Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The issue of work-life balance (WLB) has received rising attention globally. Academic leaders are said to have a compromised WLB situation as they juggle multiple roles involving a wide range of challenging factors in their work-life environment. Yet, academic leaders, particularly in the context of developing countries, have to deal with gruelling circumstances ranging from lack of funding to political interference. On top of that, empirical studies on the WLB of academic leaders from the developing world are scant. Given this, this study examined WLB issues among academic leaders from public universities in Ethiopia to provide empirical evidence to narrow the knowledge gap on WLB (of academic leaders) from various contexts, especially from the less developed part of the world. Accordingly, the study surveyed the WLB circumstances of academic leaders in the study setting using a standard questionnaire, and a total of 205 complete questionnaires were collected from academic leaders of eight Ethiopian public universities. The (descriptive) analysis relied on mean analysis to assess the level of WLB among the academic leaders. The study found that the academic leaders’ WLB is severely compromised across all dimensions of WLB that this study drew on (role overload, quality of health, dependent care issues, time management, and support networks). Thus, in addition to extending the subject of WLB among academic leaders to less explored territories, this study provides empirical contributions as well as practical/managerial and social implications.

Keywords

work-life balance academic leaders universities developing country Ethiopia

Introduction

Work-life balance (WLB) has continued to be a topical issue across several sectors and industries (Adah et al., 2023), including higher learning institutions/universities (Badri, 2024; Demir & Budur, 2023). There is a growing interest among researchers and academics in the subject of WLB (Alameddine et al., 2023; Calzón-Menéndez, 2023; Fauzi et al., 2024). The issue of WLB has received even heightened interest following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Yerkes & van Hedel, 2024). In organizations and on the home front, the challenge of WLB is growing to the top of many employers’ and employees’ consciousness (Lockwood, 2003). Gregory and Milner (2009) also noted that the term WLB is gaining widespread use in everyday language and policy arenas, enabling a wider understanding of non-work concerns to be encompassed in organizational studies. More so, Fisher (2002) expressed that as many changes in the workplace and employees’ and managers’ lives have taken place over the past decades, such changes have led to an increase in the attention paid to the boundary between work and non-work issues among professionals. More importantly, Lewis et al. (2002) uphold that modern-day professionals emphasize the achievement of WLB more than their predecessors and are seeking their organizations to extend adequate organizational support to WLB in terms of practices, policies, and strategies.

The core idea is that the assertion of work and life, cast as WLB, has become an essential feature of much of government, practitioner, and academic debate; the main message of this debate is the need for good WLB (Eikhof et al., 2007). In other words, as work-life imbalance adversely affects both personal and work-life, WLB has become important and necessary for almost all categories of professionals (both leaders and staff), including those in higher learning institutions (Arif & Farooqi, 2014; Fatima & Sahibzada, 2012; Saltmarsh & Randel-Moon, 2015). All organizations including higher learning institutions are expected to consider WLB “as a means of tackling the problem of increasing amounts of stress in the workplace as people try to juggle a wide range of factors in their work/life environment, including work; family; friends; health; and spirit/self” (Byrne, 2005, p. 53).

Effective management of WLB is an issue increasingly recognized as of strategic importance to higher learning institutions (universities) and of significance to academic leaders and the rest of the stakeholders (Bryan & Wilson, 2014; De Cieri et al., 2005; Netemeyer et al., 1996). The issue of the WLB in higher learning institutions is becoming a serious concern as the last two decades have shown a dramatic change in academia, where there is enormous pressure to ensure higher productivity in administrative, teaching, and research fronts (Fauzi et al., 2024). According to Felstead et al. (2002), WLB is understood as “the relationship between the institutional and cultural times and spaces of work and non-work in societies.” More specifically, Karakas and Lee (2004) stated that WLB relates to issues such as spending good time with family members, availability of free time to be able to relax for the emotional well-being and health of family members, having good communication and support from colleagues and subordinates, access to high-quality child care and education; and being satisfied with the workload. Similarly, Fisher (2002) defined work-life as an occupational stressor regarding issues of time, energy, goal accomplishment, and strain. Consequently, Rothbard and Dumas (2006) maintained that managing the interface between work and home has emerged as a central topic for both practitioners and academicians.

Accordingly, at present, there is a growing pressure requiring organizations to increasingly attempt to create the right environments where employees experience WLB (Wood et al., 2020). Delecta (2011) noted that this subject interests almost everyone with a professional career. This widespread interest is partly due to its reflection on all aspects of life. For those who think that the main objective in life is to work, their career becomes the core of life. However, people have limited time and therefore have to perform many activities other than their jobs. Without a balance between the two, many mishaps can be experienced in both aspects (work vs. life).

In general, while there are numerous studies on the subject of WLB from the developed part of the world (Bryan & Wilson, 2014; Cannizzo & Osbaldiston, 2016; Gregory & Milner, 2009; Lester, 2015; Lord & Vinnicombe, 2010), research on this topic remains scarce in the context of the developing world (Abubaker & Bagley, 2016; Akanji, Mordi, & Ajonbadi, 2020; Kyambade et al., 2024; Stella et al., 2014). This leaves a gap in our global understanding of the WLB of academic leaders from diverse contexts. To help narrow this gap, this study exhibits empirical evidence on the subject of WLB of academic leaders from a developing country context (Ethiopia). Thus, this study extends the subject of WLB among academic leaders to uncharted (unexplored) territories. Moreover, the study will impart certain practical/managerial, and social implications. In doing so, the central research question of the study is what is the status of WLB among academic leaders of selected public universities in Ethiopia? In light of the WLB dimensions that this study drew on (role overload, quality of health, dependent care issues, time management, and support networks), the specific questions include: What is the status of role overload among the academic leaders? What is the status of the quality of health among the academic leaders? What is the status of dependent care issues among academic leaders? What is the status of dependent care issues among academic leaders? And what is the status of the support network among the academic leaders?

Literature Review

This section highlights the overview of WLB, the theoretical lens, WLB and academic leaders, and factors to assess WLB (dimensions of WLB).

Overview of Work-Life Balance

Organizations can no longer ignore issues of WLB (Lucas, 2004; Saiyad et al., 2024). As such, in today’s fast-paced society, human resource professionals seek options to positively impact the bottom line of their companies, improve employee morale, retain employees with valuable company knowledge, and keep pace with workplace trends. As a result, in organizations and on the home front, the challenge of work/life balance is rising to the top of many employers’ and employees’ consciousness (Lockwood, 2003).

According to Sandhiya (2020), the term WLB was coined in 1986 in response to the growing concerns by individuals and organizations alike that work can impinge upon the quality of family life and vice versa, thus giving rise to the concepts of family-work conflict and – work-family conflict. The former is also referred to as work interferes with family, while the latter is also known as family interferes with work. In other words, from the scarcity or zero-sum perspective, time devoted to work is construed as time taken away from one‘s family life. Besides, according to Kasbuntoro et al. (2020), WLB is defined as the ability of individuals to fulfill their work and family commitments, as well as other non-job responsibilities. The authors added that WLB programs include resources for parent and child care, care, health and welfare of employees, relocation benefits, offering family-friendly benefits that employees need to balance life and work, flex time, job sharing, telecommunicating, and others.

Theoretical Lens

There are different theoretical lenses/frameworks proposed for WLB, such as spillover theory, role theory, and Conservation of Resources (COR) theory. Spillover theory suggests that experiences in one domain, such as work or personal life, can influence the other, either positively or negatively (Ilies et al., 2024; Ratnaningsih & Idris, 2024). Role theory focuses on the multiple roles individuals hold and how conflicts or demands between these roles can impact WLB (Gerçek, 2024; Khatri & Shukla, 2024). The Conservation of Resources (COR) theory argues that individuals strive to preserve and build resources (e.g., time, energy) to manage stress, with imbalances leading to stress or burnout when resources are depleted (Liao et al., 2024; Shih & Yeh, 2024).

