Abstract
The Problem
The ideal worker in the Academy devotes most of their lives to scholarly pursuits, which leaves little time for family. This problem leads to work–life conflict, which is particularly concerning for faculty members who are seeking promotion and tenure. Work–life conflict is most challenging in the case of academic mothers, who face professional career challenges in addition to work–life conflict. Rigid organizational policies and non-supportive cultures perpetuate the problem, particularly when the faculty member is an academic mother seeking promotion and tenure.
The Solution
Human resource development (HRD) interventions implemented at the individual, departmental, and institutional levels (e.g., training development, performance management, and career development initiatives) have been shown to reduce work–life conflict, improve overall well-being, and create a more family friendly environment. Organization development (OD) cultural change interventions aimed at changing the Academy to become more family focused and supportive of career flexibility are recommended.
The Stakeholders
Academic faculty, higher education administrators, HRD scholars, and practitioners.
Today’s faculty member desires a full life, which may include engaging in a parenting role in addition to life in academia. However, this desire leads to role conflict. The ideal worker (Drago, 2007) in the Academy works as if there is someone at home taking care of domestic chores, including child care, which allows the faculty member to devote their time to academic pursuits. In this article, changing of the guard addresses how today’s faculty members no longer agree to ignore their family or nonwork lives in the pursuit of being an “ideal worker” in academia.
Work–life conflict has been linked to many adverse health and work outcomes, including sleep, heart problems, depression, safety, addiction, obesity, burnout, turnover, well-being, engagement, and absenteeism (Kossek et al., 2014). The problem is worse for working parents because of the added stress of child-care responsibilities (Barnett, 2004). Moreover, Barrett and Barrett (2011) noted, “Career progression for women academics to higher levels is not in proportion to their representation within the profession” (p. 141). Despite women outnumbering men in the awarding of PhDs, (Mason, 2011), the Academy remains a mostly male gendered institution (Wolfinger et al., 2008). This creates a perfect storm for academic mothers, who are the hardest hit. In this article, we will use work–life and work–family interchangeably, where “family” and “life” essentially mean “nonwork,” or everything outside of what we do for work.
In this article, we will highlight HRD interventions, including organization development (OD) interventions that can be implemented at the individual, departmental, and institutional levels to alleviate faculty work–life conflict and its impact on career flexibility and tenure/promotion progress. While the article is insightful to all faculty who are pursuing careers in academia, it should be of particular interest to academic mothers.
The Problem of Work–Life Conflict of Academic Parents
The Academy is a traditional, hierarchical, and male workplace (Schlehofer, 2012). Academic parents have little time to devote to their families due to the nature of the Academy, which demands that the ideal worker spends most of their time in scholarly pursuits. This leads to work–life conflict, which is most pronounced in the case of academic mothers. This conflict causes stress and lower well-being for faculty, but it also has consequences in terms of the attainment of tenure and promotion for academic mothers. In this section, we will review work–life conflict and its connection to workplace health, the work–life conflict of academic mothers, and the barriers women face in achieving tenure and promotion.
According to Kossek et al. (2014), bi-directional conflict between work and family has been consistently linked to behaviors such as smoking and alcohol abuse, as well as health-related issues such as depression, quality of sleep, obesity, cardiovascular disease, high cholesterol level, high body mass index, and low physical stamina (van Steenbergen & Ellemers, 2009). This bi-directional conflict also contributes to outcomes such as burnout, poor workplace safety, turnover, and absenteeism (Kossek et al., 2014) along with lower productivity, lower well-being, and lower engagement.
McCutcheon and Morrison (2016) found that academic mothers reported more work–life conflict than academic fathers. Women engage in intensive mothering, the idea that a mother must always put the needs of her child above the needs of herself (Hays, 1996; Lynch, 2008; O’Reilly, 2010), believing she must often seek out the expert opinion on every phase of her child’s development and apply it, no matter how costly or time-consuming it may be. This cultural phenomenon grew out of the 1980s and early 1990s during a time when government support was eliminated for several child and family support systems. Elliott et al. (2015) found that single mothers, especially women of color, engaged in intensive mothering to actively protect and empower their children to survive in a society that promotes poverty, racism, and sexism. In addition, their efforts to fulfill this intensive mothering standard have negative effects on their own well-being. O’Reilly noted that intensive mothering resulted in “impossible standards of idealized motherhood” (O’Reilly, 2010, p. 17) for women working a full-time job. It is interesting to note that the term “working mother,” denotes that working and motherhood are two separate things, in a way that working and fatherhood are not.
