Salutogenic resources in relation to teachers’ work-life balance

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Experiencing work-life balance is considered a health promoting resource. To counter-balance the negative development of teachers’ work situation, salutogenic resources need to be examined among teachers.

OBJECTIVE: To examine resources related to teachers’ experience of their work-life balance.

METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, a questionnaire was distributed to 455 teachers in compulsory schools in a Swedish community. A total of 338 teachers participated (74%). A multiple linear regression method was used for the analysis.

RESULTS: Four variables in the regression model significantly explained work-life balance and were thereby possible resources: time experience at work; satisfaction with everyday life; self-rated health; and recovery. The strongest association with work-life balance was time experience at work. Except time experience at work, all were individual-related.

CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of school management’s support in reducing teachers’ time pressure. It also emphasizes the need to address teachers’ individual resources in relation to work-life balance. In order to support teachers’ work-life balance, promote their well-being, and preventing teachers’ attrition, we suggest that the school management would benefit from creating a work environment with strengthened resources.

Keywords

Recovery survey teachers’ work environment workplace health promotion

1 Introduction

It is well known that the work situation of teachers has undergone a number of changes during the last twenty years, and these changes have affected their psychosocial work environment, internationally as well as in Sweden [1 –3]. In recent years, teachers are experiencing an increasing accountability, more assessments, and paperwork [4 –9]. These changes in the psychosocial work environment have affected teachers’ well-being in a negative way [10 –13]. However, most teachers remain committed to their work and pupils [14], and despite high levels of job demands many teachers find personal satisfaction in their work [10, 15]. This leads to the assumption that there are enriching aspects of working as a teacher. More attention should be paid to these aspects to balance the negative picture.

A prominent feature in the work of Swedish teachers is their discretionary work time of ten hours per week, which is mostly done at home. Teleworking, i.e. working away from the employer’s main campus, is positively associated with autonomy [16] and flexibility [17]. It is a possible salutogenic resource, and it is also believed to have a positive effect on the employee’s work-life balance (WLB) [18 –20]. However, work flexibility in time and space can also affect work-life balance in a negative way [21, 22], especially for employees who prefer a segmentation between work and personal life [23]. When working as a teacher the WLB is perhaps even more challenging than for many others. In addition to literally bringing work into one’s home, there is a tendency for teachers, as with other caring professions, to also bring work home mentally [24]. These circumstances may lead to a life where the boundaries between work and personal life are intermingled, making the demarcation an important issue. A report showed that 70 percent of the participating Swedish teachers could not stop “working” when they were actually off work [25]. Yet, this profession has been somewhat overlooked in WLB research. As teaching is a profession characterized not only by spatial but also mental overlap of work and non-work, it is important for teachers to psychologically detach themselves from work during non-work time. Fritz et al. [26] showed that psychological detachment from work, i.e. to mentally distance oneself from work during non-work time (e.g. no work-related phone calls, no e-mails) is related to enhanced well-being. In a study on recovery among Swedish teachers [27] approximately 20% of the participating teachers were found in the non-recuperated group, and in an evident risk situation. If teachers manage to mentally distance themselves from work on a regular basis, it can help restore lost resources because of work demands and also enhance their well-being [26].

In order to describe the phenomenon of work/non-work interface a number of terms have been used. Some concepts emanate from a role-conflict perspective (e.g. work-family conflict; negative spill-over; home-work interference), while others assume a more positive perspective on the work/non-work interface (e.g. work-family enhancement; positive spill-over; work-family facilitation). The commonly used umbrella term, WLB, adopts a more neutral perspective, albeit not un-contested. It is, in itself, ambiguous as it has different meanings, and the measurement of balance is problematic. It implies that work and personal life are separate domains, while in reality it is a complex and multi-dimensional mixture of the two. For the purposes of this study, the concept of WLB was defined as satisfaction and good functioning at work and in the personal domain, with a minimum of role conflict and a maximum of enrichment. The definition emanates from Clark [28, p. 751], but instead of using her term “at home”, the term “personal domain” was used, giving it a broader meaning. An aspect of enrichment was also included, in line with the salutogenicperspective.

WLB literature is limited in various aspects [29, 30]. The focus has, for example, mainly been on heterosexual dual-earner families, rather than including other groups [30 –32]. Mostly, focus has also been on work and domestic life, disregarding aspects such as leisure time [32]. Furthermore, there has been an emphasis on viewing WLB as “problematic” (for example [33, 34]), and rarely recognizing the possibly enriching aspects of combining a family with work [29 , 36]. Moreover, research has most often been done within the disciplines of organizational psychology, sociology or within management literature [29]. Studies on WLB from a health science perspective are not as frequent, especially not with a health promotion approach.

When previous research indicates that WLB is health related [e.g. 37–40], most research suggests that well-being is an outcome of WLB [41]. Still, a recent study [40] suggests the opposite direction, i.e. WLB is an outcome of well-being. This study showed that a group of nurses were using the strategy of taking care of their well-being as a resource for experiencing WLB. By taking care of themselves they could also take care of their jobs and families. In addition, most research has focused on establishing the relationship between WLB and well-being, and less research has examined why this relationship exists. Gröpel and Kuhl (2009) proposed the hypothesis that it is not only the perception of having sufficient time for work and social life, that affects the well-being, but having enough time to fulfil one’s individual needs within that time.

One significant antecedent to WLB is the workplace context. An important factor in reducing a negative WLB is management support [42]. Previous findings indicate that a work environment which supports employees to a better WLB also improves their employee well-being [43]. For example, a transformative leadership style has been found to improve perceptions of WLB and employee well-being [44].