However, the most widely used theory in WLB studies is boundary theory (Khateeb, 2021; Kossek et al., 2023). Initially developed by Glaser & Strauss (1967), Boundary Theory posits that individuals create, maintain, and negotiate boundaries to separate or integrate their professional and personal roles. In the context of academic leaders in Ethiopian universities, the theory offers a valuable lens to explore how they balance the competing demands of teaching, research, administration, and family responsibilities. Boundary Theory asserts that while work and non-work domains are distinct, they are also interconnected, and individuals adopt strategies to manage these boundaries (Cingiene, 2024). These strategies can range from setting clear, impermeable boundaries to allowing for overlap, creating more permeable boundaries (Amirkamali et al., 2024). Moreover, Boundary Theory applies to studies of WLB involving academic leaders (Fauzi et al., 2024; Johnston et al., 2022).

The application of Boundary Theory to academic leaders could also allow for exploring how external factors, such as cultural norms, limited institutional support, and resource constraints, influence their ability to manage work-life boundaries effectively (Yesuf et al., 2024). This context often leads to high boundary permeability, where professional demands spill into personal lives, resulting in stress and reduced life satisfaction (Moges, 2022; Yesuf et al., 2024). The theory also underscores the importance of support networks in helping individuals manage boundary flexibility, suggesting that universities should implement policies that support WLB, such as flexible hours, mental health services, and role clarity (Flowers, 2020; Kossek et al., 2023). By actively managing these boundaries, academic leaders can reduce stress, improve personal well-being, and enhance professional effectiveness (Adisa et al., 2022). This theoretical framework is crucial for understanding the complexities of WLB in academic leadership, particularly in developing countries where these challenges are more pronounced (Sallee & Lester, 2017). So, this study relies on/is informed by the boundary theory, which holds that there is a boundary between work and life, and this is an important insight for WLB studies. Accordingly, as professionals juggle the work versus life boundary, some factors come into play, such as role overload, quality of health, dependent care issues, time management, and support networks. Details about these factors are presented in Section “Factors to Assess Work-Life Balance.”

Work-Life Balance and Academic Leaders

Academic leaders in universities are said to have compromised WLB circumstances as they perform multiple tasks, involving the responsibility to handle political and bureaucratic accountability whilst trying to balance educational, managerial, and leadership to promote their institutions. Coping with such challenging responsibilities is stressful, time-consuming, and burdensome (Aziz, 2014). Similarly, Kezar et al. (2005) stated that academic leaders, particularly in a developing country context, have to deal with issues related to funding, talent acquisition, autonomy, political interferences, and social inclusion, making their duty much more demanding and tormenting. As a result, the comprehensive demands of academic leadership, requiring intellectual, emotional, and physical energy, often raise concerns about the WLB of those in such roles (Banker & Bhal, 2020). Several emergent realities in higher education, including institutional autonomy and heightened inter-university competition, are intensifying the demands placed on academic leaders (Ekman et al, 2018; Kohtamäki, 2022). As such, Gmelch (2002, p. 12) maintained that “If we are to build a sustained leadership capacity in our colleges and universities, we must address the issue of professional balance in the academic leader’s life.” Despite this reality, studies on the WLB of academic leaders and academicians are scant both in the global and developing countries context (Bryan & Wilson, 2014; Cannizzo & Osbaldiston, 2016).

More so, academic leadership plays a crucial role in the success of higher education institutions (Eacott & Asuga, 2014). And the academic leaders, that is, department chairs, deans, directors, vice presidents, and presidents (Van den Brink, 2015), who are responsible for leading such institutions do toil and endure stressful situations to ensure the success of their respective institutions (Netemeyer et al.1996) by dealing with complex financial, educational, managerial, and ethical challenges continuously (Bikmoradi et al., 2010). Besides, while many aspects of management and leadership are common to most organizations, higher learning institutions present special challenges in both their fundamental character and practice; the presence of faculty and non-academic personnel in leadership roles in the same organization accompanied by other challenging circumstances create ambiguity and confusion (Rowley & Sherman, 2003). Further, Dex and Bond (2005) indicated that work pressures have grown in modern times across several sectors. Similarly, Saltmarsh and Randel-Moon (2015, p. 663) academic leaders too are faced with “the intensification of competition within the global knowledge economy, increasing levels of public scrutiny and public policy intervention in university affairs, managerial regimes of corporate governance and audit cultures, casualization, increasing staff-student ratios, and continuous demands for improved efficiency, accountability, and productivity.” Further, modern-day academic leaders have to deal with escalating stress and pressures along with organizational change, which has led to the increased importance of research on the issue of WLB amongst academic leaders; yet, very few studies have examined this issue (Bell et al., 2012). Understanding the work-life issues of academic leaders is essential to successfully manage and deal with the pressures and demands inherent in managing work and non-work-related activities, and build organizational capabilities and support to achieve acceptable integration between both domains by academic leaders (Lewis & Cooper, 2005; Visser & Williams, 2006).

Factors to Assess Work-Life Balance

As indicated in the methodology section, despite its growing importance, the field of WLB has suffered from a lack of theoretical foundations and measurement tools for a long time. However, recent contributions by Daniels and McCarraher (2000) and Fisher (2001) (see Dex & Bond, 2005; Mathew & Panchanatham, 2010) attempted to address the gap. Besides, further improvements on the works of Daniels and McCarraher (2000) and Fisher (2001) have been made by Mathew and Panchanatham (2011), and this has resulted in the introduction of a more comprehensive, 40-item, six-actor, and a 5-point scale for a WLB study. This is normally taken as a popular assessment tool in the field of WLB. The tool has five headings: role overload (item 1), quality of health (item 2), dependent care issues (item 3), time management (item 4), support network (item 5), and overall perception of WLB (item 6; Mathew & Panchanatham, 2011). Thus, this study assesses the status of WLB among university academic leaders in a developing country context (Ethiopia).

Role Overload

Role overload refers to the perceived inability to meet the demands of multiple roles due to time or energy constraints (Coverman, 1989; Huo & Jiang, 2023). Empirically, role overload is linked to burnout and reduced job satisfaction, as noted in studies by Dewi & Susanti (2021) and Kim et al. (2017). For academic leaders, the pressure to meet work commitments often leaves little time for personal life, contributing to role conflict and reducing their work-life satisfaction (Dube & Ndofirepi, 2024). Research also suggests that high role overload negatively impacts mental and physical well-being (Kinman & Wray, 2020), reinforcing the need for strategies that alleviate these pressures.

Quality of Health

The relationship between work-family conflict and health outcomes has been well-documented, with substantial evidence linking work stress to physical and psychological health issues (Lawson et al., 2021). The Conservation of Resources (COR) theory suggests that individuals feel stress when they perceive a threat to or loss of resources, like health. In high-stress roles like academic leadership, health often suffers due to long hours, poor sleep, and limited time for self-care (Hobfoll, 2011; Uddin et al., 2023). Empirical studies show that poor WLB is associated with increased health complaints, such as fatigue, headaches, and even chronic illnesses (Borowiec & Drygas, 2022). Moreover, researchers have observed that a lack of physical and mental health support exacerbates work-family conflict, particularly in contexts with limited healthcare infrastructure (Frank et al., 2021).

Dependent Care Issues

Dependent care responsibilities, including childcare and eldercare, often complicate the WLB of working professionals (Bouget et al., 2017; Lam, 2024). Boundary theory explains that when there is insufficient separation between work and caregiving roles, individuals experience increased stress and difficulty fulfilling their work responsibilities (Gordon et al., 2012). Studies in Western contexts, such as those by Lahaie et al. (2013), indicate that dependent care demands intensify work-family conflicts, especially for women who typically bear a larger share of caregiving responsibilities. In underdeveloped countries, these challenges are compounded by a lack of institutional support for dependent care (Stevens et al., 2024). Dependent care issues can lead to absenteeism, decreased productivity, and greater mental strain, impacting both organizational effectiveness and individual well-being (Marecki, 2023).

Time Management

Effective time management is essential for balancing work and personal roles (Irfan et al., 2023). Theories like the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti & Bakker, 2023) suggest that time is a crucial resource that individuals use to cope with role demands. Poor time management is associated with increased stress and diminished job performance, as found in the study by Ma et al. (2020). Empirical research supports that employees who spend excessive time on work tasks often lack the energy to engage in family roles, leading to reduced WLB satisfaction (Lott & Wöhrmann, 2023). For academic leaders, whose roles often entail long hours and intense work demands, effective time management is essential but challenging, often resulting in insufficient time for family or self-care (Selim & Kee, 2022).

