Work–family conflict is a concept in psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, and occupational health psychology that studies how competing demands between work and family responsibilities create tension and measurably impact mental health, productivity, and family dynamics.^[1] The concept emerged as industrialization shifted paid work out of the household, reshaping expectations at the work-life interface.^[2] Work–family conflict has been associated with increased occupational burnout, job stress, poorer health, and diminished organizational commitment and job performance.^[3]

Scholars began examining work–family conflict in the late 19th century as industrialization moved income-generating labor from the home to factories, altering the relationship between work and family life.^[2] Boundary theory frames social life as two interdependent domains, work and family, with distinct roles and responsibilities.^[2] Because the domains influence one another, individuals must transition between expectations at work and roles within the family.^[2] Border theory builds on boundary theory by considering how each domain influences the other and by identifying strategies people use to manage the borders between them.^[2] Some individuals separate the domains and move back and forth between them, while others integrate them to pursue balance.^[2]

Work–family conflict runs in two directions: work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict.^[2] Work-to-family conflict arises when job demands such as long or inflexible hours, heavy workloads, interpersonal friction, travel, or unsupportive supervision disrupt responsibilities at home, for example causing a parent to miss after-school pick-up.^[2] Family-to-work conflict occurs when caregiving duties, family strain, or limited support at home interfere with job performance, including situations where employees must leave work to care for a sick relative.^[2] Each direction can be time-based when schedules collide, strain-based when stress spills over, or behavior-based when the conduct required in one role clashes with the other.^[4]

Although work interface with family (WIF) and family interface with work (FIW) are strongly correlated, more attention has been directed toward WIF. Research linked to Arlie Russell Hochschild's concept of the "ideal worker" depicts the inelastic nature of work roles and responsibilities.^[5] The expectations employers hold of an ideal worker assume that family responsibilities are handled elsewhere, leaving employees unencumbered at work.^[5] Although most families in the United States are dual earning, the image of the ideal worker persists and reinforces work–family conflict.^[5]

Workaholism correlates strongly with work-to-family conflict because prioritizing work commitments crowds out family time.^[2] Scholars describe workaholism as a substantial investment in work that can manifest in multiple directions and facets.^[6] Job flexibility and satisfaction influence how strain transfers between work and home, while excessive work hours often displace intimate relationships and social connections.^[6] Workaholics devote extensive time to work-related activities and may sacrifice family, social, and recreational life, contributing to marital strain and isolation.^[6]

Employers have become more aware of these pressures and have implemented family-responsive human resource practices that promote work-family balance to reduce stress in both environments.^[6]

Researchers compare high-pressure corporate roles to elite athletics, noting that sustained exertion without recovery produces chronic stress, burnout, and fatigue.^[7] Employers counter these risks by encouraging short recovery breaks and providing facilities such as corporate gyms, which can improve cognition, energy, focus, and emotional intelligence.^[7]

Organizations seek an advantage by branding themselves as work-life balance supportive, a stance linked to higher retention, morale, performance, and organizational identification.^[8] Family-friendly policies covering paid parental leave, sick leave, health insurance, and subsidized or on-site child care are associated with lower work-family conflict.^[9]

Advances in communication technology allow employees on tight schedules to stay connected with family members, and organizations increasingly use remote work programs and expanded flextime to provide that flexibility.^[10][11][12]

Gendered expectations, especially the "ideal worker" norm that prizes constant availability, shape how organizations evaluate employees with caregiving duties.^[13] Managers who subscribe to this standard often read visible work-family juggling as lack of commitment, which reduces promotion prospects.^[14]

Women experience that bias acutely because they continue to shoulder substantial unpaid care work. German dual-earner households with children under thirteen reported that mothers provided nearly triple the child care of fathers in 2018, while studies find women have less control over their schedules, heightening work–family conflict.^[15][16] Managers may therefore rate women who balance care and employment as less committed, while men reporting lower conflict are seen as especially dedicated.^[17][13][18]

Studies of fathers find that those with limited caregiving experience often underestimate household demands, whereas men whose spouses take on most domestic labor remain more visible at work and frequently shape workplace policy.^[19][20]

The motherhood penalty captures the cumulative outcome: working mothers face documented gaps in pay, perceived competence, and access to benefits and continue to receive lower performance evaluations than non-mothers, reinforcing discrimination in pay, hiring, and daily treatment.^{[21][22][23][20]}

• Bakker, A., Demerouti, E. & Burke, R. (January 2009). Workaholism and Relationship Quality: A Spillover-Crossover Perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 23–33
• Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.
• Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
• Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.
• Kossek, E., Noe, R. & DeMarr, B. (April 1999). Work-family synthesis: Individual and organizational determinants.International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 102–129.
• Krouse, S. S., & Afifi, T. D. (2007). Family-to-work spillover stress: Coping communicatively in the workplace. The Journal of Family Communication, 7, 85–122.
• Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda. Human Relations, 43, 239–257.
• MacDermind, S. M., Seery, B. L., & Weiss, H. H. (2002). An emotional examination of the work-family interface. In N. Schmitt (Series Ed.) & R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski & R. K. Kanfer (Vol. Eds.), The organizational frontier series: Vol. 16. Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 402–427). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Temple, H. & Gillespie, B. (February 2009). Taking charge of work and life. ABA Journal, 95, 31–32.