The salutogenic perspective is a viable approach in health promotion [45], and it has been used as a theoretical underpinning in this study. By focusing on resources instead of risk factors, the possibilities to maintain and strengthen people’s well-being is increased. Research focusing on aspects which promote one’s well-being from a salutogenic perspective is, indeed, increasing. Positive psychology is one example [46], which aims to understand factors that allow individuals and communities to flourish [47]. Teacher resilience is another example, with the aim to understand why teachers are able to persist in the face of challenges [48]. Positive emotions, such as joy, are believed to fuel psychological resilience [6], as does a sense of accomplishment [49], and professional freedom [50]. There are several aspects of teachers’ work, which are perceived as resources in promoting their well-being. One example is the feeling of meaningfulness being a teacher [51, 52]. The intrinsic value of caring is still another resource among teachers [24 , 53]. Yet another is the social support provided by colleagues [54 –56] and by supervisors and the school management [3, 57].

Consequently, there is a growing interest and body of knowledge on resources that promote people’s well-being. However, this previous research still needs to be related to WLB literature, and more specifically, teachers’ WLB [58]. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that WLB would be associated with recovery, collegial and managerial support, and health. Since there is a lack of studies addressing WLB among other groups than dual-earner couples with dependent children, we attempted to include other groups in this study. Finally there is need for broadening the disciplines focusing on the issue of WLB. We approached the topic from a public health science perspective, viewing the WLB issue from the perspective of the experience of well-being and health. The aim of this study was to examine resources related to the teachers’ experience of their work-life balance.

2 Materials and methodology

2.1 Design and sample

In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire was used to examine how teachers experience their WLB from a salutogenic perspective at a given time. The questionnaire was offered to all 26 compulsory schools in a community in Sweden, and 22 accepted to participate. The inclusion criteria of respondents were working as a teacher in any of these schools and having discretionary time of ten hours per week. In total, 455 teachers were offered to participate and the response rate was 74% (n = 338). A description of the study population is presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Description of the study population (n = 338)

Variable Groups Frequency Percent

Gender Female 268 79.3

Male 70 20.7

Age <35 46 13.6

35–44 131 38.8

45–54 85 25.1

>54 76 22.5

Co-habitation Single parent with child/ren 20 5.9

Couple with child/ren 168 49.7

Living with a partner 118 34.9

Living alone 31 9.2

Missing 1 0.3

Employment of full time^* 0–80% 65 19.2

81–100% 230 68.0

Missing 43 12.7

Variable	Groups	Frequency	Percent
Gender	Female	268	79.3
	Male	70	20.7
Age	<35	46	13.6
	35–44	131	38.8
	45–54	85	25.1
	>54	76	22.5
Co-habitation	Single parent with child/ren	20	5.9
	Couple with child/ren	168	49.7
	Living with a partner	118	34.9
	Living alone	31	9.2
	Missing	1	0.3
Employment of full time^*	0–80%	65	19.2
	81–100%	230	68.0
	Missing	43	12.7

^*Employment of full time = 45 hours/week.

2.2 Procedure

The survey was carried out in May-June 2012. In order to raise the interest about the coming survey, five meetings with school directors were held earlier in the spring. The principals in each school district attended these meetings, and were thus informed about the aim and the procedure of the survey. A date was set with each principal for the questionnaire to be distributed. In a majority of the schools, MN was invited to present the survey to the teachers, and distribute and collect the questionnaire at the same time. This was normally done immediately before or after a staff meeting. On other occasions the questionnaires were distributed by a representative of that specific school, e.g. the principal. Each teacher had the opportunity to complete the questionnaire at home and return it later in an envelope. At the time of the survey, 28 teachers were absent from their schools. These teachers received the questionnaire by mail, and after one reminder 12 of them completed the questionnaire.

2.3 Questionnaire

A review on antecedents to WLB as well as on relevant theories and instruments was used in the construction of the questionnaire. A complementary addition was based on a qualitative study [51], focusing on the salutogenic aspects of teachers’ everyday life, previously conducted with a group of seven teachers in the same municipality in 2010. The focus of the questionnaire was salutogenic resources in relations to WLB. Based on the literature review, demographic and personal factors, external non-work factors, work-related factors, the experience of combining work with personal life, and health-related factors were used as a structure. When constructing the questionnaire, previous scales and instruments were used when suitable, either as inspiration or as the original scale (Table 2). The Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS) [59] was used regarding work-related factors. The Salutogenic Health Indicator Scale (SHIS) [60] was used for questions regarding health and well-being. Questions on self-esteem and optimism were inspired by the Flourishing Scale, and to assess reflection and meaning-making we were inspired by van den Heuvel et al. [62]. To assess quality of life the participants were asked “How do you feel about your present life?” and seven bipolar items were given as alternative answers [63]. Questions regarding recovery were developed on the basis of the previous qualitative study in the same municipality [51]. Four questions, inspired by Carlson et al. [64], were included in the WLB index: “I am satisfied with my life regarding the work-life balance” (6-point Likert-type scale);“In all, how easy or difficult is it for you to manage the demands of your work and personal life?” (5-point Likert-type scale); “All in all, how successful do you feel in balancing your work and your personal life?” (5-point Likert-type scale); and “People who are close to me would say that I do a good job of balancing work and personal life.” (6-point Likert-type scale). The majority of the questions in the questionnaire were constructed to have six response categories, with 6 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree. Some questions had five alternative answers where the middle alternative meant “neither/nor” or “both/and”. In total, the questionnaire contained 39 questions, of which a majority included sub-questions. The concept of work was defined as paid work.

Table 2
Overview of the indices in the study

Variables No. of Range Scale type Example of question Cronbach’s Mean

questions alpha (SD)

Work-life balance (WLB) 4 4–22 Varying I am satisfied with my life regarding the work-life balance 0.85 14.2 (3.8)

Domestic Autonomy 4 4–24 Likert-type scale I decide when tasks should be carried out at home 0.89 20.6 (3.7)

Supportive family 8 8–48 Likert-type scale We encourage and support each other in my family 0.89 39.7 (6.5)

Self-rated health (SHIS) 12 12–72 Semantic differential In the last 4 weeks, I have felt alert-felt tired, exhausted 0.94 47.6^ (12.5)

Self-esteem and optimism 11 11–66 Likert-type scale I lead a purposeful and meaningful life 0.92 55.7 (7.7)

Reflection and meaningfulness 5 5–30 Likert-type scale I actively take the time to reflect on events that happen in my life 0.80 24.3 (3.9)