Support Networks

Social support is widely acknowledged as a buffer against work-life conflict (Uddin et al., 2023). Social support theory emphasizes the role of family, friends, and colleagues in providing emotional and instrumental resources to help individuals manage role-related stress (Thoits, 1995; Tian, 2024). In the WLB context, family and organizational support networks are crucial in enabling individuals to navigate role boundaries (Annink, 2017). Empirical studies, such as those by Yıldırım and Darıcan (2024), indicate that social support reduces job stress and improves WLB by providing individuals with the resources they need to handle competing demands. For academic leaders, strong support networks can play a key role in mitigating the stress associated with high workloads, dependent care responsibilities, and health challenges (Paitaridou et al., 2024).

Research Methodology

Study Design

The study applied a quantitative research design. A quantitative, descriptive method is utilized. There has been much discussion of the WLB of employees since the late 20th century, but the field has suffered from a lack of theoretical foundations and measurement tools, but the measurement contributions by Daniels and McCarraher (2000) and Fisher (2001) (see Dex & Bond, 2005; Mathew & Panchanatham, 2010). Lately, further refinements were made on those earlier measurement scales, when Mathew and Panchanatham (2011) introduced a more comprehensive, 40-item, six factors, and a 5-point scale for a WLB study (namely; 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly Agree). The target populations were academic leaders of public universities in Ethiopia. The sampling frame comprised academic leaders from eight public universities in Ethiopia, who have shown interest in participating in the study, and the targeted respondents have diverse positions, including directors, deans, associate deans, department heads, and coordinators.

Sampling

The participants in the survey were academic leaders from public universities in Ethiopia. Academic leaders are individuals who have ascribed crucial roles to lead and manage academic institutions, and they include department chairs, deans, directors, vice presidents, and presidents (Van den Brink, 2015). The Cochran (1977) formula was employed in sample size calculation, and the sample size (n) was:

n = \frac{Z^{2} pq}{e^{2}} = \frac{1.9 6^{2} * (0.5) (0.5)}{{(0.05)}^{2}} = 384

Where,

n = sample size

Z = the value on the Z table at 95% confidence level = 1.96

e = sampling error at 5%

p = maximum variability of the population at 50%, that is, (0.5)

q = 1 − p = 0.5.

While the study encompassed eight universities, the target population consisted specifically of academic leaders within those institutions. This included individuals holding diverse leadership roles (e.g., university presidents, vice presidents for academic affairs, vice presidents for administration and student affairs, vice presidents for research, vice presidents for strategic communication, directors of institutes, directors of functional areas [research, community engagement, etc.] deans, department heads, and coordinators) across numerous colleges and schools (e.g., College of Business, School of Law, College of Social Sciences, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Education and Language Studies, College of Technology, and many more) within each university. Consequently, obtaining a precise count of academic leaders from each institution and their colleges, schools, institutes, departments, and units proved challenging.

Ultimately, out of 384 distributed questionnaires, a total of 205 usable questionnaires were received from academic leaders of eight Ethiopia’s public universities who were willing to participate in the study. The respondents were drawn from Addis Ababa University, Gondar University, Bahir Dar University, Jigjiga University, Ambo University, Jimma University, Wollega University, and Addis Ababa Science and Technology University. The 205 complete questionnaires result in a response rate of 53%. A response rate of at least 50% is regarded as adequate for analysis and reporting (Nix et al., 2019; Nulty, 2008; Randall & Gibson, 1990). The main reasons for this not-so-large response rate were that, like most developing countries, COVID-19 reached Ethiopia later than many other regions (Gudina et al., 2021; Watare et al., 2022). Moreover, due to various factors – such as limited healthcare infrastructure, economic constraints, and the challenges associated with being a developing nation – the pandemic’s impact on Ethiopia has been particularly persistent and has been prevalent until recently (Ameya & Ayal, 2024). The country’s limited resources and preparedness have led to prolonged disruptions (Ayalew et al., 2024; Kassa et al., 2024). And this coincided with this study’s data collection period (June–August, 2022), when the activities of researchers and scholars (e.g., in data collection and other research activities) in such contexts have been adversely affected by COVID-19 (Lokhtina et al., 2022).

Instrument and Data Collection Technique

This quantitative study employed a survey based on Mathew and Panchanatham (2011) assessment scale to explore WLB among university academic leaders in Ethiopia. This comprehensive questionnaire comprises 40 item scale with 6 headings (dimensions/factors of WLB): (1) role overload (8 items), (2) quality of health (7 items), (3) dependent care issues (9 items), (4) time management (8 items), (5) support network (7 items), and (6) overall perception of WLB (1 item). In other words, the variables (dimensions/factors of WLB) include “role overload,”“quality of health,”“dependent care issues,”“time management,” and “support network” (Mathew & Panchanatham, 2011). The first part of the questionnaire also captured data that relate to the demographic characteristics of respondents – including age, gender, marital status, highest current academic teaching appointment and academic duties, number of years employed in an academic position, and discipline or faculty; which are typical variables in WLB studies involving academicians (Bell et al., 2012). The questionnaires were distributed through in-person paper surveys using a convenience sampling technique, provided that the respondents had academic leadership positions in their respective institutions and were willing to participate in the study. While convenience sampling offers practical advantages, this study acknowledges its potential for introducing bias. However, to mitigate this limitation, the researchers employed multiple sampling points, drawing participants from diverse leadership roles (Directors, Deans, Associate Deans, Department Heads, and Coordinators) across eight universities, thereby broadening the scope of perspectives captured.

Analysis technique

Speaking of the analysis approach that this study employed, most quantitative studies in the field of WLB apply a descriptive approach due to the contemporary nature of the subject of the study, especially in the context of developing countries (Aranganathan et al., 2017; Maurya et al, 2015; Mramba, 2024; Sani & Adisa, 2024), this study also applied descriptive analysis, relying mainly on mean analysis. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 26, was used to analyze the data.

Results and Discussion

Preliminary Statistics

A total of 205 questionnaires were returned from academic leaders from several public universities that were willing to participate in the study. A pilot study was carried out earlier, before the actual survey, with 10 % of the sample size according to the guidelines provided by Connelly (2008). The pilot study was useful to enhance the validity of the instrument (by making sure that the items in the instrument were clear and complete enough for the respondents). More importantly, as per the feedback of the pilot study, participants indicated that the study topic relates to sensitive issues, as many respondents felt that it might be revealing and requested not to be asked about the name of their university while filling out the questionnaire, and chose to stay anonymous. So, the researchers removed the question that required respondents to indicate the name of their institution, but segregated the returned questionnaires according to their institutions at least to identify the public universities that have participated in the study. Further, the COVID-19 pandemic made it difficult to gather the data from the entire sample size of 384. In aggregate, however, gender-wise, 81.5% (167) and 18.5% (38) of the respondents were males and females, respectively (See Table 1). This relates /corresponds to the fact that most leadership positions (including academic leadership) in the underdeveloped world are dominated by men (Kohtamäki et al., 2024; Oumer & Yilma, 2024).

Table 1.

Gender.

Gender	Frequency	Percent	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
Valid
Male	167	81.5	81.5	81.5
Female	38	18.5	18.5	100.0
Total	205	100.0	100.0

Table 2 illustrates the academic positions of the respondents. Accordingly, 38 directors (18.5%), 15 deans (7.3%), 38 associate deans (18.5%), 38 department heads (18.5%), and 76 coordinators (37.1%) participated in the study. Attempts made by the researcher and the data collectors to get the responses of academic leaders holding vice president and president positions did not succeed. This is due to the sensitive nature of the study topics, and the people in higher positions might think that their responses will easily be singled out and will also be revealing. The study attempted to keep the identities of respondents as anonymous as possible, but did not work to capture the views of the vice presidents and presidents of universities.

Table 2.

Academic Leadership Position.

