations without major interruptions from the family while maintaining a home that functions smoothly without significant disruptions by job demands. These presumed characteristics of teaching make it an ideal job for women with limited career commitment or aspirations who want to devote themselves to their families.
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
However, results of the little research that has examined teachers’ professional and family lives, most of which employed a qualitative strategy, tell a more complicated story. The assumption that women teachers have minimal commitment to work has not received much support. For example, Acker (1992) interviewed eight women teachers in two primary schools in England and found them to be very committed to their work. Schoolwork was frequently on their minds, even during their ‘‘free’’ time at home or on holidays. Other research (Biklen, 1995; Thomas & O’Brien, 1984) demonstrated that women teachers were committed to their work, that they attributed high importance to it and that the teacher role was salient in their personal identity. Interestingly, results of several early quantitative studies (Lortie, 1975; Thomas & O’Brien, 1984) revealed that young women were motivated to enter teaching due to professional reasons rather than compatibility with family demands. Indeed, in one of the few studies that enabled comparison between the two motives, Johnston, McKeown, and McEwen (1999) found that female teacher education students ranked ‘‘working with children’’ as a significantly stronger motive for entering teaching than extrinsic factors related to the convenience of teaching as an occupation for mothers. Examination of the assumption regarding the ease with which female teachers blend family and professional roles also shows unexpected results. From results of several studies emerges an image of individuals who juggle responsibility to maintain a home and raise children in addition to working as teachers. Managing these multiple responsibilities is demanding and complicated, far from a frictionless fit. Research has demonstrated that many teachers are incapable of separating their professional and family roles effectively (Elbaz-Lubisch, 2002; Spencer, 1986). Teachers in Acker’s study (1992) clearly thought that the combination of being a teacher and a mother was not at all convenient. They recounted that they were forced into ‘‘triple-shifts’’ of work consisting of teaching, housework, and childcare. Even a ‘‘quadruple-shift’’ was mentioned by some teachers. In addition, Claesson and Brice (1989)
367
reported that teachers of young children revealed very stressful aspects of filling family and professional roles concurrently, especially the draining nature of working with schoolchildren and the chronic lack of energy necessary to care for one’s own children and to be a good teacher. Of special interest is the finding by Blase and Pajak (1986) that teachers usually resolved conflict between work and family demands in favor of the former. The literature regarding women teachers’ commitment to work and family and the degree of compatibility of teaching and family roles suggests that many female teachers attribute importance to their work role as well as to their family role and they share certain work–family conflict issues with other women professionals. Yet, there also seem to be unique aspects of teaching that are not analogous to many other occupations that render comparisons and inferences hazardous. Thus, it is important to study teachers’ work–family relations directly, especially the nature of the conflicts that arise when one tries to fill both roles diligently. 1.2. Work– family conflict and role salience Important theoretical progress on the association between work and family appeared when Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) proposed that work–family conflict grows when either work or family roles are salient and central to the person’s self-concept. They claimed that the more important a role is to an individual, the more time and energy he or she will invest in it, allowing less time and energy for other roles. Thus, one’s subjective perception of personal importance of the two domains is a critical determinant of work–family conflict. Much research investigated this idea usually by examining separately each of the disparate roles an individual fills. Cinamon and Rich (2002a, b), extended this theoretical issue and demonstrated the benefit of examining simultaneously the relative importance of work and family roles to better understand work–family conflict. Their research on the values and commitment of workers in high stress occupations, computer professionals and lawyers, revealed three profiles of individuals who differed in their attribution of importance to work and
ARTICLE IN PRESS 368
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
family roles: (a) Work profile participants who attributed high importance to the work role and low importance to the family role; (b) Family profile persons who attributed high importance to the family role but low importance to the work role and (c) Dual profile participants who attributed high importance to both work and family roles. Members of different profiles varied on level of work–family conflict as well as on other work and family variables, such as amount of time devoted to work and to family. Particularly relevant to the present study was the finding that women were underrepresented in the Work profile (16%) and almost equally represented in the family (44%) and the dual (40%) profiles. In other words, 56% of the female computer and legal professionals in this sample were either in the work or Dual profiles and attributed high importance to their work role. Teachers, however, may not show the same pattern of work–family profiles as did the computer professionals and lawyers in the Cinamon and Rich (2002a, b) research. As discussed above, teaching has characteristics that may attract young women who are family oriented. Furthermore, teaching may minimize work–family conflict due to work conditions that are considerate of family demands and curtail friction between the two domains. Examples of these considerations in Israeli schools include reduced work–loads for teachers with young children; allowing teachers paid absences from school a few days a year to care for their children; and scheduling staff meetings for the evening after teachers’ children have been fed and prepared for the night. As a result, we may find that teachers are heavily represented in the Family profile and underrepresented in the Work and Dual profiles. In addition, teachers may show decreased overall levels of work–family conflict. Also, it is possible that family and work stress factors that usually increase work–family conflict are less potent because teaching enables mutual accommodation. In contrast to this line of thinking are the results of research mentioned above that demonstrated that women teachers are very committed to their work (e.g., Acker, 1992; Biklen, 1995; Thomas & O’Brien, 1984), that teaching is a stressful occupa-
tion for mothers (e.g., Acker, 1992; Claesson & Brice, 1989) and that significant friction characterizes the relationship between the two domains (e.g., Blase & Pajak, 1986; Spencer, 1986). If these tendencies are operating, we anticipate that teachers will demonstrate work–family conflict characteristics similar to those found among women in stressful occupations. In this context, it is of special interest to investigate work–family conflict among teachers from different schooling levels. The organizational structure and the pedagogical demands of elementary versus secondary schools are quite different (Rich & Almozlino, 1999). For example, the former are usually smaller and teachers are more nurturing toward children whereas the latter are complex organizations where teachers frequently are oriented toward their subject matter and emphasize academic success (e.g., Stodolsky & Grossman, 1995). Because of these and many other differences, the amount and type of work– family conflict and the effects of stress and support variables may vary considerably at different school levels. 1.3. Bi-directionality of work– family conflict Work–family conflict research (e.g., Adams, King, & King, 1996) has also demonstrated a bidirectional relationship between work and family. That is, work can interfere with family (W-F conflict) and family can interfere with work (FW conflict). Evidence indicates that both types of work–family conflict have negative effects on important work and family related outcomes. For example, W-F conflict decreases work satisfaction whereas F-W conflict decreases marital satisfaction. One of the consistent results regarding these two types of conflict is that W-F conflict is higher than F-W conflict (Frone, 2003). Since many female research participants in the area of work– family conflict were high-tech workers and managers, it is important to establish the degree to which teachers demonstrate these two types of conflict because teachers differ from these women on important dimensions. The little research that investigated teachers’ work and family roles also
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
hinted at bi-directional influences between the spheres (e.g., Claesson & Brice, 1989; ElbazLubisch, 2002). However, these studies were not concerned with the degree of interference or with isolating its source. If teachers are family oriented and if the teaching profession is perceived as family friendly, we may discover that F-W conflict is higher and more consequential than W-F conflict. Two factors that may be relevant to the level and direction of the conflict are teacher experience and age of her children. The more instructional experience a teacher has, the more likely that she has gained the necessary professional expertise and adaptive behaviors that enable coping with work demands without unduly impinging upon perceived family responsibilities. Thus, teacher experience should be associated with reduced W-F conflict. Furthermore, research has demonstrated that F-W conflict grows when there are young children at home (e.g., Lewis & Cooper, 1998). Accordingly, it is reasonable that among teachers with younger children, family demands will interfere with school more than they will among their colleagues with older children (see Sikes, Measor, & Woods, 1985). 1.4. Effects of stress and support variables Research has highlighted the influence of stress and support variables from the work domain and the family domain on work–family conflict (Burke & Greenglass, 1999). For example, in the work domain, number of hours devoted to work was positively related to W-F conflict level (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997) whereas flexible work hours (Staines & Pleck, 1983) and managerial support (Thomas & Ganster, 1995) reduced the W-F conflict. Research in the family domain has shown a positive relationship between F-W conflict and the presence of small children at home (Lewis & Cooper, 1998) and many hours invested in housework (Voydannoff, 1989). On the other hand, spousal support was found to moderate the F-W conflict (Matsui, Ohsawa, & Onglatco, 1995). However, study of the influence of stress and support variables on work–family conflict did not
369
focus on women teachers nor on work settings that are female dominated. As discussed above, women teachers may not show the same work–family characteristics as their counterparts in other occupations. Educators in Israel are predominately female with a majority of teachers and administrators at all levels of Israeli education who are women (Addi-Raccah, 2002), including high echelon officials such as the Minister of Education and the Director-General of the Ministry. Thus, schools may develop family sensitive policies with accommodations that moderate the development of F-W and/or W-F conflict and affect the influence of traditional stress and support variables. Additionally, these accommodations may vary according to the level of the school and its unique organizational and educational characteristics. For example, a central pedagogical feature of Israeli secondary, but not primary, education is preparation for internal and external matriculation exams. Also, teachers at different levels of experience may react differentially to a given stress or support variable because it is not perceived as equally stressful or supportive. It is noteworthy that understanding the effects of stress and support variables on work–family conflict among women teachers is especially important because these may be the most modifiable variables available for treatments to prevent or ameliorate teachers’ work–family conflict. In summary, this study addresses three questions: First, will women teachers display the same profiles of attribution of importance to work and family roles as did female professional computer workers and lawyers (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a, b) and is the distribution relatively similar? Second, since there is a predominance of women teachers and administrators at all levels of Israeli education (Addi-Raccah, 2002) and it is family sensitive, are the patterns of W-F and F-W conflict typically found among women in high-tech and manager positions still applicable? Third, do the relations between female teachers’ work–family conflict and stress and support variables from the work and the family domains demonstrate the same patterns as found in occupations that are not female-dominated or family sensitive?