Internal work experiences (WEMS) 6 6–36 Likert-type scale I feel that my work is meaningful 0.86 28.7 (5.0)

Supportive working conditions (WEMS) 7 7–42 Likert-type scale We encourage and support each other at work 0.89 28.8 (6.7)

Time experience (at work) (WEMS) 3 3–18 Likert-type scale I have enough time to finish tasks without feeling pressed for time 0.84 7.4^* (3.4)

Recovery 7 7–42 Likert-type scale I feel that I get enough recuperation during my everyday life 0.77 24.6 (4.5)

Work-related autonomy (WEMS) 4 4–24 Likert-type scale I decide when tasks should be carried out 0.80 14.9 (3.6)

Management (WEMS) 6 6–36 Likert-type scale My immediate manager is available when needed 0.90 23.1 (6.8)

Satisfaction with everyday life 7 7–42 Likert-type scale + Semantic differential I am satisfied with my life regarding the economy 0.72 31.4 (5.7)

Satisfaction with life as a whole 4 4–24 Semantic differential I feel that my present life is worthwhile-miserable 0.92 20.0 (3.6)

Daily habits of eating, physical activity, sleeping* 3 3–18 Likert-type scale I am very satisfied/not satisfied at all with my sleeping habits 0.60 12.3 (3.0)

Variables	No. of	Range	Scale type	Example of question	Cronbach’s	Mean
Work-life balance (WLB)	4	4–22	Varying	I am satisfied with my life regarding the work-life balance	0.85	14.2 (3.8)
Domestic Autonomy	4	4–24	Likert-type scale	I decide when tasks should be carried out at home	0.89	20.6 (3.7)
Supportive family	8	8–48	Likert-type scale	We encourage and support each other in my family	0.89	39.7 (6.5)
Self-rated health (SHIS)	12	12–72	Semantic differential	In the last 4 weeks, I have felt alert-felt tired, exhausted	0.94	47.6^** (12.5)
Self-esteem and optimism	11	11–66	Likert-type scale	I lead a purposeful and meaningful life	0.92	55.7 (7.7)
Reflection and meaningfulness	5	5–30	Likert-type scale	I actively take the time to reflect on events that happen in my life	0.80	24.3 (3.9)
Internal work experiences (WEMS)	6	6–36	Likert-type scale	I feel that my work is meaningful	0.86	28.7 (5.0)
Supportive working conditions (WEMS)	7	7–42	Likert-type scale	We encourage and support each other at work	0.89	28.8 (6.7)
Time experience (at work) (WEMS)	3	3–18	Likert-type scale	I have enough time to finish tasks without feeling pressed for time	0.84	7.4^*** (3.4)
Recovery	7	7–42	Likert-type scale	I feel that I get enough recuperation during my everyday life	0.77	24.6 (4.5)
Work-related autonomy (WEMS)	4	4–24	Likert-type scale	I decide when tasks should be carried out	0.80	14.9 (3.6)
Management (WEMS)	6	6–36	Likert-type scale	My immediate manager is available when needed	0.90	23.1 (6.8)
Satisfaction with everyday life	7	7–42	Likert-type scale + Semantic differential	I am satisfied with my life regarding the economy	0.72	31.4 (5.7)
Satisfaction with life as a whole	4	4–24	Semantic differential	I feel that my present life is worthwhile-miserable	0.92	20.0 (3.6)
Daily habits of eating, physical activity, sleeping*	3	3–18	Likert-type scale	I am very satisfied/not satisfied at all with my sleeping habits	0.60	12.3 (3.0)

Indices with Cronbach’s alpha between 0.72 and 0.95 were accepted. ^*“Daily habits of eating, physical activity, sleeping” was discarded. ^**Standardized mean 59. ^***Standardized mean 29.

The questionnaire was tested in a pilot study on five teachers in another municipality, and each question was discussed individually with the teachers. Minor adjustments were made before it was distributed to the selected school, e.g. omitting a middle-alternative as an optional answer. The questions were tested in a test-retest study with an interval of 14 days (n = 39), and resulted in weighted kappa values for all questions between fair (0.39) and good (0.80) [65].

2.4 Variables

Explorative factor analysis (PCA) was done regarding the personal domain (12 questions, resulting in two indices: supportive family and domestic autonomy) and regarding the experience of one’s life as a whole (10 questions, resulting in two indices: satisfaction with everyday life and satisfaction with life as a whole). When examining the rest of the variables, eleven other indices were created based on theoretical and logical considerations. Depending on the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (CA), one index was discarded (CA = 0.60) while fourteen were accepted (CA 0.72–0.95) (Table 2). The index variables were confirmed to have an approximatively normal distribution. Standardization of the indices was performed in order to make them range from 0 to 100. This enabled comparison with other studies using the same indices.

2.5 Data analysis

Bivariate correlations were investigated between the experience of WLB and 13 indices, using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (Table 3). The variables showing a medium (r = 0.30 to 0.49) or large (r = 0.50 to 0.80) correlation to WLB were included in a multiple linear regression analysis (12 indices). Three additional variables (age, gender, and living conditions) were included in the regression analysis in order to adjust for these variables. Two-way interaction was tested by introducing product terms of main independent variables in separate regression models. P- values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22 was used for the statistical analysis of data.