Barrett and Barrett (2011) discovered that women are disadvantaged in their academic careers by the mismanagement of workloads. Women may also be disproportionately assigned work that does not lead to promotion (Barrett & Barrett, 2011). Moreover, “male faculty maintain a salary advantage over women faculty across all ranks and in all institutional types” (Glazer-Raymo, 2008, p. 9). Although men believe that having children while holding a faculty position is not a disadvantage compared to women (van Anders, 2004); women find that their research activity can be hindered by a lack of continuity in employment and contract work, such as what happens when being contingent faculty such as an instructor or an adjunct (Barrett & Barrett, 2011). In addition, the expectations that research can be conducted after hours at home can be problematic for women who disproportionately bear the brunt of housework and care work (Barrett & Barrett, 2011; Misra et al., 2012).
Without gender equity and work–life policies, the productivity of academic mothers is hampered, as is the attraction, retention, and promotion of talented professors who are also mothers. By reducing some of this work–family conflict for mothers, their productivity, as well as some of the indicators mentioned above, such as improved well-being and engagement, could improve. Gendered caregiving results in inequities in tenure and promotion, particularly for academic mothers. These inequities build upon gendered societal norms and expectations and the result is the leaking pipeline.
The Leaking Pipeline
The leaking pipeline is a metaphorical depiction of women dropping off promising career paths and being diverted to other careers (Alper & Gibbons, 1993). Initially, the leaking pipeline was directed toward scientific education and careers but is now being generalized to women who are opting out of careers in academia, due to finding the environment unwelcoming and unsupportive for academic mothers (Gasser & Shaffer, 2014).
van Anders (2004) found that women tend to self-select out of academia due to parenting and mobility, while men tend to have no such concerns. Self-selecting out of the Academy for women can begin as early as graduate school when they initially consider if and when to become mothers. They must first decide if they want to negotiate the world of the graduate student mother. Successfully making it through graduate school as a graduate student mother requires a mixture of economic and emotional support from parents and spouses, individual agency, department, and institutional (Eversole et al., 2015; Holm et al., 2015). Nevertheless, graduate student mothers “are still at a higher risk of attrition than almost any other group in the American academe” (Lynch, 2008, p. 602). Trower and Chait (2002) found that women doctoral students were not as likely as men to want to be members of the Academy due to their exposure to bias, hostility, chilly environments, and social isolation while navigating graduate school.
Although 52% of doctorates were awarded to women in 2014 to 2015 (McFarland et al., 2017), women are less likely than men to pursue tenure-track positions at research universities (Baer & Van Ummersen, 2005). Even after graduation, women may perceive the barriers too high to continue as the notion of the ideal worker leads them to self-select out of the Academy, especially in science-related fields, and pursue non-academic paths (Canetto et al., 2017).
The ideal worker in the Academy is someone who can spend all their working hours in the Ivory Tower (Drago, 2007; Williams, 1999) and has someone at home who can complete domestic-related tasks. Ward and Wolf-Wendel (2016) suggested the ideal worker is male, preferably one that does not have any caregiving tasks; therefore, parents do not fit the ideal worker norm for the Academy, since they do have caregiving tasks. However, fathers are seen as more stable and more likely to obtain tenure than mothers, who are seen as less stable and more likely to leave the tenure track because of their children (Mason, 2011). The Academy is not alone in viewing fathers more stable than mothers as workers; moreover, most workplaces still are structured as if workers have a domestic spouse at home to deal with the needs of the family (Boushey et al., 2013).
The leaking tenure-track pipeline
Women who enter the pipeline to tenure are 20% less likely to achieve tenure than their male colleagues and married women or those with children younger than 6 years old are 50% less likely to even enter a tenure-track position than a married male colleague with the same family (Mason & Goulden, 2004). Professional barriers encountered by women (e.g., being excluded in decision-making, too many committee assignments, lack of leadership positions, discounted research, and no mentorship, support, or guidance about the tenure process or academia itself) have resulted in women being more likely to leave their tenure-track position before attaining tenure (Trower & Bleak, 2004).
As Williams (1999) noted, the tenure track for most women occurs precisely during their childbearing years, and there is rarely an option to “opt-out” of the tenure-track and later “opt-in”; or to extend the track, or any other flexibility in the rigid career path. Wolfinger et al. (2008) found that women who delay marrying and having children, or do not do so at all, are more successful in academia while academic mothers with small children sacrifice time out of their research for care work, resulting in repercussions for tenure and promotion (Misra et al., 2012). This phenomenon has left women stuck in the instructor ranks because they think they can best raise their families in that role, foregoing the opportunity for a tenure-track position.
In navigating to full professor, women are less likely to achieve this rank than their male colleagues, due primarily to caregiving responsibilities and heavy service loads (Baer & Van Ummersen, 2005). Unfortunately, it seems that the path to full professor for academic mothers may have more to do with gender equity at home than it does with institutional supports (O’Reilly, 2010). Reflecting on how the leaky pipeline has been studied, it appears that rather than focusing on the entrants into the pipeline, or the intermittent leaks that occur, emphasis should be placed on plugging the holes or changing the system (Fara, 2018; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2016).