ARTICLE IN PRESS 370
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
2. Method 2.1. Participants Teachers were 187 women aged 25–64 (M ¼ 42:6) from the Central District of Israel who taught in six schools from the public Jewish sector: 44% of them were from elementary schools, 21% from junior high schools, and 32% from high schools. Forty-three participants finished teacher colleges, 107 held Bachelor degrees and 30 completed a Masters degree. One quarter of the teachers had 1–5 years of teaching experience, 35% had 6–15 years of experience and the rest had 16+ years. Mean years of experience was 14.69. Mean number of reported weekly working hours was 27.82 (A full-time position is 30 h weekly for elementary school teachers and 24 h weekly for middle and high school teachers). Seventy-seven percent of the participants were married, 9% were divorced and 7% had not married. Mean of years of marriage was 18. Eighty-two percent of the teachers had children, with a mean of 2.5.
2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Attribution of importance to life roles The Life Role Salience Scale (LRSS) (Amatea, Cross, Clark, & Bobby, 1986) was used to assess teachers’ attributions of importance to work, spouse, and parent roles. It includes 30 items using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5). A 10-item subscale that taps each of the three roles comprises five items reflecting commitment to the role (e.g., ‘‘I intend to invest much time and energy in raising my children’’) and five items reflecting the value attributed to the role (e.g., ‘‘The aim of my life is to have an interesting career’’). Varimax factor analysis of the 30 items in the present study showed distinct subscales for each role. Cronbach alphas for each of the six different subscales (commitment and value subscales for each of the three roles) were: .74 and .74 for the work role, .76 and .72 for the parental role, and .68 and .78 for the spousal role.
2.2.2. Work– family conflict Cinamon and Rich’s (2002a, b) adaptation of Gutek, Searles, and Klepa’s (1991) questionnaire was used to measure teachers’ perceptions of two directions of work–family conflict, along a 5-point Likert-type scale from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5). The adapted questionnaire comprised 14 items, seven assessing W-F conflict (sample item—‘‘My work takes up the time I want to invest in my family’’), and seven items assessing F-W conflict (sample item—‘‘My family demands and personal problems interfere with my work’’), presented in randomized order. Varimax factor analysis on the data from this study revealed two distinct factors with the expected items. Cronbach alphas were .78 for the W-F conflict and .81 for the F-W conflict. 2.2.3. Manager and spouse support Teachers’ perceptions of supervisor and spouse support were assessed using Cinamon and Rich’s (2002a) adaptation of Loerch, Russell, and Rush’s (1989) 5-item manager support scale. Participants were asked to respond to items (e.g., ‘‘I feel support from my supervisors at work’’) on a 5point Likert-type scale from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5). In line with the strategy of examining work and family domains simultaneously, five items were added to assess participants’ perceptions of spousal support as well (e.g., ‘‘My spouse is interested in my work’’). New items dealing with spousal support were adaptations of the original items regarding managerial support. The 10 items were presented in random order. Varimax factor analysis of the expanded 10-item scale used in this study revealed two distinct factors with the expected items. Cronbach alphas were .77 for the supervisor support subscale and .87 for the spousal support subscale. 2.2.4. Demographic variables Information was solicited regarding teachers’ gender, age, type of school (elementary, junior and senior high school), years of experience, number of work hours per week, number of hours weekly in housework, as well as number and ages of children living with respondent.
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for the main variables examined in this study.
371
3. Results The first question of the study deals with the existence of profiles of groups of women teachers who systematically attribute differential importance to work and family roles. It was especially interesting to discover whether most participants are in the Family profile or there are sufficient teachers to comprise a Work profile, individuals who attribute high importance to the work role and low importance to family roles, and a Dual profile, persons who attribute high importance to work and family roles. Cluster analysis, a procedure that enables the construction of unique meaningful groups (Borgen & Barnett, 1987; Pillow, Barrera, & Chassin, 1998) was used to test these questions. The K-means cluster option from SPSS Windows version 10 was utilized to determine the existence of four distinct groups based on the six subscales of the LRSS as dependent variables. The clustering procedure was based on simple Euclidean distances between the variables. Results of the cluster analysis revealed three distinct profiles as found in earlier research on high-tech workers and lawyers (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a). Profile A included 56 participants (30%)
2.3. Procedure After receiving approval from the Ministry of Education and school officials, 250 questionnaires were distributed among teachers in six schools in the Central District of Israel. Each questionnaire set was in an open envelope that also contained a letter from the researchers on university stationary requesting participation and assuring anonymity to respondents. The order of presentation of the three main instruments was counterbalanced with demographic questions presented last. Teachers were asked to return the questionnaires in the sealed envelope to the secretaries of the schools. Participants were allowed unlimited time to complete the questionnaires. In a pretest the average time needed was 20 min. We excluded participants who did not respond to all questionnaire items or for whom there was a suspicion of random response such as use of the identical answer throughout. Analyses were conducted on 187 complete questionnaire sets. Table 1 Means, SDs and intercorrelations of the research variables M 1. WV 2. WC 3. PV 4. PC 5. SV 6. SC 7. WF 8. FW 9. CH 10. WH 11. SN 12. AG 13. HW 14. MS 15. SS
SD
3.48 .72 3.05 .76 4.56 .57 4.27 .60 3.89 .82 3.99 .65 2.77 .85 1.99 .77 2.51 .87 27.8 10.3 14.7 9.80 42.6 9.6 12.7 8.2 3.50 .95 3.93 .96
1
2
3
4
5
6
.64** .12 .00 .15* .05 .02 .06 .03 .05 .14 .07 .13 .05 .16*
.08 .12 .09 .09 .12 .01 .08 .03 .03 .08 .17* .09 .19*
.56** .50** .52** .08 .04 .01 .23** .05 .00 .13 .07 .14
.26** .32** .70** .05 .04 .05 .03 .01 .12 .14 .12 .00 .26** .01 .20** .09 .06 .00 .09 .03 .04 .15 .01 .06 .16* .18* .17* .04 .46** .42**
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.58** .00 .17* .07 .11 .02 .10 .15*
.12 .04 .17* .20* .35** .23* .26** .45** .30** .86** .03 .10 .10 .04 .06 .12 .05 .04 .00 .01 .13 .18* .00 .07 .00 .02 .07 .30**
*po:5; **po:01: 1-work values, 2-work commitment, 3-parenthood values, 4-parenthood commitment, 5-spouse values, 6-spouse commitment, 7-WF conflict, 8-F-W conflict, 9-number of children, 10-number of working hours, 11-seniority, 12-age, 13-house work, 14-manager support, 15-spouse support.
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
372
who attributed high importance to family roles (parental and spousal) and low importance to the work role. Profile B was composed of 43 participants (23%) who attributed high importance to the work role and low importance to family roles. Profile C comprised 88 participants (47%) who attributed high importance to both work and family roles. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the six LRSS scales for each of the three profiles (commitment and value for the work, spousal, and parental roles respectively). A MANOVA revealed significant differences between the means of the LRSS subscales for the three profiles, F ð12; 310Þ ¼ 39:38; po.01. Univariate analyses for the subscales appear in Table 2. Significant differences were found between the three profiles regarding each of the six LRSS subscales. Scheffe tests revealed significant differences (po.01) for all comparisons between the three profiles in their work values and work commitment. Profile A individuals demonstrated high means for the four family subscales in comparison with Profiles B and C. Also, Profile A evidenced the lowest means in the two work subscales compared to Profiles B and C. Thus, Profile A, the Family profile, represented those participants who attributed high importance to the family roles and low importance to the work role, relative to members of other profiles. Profile B showed high means for the two work subscales compared to Profile A. It also exhibited the lowest means in the four family subscales as compared with Profiles A and C. Thus, Profile B, the Work profile, represented those participants
who attributed high importance to the work role and a low level of importance to the family roles, relative to the other profiles. Profile C demonstrated significantly higher means in value and commitment to the two family roles than did Profile B. In contrast, Profile C also evidenced significantly higher means in value and commitment to the work role than did Profiles A and B. Accordingly, Profile C, the Dual profile, represented those participants who attributed high levels of importance to both work and family roles. In sum, the cluster analysis demonstrated the existence of three profiles of teachers—Family, Dual and Work. It was particularly interesting to find that the largest group was the Dual profile and that the majority of women teachers attributed high importance to the work role (Dual+ Work). w2 analysis revealed significant differences in the distribution of three levels of teaching experience (1–5, 6–15, 16+ years) to the three profiles, w2 ð4Þ ¼ 9:39; po.05. Of the 39 participants with least experience, 27 were in the Dual profile, teachers who attributed high importance to both work and family roles. Distribution of the other teaching experience groups between the three profiles was more balanced. No significant differences in the distribution of teachers from elementary, junior and senior high schools to the three profiles were found, w2 ð4Þ ¼ 3:54; p4.05. The second issue of the current study deals with the nature of work–family conflict among teachers. We conducted a series of analyses to determine whether women teachers demonstrate
Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and F values of six role salience subscales for the three profiles Subscale
Work value Parental value Spousal value Work commitment Parental commitment Spousal commitment **po:01:
Profile A—Family (N ¼ 56)
Profile B—Work (N ¼ 43)
Profile C—Dual (N ¼ 88)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
2.79 4.83 4.28 2.35 4.52 4.32
.56 .26 .47 .58 .52 .54
3.48 3.95 2.76 2.98 3.83 3.25
.59 .73 .68 .65 .69 .58
3.94 4.68 4.10 3.53 4.33 4.13
.46 .40 .55 .51 .48 .44
F(2,160)
81.24** 48.58** 107.29** 75.07** 19.75** 59.92**
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
the usual pattern found among professional career women indicating that the conflict resulting from work interfering with family (W-F conflict) is higher than the conflict of family interfering with work (F-W). Also, whether there were differences in level of the two types of conflict between members of the three profiles? Additionally, we examined differences in the two types of work–family conflict between teachers from elementary, junior high, and senior high schools and with different levels of professional experience. Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for the two types of conflict. It shows that women teachers, similar to their counterparts in other professions, have a higher level of W-F than FW conflict. However, in contrast with earlier research (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a), a MANOVA did not reveal significant differences between members of the three profiles on the two work– family conflict scales, F ð4318Þ ¼ 1:06; p4.05. MANOVA analysis did reveal significant differences between the three teacher groups who varied on experience, F ð4318Þ ¼ 2:36; po.05. Means, standard deviations, and F values are presented in Table 3. As can be seen in this table, the level of F-W conflict differed among the three groups of teacher experience. Novice teachers (1–5 years of
373
experience) demonstrated a significantly higher level of F-W conflict as compared to the most experienced teachers. MANOVA was also conducted to examine possible differences in amount of the two types of conflict among the three school levels. The analysis revealed significant differences between three types of school, F ð4306Þ ¼ 4:46; po.01. Means, standard deviations, and univariate F values for W-F and F-W are presented in Table 4. As can be seen in this table, high school teachers had the highest level of W-F conflict as compared with elementary and junior high school teachers. Junior high school teachers had the lowest levels of the two conflicts compared to elementary and high school teachers. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to examine questions regarding the relations between stress and support variables from work and family domains and the two types of work– family conflict. The W-F conflict and the F-W conflict served as dependent variables. Personal and family variables were entered in the first step followed by work variables in the second step while supervisor and spouse support were entered in the third step. We determined the order of entry
Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and F values for work–family conflict among three levels of experience Type of conflict
Work-family conflict Family-work conflict
Group 1: 1–5 yr (N ¼ 45)
Group 2: 6–15 yr (N ¼ 66)
Group 3: 16+ yr (N ¼ 76)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
2.78 2.25
.77 .78
2.83 2.00
.90 .74
2.71 1.84
.85 .75
F(2,208)
.37 4.18**
**po:01:
Table 4 Means, standard deviations, and F values for work–family conflict among three school levels Type of conflict
Work-family conflict Family-work conflict **po:01:
Elementary (N ¼ 82)
Jr. high school (N ¼ 39)
High school (N ¼ 60)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
2.77 2.09
.77 .75
2.44 1.78
.77 .61
2.97 2.02
.95 .88
F(2,208)
4.76** 2.16
ARTICLE IN PRESS 374
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
for each group of variables while each variable within the group entered according to its contribution to explaining the variance. Results indicated that only the model for the W-F conflict was significant and explained 12% of the variance in W-F conflict. Number of working hours made a small contribution indicating that the more hours a teacher works, the greater is her sense of W-F conflict.