Table 3
Bivariate correlations (Pearson correlation coefficient, r) between work-life balance and variables related to the individual, work, and the non-work areas

Variable Resp. (N) Standardized mean Work-life Balance (r)

Work-life balance 331 57 –

Individual-related

Self-rated health 325 59 0.69

Satisfaction with everyday life 328 61 0.66

Recovery 321 50 0.60

Self-esteem and Optimism 325 81 0.54

Reflection and Meaningfulness 325 77 0.45

Satisfaction with life as a whole 327 80 0.44

Work-related

Time experience at work 330 29 0.62

Work-related Autonomy 330 55 0.47

Supportive working conditions 331 62 0.41

Internal work experience 327 76 0.35

Management 327 57 0.31

Non-work-related

Supportive family 313 79 0.42

Domestic autonomy 328 83 0.20

Variable	Resp. (N)	Standardized mean	Work-life Balance (r)
Work-life balance	331	57	–
Individual-related
Self-rated health	325	59	0.69
Satisfaction with everyday life	328	61	0.66
Recovery	321	50	0.60
Self-esteem and Optimism	325	81	0.54
Reflection and Meaningfulness	325	77	0.45
Satisfaction with life as a whole	327	80	0.44
Work-related
Time experience at work	330	29	0.62
Work-related Autonomy	330	55	0.47
Supportive working conditions	331	62	0.41
Internal work experience	327	76	0.35
Management	327	57	0.31
Non-work-related
Supportive family	313	79	0.42
Domestic autonomy	328	83	0.20

All r values were significant (p = 0.000). Variables with r≥0.30 were included in the multiple linear regression analysis.

2.6 Ethical approval

The study was conducted in agreement with the Swedish Law of Research Ethics, SFS 2003 : 460, which is in line with the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration [66]. The principle of voluntariness was met by the respondents’ informed consent to participate in the survey. Precautions were made to ensure the anonymity of participating teachers as well as participating schools, and all data was treated confidentially.

3 Results

The response rate was 74% (n = 338), and 79% of the respondents were women. Most of the participants were living with a partner and at least one child (50%). Teachers with no partner but with at least one child (6%) and teachers living alone (9%) were the smallest groups, while participants living with a partner and no children (35%) was the second largest group. Most of the participants worked 80% or more of full-time employment (68%) (Table 1).

In bivariate correlations there was a strong (r≥0.50), positive correlation between the experience of work-life balance and five variables: self-rated health; self-esteem and optimism; time experience at work; recovery; and satisfaction with everyday life (Table 3). Domestic autonomy showed a weak (r < 0.29) correlation to WLB, and was thus excluded in the following multiple linear regression analysis.

A multiple linear regression analysis was performed with the index of WLB as the dependent variable and the remaining twelve variables from the bivariate correlation analysis as independent variables. The model indicated that four variables were significantly associated with WLB: time experience at work (β= 0.315); satisfaction with everyday life (β= 0.274); self-rated health (β= 0.237); and recovery (β= 0.114) (Table 4). The adjusted R square of the total model was 0.661. Interaction effects (two-way) were studied pairwise for the four significant independent variables, but also for age, gender, reflection and meaningfulness, internal work experiences, and satisfaction with life as a whole, in relation to recovery and self-rated health. A significant interaction was only found for age and time experience as predictors of WLB (β= –0.193; p = 0.045).

Table 4
Results from a multiple linear regression model. Variables associated with the experience of work-life balance as dependent variable. Adjusted by age, gender and living conditions

Variable Standardized t p-value

Coefficient Beta

Time experience at work 0.315 7.466 0.000

Satisfaction with everyday life 0.274 4.582 0.000

Self-rated health 0.237 4.671 0.000

Recovery 0.114 2.467 0.014

Satisfaction with life as a whole –0.111 –1.916 0.056

Self-esteem and optimism 0.070 1.132 0.259

Reflection and meaningfulness 0.068 1.415 0.158

Work-related autonomy 0.043 1.019 0.309

Supportive working conditions –0.001 –0.010 0.992

Internal work experiences 0.059 1.279 0.202

Management –0.033 –0.767 0.444

Supportive family 0.030 0.668 0.505

Variable	Standardized	t	p-value
Time experience at work	0.315	7.466	0.000
Satisfaction with everyday life	0.274	4.582	0.000
Self-rated health	0.237	4.671	0.000
Recovery	0.114	2.467	0.014
Satisfaction with life as a whole	–0.111	–1.916	0.056
Self-esteem and optimism	0.070	1.132	0.259
Reflection and meaningfulness	0.068	1.415	0.158
Work-related autonomy	0.043	1.019	0.309
Supportive working conditions	–0.001	–0.010	0.992
Internal work experiences	0.059	1.279	0.202
Management	–0.033	–0.767	0.444
Supportive family	0.030	0.668	0.505

Significance level 0.05. Figures in bold for significant variables. Adjusted R Square 0.661.

4 Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine resources in relation to teachers’ experiences of WLB, and it was hypothesized that WLB would be associated with recovery, collegial and managerial support, and health. The study demonstrated four factors associated with the experience of WLB. One of these factors is work-related (time experience at work), while the remaining three (satisfaction with everyday life, self-rated health and recovery) are related to the individual. The hypothesis of an association between WLB and recovery, and between WLB and health were supported, while the association between WLB and collegial and managerial support were discarded. If the significant factors could be strengthened, they would be important resources for teachers’ WLB. However, these factors are interdependent, as individuals cannot be segmented into isolated parts. The different parts make up the individual as a whole person, and each part interrelates with the others [67]. The associated factors are discussed below.

4.1 Time experience at work

The time experience at work variable had the strongest association to WLB, i.e. the possibility to complete one’s work tasks without feeling pressed for time. The descriptive result however, indicates, that a large part of the respondents stated low on this. The standardized mean of time experience for the participating teachers was 29. In a study from Lithuania, using the same index, the participating teachers stated a standardized mean of 64 [68], and when comparing to other professional groups, such as physicians (mean = 38), nurses (mean = 63) [69], care-, service- and social workers (mean = 61) [70], the participating teachers stated a significantly poorer time experience at work. The unfinished character has, traditionally, been a natural part of teaching [71]. Even so, this fragmentation seems to become increasingly difficult to handle [72]. The noteworthy low mean among the Swedish teachers could be related to the work intensification that teachers experience [1, 54]. Still, other professions which are considered as having similar work intensification, do not experience the same time pressure [69, 70]. A possible explanation could be that, for example nurses and social workers do not have discretionary time –teachers do. Teleworking among teachers is used as a strategy to accomplish their work on time [73]. It is also a resource for WLB, and considered a way to balance competing demands within the work domain and the private domain [18 –20]. However, through the discretionary time work is brought home into the private sphere as part of the work structure. Previous findings have indicated that employees experienced more stress before going to sleep when they had worked during the evening [74], and therefore it is important to raise the awareness of its potentially negative effects on one’s well-being. It seems that a majority of the participants are living with a feeling of not being able to accomplish their work on time. This is worrying, since the feeling of accomplishment and completion are salutogenic in themselves, and they are also resources for psychological resilience [49].