Positions	Frequency	Percent	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
Valid
Directors	38	18.5	18.5	18.5
Deans	15	7.3	7.3	25.9
Associate deans	38	18.5	18.5	44.4
Department heads	38	18.5	18.5	62.9
Coordinators	76	37.1	37.1	100.0
Total	205	100.0	100.0

Descriptive Study Results

This section exhibits the major findings of the study that investigated the WLB circumstances of the academic leaders in terms of the following factors (dimensions): (1) role overload; (2) quality of health; (3) dependent care issues; (4) time management; (5) support network; and (6) overall perception of WLB. Besides, it is worth noting that the descriptive analysis relied on the “mean/average” analysis. As such, according to Pihie et al. (2009), a mean score below 3.39 is considered low, a mean score from 3.40 up to 3.79 is considered moderate, and a mean score above 3.8 is considered high (See Table 3).

Table 3.

Comparison Based on the Mean Score of a 5-Point Likert Scale Instrument.

Mean score description	Mean score description
<3.39	Low
3.40–3.79	Moderate
>3.80	High

Source. Pihie et al. (2009).

Result of Factor 1: Role Overload

Table 4 demonstrates the descriptive results of eight items that measured the status of role overload among academic leaders.

Table 4.

Role Overload.

No.	Factor 1: Role overload	N	Mean		Std. deviation
		Statistic	Statistic	Std. error	Statistic
1	As my subordinates/colleagues look after the daily roles, I am quite contented in my life	205	2.5171	0.04406	0.63087
2	I have become a successful leader by sacrificing many of my family roles	205	3.2585	0.05251	0.75179
3	Due to excessive workload and lack of time, I am not able to give proper attention to my personal life as well as to my work	205	4.3707	0.03382	0.48418
4	As I have to do multiple roles in the family, my leadership career is suffering	205	3.6293	0.05441	0.77909
5	My family life often suffers due to my leadership role at the workplace	205	3.0732	0.04637	0.66385
6	As I am burdened with work and family roles, I find it difficult to attend social/community activities	205	4.0000	0.00000	0.00000
7	I am too fatigued to look after my leadership duties due to the workload in the family	205	3.2585	0.06763	0.96837
8	I have to perform many roles in a given time	205	4.1854	0.02721	0.38955
	Overall mean	205	3.48		0.58.

Accordingly, concerning item 1 of the role overload, which examined how content the academic leaders are with their subordinates, the mean result turned out to be 2.51, which is considered low. This indicates that academic leaders are not content with their subordinates. Concerning item 2, which deals with the necessity to sacrifice family roles, the mean value was 3.26. This mean score is still considered low. So, the result shows that academic leaders are sacrificing many of their family roles to succeed in their leadership positions. Concerning item 3, which is about lack of giving proper attention to oneself and work, the mean result turned out to be 4.37. A mean score of 4.37 is pretty high, and it testifies that the academic leaders are faced with a high workload, and this has caused them not to pay proper attention to their personal life and their work.

Concerning item 4, which is concerned with the issue of a compromised leadership career due to multiple roles, the mean score turned out to be 3.62, which is a moderate mean score. And that still entails that the academic leaders struggle with multiple roles. Item 5 was about whether the academic leaders’ families often suffer due to their leadership role at work, and the mean score was 3.07, which is low. This indicates that the families of the academic leaders suffer due to the leadership role that the academic leader has at work. Speaking of item 6 – whether the academic leaders are burdened with work and family roles, and finding it difficult to attend social/community activities, the mean score was 4, which is high. This implies that the academic leaders are burdened with work and family roles, and this is making it difficult for them to attend social/community activities. Next, concerning item 7 (whether they are too fatigued to look after their leadership duties due to workload in the family), the mean score result was 3.25, and this is considered low. This implies that academic leaders are not too fatigued to the extent of being unable to handle their leadership duties. Finally, for item 8 (performing many roles in a given time), the mean score was 4.12, which is a high score. This asserts that academic leaders perform many roles at a time.

Thus, concerning the first factor (Role overload), the study found that academic leaders are faced with several role overload issues. The empirical result shows that academic leaders are not content with their subordinates; they are sacrificing many of their family roles to succeed in their leadership position, and they are faced with a high workload and which is not allowing them to pay proper attention to their personal life and their work as well. Besides, the academic leaders struggle with multiple roles; they are burdened with work and family roles, making it difficult for them to attend social activities, and they are also under the pressure of performing multiple roles at a time. The aggregate mean score (3.48) is not impressive either.

Result of Factor 2: Quality of Health

Table 5 demonstrates the results of 7 items that measured the status of the quality of health among the academic leaders.

Table 5.

Quality of Health.

No.	Factor 2: Quality of health	N	Mean		Std. deviation
		Statistic	Statistic	Std. error	Statistic
1	Due to work/family issues and lack of time, I find it difficult to take care of my health	205	3.9268	0.01823	0.26105
2	The role conflict in work and family life puts a lot of stress	205	4.1854	0.02721	0.38955
3	I feel angry with my subordinates (employees) and family members as I am not able to balance my work and family issues	205	3.8146	0.02721	0.38955
4	As my work/duty drains away my energy and time, I feel sick at home	205	3.8146	0.02721	0.38955
5	Being satisfied in the work and family domains, I feel relaxed and sleep very well	205	2.1463	0.03647	0.52211
6	After becoming an academic leader, I frequently visit my physician for health issues	205	2.3707	0.03382	0.48418
7	My health problems are related to the long and continuous work schedule	205	3.1000	0.04263	0.61037
	Overall mean	205	3.34		0.44.

As shown in Table 5, the first item under the factor called – quality of health, relates to the issue of difficulty in taking care of one’s health due to work/family issues and lack of time. Accordingly, the mean score for this item was 3.92, which is high, and this indicates that the academic leaders do find it difficult to take care of their health due to the work/family issue and lack of time. The second item under quality of health is related to the issue of stress due to role conflict, and the mean score was 4.18, which is a pretty high score. The implication is that the academic leaders are dealing with lots of stress due to role conflict in their work and family life. Regarding the third item – feeling angry with subordinates and family members because of the inability to balance work and family issues, the mean result was 3.81. This is a high score and signifies that academic leaders are disappointed with their subordinates and family members as they are not able to balance work and family issues.

Concerning the issue of whether the duties are draining away their energy and time and feeling sick at home (fourth item), the mean result was 3.81, which is still a high score. This implies that the work/duty drains the energy of the academic leaders, and they feel sick at home. For the fifth item under the quality of health (being satisfied in the work and family domains, and feeling relaxed and sleeping very well), the mean score value was 2.15. This low mean score implies that the academic leaders are not satisfied with the work and family domains, and they do not feel relaxed and sleep very well. The sixth item of quality of health (after becoming an academic leader, the academic leader frequently visits his/her physician for health issues) produced a low mean score value of 2.37. This means that there is no way to imply that academic leaders frequently visit their physicians for health issues after becoming academic leaders. However, for the last item of quality of health –“my health problems are related to the long and continuous work schedule”– the mean score was 3.1. This is a low mean score, implying that currently, the long and continuous work schedule has no major influence on the health of the academic leaders.

Hence, about the second factor (Quality of health), the study found that there are still serious concerns. Academic leaders are dealing with lots of stress due to role conflict in work and family life; they have disappointment with their subordinates and family members as they are not able to balance work and family issues; the work/duty drains the energy of the academic leaders and they feel sick at home, and the academic leaders are not satisfied in the work and family domains, and they do not feel relaxed and sleep very well. The aggregate mean (3.34) score also proves this concern.

Result of Factor 3: Dependent Care Issues

Table 6 illustrates the results of nine items that examined the status of dependent care issues among the academic leaders.

Table 6.

Dependent Care Issues.