4. Discussion This study investigated work–family conflict among women teachers, a relatively unexplored aspect of the mutual relations between teachers’ work and family roles. The research examined teachers’ attributions of importance to work and family roles and found that they are a heterogeneous occupational group who could be classified into three distinct profiles despite significant variation within each group: teachers who attributed primary importance to their family roles, or to their work role or to both role domains. Evidently, the teaching profession in Israel attracts and retains a broad variety of individuals regarding their attitudes toward family and work roles, some of whom have strong family orientations, others have strong career orientations while others value highly and are greatly committed to both areas. This finding has important implications for educational research and policy regarding teacher development and management. First, researchers should not regard women teachers as a monolithic body of educators with relatively little variance in their work–family relations. On the contrary, participants in the present study comprised diverse groups with markedly different work and family identities. Furthermore, teachers’ elevated levels of W-F conflict and F-W conflict were related to the extent of their teaching experience and to the school level they taught. This variance in work– family relations is undoubtedly related to the diversity of female teachers’ personal and professional identities. These, in turn, are shaped by a multitude of interacting factors including personal dispositions and history, family circumstances,
school organizational features and others. This means that one’s occupational identity as a teacher is not a total defining factor; it cannot be separated from other identity issues. Rather, it is part of a complex psychological and social process whereby one adopts, in a dynamic manner, varying degrees of commitment to and responsibility for an array of life roles. As one passes through the different stages of life, the relative importance attributed to the various roles will likely change along with the sense of commitment to them. Indeed it is possible that as life circumstances evolve, a corresponding transformation may occur in a teacher’s work– family profile classification. Since this research showed systematic differences between teacher sub-groups for work–family conflict, quantitative and qualitative researchers of teachers’ work– family relations cannot ignore the existence of the groupings and need to take them into consideration, in addition to individual differences, when designing their research and interpreting results. These findings also have important implications for educational administrators. They should seek appropriate ways to motivate and reward good teachers with diverse personal and professional needs in accordance with the particular life roles they deem important. Differences in attributions of importance to roles and their relative salience lead to differential investment of time and energy in the roles and to differences in work behaviors (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Nevill & Super, 1986). Teachers attributing high importance to their work role and low importance to the family roles probably need a variety of career enrichment and advancement paths to remain professionally motivated and challenged (see Kerr, 1983). In contrast, Family profile individuals may function best as teachers when suitable work accommodations are available that minimize work to family conflict. Administrators must find means to create appropriate professional climates to enable good teachers to realize their career and family goals whether they attribute primary importance to their career or to their family or to both. Otherwise, the teachers will suffer from stress and frustration and may leave the profession or function at suboptimal levels (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998).
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
Another conclusion deriving from the analysis of profiles of attribution of importance to work and family roles is that work–family conflict among women teachers does not differ dramatically from that found among female lawyers and computer professionals, where the same three profiles of attribution of importance to work and family roles emerged (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a). In earlier research we found that 56% of women working in legal or computer professional positions were in Work or Dual profiles and attributed high importance to their work role. In the present study, fully 70% of the female teachers were in these two groups. Clearly, many women teachers in this sample attributed high importance to their occupational role. Furthermore, participating teachers demonstrated similar patterns and levels of W-F and F-W conflict as did their female colleagues in the high-stress occupations (e.g., Cinamon & Rich, 2002b). Accordingly, it appears that female teachers are no less work-oriented, at least in regards to work–family relations, as compared to women working in demanding, non-traditional occupations for women. One intriguing implication deriving from this outcome is that the large body of research results on work–family conflict among women in highstress non-traditional occupations may be relevant to teachers as well. For example, based on the current results, it is worth investigating whether teachers with high work–family conflict will also experience elevated levels of absenteeism, tardiness, poor work–related role performance, job dissatisfaction, intention to quit and high turnover (e.g., Bruck et al., 2002). These characteristics may fuel additional personal and professional stress for the teacher and, in many cases, will make it harder for her to implement supportive classroom environments and can impact negatively student achievements and well-being. Care should be taken, however, not to equate work family relations among women teachers with those characterizing women in other stressful nontraditional occupations. Three results here support the call for caution and careful study. First, we found that number of years of professional experience plays a role in teachers’ level of family to work conflict with a monotonic decrease in
375
conflict as experience grows. This phenomenon may be related to the fact that greater teacher experience often co-varies with increasing age and independence of her children. Additionally, after gaining some years of experience, teachers are more able to develop strategies to prevent their home life from unduly interfering with their work. It also may result from the likelihood that considerable numbers of novice teachers who experience excessive difficulties in their work– family relations leave the profession soon after entering. Whatever the particular antecedents are, number of years of experience has not appeared as an important variable explaining work–family conflict among women in other occupations. It is noteworthy that teachers in the early stage of their career were especially vulnerable to experiencing family-work conflict. As Huberman (1993) has described, these teachers are principally concerned with their professional survival. Adding another set of tensions stemming from the family, where beginning teachers may also be relatively inexperienced in raising children and meeting multiple role demands probably exacerbates the survival concerns. These ‘‘at risk’’ teachers may benefit from special collegial and/or administrative support efforts that help them cope with the stress of multiple demands. From a broader perspective it seems reasonable that teacher development theorists and researchers could enhance our insight into stages of career development if they were to attend to other important roles that teachers fill and how they influence professional growth at different phases of their lives (see e.g., Huberman, Thompson, & Weiland, 1997; Sikes, et al., 1985). Another aspect of work–family conflict unique to teachers that emerged here is related to school level. Work-family conflict among high school teachers was significantly higher as compared to junior high school teachers. This result was surprising since junior and senior high schools in Israel are often administratively linked and share a common physical plant and teachers’ work conditions in the two settings appear to be quite similar. However, one overpowering fact of school life distinguishes between them. Beginning in tenth grade, most high school students embark on a 3-year journey of matriculation exams that largely
ARTICLE IN PRESS 376
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
determine their chances of acceptance into a desirable university program. This is important and challenging school business. Much of the administrative and pedagogical affairs of the high school are aimed at preparing students for the exams and teacher prestige is linked to student success. Demands on teachers’ resources grow and they spend a great deal of ‘‘free time’’ tutoring individual students. Thus, the matriculation exams generate serious professional strain on teachers who earnestly strive to maximize student accomplishments because of the special importance of the outcomes for students and teachers alike. Consequently, more than their colleagues at other levels, high school teachers are willing to tolerate work demands that interfere with their family life. It would be of interest to examine the effects of school level and other organizational factors on teachers’ work–family conflict in different countries and settings where pedagogical pressures on teachers diverge from those investigated in this study. Effects of stress and support factors on work– family conflict among women teachers also differed from what was found in previous research on female workers in highly demanding occupations (Bernas & Major, 2000). Results of this study cannot explain these discrepancies but it is appropriate to emphasize the significant difference between teaching and most other demanding professions. For many women teachers, enacting their occupation and caring for a family are inextricably related (e.g., Elbaz-Lubisch, 2002; Spencer, 1986). The short on-site workday accompanied by extensive at-home work and the ostensible flexibility of family schedules are double-edged swords that create the possibility of compatibility (Claesson & Brice, 1989), but also make it likely that the two domains will encroach upon one another. This characteristic of the lives of many women teachers could have profound effects on the usual sources of stress and support that mediate work–family conflict. It was puzzling that unlike results of previous research (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a), differences in the amount of work–family conflict did not emerge between teachers in the three profiles. Does the close intertwining of work and family among
women teachers render differential attributions of importance to work and family roles less significant for generating work-family and familywork conflict? This study cannot answer this question but further research should delve into this issue in greater depth. On the other hand, this research makes it clear that women teachers vary considerably regarding the life roles they deem important and that many of them perceive the two domains as dynamically and inextricably related. Finally, we offer brief comments on three issues that deserve more extensive consideration. First, the reader should note that most participants in this study were married women with children. We believe that further research should take a broader outlook on the relationship between work and family roles by examining teachers with a greater variety of family configurations including women without children at home, single mothers, and other patterns. Second, this study did not attend to the work or family conditions of the teacher’s spouse. These variables might have important influences on the teacher’s work–family relations. Finally, we concur with Super (1990) that research on life roles should focus on a broad conceptualization that includes non-work roles that are meaningful to the individual, such as community service and leisure activities. These may influence teachers’ perceptions of work and family and their classroom behaviors.