4.2 Satisfaction with everyday life

The index satisfaction with everyday life included questions regarding more tangible aspects of the everyday life, such as co-habitation, economy, and also questions whether life is perceived as free/tied-up and easy to live/hard to live. There are several aspects within the index of everyday life which have been found in previous research to be salutogenic resources in general as well as resources for WLB. Findings on WLB indicate that income is an important resource when meeting the needs of daily life, and can be used to facilitate the combination of paid and domestic work [75]. With a sufficient income people can outsource domestic work, leaving more time for other things. Leisure time is another aspect of everyday life, and it can be described as “free time” when one does not work, and when one engages in behavior that is enjoyable in themselves [76]. This can be linked to the respondents’ answer to whether their everyday is free or tied-up. Leisure has been identified as a resource for promoting well-being and health and also functions as a buffer under adverse life conditions [77, 78]. Teachers’ discretionary time could relate to their experience of having a free or tied-up everyday life in both a pathogenic and a salutogenic way. Research has shown that work flexibility may effect WLB in a negative way [21, 22], but also as having a positive effect on WLB [18, 19]. Discretionary time may also be considered as an expression of professional freedom, which previously has been suggested to enhance psychological resilience [50]. The index also included living with a family, and family-related support has been found to reduce conflicts in the work-family interface [79 –82]. Thus the separate aspects in the index are previously associated with WLB, as is the index as a whole in this study.

4.3 Self-rated health

As hypothesized, self-rated health was significantly associated to WLB. This result is consistent with previous research [37 –40], of which a majority suggest that health is an outcome of WLB. On the one hand, the lack of experiencing WLB has been found to be associated with decreased well-being and quality of life [83]; increased stress [84]; impaired mental health [85]. On the other hand, work-family balance has been associated with well-being and overall quality of life [86, 87].

The standardized mean value for the participating teachers was, however, relatively low (mean = 59) compared to other studies using the same instrument: teachers (in Lithuania, mean = 65) [68], physicians (mean = 75) [88], nurses (mean = 76) [88]. Work intensification has been found to relate to impaired health [4 –6] and teachers’ work intensification could be part of the explanation. Still, doctors and nurses are also experiencing work intensification [89, 90], and they report a higher self-rated health. Caring is an important salutogenic element in teachers’ work [24 , 53], and by attending to the needs of the pupils, teachers’ well-being is enhanced [52]. A possible supposition is that along with the increase in documentation and work-load, which is part of the work intensification, less room is given for interaction with the pupils, and as a result less room for caring relations. In addition, it is mostly in the relationship with the pupils that teachers experience meaningfulness in their work [52]. As both caring [24 , 73] and meaningfulness [51, 52] are health enhancing factors, it would seem a plausible suggestion that intensified work with lesser interaction with the pupils, lead to negative effects on teachers’ well-being and health.

4.4 Recovery

The ability to recover, i.e. the process of unwinding, is as important as experiencing a manageable workload. The index recovery includes recovery during work, off work, getting to/home from work, as well as a more general question regarding overall recovery. As hypothesized, the results demonstrate that recovery is correlated with WLB, and therefore a possible salutogenic resource. However, it is not possible to conclude whether WLB influences recovery, the other way around, or in a reciprocal process. Previous research examining this relationship has suggested all three directions. On the one hand, Stevens [91] suggested that improved WLB was positively influencing recovery. On the other hand, Sanz-Vergel et al. [92] showed that recovery in connection with breaks at work predicted work-family facilitation in the evening. Findings have also indicated that working one or more Sundays/month was associated with an increased risk of poorer WLB [93]. Finally, the reciprocal correlation between the need for recovery and home-work interference was supported by Demerouti, Taris and Bakker [94].

Research has shown that a high workload is related to impaired health and well-being [74, 95], and insufficient recovery is associated with psychosomatic complaints and burnout [95]. The workload of teachers in many countries has increased [96] and teachers are at risk of not experiencing sufficient recovery [27]. The recovery, that is gained during vacations fade out quickly, indicating the importance of getting recovery during evenings and week-ends [97]. This is, however, complex, because of the teachers’ discretionary time. Park et al. [98] proposed that segmenting work and non-work roles may help employees to detach themselves and recover from work demands. Previous findings suggest that the spatial and temporal overlap between work and non-work may be easier to address, than the mental overlap [24, 73]. Regardless of what type of overlap, it is an important issue to address.

4.5 Methodological considerations

The cross-sectional design of the present study implicates that the timing of the survey is important. The questionnaire was distributed in May-June, which is a time when most teachers are busy with work, in addition to many social events which take place before the summer vacation. This could have had both positive and negative effects on the results, not the least on the self-rated health. Had the survey been conducted in another time of the year, the results may have been different. This has implications on the reliability of the results of the study.

Being a cross-sectional study it is not possible to predict any direction of the relationship between the experience of work-life balance and the four associated variables. We can conclude that there is an association. To determine how one variable effects another, a longitudinal study would be needed.

Another limitation of the findings is the interrelational aspect of WLB. Several of the significant variables are rather similar to each other, and they are both part of WLB and simultaneously associated with it. This could make it difficult to interpret the results. Nevertheless, testing for multicollinearity showed that the indices used in this study correlated in a satisfactory way (r≤0.9). The predominant absence of interaction effects contribute to a more straightforward interpretation of the result.

When planning the survey, one of the objectives was to include groups other than double-income families with children. However, when looking at the respondents, the group with teachers either living alone, or being a single parent, were too small to allow any further conclusions. Therefore, the need to look more closely at other groups, rather than examining the standard couple with children, still remains.

Some of the items of the questionnaire were not used before, but the pilot study supported face validity and the theoretical background conduced the content validity. However, the lack of profound testing is a limitation when interpreting the result.