Solutions Toward a Family Friendly Academy: HRD Interventions at the Individual, Departmental, and Institutional Levels
In practice, the changing of the guard in academia represents an opportunity for new trends that allow faculty members to have lives outside of the Ivory Tower and still pursue a meaningful career. To do so will require universities (through representative individuals) to become more supportive of faculty who wish to combine parenthood, or other pursuits, with an academic career. If the goal is to attract the best and brightest to academia, academia as a workplace cannot be viewed as behind the times and unfriendly to the newer generations.
The impact and consequences from work–family conflict on faculty careers will not change without intervention (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2016). Several HRD and OD interventions implemented at the individual, departmental, and institutional levels can facilitate the necessary solutions (O’Laughlin & Bischoff, 2001).
Individual Support
Individual support for tenure track faculty includes using a support network and HRD interventions such as career development initiatives, seeking out mentors, and networking (O’Laughlin & Bischoff, 2001). Academic parents who make use of their own support networks at home (e.g., spouses/partners, friends, other family members), often rely on this network during stressful times at the end of the semester or when meeting writing deadlines (O’Laughlin & Bischoff, 2001).
Faculty should also seek leadership from mid-career mentors, another HRD career development intervention (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2016). More experienced, mid-career academic parents can serve as mentors and help develop and integrate work and family goals (O’Laughlin & Bischoff, 2001); creating networking through playgroups, child care resources, or parent-child activities that will provide support and share information.
Mentoring programs that pair new academic parents with academic parents who have experience in managing their work and family lives will help new parents to navigate their new lives (O’Laughlin & Bischoff, 2001). Formal support groups, committees, or forums focused on women’s development can be helpful in advancing women in the Academy (Baer & Van Ummersen, 2005). Mentorship is particularly important for scholars of color (Alegria et al., 2019).
Departmental Support
Since culture change and norms that have a major impact on faculty occur at the departmental level, change should originate in that context (Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2014). Moreover, because department chairs are the first level of support and advocacy for faculty, they should be well-informed on work–life policies. In addition, department chairs are often seen as role models. Department chairs that are developed in their work–life management skills and who project these skills in their everyday roles, makes an impressionable image on faculty. However, department chairs can either support or disrupt a faculty member’s development. For this reason, department chairs should work with individual faculty members to identify threats to tenure paths and employ interventions that address individual faculty issues. If these types of accommodations cannot be made, the department chair could advocate for the tenure clock to stop for an agreed upon amount of time.
Another area where most department chairs may have critical impact in creating a more family-friendly culture is teaching assignments. For example, a faculty member may request more flexibility built into the teaching schedule, providing classes earlier in the day to allow the evening at home with family. In considering the request, the department chair might consider how disruptive a reduced teaching load may be to the department (Kramer, 2008), at the same time taking into consideration the faculty member’s rank. The department chair may be more willing to grant a reduced teaching load to a full professor than someone on the tenure-track, whereas a parent on the tenure-track may be in more need of the accommodation. The department chair will have other factors to consider, such as fairness to other employees (Poelmans & Beham, 2008). For example, another faculty member may request a reduced teaching load to devote more time to research. Department chairs should also factor in how academic mothers typically sacrifice research time for caregiving and encourage engagement in research by reducing teaching or service loads (Misra et al., 2012).
Unfortunately, many department chairs have had no preparation or training on how to properly develop faculty within their departments. OD practitioners ranked developing organizational leaders (with an emphasis on improving an empowering individuals) as the most important HRD intervention (Church et al., 2018). Training and development on related work–life policies will provide department chairs with the tools needed to support individual faculty members as well as benefiting the department as a whole.
Training and development for department chairs to support faculty parents who need to maintain a high level of productivity at work (e.g., meeting tenure and promotion criteria) should be mandatory. Training and development is one of the core HRD interventions and is a valuable resource for department chairs who are the first line of support to a family-friendly work environment (Barrett & Barrett, 2011; Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2014).
Institutional Support
Advocating for changes in policies and practices in academia that are more family friendly will be one charge facing the new guard. OD interventions aimed at changing the culture of the Academy (Burke, 1982) to a family-friendly environment will be one charge facing the new guard. Baer and Van Ummersen (2005) report that “several leading institutions have already begun to address some of these work–life issues without sacrificing quality” (p. 16). For example, Upstate Medical University has been recognized for a promotion system (HRD performance management intervention) that allows part-time faculty to be promoted (Royer, 2012) and has helped them retain and attract faculty. Stanford Medicine’s Academic Biomedical Career Customization (ABCC) program, a non-traditional career development initiative, allows faculty to customize their career tracks and plan their desired work load in collaboration with their department chairs and work units (Stanford Medicine Office of Faculty Development and Diversity, 2019).