References Acker, S. (1989). Teachers, gender and careers. London: Falmer Press. Acker, S. (1992). Creating careers: Women teachers at work. Curriculum Inquiry, 22, 141–163. Adams, A. G., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 411–420. Addi-Raccah, A. (2002). The feminization of teaching and principalship in the Israeli education system: A comparative study. Sociology of Education, 75, 231–248. Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Burck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work to family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308. Amatea, E. S., Cross, E. G., Clark, J. E., & Bobby, C. L. (1986). Assessing the work and family role expectations of career
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378 oriented men and women: The life role salience scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 18, 831–838. Bernas, K., & Major, D. A. (2000). Contributors to stress resistance: Testing a model of women’s work–family conflict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 170–178. Biklen, S. K. (1995). School work: Gender and the cultural construction of teaching. Albany: State University of New York Press. Blase, J. J., & Pajak, E. F. (1986). The impact of teachers’ work life on personal life: A qualitative analysis. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 32, 307–322. Borgen, F. H., & Barnett, D. C. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 456–468. Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. (2002). The relation between work–family conflict and job satisfaction: A finergrained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 336–353. Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, R. E. (1999). Work–family conflict, spouse support, and nursing staff well being during organizational restructuring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 327–336. Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work–family conflict in the organization: Do live role values make a differences? Journal of Management, 26, 1031–1054. Carter, K., & Doyle, W. (1996). Personal narrative and life history in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education, (2nd ed.) (pp. 120–142). New York: Simon & Schuster. Casey, K., & Apple, M. W. (1989). Gender and the conditions of teachers’ work: The development of understanding in America. In S. Acker (Ed.), Teachers, gender and careers (pp. 171–186). New York: Falmer. Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002a). Profiles of attribution of importance to life roles and their implications for the work–family conflict. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 212–220. Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002b). Gender differences in attribution of importance to life roles. Sex Roles, 47, 531–541. Claesson, M., & Brice, R. (1989). Teacher/mothers: Effects of a dual role. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 1–23. Dreeben, R. (1970). The nature of teaching. School and the work of teachers. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Elbaz-Lubisch, P. (2002). Teacher’s stories: The personal, the professional- and what is between them. In M. Zellermayer, & P. Peri (Eds.), Women teachers in Israel, A feminist perspective (pp. 115–133). Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad (Hebrew). Etzioni, A. (1969). The semi-professions and their organizations: Teachers, nurses, social workers. New York: The Free Press. Frone, M. F. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington: APA. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work
377
family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167. Gilbert, L. A., & Brownson, C. (1998). Current perspectives in women’s multiple roles. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 433–448. Goodson, I. (1997). The life and work of teachers. In B. Biddle, T. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 135–152). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Source of conflict between work and family roles. Academy Management Review, 10, 77–88. Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Family, work, work–family spillover, and problem drinking during midlife. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 336–348. Gutek, B. A., Searles, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role expectations for work family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 566–568. Huberman, M. (1993). Steps toward a developmental model of the teaching career. In L. Kremer-Hayon, H. Vonk, & R. Fessler (Eds.), Teacher professional development: A multiple perspective approach (pp. 93–131). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. Huberman, M., Thompson, C. L., & Weiland, S. (1997). Perspectives on the teaching career. In B. Biddle, T. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 11–78). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Johnston, J., McKeown, E., & McEwen, A. (1999). Choosing primary teaching as a career: The perspectives of males and females in training. Journal of Education for Teaching, 25, 55–64. Kerr, D. (1983). Teaching competence and teacher education in the United State. In L. S. Shulman, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 253–265). New York: Longman. Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and direction for organizational behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149. Lewis, S. N., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Stress in dual earner families. In B. A. Gutek, A. Stomberg, & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women and work, Vol. 3 (pp. 139–168). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Loerch, K. J., Russell, E. A., & Rush, C. M. (1989). The relationships among family domain variables and work–family conflict for men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 288–309. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglatco, M. (1995). Work–family conflict: The stress-buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 178–192. Nevill, D., & Super, D. E. (1986). The Salience Inventory: Theory, application, and research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 378
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
Pillow, D. R., Barrera, M., & Chassin, L. (1998). Using cluster analysis to assess the effects of stressful life events: Probing the impact of parental alcoholism on child stress and substance use. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 361–380. Rich, Y., & Almozlino, M. (1999). Educational goal preferences among novice and veteran teachers of sciences and humanities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 613–629. Sikes, P., Measor, L., & Woods, P. (1985). Teacher careers: Crises and continuities. London: Falmer. Spencer, D. A. (1986). Contemporary women teachers: Balancing school and home. New York: Longman. Spencer, D. A. (1997). Teaching as women’s work. In B. Biddle, T. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 153–198). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Staines, G. L., & Pleck, J. H. (1983). The impact of work schedules on the family. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Stodolsky, S., & Grossman, P. (1995). Subject–matter differences in secondary schools: Connections to higher education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 64, 71–78. Super, D.E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed. pp. 197–261). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass. Thomas, K. R., & O’Brien, R. (1984). Occupational status and prestige: Perceptions of business, education, and law students. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 33, 70–75. Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family supportive work variables on work family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15. Van der Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72, 577–625.
Voydannoff, P. (1989). Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 749–761.
Further reading Connelly, M., & Clandinin, J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 14, 2–4. Cook, E. P. (1998). Role salience and multiple roles: A gender perspective. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 253–258. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of work family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78. Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature and direction of work–family conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 337–346. Kerpelman, J. L., & Schvaneveldt, P. L. (1999). Young adults’ anticipated identity importance of career, marital, and parental roles: Comparisons of men and women with different role balance orientation. Sex Roles, 42, 189–217. Kowalski, K. E. (1998). A model of the antecedents and outcomes of work– family conflict as moderated by social support. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rhode Island. Perrewe, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (1999). Value attainment: An explanation for the negative effects of work–family conflict and job an life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 318–326. Willey, D. L. (1991). Gender, work and stress: The potential impact of role identity salience and commitment. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 495–510.
Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378 www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Work–family conflict among female teachers$ Rachel Gali Cinamona,, Yisrael Richb a
School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel b Bar Ilan University, Israel
Received 10 June 2003; received in revised form 24 March 2004; accepted 9 June 2004
Abstract Work–family conflict was investigated among 187 Israeli women teachers to better understand relationships between teachers’ professional and family lives. The research examined perceived importance of work and family roles and effects of stress and support variables on W-F and F-W conflict. Additionally, effects of teachers’ years of experience and school level (primary, junior and senior high) on work–family conflict were examined. Cluster analysis revealed that many teachers attributed high importance to both roles and had higher W-F than F-W conflict. Relations between teacher stress and support variables and work–family conflict diverged from patterns found in other occupations. School level and teacher experience contributed to explaining the conflict. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher role; Work–family conflict; Teacher career development
1. Introduction Several educational researchers have urged more extensive investigation of the relationships between the professional and family lives of female teachers due to the mutual influences between the two domains (e.g., Acker, 1989; Goodson, 1997; Spencer, 1986). Vocational psychology research suggests that a host of important worker attitudes $
This article is based, in part, on a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Chicago, April 2003. Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 3 6408417. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.G. Cinamon).
and behaviors are affected by family related variables, such as age and number of children and support from spouse (Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Thus, investigation of the relationships between the two domains may provide educational researchers and administrators deeper understanding of teacher thinking and behavior. Despite the appeals of these researchers, the research traditions that have emerged in education and in vocational psychology have not shown sustained interest in investigating the family and professional lives of teachers (Goodson, 1997). While research is relatively scarce on the relationship between work and family roles among
0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.06.009
ARTICLE IN PRESS 366
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
teachers, work–family relations has been an important topic in vocational psychology research on other occupations (Frone, 2003). In particular, researchers have shown interest in the conflicts that arise between an individual’s work and family life roles. Fundamental changes in the world of work, such as rising numbers of dual career couples and mothers with young children who pursue careers, stimulated considerable scholarship related to work–family conflict. Work–family conflict has been defined as a form of inter-role conflict in which pressures from work and family roles are incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Research has shown that this conflict is associated with numerous dysfunctional outcomes in the work and in the family domains. The negative outcomes in the work domain include tardiness, poor role performance, low occupational well-being, job dissatisfaction, burnout, high intention to quit and turnover (Allen, Herst, Burck, & Sutton, 2000; Bruck, Allen, & Spector, 2002; Carlson & Kacmar, 2000). Thus, it is clearly important to know whether teachers experience meaningful work–family conflict and if its antecedents and effects are similar to those of other occupations. Most research that investigated work–family conflict among women focused on demanding managerial and non-traditional professions. This emphasis stemmed, in large part, from the assumption that women in these occupations attribute high importance to their work roles as well as to their family roles (Gilbert & Brownson 1998). Attribution of high importance to both roles increases the likelihood of experiencing considerable stress leading to work–family conflict (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a). In contrast, researchers did not perceive teachers as a fruitful target for study because they expected that teachers experience low levels of work–family conflict. This expectation was probably due to two related assumptions: that the ranks of teachers include a preponderance of women who attribute high importance to family but not to work roles; and that teaching has characteristics that enable compatible relations between work and family roles. However, recent investigations of teacher thinking about their work and analyses of the
teaching profession (e.g., Carter & Doyle, 1996; Van der Berg, 2002) raise serious questions regarding the accuracy of these assumptions. Accordingly, the current study addressed the issue of work–family conflict among women teachers.