The results of this study are based on a self-monitored questionnaire, which means that the results are dependent on the respondents’ willingness to share their perceptions and experiences, and also on their truthfulness. There is also a possible limitation of the study regarding the respondents’ understanding and interpretations of the questions. Validity was strengthened by using previously tested questionnaires, and by performing a pilot study with teachers in another municipality. Reliability was checked using a test-retest, and internal consistency was strengthened by only including indices with Cronbach’s alpha 0.72–0.95, which would indicate that they were not too similar or over-lapping.

As the study was designed to allow participants to be anonymous, it means that it was not possible to do a dropout analysis.

5 Conclusions

This study contributes to existing literature by highlighting the issues of finishing work without time pressure as well as having sufficient recovery. Since previous research also has demonstrated the importance that time pressure and recovery have on people’s well-being, much could be gained if school management reduced time pressure, facilitated prioritization between work tasks, and facilitated recovery during the working day. In order to make these changes, school management would need to create an educational climate that supports these health promoting factors.

The individual resources in relation to WLB is highlighted as important in relation to WLB. Among four factors associated with teachers’ experience of work-life balance, three were related to the individual (self-rated health, satisfaction with everyday life and recovery). Most research on work-life balance has focused on the two domains “work” and “family”, not paying much attention to individual resources. This points to the need to investigate individual resources to a larger extent that what has been done previously.

Teachers’ discretionary time seems to be influencing their WLB in complex ways. While it renders the demarcation between work and non-work more difficult, it also is an expression for professional freedom and flexibility.

Most interventions have used a curative approach, and we suggest a shift in focus to a more health promoting approach. A focus on health-promoting interventions, i.e. strengthening resources regardless of whether work is done at the workplace, by the individual teacher, or in interaction with the personal sphere, the work-life balance of teachers could be improved. Experiencing work-life balance is considered an important resource for teachers to remain resilient despite difficult work situations, as well as improving their well-being. Strengthening resources would thus be of benefit not only to the individual teacher, but also to the school at large.

Conflict of interest

The authors confirm that this article content has no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Göran Ejlertsson for his valuable contributions to this study.

References

Arvidsson

, Simonsen

, Balogh

, Hansson

G-Å

, Dahlqvist

, Granqvist

, et al. Discrepancies in pain presentation caused by adverse psychosocial conditions as compared to pain due to high physical workload? Work Reading Mass 2011;41:2472–5.

Konu

, Vitanen

. Teachers’ wellbeing and perceptions of leadership practices, Int J Workplace Health Manag 2010;3(1):44–57.

Thoonen

, Sleegers

, Oort

, Peetsma

, Geijsel

. How to improve teaching practices the role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices, Educ Adm Q 2011;47(3):496–536.

Bridges

, Searle

. Changing workloads of primary school teachers:‘I seem to live on the edge of chaos’, School Leadership & Manag 2011;31(5):413–33.

Carlgren

, Klette

. Reconstructions of Nordic Teachers: Reform policies and teachers’ work during the 1990s, Scand J Educ Res 2008;52(2):117–33.

, Day

. Teachers’ resilience: A necessary condition for effectiveness, Teach Teach Educ 2007;23:1302–16.

Day

, Elliot

, Kington

. Reform, standards and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment, Teach Teach Educ 2005;21(5):563–77.

Lambert

, McCarthy

. Understanding teacher stress in an age of accountability: Iap; 2006.

Månsson

. Dagens lärare –klämd mellan oförenliga krav? In: Arbetslivsinstitutet (Eds). Nära gränsen? Perspektiv på skolans arbetsliv. Katrineholm: Arbetslivsinstitutets Förlag; 2004.

10.

Ahlgren

, Gillander Gådin

. Struggle for time to teach: Teachers’ experiences of their work situation, Work 2011;40:111–8.

11.

Klassen

, Foster

, Rajani

, Bowman

. Teaching in the Yukon: Exploring teachers’ efficacy beliefs, stress, and job satisfaction in a remote setting, Int J Educ Res 2009;48(6):381–94.

12.

Chaplain

. Stress and psychological distress among trainee secondary teachers in England, Educ Psychol 2008;28(2):195–209.

13.

Brown

, Ralph

, Brember

. Change-linked work-related stress in British teachers, Res Educ 2002;67(1):1–12.

14.

Day

, Smethem

. The effects of reform: Have teachers really lost their sense of professionalism? J Educ Change 2009;10(2-3):141–57.

15.

Klassen

. Teacher stress: The mediating role of collective efficacy beliefs, J Educ Res 2010;103(5):342–50.

16.

Gajendran

, Harrison

. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences, J Appl Psychology 2007;92(6):1524.

17.

Hill

, Miller

, Weiner

, Colihan

. Influences of the virtual office on aspects of work and work/life balance, Pers Psychol 1998;51(3):667–83.

18.

Allvin

, Mellner

, Movitz

, Aronsson

. Den utbredda flexibiliteten: Ett försök att beräkna förekomsten av lågreglerade arbetsvillkor, Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv 2012;18(1):9–24.

19.

Morganson

, Major

, Oborn

, Verive

, Heelan

. Comparing telework locations and traditional work arrangements: Differences in work-life balance support, job satisfaction, and inclusion, J Manag Psychol 2010;25(6):578–95.

20.

Shockley

, Allen

. When flexibility helps: Another look at the availability of flexible work arrangements and work–family conflict, Journal of Vocational Behavior 2007;71(3):479–93.

21.

Butler

, Grzywacz

, Ettner

, Liu

. Workplace flexibility, self-reported health, and health care utilization, Work & Stress 2009;23(1):45–59.

22.

Grönlund

. Organisationerna och flexibiliteten –behov, hinder och strategier i tre branscher, Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv 2004;1:5–25.

23.

Mellner

, Aronsson

, Kecklund

. Boundary management preferences, boundary control, and work-life balance among full-time employed professionals in knowledge-intensive, flexible work, Nord J Work Life Studies 2014;4(4):7–23.