No.	Factor 3: Dependent care issues	N	Mean		Std. deviation
		Statistic	Statistic	Std. error	Statistic
1	I feel free and enjoy my profession, as I have no dependent care issues	205	2.4439	0.05502	0.78779
2	My kid/s are looked after by me	205	3.443902	0.0696038	0.9965747
3	I cannot concentrate on my work due to dependent care problems	205	4.0000	0.04263	0.61037
4	My spouse (partner) demands greater attention from me	205	4.0000	0.04263	0.61037
5	I am taking care of my aged parent(s)/in-law(s)	205	3.0732	0.06298	0.90180
6	I find it more difficult to manage the elder care issues	205	2.8878	0.05498	0.78721
7	I find it more difficult to manage the child care needs	205	3.6293	0.03382	0.48418
8	I find it difficult to manage my work and dependent care issues at home simultaneously	205	3.6293	0.05441	0.77909
9	My preoccupation with work does not allow me to provide the dependent care needs at home, leading to conflict	205	3.6293	0.03382	0.48418
	Overall mean	205	3.38		0.72

As can be seen from Table 6, the mean score value of 2.44 for the first item under dependent care issues (“I feel free and enjoy my profession, as I have no dependent care issues”) is pretty low. This implies that academic leaders do not feel free and enjoy their profession, as they still have to deal with dependent care issues. Regarding the second item – kid (s) being looked after by the academic leader, the mean score value is 3.44, which is a moderate score and implies that the academic leaders have responsibility at home to look after their kids.

Concerning the issue of difficulty concentrating on their work due to dependent care problems (third item), the mean score value was 4.0. And it is a high mean score. This implies that academic leaders have difficulty concentrating on their work due to dependent care issues. Regarding the fourth item under the dependent care issues (spouse/partner demanding greater attention), the mean score was again 4.0. This is a high score, and it implies that the academic leaders have certain issues/pressures from their spouses/partners to give them attention. Regarding the issue of whether the academic leaders have to take care of their aged parent(s)/in-laws (s) (item 5), the result holds a mean score value of 3.07, which is a low score. And this implies that the academic leaders are not that busy with taking care of their aged parents.

Concerning the issue of whether academic leaders find it difficult to manage elder care issues (item 6), the mean score value became 2.89. This is a low score, and it implies that the academic leaders are not burdened with elder care issues. However, speaking of whether the academic leaders find it more difficult to manage the child care needs (item 7), the mean score was 3.63, which is a moderate score, and this implies that the academic leaders are faced with difficulty managing the child care needs. Besides, regarding the issue of whether the academic leaders find it difficult to manage my work and dependent care issues at home simultaneously (item 8), the mean score value was 3.63. Again, this is a moderate mean score and asserts that the academic leaders have certain difficulty managing their work and dependent care issues at home simultaneously. More so, concerning the last item –“my preoccupation with work does not allow me to provide dependent care needs at home leading to the conflict,” the mean score was 3.63. A mean score value of 3.63 is a moderate score, and it tends to confirm that the academic leaders are preoccupied with work, and this does not allow them to provide dependent care needs at home, leading to conflict.

Therefore, regarding the dependent care issues, the study has found that academic leaders are faced with certain difficulties in this regard. The aggregate mean score (3.38) for this variable is not satisfactory. Among others, it is found out that the academic leaders do not feel free and enjoy their profession, as they still have dependent care issues; they have responsibility at home to look after their kids; they have difficulty concentrating on their work due to dependent care issues; the academic leaders have certain issues/pressures from their spouse/partners to give them time; the academic leaders are faced with a difficulty to manage the child care needs; they have certain difficulty to manage their work and dependent care issues at home simultaneously; and also they are preoccupied with work and this does not allow them to provide adequate dependent care needs at home leading to conflict.

Result of Factor 4: Time Management

As depicted in Table 7 (Time Management), the first item assessed the issue of whether the academic leaders come from the office late in the evening (item 1). Accordingly, the mean score value was 3.62, which is a moderate score, implying that the academic leaders usually come home late in the evening after spending long hours at work. On the second item under the time management dimension, which focuses on the issue of whether the academic leaders have enough time to spend on family duties and societal roles, the mean score value was 2.93.

Table 7.

Time Management.

No.	Factor 4: Time management	N	Mean		Std. deviation
		Statistic	Statistic	Std. error	Statistic
1	I often came from the office late in the evening	205	3.6293	0.03382	0.48418
2	I have enough time to spend on family duties and societal roles	205	2.9268	0.08719	1.24834
3	The long hours of work make me stressed and short-tempered	205	3.2976	0.05966	0.85420
4	I have to leave home early in the morning to engage in my leadership duty	205	4.0000	0.04263	0.61037
5	My work does not give me enough time to perform family/social duties	205	3.6293	0.06912	0.98971
6	I remain engaged in my work for more than 10 hr/day	205	3.8146	0.05057	0.72408
7	Due to work needs, I find it difficult to spend evenings and weekends with my family	205	4.1854	0.05057	0.72408
8	My time resources are equally distributed between work and home	205	2.3707	0.06912	0.98971
	Overall mean	205	3.00		0.70.

This is a low mean score value, and that indicates that the academic leaders have no adequate time to spend on family duties and societal roles. The third item is related to the issue of whether the long hours of work make academic leaders stressed and short-tempered. The mean result was 3.29, which is low. This result indicates that there is not enough evidence to imply that the academic leaders are being stressed and short-tempered due to the long hours of work.

The fourth item under the heading of time management examined whether academic leaders have to leave home early in the morning to engage in their leadership duties. The mean score value for this item was 4.0. This is a high score, and it implies that the academic leaders leave their homes early to engage in their academic duties. Regarding the fifth item, which inquires whether their work does not give them enough time to perform family/social duties, the mean score was 3.63, which is moderate, and implies that the academic leaders believe that their work does not give them enough time to perform family/social duties. The sixth item was concerned with investigating whether the academic leaders remained engaged in their work for more than 10 hr/day. The mean score result was 3.81 for this particular item, which is a high mean score, and it affirms that the academic leaders remain engaged in their work for long hours.

The seventh item assessed whether the academic leaders find it difficult to spend evenings and weekends with their family due to work needs. The mean score result for this item was 4.18, which is again a high score, and it implies that the academic leaders are faced with demanding work needs that make it difficult for them to spend evenings and weekends with my family. Finally, the last item under the dimension of time management assessed whether the academic leaders’ time resources are equally distributed between work and home. The mean score was 2.37 (a low score), and this confirms that the academic leaders do not have their time equally distributed between work and home.

In sum, speaking of the fourth factor/dimension of WLB, the study discovered that academic leaders are also faced with time management problems (with an aggregate mean score of 3.00) – due to the nature of their work, the academic leaders usually come home late in the evening; they have no adequate time to spend on family duties and societal roles; they have to leave their homes early to engage in their academic duties; their work does not give them enough time to perform family/social duties; they remain engaged in their work for long hours; they are faced with demanding work needs, and that makes it difficult for them to spend the evenings and weekends with my family; and the academic leaders do not have their time equally distributed between work and home.

Result of Factor 5: Support Network

As shown in Table 8, the first item under support network assessed whether the academic leaders could have concentrated more on their work if the social support network was available to them, and the mean score result for this item was 3.74, which is a moderate score that might imply that the academic leaders do not get adequate support system networks and this made it difficult for them to concentrate in their work. The second item was regarding whether the academic leaders have a social support network that is very helpful in dealing with dependent care issues. The mean score result was 2.89 for this particular item, which is deemed low, and it means that the academic leaders believe that the social support system is not that great in dealing with their dependent care issues. Regarding the issue of whether the academic leader is being respected and helped by society for being an academic leader (item 3), the mean score value turned out to be 2.56, which is low. This implies that the academic leaders do not believe that they are respected and helped by society.

Table 8.

Support Network.

No.	Factor 5: Support network	N	Mean		Std. deviation
		Statistic	Statistic	Std. error	Statistic
1	I could have concentrated more on my work if the social support network had been available to me	205	3.7415	0.06763	0.96837
2	My social support network is very helpful in dealing with dependent care issues	205	2.8878	0.05498	0.78721
3	Being an academic leader, I am respected and helped by society	205	2.5561	0.06960	0.99657
4	My family provides me with the strength and support to face the challenges of my work	205	3.6293	0.03382	0.48418
5	My family members are overstretched to make me successful in my work	205	3.6293	0.03382	0.48418
6	My family members are not willing to listen to my work-related/personal problems	205	2.1854	0.05057	0.72408
7	My spouse/partner understands and accommodates my preoccupation as an academic leader	205	3.4439	0.03479	0.49806
	Overall mean		3.17		0.71.