Accommodating caregiving needs
Faculty with caregiving responsibilities may spend up to 50 hr a week on caregiving in addition to the long hours in academia. Onsite quality daycare can mitigate this by decreasing commute time back and forth from daycare and increasing higher employee satisfaction (Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2014). If onsite child care is not possible, then assistance locating child care should be provided (Baer & Van Ummersen, 2005; McCutcheon & Morrison, 2016). While institutional barriers to faculty tenure and promotion seem to be specific to women and other underrepresented groups, family-related concerns are not, since White men who are fathers also experience these issues (van Anders, 2004).
Increasing flexibility
Although academia could be considered very flexible in terms of overall places to work, the academic career path is extremely inflexible. Flexibility in teaching schedules, in some instances, does not exist. Therefore, rotating class schedules (for those offered in mid-morning or early afternoon) could be implemented to accommodate child care, without alienating nonparent faculty who may need a flexible schedule as well. Faculty could also be given more flexibility by working at home. Perhaps faculty without family responsibilities can be given flexibility in other ways to allow parents to avoid class times during dinner, for example. The reality is that most academics have a life outside work and need time and energy to devote to it.
Casey and Grzywacz (2008) found that after a year, increased workplace flexibility was associated with improved job commitment, decreased work-related impairment, and decreased absenteeism due to sickness. In a related study, Jang’s (2009) study found that when work schedules were viewed as being flexible, working parents felt that they had higher levels of work–life balance and well-being. Workers involved in formal flexible work arrangements (FWA) reported less stress and burnout than those who were not, and they reported an increase in job satisfaction and improved organizational performance (Ko et al., 2013).
The option of taking multiple year leaves for personal or professional reasons, for example, for the birth of child or eldercare reasons is another way that institutions can offer tenure and promotion support (Baer & Van Ummersen, 2005; Misra et al., 2012). Provisions to bank or donate sick leave is another form of institutional support for faculty who may be lacking sufficient leave time for themselves or their families (Eversole et al., 2013). University events should be scheduled from 9 to 5 during the day, when faculty parents can attend, rather than in the evening, when it is more difficult (Schlehofer, 2012). The expectation that faculty should work on weekends to be successful needs to be challenged (Eversole et al., 2013).
While institutional barriers to faculty tenure and promotion seem to be specific to women and other underrepresented groups, family-related concerns are not, since White men who are fathers also experience these issues (van Anders, 2004). Creating a work–family friendly culture serves the greater good and aids universities in the recruitment, retention, and promotion of the best professors (Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2014).
Directions for Future Research
Future research should explore the benefits of family-friendly cultures beyond gender equity, attraction, tenure, and promotion of talent. Research should also look beyond retention of the ideal worker and study how cultural change will alter the image of the ideal worker.
Implications for HRD Practice
Cultural change aimed at creating more flexible and supportive higher education institutions can be accomplished through OD interventions. Without an organizational culture that values the lives of employees outside of work, supportive supervisors will not be able to help reduce the work–family conflict of their workers (McCartney, 2002). Work–life initiatives that are designed to help faculty parents need to be part of an organizational cultural change effort benefiting all faculty members (Schlehofer, 2012). According to Kossek et al. (2010), “organizations . . . need to frame both structural and cultural work–life changes as part of the core employment systems to enhance organizational effectiveness, and not just as strategies to support disadvantaged, non-ideal workers” (p. 3).
Support by department chairs alone is not enough; the culture must be supportive of work/life policies (McCartney, 2002). In some instances, higher administrative offices prevent department chairs from implementing such policies or control the amount of change a department chair has. A culture that supports the use of work–life programs in the academic setting must be created for faculty to make use of them (Baer & Van Ummersen, 2005).
The players in academia have changed, yet the rules of the game have not (Schlehofer, 2012). For real progress, the rules must change; policy, practice, and culture must be transformed in academia (Eversole et al., 2013), especially under the new guard. These are the goals of human resource development.
Conclusion
In this article, we have highlighted various HRD interventions that can alleviate work–life conflict that can be implemented at the individual, institutional, and departmental levels. We examined structures that caused work/life conflict for faculty members and offered HRD institutional interventions to change structures through OD and cultural change. We invite the Academy to rethink leadership practices which will develop and support the growth and development of faculty. While most universities do not have an HRD department, these HRD interventions can be instituted by academic leadership at various levels.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author’s Note:
The article was subjected to a two-tier, blind review process that did not involve any of the contributing authors who are currently members of the editorial board.