24.

Skovholt

, Trotter-Mathison

. The resilient practitioner: Burnout prevention and self-care strategies for counselors, therapists, teachers, and health professionals: Routledge; 2014.

25.

Arbetsmiljöverket. Arbetsorsakade besvär 2010, 2010.

26.

Fritz

, Yankelevich

, Zarubin

, Barger

. Happy, healthy, and productive: The role of detachment from work during nonwork time, J Appl Psychol 2010;95(5):977.

27.

Aronsson

, Svensson

, Gustafsson

. Unwinding, recuperation, and health among compulsory school and high school teachers in Sweden, Int J Stress Manag 2003;10(3):217.

28.

Clark

. Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance, Human relat 2000;53(6):747–70.

29.

Gatrell

, Burnett

, Cooper

, Sparrow

. Work–life balance and parenthood: A comparative review of definitions, equity and enrichment, Int J Manag Rev 2013;15(3):300–16.

30.

Ransome

. Conceptualizing boundaries between ‘life’and ‘work’, Int J Human Resource Manag 2007;18(3):374–86.

31.

Gardiner

, Stuart

, Forde

, Greenwood

, MacKenzie

, Perrett

. Work–life balance and older workers: Employees’ perspectives on retirement transitions following redundancy, Int J Human Resource Manag 2007;18(3):476–89.

32.

Özbilgin

, Beauregard

, Tatli

, Bell

. Work–life, diversity and intersectionality: A critical review and research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews 2011;13(2):177–98.

33.

Camgoz

. The role of savoring in work-family conflict, Soc Behav Person: Int J 2014;42(2):177–88.

34.

Peeters

, Montgomery

, Bakker

, Schaufeli

. Balancing work and home: How job and home demands are related to burnout, International Journal of Stress Management 2005;12(1):43.

35.

Grönlund AÖ

. Rethinking work-family conflict: Dual-earner policies, role conflict and role expansion in Western Europe, J Eur Soc Policy 2010;20(3):179–95.

36.

Grawitch

, Barber

, Justice

. Rethinking the work–life interface: It’s not about balance, it’s about resource allocation, Appl Psychol: Health Well-Being 2010;2(2):127–59.

37.

Wagman

, Håkansson

, Jacobsson

, Falkmer

, Björklund

. What is considered important for life balance? Similarities and differences among some working adults, Scand J Occup Ther 2012;19(4):377–84.

38.

Gröpel

, Kuhl

. Work–life balance and subjective well-being: The mediating role of need fulfilment, Br J Psychol 2009;100(2):365–75.

39.

Christiansen

, Matuska

. Lifestyle balance: A review of concepts and research, J Occup Sci 2006;13(1):49–61.

40.

Agosti

, Andersson

, Ejlertsson

, Janlöv

A-C

. Shift work to balance everyday life-a salutogenic nursing perspective in home help service in Sweden, BMC Nurs 2015;14:2.

41.

Håkansson

, Dahlin-Ivanoff

, Sonn

. Achieving balance in everyday life, J Occup Sci 2006;13(1):74–82.

42.

Allen

. Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions, J Vocat Behav 2001;58(3):414–35.

43.

Kinman

, Jones

. A life beyond work? Job demands, work-life balance, and wellbeing in UK academics, J Hum Behav Soc Environ 2008;17(1-2):41–60.

44.

Munir

, Nielsen

, Garde

, Albertsen

, Carneiro

. Mediating the effects of work–life conflict between transformational leadership and health-care workers’ job satisfaction and psychological wellbeing, J Nurs Manag 2012;20(4):512–21.

45.

Antonovsky

. The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion, Health Prom Int 1996;11(1):11–8.

46.

Donaldson

, Ko

. Positive organizational psychology, behavior, and scholarship: A review of the emerging literature and evidence base, The Journal of Positive Psychology 2010;5(3):177–91.

47.

Seligman

, Csikszentmihalyi

. Positive psychology: An introduction: APA; 2000.

48.

Howard

, Johnson

. Resilient teachers: Resisting stress and burnout, Soc Psychol Educ 2004;7(4):399–420.

49.

Bobek

. Teacher resiliency: A key to career longevity, The Clearing House 2002;75(4):202–5.

50.

Sumsion

. Early childhood teachers’ constructions of their resilience and thriving: A continuing investigation, Int J of Early Years Educ 2004;12(3):275–90.

51.

Nilsson

, Ejlertsson

, Andersson

, Blomqvist

. Caring as a salutogenic aspect in teachers’ lives, Teach Teach Educ 2015;46:51–61.

52.

Persson

. Nöjda som lärare, missnöjda som anställda, In: Peterson

, Leppänen

, Jönsson

, Tranqvist

, (Eds). Villkor i arbete med människor - en antologi om human servicearete. Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet; 2006.

53.

O’Connor

. “You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity, Teach Teach Educ 2008;24(1):117–26.

54.

Arvidsson

, Simonsen

, Dahlqvist

, Granqvist

, Larsson

, Karlson

, et al. Arbetsmiljö och hälsa hos lärare i grundskolan, Lund: Arbets-och miljömedicin, 2013 14/2013.

55.

Greenglass

, Burke

, Konarski

. The impact of social support on the development of burnout in teachers: Examination of a model, Work & Stress 1997;11(3):267–78.

56.

Griffith

, Steptoe

, Cropley

. An investigation of coping strategies associated with job stress in teachers, Br J Educ Psychol 1999;69(4):517–31.

57.

Scott

, Dinham

. The development of scales to measure teacher and school executive occupational satisfaction, J Educ Adm 2003;41(1):74–86.

58.

Hultell

, Gustavsson

. Factors affecting burnout and work engagement in teachers when entering employment, Work 2011;40(1):85–98.

59.

Nilsson

, Bringsen

, Andersson

, Ejlertsson

. Development and quality analysis of the Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS), Work 2009;35(2):153–61.

60.

Bringsén

, Andersson

, Ejlertsson

. Development and quality analysis of the Salutogenic Health Indicator Scale (SHIS), Scand J Publ Health 2009;37(1):13–9.