1.1. Work and family of teachers Even a cursory examination of women teachers’ family and career lives reveals important associations. Teaching has been perceived as an attractive occupation for women who want to work but strive to allocate maximum time and energy to their family roles. Casey and Apple (1989) describe how women teachers have been depicted as having low occupational commitment and little aspiration for career advancement. These ideas are reflected conspicuously in the writings of leading educational sociologists in the 70s such as Dreeben (1970) and Lortie (1975). Similarly, some prominent organizational sociologists in that era characterized teaching and other female-dominated occupations as ‘‘semi-professions’’ (Etzioni, 1969), implying that teachers display little unique professional knowledge and that they are not very committed to their work (see Spencer, 1997). Thus, teaching was considered an especially appropriate occupation for women because they were not required to invest heavily in work and could presumably combine vocational and family roles with a minimum of conflict. Another widespread assumption about teaching as a profession is that it has many attributes that are especially considerate of family needs and constraints. These include, among others, a relatively short workday at job site, no work on school holidays, no work most of the summer and reduced workload for mothers of small children (in some locations). Many people believe that these job conditions enable teachers to meet their work obligations without major interruptions from the family while maintaining a home that functions smoothly without significant disruptions by job demands. These presumed characteristics of teaching make it an ideal job for women with limited career commitment or aspirations who want to devote themselves to their families.
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
However, results of the little research that has examined teachers’ professional and family lives, most of which employed a qualitative strategy, tell a more complicated story. The assumption that women teachers have minimal commitment to work has not received much support. For example, Acker (1992) interviewed eight women teachers in two primary schools in England and found them to be very committed to their work. Schoolwork was frequently on their minds, even during their ‘‘free’’ time at home or on holidays. Other research (Biklen, 1995; Thomas & O’Brien, 1984) demonstrated that women teachers were committed to their work, that they attributed high importance to it and that the teacher role was salient in their personal identity. Interestingly, results of several early quantitative studies (Lortie, 1975; Thomas & O’Brien, 1984) revealed that young women were motivated to enter teaching due to professional reasons rather than compatibility with family demands. Indeed, in one of the few studies that enabled comparison between the two motives, Johnston, McKeown, and McEwen (1999) found that female teacher education students ranked ‘‘working with children’’ as a significantly stronger motive for entering teaching than extrinsic factors related to the convenience of teaching as an occupation for mothers. Examination of the assumption regarding the ease with which female teachers blend family and professional roles also shows unexpected results. From results of several studies emerges an image of individuals who juggle responsibility to maintain a home and raise children in addition to working as teachers. Managing these multiple responsibilities is demanding and complicated, far from a frictionless fit. Research has demonstrated that many teachers are incapable of separating their professional and family roles effectively (Elbaz-Lubisch, 2002; Spencer, 1986). Teachers in Acker’s study (1992) clearly thought that the combination of being a teacher and a mother was not at all convenient. They recounted that they were forced into ‘‘triple-shifts’’ of work consisting of teaching, housework, and childcare. Even a ‘‘quadruple-shift’’ was mentioned by some teachers. In addition, Claesson and Brice (1989)
367
reported that teachers of young children revealed very stressful aspects of filling family and professional roles concurrently, especially the draining nature of working with schoolchildren and the chronic lack of energy necessary to care for one’s own children and to be a good teacher. Of special interest is the finding by Blase and Pajak (1986) that teachers usually resolved conflict between work and family demands in favor of the former. The literature regarding women teachers’ commitment to work and family and the degree of compatibility of teaching and family roles suggests that many female teachers attribute importance to their work role as well as to their family role and they share certain work–family conflict issues with other women professionals. Yet, there also seem to be unique aspects of teaching that are not analogous to many other occupations that render comparisons and inferences hazardous. Thus, it is important to study teachers’ work–family relations directly, especially the nature of the conflicts that arise when one tries to fill both roles diligently. 1.2. Work– family conflict and role salience Important theoretical progress on the association between work and family appeared when Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) proposed that work–family conflict grows when either work or family roles are salient and central to the person’s self-concept. They claimed that the more important a role is to an individual, the more time and energy he or she will invest in it, allowing less time and energy for other roles. Thus, one’s subjective perception of personal importance of the two domains is a critical determinant of work–family conflict. Much research investigated this idea usually by examining separately each of the disparate roles an individual fills. Cinamon and Rich (2002a, b), extended this theoretical issue and demonstrated the benefit of examining simultaneously the relative importance of work and family roles to better understand work–family conflict. Their research on the values and commitment of workers in high stress occupations, computer professionals and lawyers, revealed three profiles of individuals who differed in their attribution of importance to work and
ARTICLE IN PRESS 368
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
family roles: (a) Work profile participants who attributed high importance to the work role and low importance to the family role; (b) Family profile persons who attributed high importance to the family role but low importance to the work role and (c) Dual profile participants who attributed high importance to both work and family roles. Members of different profiles varied on level of work–family conflict as well as on other work and family variables, such as amount of time devoted to work and to family. Particularly relevant to the present study was the finding that women were underrepresented in the Work profile (16%) and almost equally represented in the family (44%) and the dual (40%) profiles. In other words, 56% of the female computer and legal professionals in this sample were either in the work or Dual profiles and attributed high importance to their work role. Teachers, however, may not show the same pattern of work–family profiles as did the computer professionals and lawyers in the Cinamon and Rich (2002a, b) research. As discussed above, teaching has characteristics that may attract young women who are family oriented. Furthermore, teaching may minimize work–family conflict due to work conditions that are considerate of family demands and curtail friction between the two domains. Examples of these considerations in Israeli schools include reduced work–loads for teachers with young children; allowing teachers paid absences from school a few days a year to care for their children; and scheduling staff meetings for the evening after teachers’ children have been fed and prepared for the night. As a result, we may find that teachers are heavily represented in the Family profile and underrepresented in the Work and Dual profiles. In addition, teachers may show decreased overall levels of work–family conflict. Also, it is possible that family and work stress factors that usually increase work–family conflict are less potent because teaching enables mutual accommodation. In contrast to this line of thinking are the results of research mentioned above that demonstrated that women teachers are very committed to their work (e.g., Acker, 1992; Biklen, 1995; Thomas & O’Brien, 1984), that teaching is a stressful occupa-
tion for mothers (e.g., Acker, 1992; Claesson & Brice, 1989) and that significant friction characterizes the relationship between the two domains (e.g., Blase & Pajak, 1986; Spencer, 1986). If these tendencies are operating, we anticipate that teachers will demonstrate work–family conflict characteristics similar to those found among women in stressful occupations. In this context, it is of special interest to investigate work–family conflict among teachers from different schooling levels. The organizational structure and the pedagogical demands of elementary versus secondary schools are quite different (Rich & Almozlino, 1999). For example, the former are usually smaller and teachers are more nurturing toward children whereas the latter are complex organizations where teachers frequently are oriented toward their subject matter and emphasize academic success (e.g., Stodolsky & Grossman, 1995). Because of these and many other differences, the amount and type of work– family conflict and the effects of stress and support variables may vary considerably at different school levels. 1.3. Bi-directionality of work– family conflict Work–family conflict research (e.g., Adams, King, & King, 1996) has also demonstrated a bidirectional relationship between work and family. That is, work can interfere with family (W-F conflict) and family can interfere with work (FW conflict). Evidence indicates that both types of work–family conflict have negative effects on important work and family related outcomes. For example, W-F conflict decreases work satisfaction whereas F-W conflict decreases marital satisfaction. One of the consistent results regarding these two types of conflict is that W-F conflict is higher than F-W conflict (Frone, 2003). Since many female research participants in the area of work– family conflict were high-tech workers and managers, it is important to establish the degree to which teachers demonstrate these two types of conflict because teachers differ from these women on important dimensions. The little research that investigated teachers’ work and family roles also
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
hinted at bi-directional influences between the spheres (e.g., Claesson & Brice, 1989; ElbazLubisch, 2002). However, these studies were not concerned with the degree of interference or with isolating its source. If teachers are family oriented and if the teaching profession is perceived as family friendly, we may discover that F-W conflict is higher and more consequential than W-F conflict. Two factors that may be relevant to the level and direction of the conflict are teacher experience and age of her children. The more instructional experience a teacher has, the more likely that she has gained the necessary professional expertise and adaptive behaviors that enable coping with work demands without unduly impinging upon perceived family responsibilities. Thus, teacher experience should be associated with reduced W-F conflict. Furthermore, research has demonstrated that F-W conflict grows when there are young children at home (e.g., Lewis & Cooper, 1998). Accordingly, it is reasonable that among teachers with younger children, family demands will interfere with school more than they will among their colleagues with older children (see Sikes, Measor, & Woods, 1985). 1.4. Effects of stress and support variables Research has highlighted the influence of stress and support variables from the work domain and the family domain on work–family conflict (Burke & Greenglass, 1999). For example, in the work domain, number of hours devoted to work was positively related to W-F conflict level (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997) whereas flexible work hours (Staines & Pleck, 1983) and managerial support (Thomas & Ganster, 1995) reduced the W-F conflict. Research in the family domain has shown a positive relationship between F-W conflict and the presence of small children at home (Lewis & Cooper, 1998) and many hours invested in housework (Voydannoff, 1989). On the other hand, spousal support was found to moderate the F-W conflict (Matsui, Ohsawa, & Onglatco, 1995). However, study of the influence of stress and support variables on work–family conflict did not
369
focus on women teachers nor on work settings that are female dominated. As discussed above, women teachers may not show the same work–family characteristics as their counterparts in other occupations. Educators in Israel are predominately female with a majority of teachers and administrators at all levels of Israeli education who are women (Addi-Raccah, 2002), including high echelon officials such as the Minister of Education and the Director-General of the Ministry. Thus, schools may develop family sensitive policies with accommodations that moderate the development of F-W and/or W-F conflict and affect the influence of traditional stress and support variables. Additionally, these accommodations may vary according to the level of the school and its unique organizational and educational characteristics. For example, a central pedagogical feature of Israeli secondary, but not primary, education is preparation for internal and external matriculation exams. Also, teachers at different levels of experience may react differentially to a given stress or support variable because it is not perceived as equally stressful or supportive. It is noteworthy that understanding the effects of stress and support variables on work–family conflict among women teachers is especially important because these may be the most modifiable variables available for treatments to prevent or ameliorate teachers’ work–family conflict. In summary, this study addresses three questions: First, will women teachers display the same profiles of attribution of importance to work and family roles as did female professional computer workers and lawyers (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a, b) and is the distribution relatively similar? Second, since there is a predominance of women teachers and administrators at all levels of Israeli education (Addi-Raccah, 2002) and it is family sensitive, are the patterns of W-F and F-W conflict typically found among women in high-tech and manager positions still applicable? Third, do the relations between female teachers’ work–family conflict and stress and support variables from the work and the family domains demonstrate the same patterns as found in occupations that are not female-dominated or family sensitive?