In addition to the fourth item (“my family provides me the strength and support to face the challenges of my work”), the mean score was 3.63, which is moderate. This implies that academic leaders believe that their family provides them with the strength and support to face the challenges of their work to a certain extent. Concerning the issue of whether the family members of the academic leaders are overstretched to make the academic leader successful in their work (item 5), the mean score result turned 3.63, which is a moderate score and it implies that the academic leaders believe that their family members are overstretched to a certain extent to make the academic leaders successful in their work. Regarding the sixth item – whether their family members are not willing to listen to their work-related/personal problems, the mean score result was 2.18, which is low. This means that academic leaders do not believe that their family members are not willing to listen to their work-related/personal problems. The last item (item 7) assessed whether the academic leader’s spouse/partner understands and accommodates his/her preoccupation as an academic leader. Accordingly, the mean score value was 3.44, which is moderate. This implies that even though it is not that great, the academic leaders believe that their spouses/partners understand and accommodate their preoccupation as academic leaders.

Consequently, speaking of the support network dimension/factor of WLB, there are also concerning results (with an aggregate mean score of 3.17) – the academic leaders do not get adequate support system networks and this made it difficult for them to concentrate on their work; they believe that the social support system is not that great in dealing with their dependent care issues; they do not believe being academic leaders, they are respected and helped by the society, and they believe that their family members are overstretched to make the academic leaders successful in their work.

Result of Factor 6: Overall Perception of Work-Life Balance

Table 9 contains the mean score result for the inquiry –“Overall, I am having a satisfactory level of WLB,” and the mean score is 2.33, which is a low score. This implies that the academic leaders do not believe that they have a satisfactory level of WLB. In other words, regarding the issue of whether academic leaders have a satisfactory level of WLB in general, the study found that academic leaders believe that they do not have a satisfactory level of WLB.

Table 9.

The Overall Perception of Work-Life Balance.

No.	Factor 5: Overall perception of work-life balance	N	Mean		Std. deviation
		Statistic	Statistic	Std. error	Statistic
1	Overall, I have a satisfactory level of WLB.	205	2.3317	0.06018	0.861

Discussion

Concerning the study, examining the dimensions of role overload, quality of health, dependent care issues, time management, and support networks provides crucial insights into the challenges of WLB within underdeveloped country contexts, such as Ethiopia. Each of these dimensions scored low in WLB assessments, suggesting significant areas where employees struggle to balance their work and personal lives.

The findings indicate a low mean score for Role Overload, highlighting significant challenges in balancing leadership duties with personal and family roles. This strain reflects a chronic conflict between work and family responsibilities, which is consistent with studies showing that leaders in underdeveloped countries often feel overburdened due to limited supportive infrastructures (Eslami et al., 2024; Irfan et al., 2023). Excessive demands in both spheres can compromise career progress and family satisfaction (Khalil et al., 2020; Vatharkar & Aggarwal-Gupta, 2020). In line with Huo and Jiang (2023) research demonstrating that unresolved role conflicts lead to emotional exhaustion, the Ethiopian context shows similar stress levels, particularly given limited support for WLB. Magtalas (2024) noted that without organizational support, leaders are more prone to burnout, especially when personal time is frequently sacrificed, contrasting with findings in developed contexts (Uddin et al., 2020), where support networks help mitigate role overload. Ali et al. (2024) suggest that role overload reduces job satisfaction and hinders leadership effectiveness, underlining the need for systematic policy solutions. Supportive measures like flexible work options could significantly alleviate role overload challenges for leaders in this context.

The low mean score for Quality of Health indicates that work and family demands significantly impact the health of academic leaders, with work-family conflict contributing to stress and physical health issues. This aligns with the previous study of Fauzi et al. (2024), who found that such conflict leads to higher stress and poor health. Similarly, Koşarsoy and Özgül (2024) and Rahmasari et al. (2024) highlighted how workload and family responsibilities cause emotional distress and physical fatigue. Additionally, frequent healthcare visits, as reported in the study aligne with previous finding that there is a link between job demands and health problems (Rony et al., 2023). However, satisfaction in both domains can improve health, as noted by Shah and Gawande (2024). The findings suggest that academic leaders in Ethiopia face significant health challenges, emphasizing the need for organizational support to reduce the health risks associated with work-family conflict, as also stressed by Alameddine et al. (2023) and Medina-Garrido et al. (2023). These results highlight the importance of better WLB policies in Ethiopia.

The low mean score for Dependent Care Issues reflects the challenges faced by academic leaders in balancing work and caregiving responsibilities, particularly for children and elderly parents. This aligns with findings from Sheikh et al. (2018) and Van Egdom et al. (2024), who noted that caregiving duties create significant stress and role conflict, impairing work performance. Studies by Urooj et al. (2023) and Wen et al. (2024) further emphasize the negative impact of dependent care on job satisfaction and work-family conflict. Academic leaders, in particular, are often overwhelmed by long working hours and emotional demands, as highlighted by Rosa (2022). However, some leaders in the study reported better job satisfaction in the absence of dependent care responsibilities, which aligns with King (2018), suggesting that reducing caregiving burdens can enhance both professional and personal well-being. These findings underline the need for support systems to help leaders manage dependent care challenges effectively, ultimately improving WLB.

The low mean score for Time Management suggests that academic leaders face significant challenges in balancing their work responsibilities with personal and family obligations. The long hours spent at work, often leading to late evenings and early mornings, leave little time for family and social roles (Ugwu et al., 2024). This is consistent with the findings of Clark (2000), who emphasized that work demands often result in time scarcity, leading to work-life imbalance (Ingstad & Haugan, 2024). Additionally, the stress and irritability caused by excessive work hours align with studies by García-Buades et al. (2024), who found that time pressures lead to role conflict and increased stress. While time allocation between work and home appears to be a challenge, the findings also resonate with the work of Mathur et al. (2024), who noted that poor time management results in dissatisfaction in both personal and professional spheres. Despite the demands, the need for effective time management strategies, as highlighted by Das et al. (2024), remains evident in improving overall WLB. These challenges reflect broader issues in underdeveloped contexts like Ethiopia, where academic leaders struggle to balance multiple roles with limited time, pointing to the need for better time management policies and practices.

The low mean score for Support Network indicates that academic leaders in Ethiopia struggle to balance work and personal life due to limited social and family support. While some receive help from family, others face overstretched support, increasing stress, and role overload. This aligns with Halinski and Duxbury (2024) and Mattarelli et al. (2024) findings, which highlighted the importance of social support in reducing stress. Mubashir et al. (2023) noted that weak support networks lead to higher work-family conflict. Ganapathi et al. (2023) also emphasized that family members often bear the emotional strain, affecting WLB. Despite societal respect, the lack of robust support systems hinders effective role management. Studies by Azpíroz-Dorronsoro et al. (2024) and French et al. (2018) stress the need for organizational and social support to reduce work-family conflict. Strengthening support networks in Ethiopia is crucial for improving academic leaders’ WLB and well-being.

The low mean score of Overall, I am having a satisfactory level of WLB highlights a generally low level of perceived WLB among academic leaders. This finding suggests that they face challenges in balancing professional and personal responsibilities effectively, leading to an overall unsatisfactory WLB. This result aligns with previous studies, such as those by Paudel et al. (2024) and Dube and Ndofirepi (2024), which emphasize the impact of work demands on personal life satisfaction (Sani & Adisa, 2024). The low score underscores the need for enhanced support systems and policies to address WLB for academic leaders in challenging contexts like Ethiopia.