61.

Diener

, Wirtz

, Biswas-Diener

, Tov

, Kim-Prieto

, Choi

D-W

, et al. New measures of well-being: Springer; 2009.

62.

van den Heuvel

, Demerouti

, Schreurs

, Bakker

, Schaufeli

. Does meaning-making help during organizational change? Development and validation of a new scale, Career Devel Intl 2009;14(6):508–33.

63.

Greenhaus

, Powell

. When work and family collide: Deciding between competing role demands, Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 2003;90(2):291–303.

64.

Carlson

, Grzywacz

, Zivnuska

. Is work-family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Hum Rel 2009;62(10):1459–86.

65.

Landis

, Koch

. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biom 1977159–74.

66.

World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, Jama 2013;310(20):2191.

67.

Öquist

. Systemteori i praktiken: Konsten att lösa problem och nå resultat: Gothia; 2008.

68.

Andruškienė

, Kirvelienė

, Martinkėnas

, Andersson

, Ejlertsson

. Work experience and school workers’ health evaluated by salutogenic health indicators, Acta Med Litu 2011;18(2):86–91.

69.

Nilsson

, Andersson

, Ejlertsson

. The work experience measurement scale (WEMS): A useful tool in workplace health promotion, Work 2013;45(3):379–87.

70.

Agosti

, Bringsen

, Andersson

. Resources related to a positive work life balance among municipality employees - a survey using a holistic approach. [unpublished data].

71.

Lindqvist

, Nordänger

U-K

. Who dares to disconnect in the age of uncertainty? Teachers’ recesses and ‘off-the-clock’ work, Teach Teach 2006;12(6):623–37.

72.

Aili

. (Ed.). Time formatives and intermittent work. In tension between organization and profession Prof Nord Pub Serv. Nordic Academic Press; 2008.

73.

Nilsson

. Salutogenic and pathogenic factors affecting teachers’ well-being in their everyday lives, A report. Högskolan Kristianstad: Institutionen för hälsa och samhälle, 2012.

74.

Sonnentag

. Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being: A diary study, J Occup Health Psychol 2001;6(3):196.

75.

Den Dulk

, Bäck-Wiklund

, Lewis

, Redai

, Bäck-Wiklund

. Quality of life and work in a changing Europe: A theoretical framework, Quality of Life and Work in Europe Theory, Practice & Policy, London, Palgrave Macmillan 2011;17–31.

76.

Cassidy

. All work and no play: A focus on leisure time as a means for promoting health, Couns Psychol Q 1996;9(1):77–90.

77.

Ponde

, Santana

. Participation in leisure activities: Is it a protective factor for women’s mental health? J Leisure Res 2000;32(4):457–72.

78.

Iso-Ahola

, Park

. Leisure-related social support and self-determination as buffers of stress-illness relationshiJ Leisure Res 1996;28(3):169.

79.

Michel

, Mitchelson

, Pichler

, Cullen

. Clarifying relationships among work and family social support, stressors, and work–family conflict, J Vocat Behav 2010;76(1):91–104.

80.

Seiger

, Wiese

. Social support from work and family domains as an antecedent or moderator of work–family conflicts? J Vocat Behav 2009;75(1):26–37.

81.

Van Daalen

, Willemsen

, Sanders

. Reducing work–family conflict through different sources of social support, J Vocat Behav 2006;69(3):462–76.

82.

Abendroth

A-K

, Den Dulk

. Support for the work-life balance in Europe: The impact of state, workplace and family support on work-life balance satisfaction, Work Employ Soc 2011;25(2):234–56.

83.

Grant-Vallone

, Donaldson

. Consequences of work-family conflict on employee well-being over time, Work & Stress 2001;15(3):214–26.

84.

Burke

. Some antecedents of work-family conflict, J Soc Behav Person 1988;3(4):287.

85.

Grzywacz

, Bass

. Work, family, and mental health: Testing different models of work-family fit, Journal of Marriage and Family 2003;65(1):248–61.

86.

Fisher

. Work/personal life balance. A construct development study. A dissertation. ProQuest Information & Learning 2002.

87.

Greenhaus

, Collins

, Shaw

. The relation between work–family balance and quality of life, J Vocat Behav 2003;63(3):510–31.

88.

Andruškienė

, Kuzmiene

, Martinkėnas

, Jurgutis

, Ejlertsson

, Andersson

. Psychosocial work experiences related to health: A study of Lithuanian Hospital employees. [unpublished data].

89.

Willis

. The variable impact of new public management and budget cuts on the work intensification of nurses and doctors in one public hospital in South Australia between 1994 and 2000. Aust Bull Labour 2005;31(3):255.

90.

Desombre

, Kelliher

, Macfarlane

, Ozbilgin

. Re-organizing work roles in health care: Evidence from the implementation of functional flexibility, Br J Manag 2006;17(2):139–51.

91.

Stevens

. Understanding how employees unwind after work: Expanding the construct of “recovery”, Nova Scotia: 2010.

92.

Sanz-Vergel

, Demerouti

, Moreno-Jiménez

, Mayo

. Work-family balance and energy: A day-level study on recovery conditions, J Vocat Behav 2010;76(1):118–30.

93.

Wirtz

, Nachreiner

, Rolfes

. Working on Sundays–Effects on safety, health, and work-life balance, Chronobio Int 2011;28(4):361–70.

94.

Demerouti

, Taris

, Bakker

. Need for recovery, home–work interference and performance: Is lack of concentration the link? J Vocat Behav 2007;71(2):204–20.

95.

Sonnentag

, Bayer

U-V

. Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time, J Occup Health Psychol 2005;10(4):393.

96.

Skaalvik

, Skaalvik

. Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion, Teach Teach Educ 2011;27(6):1029–38.

97.

Sonnentag

. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work, J Appl Psychol 2003;88(3):518.

98.

Park

, Fritz

, Jex

. Relationships between work-home segmentation and psychological detachment from work: The role of communication technology use at home, J Occup Health Psychol 2011;16(4):457.