ARTICLE IN PRESS 370
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
2. Method 2.1. Participants Teachers were 187 women aged 25–64 (M ¼ 42:6) from the Central District of Israel who taught in six schools from the public Jewish sector: 44% of them were from elementary schools, 21% from junior high schools, and 32% from high schools. Forty-three participants finished teacher colleges, 107 held Bachelor degrees and 30 completed a Masters degree. One quarter of the teachers had 1–5 years of teaching experience, 35% had 6–15 years of experience and the rest had 16+ years. Mean years of experience was 14.69. Mean number of reported weekly working hours was 27.82 (A full-time position is 30 h weekly for elementary school teachers and 24 h weekly for middle and high school teachers). Seventy-seven percent of the participants were married, 9% were divorced and 7% had not married. Mean of years of marriage was 18. Eighty-two percent of the teachers had children, with a mean of 2.5.
2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Attribution of importance to life roles The Life Role Salience Scale (LRSS) (Amatea, Cross, Clark, & Bobby, 1986) was used to assess teachers’ attributions of importance to work, spouse, and parent roles. It includes 30 items using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5). A 10-item subscale that taps each of the three roles comprises five items reflecting commitment to the role (e.g., ‘‘I intend to invest much time and energy in raising my children’’) and five items reflecting the value attributed to the role (e.g., ‘‘The aim of my life is to have an interesting career’’). Varimax factor analysis of the 30 items in the present study showed distinct subscales for each role. Cronbach alphas for each of the six different subscales (commitment and value subscales for each of the three roles) were: .74 and .74 for the work role, .76 and .72 for the parental role, and .68 and .78 for the spousal role.
2.2.2. Work– family conflict Cinamon and Rich’s (2002a, b) adaptation of Gutek, Searles, and Klepa’s (1991) questionnaire was used to measure teachers’ perceptions of two directions of work–family conflict, along a 5-point Likert-type scale from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5). The adapted questionnaire comprised 14 items, seven assessing W-F conflict (sample item—‘‘My work takes up the time I want to invest in my family’’), and seven items assessing F-W conflict (sample item—‘‘My family demands and personal problems interfere with my work’’), presented in randomized order. Varimax factor analysis on the data from this study revealed two distinct factors with the expected items. Cronbach alphas were .78 for the W-F conflict and .81 for the F-W conflict. 2.2.3. Manager and spouse support Teachers’ perceptions of supervisor and spouse support were assessed using Cinamon and Rich’s (2002a) adaptation of Loerch, Russell, and Rush’s (1989) 5-item manager support scale. Participants were asked to respond to items (e.g., ‘‘I feel support from my supervisors at work’’) on a 5point Likert-type scale from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5). In line with the strategy of examining work and family domains simultaneously, five items were added to assess participants’ perceptions of spousal support as well (e.g., ‘‘My spouse is interested in my work’’). New items dealing with spousal support were adaptations of the original items regarding managerial support. The 10 items were presented in random order. Varimax factor analysis of the expanded 10-item scale used in this study revealed two distinct factors with the expected items. Cronbach alphas were .77 for the supervisor support subscale and .87 for the spousal support subscale. 2.2.4. Demographic variables Information was solicited regarding teachers’ gender, age, type of school (elementary, junior and senior high school), years of experience, number of work hours per week, number of hours weekly in housework, as well as number and ages of children living with respondent.
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for the main variables examined in this study.
371
3. Results The first question of the study deals with the existence of profiles of groups of women teachers who systematically attribute differential importance to work and family roles. It was especially interesting to discover whether most participants are in the Family profile or there are sufficient teachers to comprise a Work profile, individuals who attribute high importance to the work role and low importance to family roles, and a Dual profile, persons who attribute high importance to work and family roles. Cluster analysis, a procedure that enables the construction of unique meaningful groups (Borgen & Barnett, 1987; Pillow, Barrera, & Chassin, 1998) was used to test these questions. The K-means cluster option from SPSS Windows version 10 was utilized to determine the existence of four distinct groups based on the six subscales of the LRSS as dependent variables. The clustering procedure was based on simple Euclidean distances between the variables. Results of the cluster analysis revealed three distinct profiles as found in earlier research on high-tech workers and lawyers (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a). Profile A included 56 participants (30%)
2.3. Procedure After receiving approval from the Ministry of Education and school officials, 250 questionnaires were distributed among teachers in six schools in the Central District of Israel. Each questionnaire set was in an open envelope that also contained a letter from the researchers on university stationary requesting participation and assuring anonymity to respondents. The order of presentation of the three main instruments was counterbalanced with demographic questions presented last. Teachers were asked to return the questionnaires in the sealed envelope to the secretaries of the schools. Participants were allowed unlimited time to complete the questionnaires. In a pretest the average time needed was 20 min. We excluded participants who did not respond to all questionnaire items or for whom there was a suspicion of random response such as use of the identical answer throughout. Analyses were conducted on 187 complete questionnaire sets. Table 1 Means, SDs and intercorrelations of the research variables M 1. WV 2. WC 3. PV 4. PC 5. SV 6. SC 7. WF 8. FW 9. CH 10. WH 11. SN 12. AG 13. HW 14. MS 15. SS
SD
3.48 .72 3.05 .76 4.56 .57 4.27 .60 3.89 .82 3.99 .65 2.77 .85 1.99 .77 2.51 .87 27.8 10.3 14.7 9.80 42.6 9.6 12.7 8.2 3.50 .95 3.93 .96
1
2
3
4
5
6
.64** .12 .00 .15* .05 .02 .06 .03 .05 .14 .07 .13 .05 .16*
.08 .12 .09 .09 .12 .01 .08 .03 .03 .08 .17* .09 .19*
.56** .50** .52** .08 .04 .01 .23** .05 .00 .13 .07 .14
.26** .32** .70** .05 .04 .05 .03 .01 .12 .14 .12 .00 .26** .01 .20** .09 .06 .00 .09 .03 .04 .15 .01 .06 .16* .18* .17* .04 .46** .42**
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.58** .00 .17* .07 .11 .02 .10 .15*
.12 .04 .17* .20* .35** .23* .26** .45** .30** .86** .03 .10 .10 .04 .06 .12 .05 .04 .00 .01 .13 .18* .00 .07 .00 .02 .07 .30**
*po:5; **po:01: 1-work values, 2-work commitment, 3-parenthood values, 4-parenthood commitment, 5-spouse values, 6-spouse commitment, 7-WF conflict, 8-F-W conflict, 9-number of children, 10-number of working hours, 11-seniority, 12-age, 13-house work, 14-manager support, 15-spouse support.