Conclusions

As noted in the foregoing sections of this paper, this study examined the WLB issues among academic leaders from public universities in a developing country context, where there is a paucity of similar studies. In other words, the study exhibited empirical evidence surrounding the WLB circumstances of academic leaders in the study setting in line with the WLB dimensions that this study drew on – role overload, quality of health, dependent care issues, time management, and support networks. Accordingly, the study found that the academic leaders have compromised WLB realities concerning all five dimensions. There are concerns about role overload (e.g., pressure of performing multiple roles at a time); quality of health (e.g., dealing with lots of stress due to role conflict in work and family life); dependent care issues (e.g., preoccupation with work inhibiting the academic leaders from providing adequate dependent care needs at home leading to conflict); time management (e.g., lack of adequate time to spend on family duties and societal roles); and support system (e.g., weak social support system making circumstances difficult for the academic leaders to concentrate on their work). Thus, generally, in addition to extending WLB studies to less-studied regions of the world, this study provides theoretical, empirical, practical, social, and managerial contributions/implications.

Theoretical Contribution

This study could help narrow our knowledge gap in the subject of the study by providing insight on the WLB of academic leaders in a developing country context, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of this issue across diverse contexts. Research specifically addressing academic leaders in developing countries remains limited. By examining five key dimensions – role overload, quality of health, dependent care issues, time management, and support networks – the study highlights the nature of WLB among academic leaders in the study context. It also underscores the relevance of boundary theory in capturing the complex interplay between professional and personal roles.

Empirical Contribution

This study is an empirical research and produced empirical evidence regarding the subject of WLB among academic leaders in a developing country context. As such, the empirical contribution is that it provided empirical evidence regarding the WLB circumstances of academic leaders from less-reported territories, and this helps to extend the subject of WLB to understudied territories. Therefore, this empirical study could be a contribution to filling the knowledge gap on WLB from this part of the world.

Managerial, Practical, and Social Implications

In addition to the empirical contribution stated in the preceding paragraph, the study also has managerial, social, and practical implications as it provides valuable insight for university administrators, policymakers, educators, researchers, and other relevant stakeholders in the study context about the nature and status of the WLB of academic leaders in the study setting. In other words, apart from realizing/understanding the status of WLB among academic leaders in the studied setting, a concerted effort is required from these diverse groups of stakeholders to improve the WLB of academic leaders in the study context. In other words, as the study discovered, the academic leaders have a compromised WLB; this requires immediate action by way of attempting to strike a balance between the work and life boundaries of the academic leaders. Among others, university administrators and policymakers/regulators of the education sector of the country could consider implementing plausible WLB policies at the organizational (university) level as well as at the sectoral level (higher education sector) to redress the problem. Moreover, educators, researchers, and other professionals and associations (NGOs and civic society institutions) that are concerned about the subject of WLB in the study context may need to work on expanding awareness on the subject and importance of WLB, which is in an infant stage in the study setting.

Limitation of the Study and Future Research Avenues

Finally, it is worth noting that, similar to other research works, this study has limitations that can serve as an avenue for future research opportunities. Among others, as this study only investigated the WLB of academic leaders from public universities in the country, future studies may consider examining the WLB of academic leaders in private higher learning institutions in the study setting. Besides, this study explored academic leaders’ WLB through dimensions of role overload, quality of health, dependent care issues, time management, and support networks. Future researchers could examine the WLB circumstances by incorporating other important factors such as boundary management, emotional labor, and organizational culture. Considering these additional dimensions will provide a more holistic understanding of the evolving WLB experiences of academic leaders.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Temesgen Abebaw Wonda

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the College of Business and Economics at Addis Ababa University. Data were collected using a questionnaire, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. The voluntary nature of participation was clearly communicated, including the right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Anonymity was ensured, and all responses were handled with strict confidentiality.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study will be provided upon reasonable request by the corresponding author.

References

Abubaker

Bagley

(2016). Work–life balance and the needs of female employees in the telecommunications industry in a developing country: A critical realist approach to issues in industrial and organisational social psychology. Comprehensive Psychology, 5(1), 1–12.

Adah

C. A.

Aghimien

D. O.

Oshodi

(2023). Work–life balance in the construction industry: a bibliometric and narrative review. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32, 38–58.

Adisa

T. A.

Antonacopoulou

Beauregard

T. A.

Dickmann

Adekoya

O. D.

(2022). Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on employees’ boundary management and work–life balance. British Journal of Management, 33(4), 1694–1709.

Akanji

Mordi

Ajonbadi

H. A.

(2020). The experiences of work-life balance, stress, and coping lifestyles of female professionals: Insights from a developing country. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 42(4), 999–1015.

Alameddine

Al-Yateem

Bou-Karroum

Hijazi

Al Marzouqi

Al-Adawi

(2023). Measurement of work-life balance: A scoping review with a focus on the health sector. Journal of Nursing Management, 2023(1), 3666224.

Ali

Naz

Azhar

(2024). Work-life balance, career motivation and women: a systematic literature review and research agenda in the Indian context. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 40(3), 467–504.

Ameya

Ayal

D. Y.

(2024). Navigating the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic: Unpacking food insecurity, coping strategies, and associated factors among informal workers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 10(1), 2412370.

Amirkamali

Casper

W. J.

Hyde

S. A.

Wayne

J. H.

Vaziri

(2024). Setting our boundaries: The role of gender, values, and role salience in work–home boundary permeability. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97, 1076–1099.

Annink

(2017). From social support to capabilities for the work–life balance of independent professionals. Journal of Management & Organization, 23(2), 258–276.

10.

Aranganathan

Vignesh

Soniya

(2017). Work-life balance in Indian print media industry: A descriptive research. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research (IJEMR), 7(6), 43–50.

11.

Arif

Farooqi

. (2014). Impact of work life balance on job satisfaction and organizational commitment among university teachers: A case study of university of Gujrat, Pakistan. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Engineering, 5(9), 24–29

12.

Ayalew

A. F.

Tamir

Mitiku

(2024). Quality of work life and associated factors among health professionals working at private and government health institutions in Awi zone, Amhara regional state, Ethiopia, 2022: A comparative cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1377145.

13.

Aziz

N. S.

(2014). Stress management coping strategies among academic leaders in an institution of higher learning. Universiti Teknologi MARA.

14.

Azpíroz-Dorronsoro

Fernández-Muñiz

Montes-Peón

J. M.

Vázquez-Ordás

C. J.

(2024). Technostress and work-family conflict in ICT-user employees during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of social support and mindfulness. Behaviour & Information Technology, 43(8), 1531–1553.

15.

Badri

S. K. Z.

(2024). Evaluating higher education (HE) work design to sustain academics’ work–life balance. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(1), 134–149.

16.

Banker

D. V.

Bhal

. (2020). Creating world class universities: Roles and responsibilities for academic leaders in India, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(3), 570–590

17.

Bell

A. S.

Rajendran

Theiler

(2012). Job stress, wellbeing, work-life balance and work-life conflict among Australian academics. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(1), 25–37

18.

Bikmoradi

Brommels

Shoghli

Khorasani-Zavareh

Masiello

(2010). Identifying challenges for academic leadership in medical universities in Iran. Medical Education, 44, 459–467.

19.

Borowiec

A. A.

Drygas

(2022). Work–life balance and mental and physical health among Warsaw specialists, managers and entrepreneurs. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), 492.

20.

Bouget

Saraceno

Spasova

(2017). Towards new work-life balance policies for those caring for dependent relatives. In Vanhercke

Sebastiano

Bouget

(Eds.), Social policy in the European Union: State of play (pp. 27–28).

21.

Bryan

L. K.

Wilson

C. A.

(2014). Shaping work-life culture in higher education: A guide for academic leaders. Routledge.

22.

Byrne

(2005). Work-life balance: Why are we talking about it at all? Business Information Review, 22(1), 53–59.

23.

Calzón-Menéndez

Sacristán-Navarro

Cabeza-García

(2023). The determinants of work-life balance practices in Spanish listed companies. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 36(3), 407–425.

24.

Cannizzo

Osbaldiston

(2016). Academic work/life balance: A brief quantitative analysis of the Australian experience. Journal of Sociology, 52(4), 890–906.

25.

Cingiene

(2024). Exploring meanings of work-nonwork boundaries (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Queen Mary University of London.

26.

Clark

S. C.

(2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human relations, 53(6), 747–770.

27.

Cochran

W. G.

(1977). Sampling Techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

28.