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
372
who attributed high importance to family roles (parental and spousal) and low importance to the work role. Profile B was composed of 43 participants (23%) who attributed high importance to the work role and low importance to family roles. Profile C comprised 88 participants (47%) who attributed high importance to both work and family roles. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the six LRSS scales for each of the three profiles (commitment and value for the work, spousal, and parental roles respectively). A MANOVA revealed significant differences between the means of the LRSS subscales for the three profiles, F ð12; 310Þ ¼ 39:38; po.01. Univariate analyses for the subscales appear in Table 2. Significant differences were found between the three profiles regarding each of the six LRSS subscales. Scheffe tests revealed significant differences (po.01) for all comparisons between the three profiles in their work values and work commitment. Profile A individuals demonstrated high means for the four family subscales in comparison with Profiles B and C. Also, Profile A evidenced the lowest means in the two work subscales compared to Profiles B and C. Thus, Profile A, the Family profile, represented those participants who attributed high importance to the family roles and low importance to the work role, relative to members of other profiles. Profile B showed high means for the two work subscales compared to Profile A. It also exhibited the lowest means in the four family subscales as compared with Profiles A and C. Thus, Profile B, the Work profile, represented those participants
who attributed high importance to the work role and a low level of importance to the family roles, relative to the other profiles. Profile C demonstrated significantly higher means in value and commitment to the two family roles than did Profile B. In contrast, Profile C also evidenced significantly higher means in value and commitment to the work role than did Profiles A and B. Accordingly, Profile C, the Dual profile, represented those participants who attributed high levels of importance to both work and family roles. In sum, the cluster analysis demonstrated the existence of three profiles of teachers—Family, Dual and Work. It was particularly interesting to find that the largest group was the Dual profile and that the majority of women teachers attributed high importance to the work role (Dual+ Work). w2 analysis revealed significant differences in the distribution of three levels of teaching experience (1–5, 6–15, 16+ years) to the three profiles, w2 ð4Þ ¼ 9:39; po.05. Of the 39 participants with least experience, 27 were in the Dual profile, teachers who attributed high importance to both work and family roles. Distribution of the other teaching experience groups between the three profiles was more balanced. No significant differences in the distribution of teachers from elementary, junior and senior high schools to the three profiles were found, w2 ð4Þ ¼ 3:54; p4.05. The second issue of the current study deals with the nature of work–family conflict among teachers. We conducted a series of analyses to determine whether women teachers demonstrate
Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and F values of six role salience subscales for the three profiles Subscale
Work value Parental value Spousal value Work commitment Parental commitment Spousal commitment **po:01:
Profile A—Family (N ¼ 56)
Profile B—Work (N ¼ 43)
Profile C—Dual (N ¼ 88)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
2.79 4.83 4.28 2.35 4.52 4.32
.56 .26 .47 .58 .52 .54
3.48 3.95 2.76 2.98 3.83 3.25
.59 .73 .68 .65 .69 .58
3.94 4.68 4.10 3.53 4.33 4.13
.46 .40 .55 .51 .48 .44
F(2,160)
81.24** 48.58** 107.29** 75.07** 19.75** 59.92**
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
the usual pattern found among professional career women indicating that the conflict resulting from work interfering with family (W-F conflict) is higher than the conflict of family interfering with work (F-W). Also, whether there were differences in level of the two types of conflict between members of the three profiles? Additionally, we examined differences in the two types of work–family conflict between teachers from elementary, junior high, and senior high schools and with different levels of professional experience. Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for the two types of conflict. It shows that women teachers, similar to their counterparts in other professions, have a higher level of W-F than FW conflict. However, in contrast with earlier research (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a), a MANOVA did not reveal significant differences between members of the three profiles on the two work– family conflict scales, F ð4318Þ ¼ 1:06; p4.05. MANOVA analysis did reveal significant differences between the three teacher groups who varied on experience, F ð4318Þ ¼ 2:36; po.05. Means, standard deviations, and F values are presented in Table 3. As can be seen in this table, the level of F-W conflict differed among the three groups of teacher experience. Novice teachers (1–5 years of
373
experience) demonstrated a significantly higher level of F-W conflict as compared to the most experienced teachers. MANOVA was also conducted to examine possible differences in amount of the two types of conflict among the three school levels. The analysis revealed significant differences between three types of school, F ð4306Þ ¼ 4:46; po.01. Means, standard deviations, and univariate F values for W-F and F-W are presented in Table 4. As can be seen in this table, high school teachers had the highest level of W-F conflict as compared with elementary and junior high school teachers. Junior high school teachers had the lowest levels of the two conflicts compared to elementary and high school teachers. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to examine questions regarding the relations between stress and support variables from work and family domains and the two types of work– family conflict. The W-F conflict and the F-W conflict served as dependent variables. Personal and family variables were entered in the first step followed by work variables in the second step while supervisor and spouse support were entered in the third step. We determined the order of entry
Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and F values for work–family conflict among three levels of experience Type of conflict
Work-family conflict Family-work conflict
Group 1: 1–5 yr (N ¼ 45)
Group 2: 6–15 yr (N ¼ 66)
Group 3: 16+ yr (N ¼ 76)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
2.78 2.25
.77 .78
2.83 2.00
.90 .74
2.71 1.84
.85 .75
F(2,208)
.37 4.18**
**po:01:
Table 4 Means, standard deviations, and F values for work–family conflict among three school levels Type of conflict
Work-family conflict Family-work conflict **po:01:
Elementary (N ¼ 82)
Jr. high school (N ¼ 39)
High school (N ¼ 60)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
2.77 2.09
.77 .75
2.44 1.78
.77 .61
2.97 2.02
.95 .88
F(2,208)
4.76** 2.16
ARTICLE IN PRESS 374
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
for each group of variables while each variable within the group entered according to its contribution to explaining the variance. Results indicated that only the model for the W-F conflict was significant and explained 12% of the variance in W-F conflict. Number of working hours made a small contribution indicating that the more hours a teacher works, the greater is her sense of W-F conflict.
4. Discussion This study investigated work–family conflict among women teachers, a relatively unexplored aspect of the mutual relations between teachers’ work and family roles. The research examined teachers’ attributions of importance to work and family roles and found that they are a heterogeneous occupational group who could be classified into three distinct profiles despite significant variation within each group: teachers who attributed primary importance to their family roles, or to their work role or to both role domains. Evidently, the teaching profession in Israel attracts and retains a broad variety of individuals regarding their attitudes toward family and work roles, some of whom have strong family orientations, others have strong career orientations while others value highly and are greatly committed to both areas. This finding has important implications for educational research and policy regarding teacher development and management. First, researchers should not regard women teachers as a monolithic body of educators with relatively little variance in their work–family relations. On the contrary, participants in the present study comprised diverse groups with markedly different work and family identities. Furthermore, teachers’ elevated levels of W-F conflict and F-W conflict were related to the extent of their teaching experience and to the school level they taught. This variance in work– family relations is undoubtedly related to the diversity of female teachers’ personal and professional identities. These, in turn, are shaped by a multitude of interacting factors including personal dispositions and history, family circumstances,
school organizational features and others. This means that one’s occupational identity as a teacher is not a total defining factor; it cannot be separated from other identity issues. Rather, it is part of a complex psychological and social process whereby one adopts, in a dynamic manner, varying degrees of commitment to and responsibility for an array of life roles. As one passes through the different stages of life, the relative importance attributed to the various roles will likely change along with the sense of commitment to them. Indeed it is possible that as life circumstances evolve, a corresponding transformation may occur in a teacher’s work– family profile classification. Since this research showed systematic differences between teacher sub-groups for work–family conflict, quantitative and qualitative researchers of teachers’ work– family relations cannot ignore the existence of the groupings and need to take them into consideration, in addition to individual differences, when designing their research and interpreting results. These findings also have important implications for educational administrators. They should seek appropriate ways to motivate and reward good teachers with diverse personal and professional needs in accordance with the particular life roles they deem important. Differences in attributions of importance to roles and their relative salience lead to differential investment of time and energy in the roles and to differences in work behaviors (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Nevill & Super, 1986). Teachers attributing high importance to their work role and low importance to the family roles probably need a variety of career enrichment and advancement paths to remain professionally motivated and challenged (see Kerr, 1983). In contrast, Family profile individuals may function best as teachers when suitable work accommodations are available that minimize work to family conflict. Administrators must find means to create appropriate professional climates to enable good teachers to realize their career and family goals whether they attribute primary importance to their career or to their family or to both. Otherwise, the teachers will suffer from stress and frustration and may leave the profession or function at suboptimal levels (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998).
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
Another conclusion deriving from the analysis of profiles of attribution of importance to work and family roles is that work–family conflict among women teachers does not differ dramatically from that found among female lawyers and computer professionals, where the same three profiles of attribution of importance to work and family roles emerged (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a). In earlier research we found that 56% of women working in legal or computer professional positions were in Work or Dual profiles and attributed high importance to their work role. In the present study, fully 70% of the female teachers were in these two groups. Clearly, many women teachers in this sample attributed high importance to their occupational role. Furthermore, participating teachers demonstrated similar patterns and levels of W-F and F-W conflict as did their female colleagues in the high-stress occupations (e.g., Cinamon & Rich, 2002b). Accordingly, it appears that female teachers are no less work-oriented, at least in regards to work–family relations, as compared to women working in demanding, non-traditional occupations for women. One intriguing implication deriving from this outcome is that the large body of research results on work–family conflict among women in highstress non-traditional occupations may be relevant to teachers as well. For example, based on the current results, it is worth investigating whether teachers with high work–family conflict will also experience elevated levels of absenteeism, tardiness, poor work–related role performance, job dissatisfaction, intention to quit and high turnover (e.g., Bruck et al., 2002). These characteristics may fuel additional personal and professional stress for the teacher and, in many cases, will make it harder for her to implement supportive classroom environments and can impact negatively student achievements and well-being. Care should be taken, however, not to equate work family relations among women teachers with those characterizing women in other stressful nontraditional occupations. Three results here support the call for caution and careful study. First, we found that number of years of professional experience plays a role in teachers’ level of family to work conflict with a monotonic decrease in
375
conflict as experience grows. This phenomenon may be related to the fact that greater teacher experience often co-varies with increasing age and independence of her children. Additionally, after gaining some years of experience, teachers are more able to develop strategies to prevent their home life from unduly interfering with their work. It also may result from the likelihood that considerable numbers of novice teachers who experience excessive difficulties in their work– family relations leave the profession soon after entering. Whatever the particular antecedents are, number of years of experience has not appeared as an important variable explaining work–family conflict among women in other occupations. It is noteworthy that teachers in the early stage of their career were especially vulnerable to experiencing family-work conflict. As Huberman (1993) has described, these teachers are principally concerned with their professional survival. Adding another set of tensions stemming from the family, where beginning teachers may also be relatively inexperienced in raising children and meeting multiple role demands probably exacerbates the survival concerns. These ‘‘at risk’’ teachers may benefit from special collegial and/or administrative support efforts that help them cope with the stress of multiple demands. From a broader perspective it seems reasonable that teacher development theorists and researchers could enhance our insight into stages of career development if they were to attend to other important roles that teachers fill and how they influence professional growth at different phases of their lives (see e.g., Huberman, Thompson, & Weiland, 1997; Sikes, et al., 1985). Another aspect of work–family conflict unique to teachers that emerged here is related to school level. Work-family conflict among high school teachers was significantly higher as compared to junior high school teachers. This result was surprising since junior and senior high schools in Israel are often administratively linked and share a common physical plant and teachers’ work conditions in the two settings appear to be quite similar. However, one overpowering fact of school life distinguishes between them. Beginning in tenth grade, most high school students embark on a 3-year journey of matriculation exams that largely
ARTICLE IN PRESS 376
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
determine their chances of acceptance into a desirable university program. This is important and challenging school business. Much of the administrative and pedagogical affairs of the high school are aimed at preparing students for the exams and teacher prestige is linked to student success. Demands on teachers’ resources grow and they spend a great deal of ‘‘free time’’ tutoring individual students. Thus, the matriculation exams generate serious professional strain on teachers who earnestly strive to maximize student accomplishments because of the special importance of the outcomes for students and teachers alike. Consequently, more than their colleagues at other levels, high school teachers are willing to tolerate work demands that interfere with their family life. It would be of interest to examine the effects of school level and other organizational factors on teachers’ work–family conflict in different countries and settings where pedagogical pressures on teachers diverge from those investigated in this study. Effects of stress and support factors on work– family conflict among women teachers also differed from what was found in previous research on female workers in highly demanding occupations (Bernas & Major, 2000). Results of this study cannot explain these discrepancies but it is appropriate to emphasize the significant difference between teaching and most other demanding professions. For many women teachers, enacting their occupation and caring for a family are inextricably related (e.g., Elbaz-Lubisch, 2002; Spencer, 1986). The short on-site workday accompanied by extensive at-home work and the ostensible flexibility of family schedules are double-edged swords that create the possibility of compatibility (Claesson & Brice, 1989), but also make it likely that the two domains will encroach upon one another. This characteristic of the lives of many women teachers could have profound effects on the usual sources of stress and support that mediate work–family conflict. It was puzzling that unlike results of previous research (Cinamon & Rich, 2002a), differences in the amount of work–family conflict did not emerge between teachers in the three profiles. Does the close intertwining of work and family among
women teachers render differential attributions of importance to work and family roles less significant for generating work-family and familywork conflict? This study cannot answer this question but further research should delve into this issue in greater depth. On the other hand, this research makes it clear that women teachers vary considerably regarding the life roles they deem important and that many of them perceive the two domains as dynamically and inextricably related. Finally, we offer brief comments on three issues that deserve more extensive consideration. First, the reader should note that most participants in this study were married women with children. We believe that further research should take a broader outlook on the relationship between work and family roles by examining teachers with a greater variety of family configurations including women without children at home, single mothers, and other patterns. Second, this study did not attend to the work or family conditions of the teacher’s spouse. These variables might have important influences on the teacher’s work–family relations. Finally, we concur with Super (1990) that research on life roles should focus on a broad conceptualization that includes non-work roles that are meaningful to the individual, such as community service and leisure activities. These may influence teachers’ perceptions of work and family and their classroom behaviors.
References Acker, S. (1989). Teachers, gender and careers. London: Falmer Press. Acker, S. (1992). Creating careers: Women teachers at work. Curriculum Inquiry, 22, 141–163. Adams, A. G., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 411–420. Addi-Raccah, A. (2002). The feminization of teaching and principalship in the Israeli education system: A comparative study. Sociology of Education, 75, 231–248. Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Burck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work to family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308. Amatea, E. S., Cross, E. G., Clark, J. E., & Bobby, C. L. (1986). Assessing the work and family role expectations of career
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378 oriented men and women: The life role salience scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 18, 831–838. Bernas, K., & Major, D. A. (2000). Contributors to stress resistance: Testing a model of women’s work–family conflict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 170–178. Biklen, S. K. (1995). School work: Gender and the cultural construction of teaching. Albany: State University of New York Press. Blase, J. J., & Pajak, E. F. (1986). The impact of teachers’ work life on personal life: A qualitative analysis. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 32, 307–322. Borgen, F. H., & Barnett, D. C. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 456–468. Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. (2002). The relation between work–family conflict and job satisfaction: A finergrained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 336–353. Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, R. E. (1999). Work–family conflict, spouse support, and nursing staff well being during organizational restructuring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 327–336. Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work–family conflict in the organization: Do live role values make a differences? Journal of Management, 26, 1031–1054. Carter, K., & Doyle, W. (1996). Personal narrative and life history in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education, (2nd ed.) (pp. 120–142). New York: Simon & Schuster. Casey, K., & Apple, M. W. (1989). Gender and the conditions of teachers’ work: The development of understanding in America. In S. Acker (Ed.), Teachers, gender and careers (pp. 171–186). New York: Falmer. Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002a). Profiles of attribution of importance to life roles and their implications for the work–family conflict. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 212–220. Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002b). Gender differences in attribution of importance to life roles. Sex Roles, 47, 531–541. Claesson, M., & Brice, R. (1989). Teacher/mothers: Effects of a dual role. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 1–23. Dreeben, R. (1970). The nature of teaching. School and the work of teachers. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Elbaz-Lubisch, P. (2002). Teacher’s stories: The personal, the professional- and what is between them. In M. Zellermayer, & P. Peri (Eds.), Women teachers in Israel, A feminist perspective (pp. 115–133). Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad (Hebrew). Etzioni, A. (1969). The semi-professions and their organizations: Teachers, nurses, social workers. New York: The Free Press. Frone, M. F. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington: APA. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work
377
family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167. Gilbert, L. A., & Brownson, C. (1998). Current perspectives in women’s multiple roles. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 433–448. Goodson, I. (1997). The life and work of teachers. In B. Biddle, T. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 135–152). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Source of conflict between work and family roles. Academy Management Review, 10, 77–88. Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Family, work, work–family spillover, and problem drinking during midlife. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 336–348. Gutek, B. A., Searles, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role expectations for work family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 566–568. Huberman, M. (1993). Steps toward a developmental model of the teaching career. In L. Kremer-Hayon, H. Vonk, & R. Fessler (Eds.), Teacher professional development: A multiple perspective approach (pp. 93–131). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. Huberman, M., Thompson, C. L., & Weiland, S. (1997). Perspectives on the teaching career. In B. Biddle, T. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 11–78). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Johnston, J., McKeown, E., & McEwen, A. (1999). Choosing primary teaching as a career: The perspectives of males and females in training. Journal of Education for Teaching, 25, 55–64. Kerr, D. (1983). Teaching competence and teacher education in the United State. In L. S. Shulman, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 253–265). New York: Longman. Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and direction for organizational behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149. Lewis, S. N., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Stress in dual earner families. In B. A. Gutek, A. Stomberg, & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women and work, Vol. 3 (pp. 139–168). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Loerch, K. J., Russell, E. A., & Rush, C. M. (1989). The relationships among family domain variables and work–family conflict for men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 288–309. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglatco, M. (1995). Work–family conflict: The stress-buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 178–192. Nevill, D., & Super, D. E. (1986). The Salience Inventory: Theory, application, and research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 378
R.G. Cinamon, Y. Rich / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 365–378
Pillow, D. R., Barrera, M., & Chassin, L. (1998). Using cluster analysis to assess the effects of stressful life events: Probing the impact of parental alcoholism on child stress and substance use. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 361–380. Rich, Y., & Almozlino, M. (1999). Educational goal preferences among novice and veteran teachers of sciences and humanities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 613–629. Sikes, P., Measor, L., & Woods, P. (1985). Teacher careers: Crises and continuities. London: Falmer. Spencer, D. A. (1986). Contemporary women teachers: Balancing school and home. New York: Longman. Spencer, D. A. (1997). Teaching as women’s work. In B. Biddle, T. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 153–198). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Staines, G. L., & Pleck, J. H. (1983). The impact of work schedules on the family. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Stodolsky, S., & Grossman, P. (1995). Subject–matter differences in secondary schools: Connections to higher education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 64, 71–78. Super, D.E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed. pp. 197–261). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass. Thomas, K. R., & O’Brien, R. (1984). Occupational status and prestige: Perceptions of business, education, and law students. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 33, 70–75. Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family supportive work variables on work family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15. Van der Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72, 577–625.
Voydannoff, P. (1989). Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 749–761.
Further reading Connelly, M., & Clandinin, J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 14, 2–4. Cook, E. P. (1998). Role salience and multiple roles: A gender perspective. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 253–258. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of work family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78. Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature and direction of work–family conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 337–346. Kerpelman, J. L., & Schvaneveldt, P. L. (1999). Young adults’ anticipated identity importance of career, marital, and parental roles: Comparisons of men and women with different role balance orientation. Sex Roles, 42, 189–217. Kowalski, K. E. (1998). A model of the antecedents and outcomes of work– family conflict as moderated by social support. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rhode Island. Perrewe, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (1999). Value attainment: An explanation for the negative effects of work–family conflict and job an life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 318–326. Willey, D. L. (1991). Gender, work and stress: The potential impact of role identity salience and commitment. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 495–510.