Connelly

L. M.

(2008). Pilot studies. Medsurg Nursing, 17(6), 411–412.

29.

Coverman

(1989). Role overload, role conflict, and stress: Addressing consequences of multiple role demands. Social Forces, 67(4), 965–982.

30.

Daniels

McCarraher

(2000). The work-life manual. Industrial Society.

31.

Das

Sahoo

Panda

P. R.

(2024). Work-life balance practices’ contribution to increasing organizational effectiveness in a sustainable workforce. In E. Shaikh (Ed.), In Impact of corporate social responsibility on employee wellbeing (pp. 223–250). IGI Global.

32.

De Cieri

Holmes

Abbott

Pettit

(2005). Achievements and challenges for work/life balance strategies in Australian organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), 90–103.

33.

Delecta

(2011). Work life balance. International Journal of Current Research, 3(4), 186–189.

34.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

(2023). Job demands-resources theory in times of crises: New propositions. Organizational Psychology Review, 13(3), 209–236.

35.

Demir

Budur

(2023). Work–life balance and performance relations during COVID 19 outbreak: a case study among university academic staff. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 15(2), 449–472.

36.

Dewi

S. P.

Susanti

(2021). Effect of work overload on job satisfaction through burnout. Jurnal Manajemen, 25(1), 56–75.

37.

Dex

Bond

(2005). Measuring work-life balance and its covariates. Work, employment and society, 19(3), 627–637.

38.

Dube

Ndofirepi

T. M.

(2024). Academic staff commitment in the face of a role (im) balance between work and personal life: Can job satisfaction help? European Journal of Management Studies, 29(1), 31–50.

39.

Eacott

Asuga

G. N.

(2014). School leadership preparation and development in Africa: A critical insight. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(6), 919–934.

40.

Eikhof

Warhust

Hauschild

(2007). Introduction: What work? What life? What balance? Critical reflections on the work-life balance debate. Employee Relations, 29(4), 325–333.

41.

Ekman

Lindgren

Packendorff

(2018). Universities need leadership, academics need management: discursive tensions and voids in the deregulation of Swedish higher education legislation. Higher Education, 75, 299–321.

42.

Eslami

Hashemian

S. M.

Khorakian

Adibzadeh

(2024). How role overload affects female teachers’ work-life balance crafting behaviours: A coexistence collective moderation model. International Journal of Management in Education, 18(1), 46–69.

43.

Fatima

Sahibzada

S. A.

(2012). An empirical analysis of factors affecting work life balance among university teachers: The case of Pakistan. Journal of International Academic Research, 12(1), 16–29

44.

Fauzi

M. A.

Rahamaddulla

S. R.

Lee

C. K.

Ali

Alias

U. N.

(2024). Work pressure in higher education: A state of the art bibliometric analysis on academic work–life balance. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 17(2), 175–195.

45.

Felstead

Jewson

Phizacklea

Walters

(2002). Opportunities to work at home in the context of work–life balance. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(1), 54–76.

46.

Fisher

G. G.

(2001). Work/personal life balance: A construct development study. Bowling Green State University.

47.

Fisher

G. G.

(2002). Work/personal life balance: A construct development study. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(1-B), 575.

48.

Flowers

(2020). Perceptions of work-life management among women at a higher education institution in Illinois. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

49.

Frank

Zhao

Fang

Rotenstein

L. S.

Sen

Guille

(2021). Experiences of work-family conflict and mental health symptoms by gender among physician parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Network Open, 4(11), e2134315.

50.

French

K. A.

Dumani

Allen

T. D.

Shockley

K. M.

(2018). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and social support. Psychological Bulletin, 144(3), 284.

51.

Ganapathi

Aithal

Kanchana

(2023). Impact of work-life balance and stress management on job satisfaction among the working women in higher educational institutions in Namakkal District. International Journal of Case Studies in Business, IT and Education (IJCSBE), 7(4), 281–293.

52.

García-Buades

M. E.

Montañez-Juan

Blahopoulou

Ortiz-Bonnin

Chela-Alvarez

Bulilete

Llobera

(2024). Psychosocial work factors, job stress, and self-rated health among hotel housekeepers. Workplace Health & Safety, 73(3), 116–130.

53.

Gerçek

(2024). From dual roles to dynamic equilibrium: An overview of theoretical perspectives used in studies addressing work-life struggles of working mothers. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 19(1), 188–203.

54.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing.

55.

Gmelch

W. H.

(2002). Deans’ balancing acts: Education leaders and the challenges they face. AACTE Publications.

56.

Gordon

J. R.

Pruchno

R. A.

Wilson-Genderson

Murphy

W. M.

Rose

(2012). Balancing caregiving and work: Role conflict and role strain dynamics. Journal of Family Issues, 33(5), 662–689.

57.

Gregory

Milner

(2009). Work–life balance: A matter of choice? Gender, Work and Organization, 16(1), 1–13.

58.

Gudina

E. K.

Gobena

Debela

Yilma

Girma

Mekonnen

Woldie

Abdena

Shume

Kenate

(2021). COVID-19 in Oromia Region of Ethiopia: A review of the first 6 months’ surveillance data. BMJ Open, 11(3), e046764.

59.

Halinski

Duxbury

(2024). When spouses contribute at home: The impact of spouse dependent care on role overload and stress in dual-earner couples. Community, Work & Family, 27(1), 35–53.

60.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health, and resilience. In Folkman

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 127–147).

61.

Huo

M. L.

Jiang

(2023). Work-role overload, work–life conflict, and perceived career plateau: The moderating role of emotional stability. Human Resource Management, 62(6), 867–882.

62.

Ilies

Yao

Pluut

Liang

A. X.

Weng

Q. D.

(2024). Blurred lines: The spillover and crossover effects of interpersonal experiences at work on family behaviors and well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 154, 104043.

63.

Ingstad

Haugan

(2024). Balancing act: exploring work-life balance among nursing home staff working long shifts. BMC Nursing, 23(1), 499.

64.

Irfan

Khalid

R. A.

Kaka Khel

S. S. U. H.

Maqsoom

Sherani

I. K.

(2023). Impact of work–life balance with the role of organizational support and job burnout on project performance. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(1), 154–171.

65.

Johnston

Tanwar

Pasamar

Van Laar

Bamber Jones

(2022). Blurring boundaries: work-life balance and unbounded work in academia: The role of flexibility, organisational support and gender. Labour and Industry, 32(2), 139–155.

66.

Karakas

Lee

M. D.

(2004). A qualitative investigation into the meaning of family well-being from the perspective of part-time professionals. Equal Opportunities International, 23(1), 57–77.

67.

Kasbuntoro

D. I.

Maemunah

Mahfud

Fahlevi

Parashakti

R. D.

(2020). Work-life balance and job satisfaction: A case study of employees on banking companies in Jakarta. International Journal of Control and Automation, 13(4), 439–451.

68.

Kassa

Z. Y.

Scarf

Turkmani

Fox

(2024). Impact of COVID-19 on antenatal care provision at public hospitals in the Sidama region, Ethiopia: A mixed methods study. PLoS One, 19(4), e0301994.

69.

Kezar

Chambers

A. C.

Burkhardt

J. C.

(2005). Higher education for the public good: Emerging voices from a national movement. Jossey-Bass.

70.

Khalil

S. M.

Khan

S. N.

Shah

F. A.

(2020). The impact of work life balance, role conflict and work overload on employee turnover intention through the mediating role of job stress. Journal of Business & Tourism, 6(1), 271–287.

71.

Khateeb

F. R.

(2021). Work life balance: A review of theories, definitions and policies. Cross-Cultural Management Journal, 23(1), 27–55.

72.

Khatri

Shukla

(2024). A review and research agenda of work-life balance: An agentic approach. Community, Work & Family, 27(3), 286–320.

73.

Kim

W. H.

Y.-A.

Park

J. G.

Kwon

(2017). Role of burnout on job level, job satisfaction, and task performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(5), 630–645.

74.

King

M. J.

(2018). A quantitative explanatory analysis examining the moderating effect of family care responsibilities on family-work conflict and employee engagement among employed individuals in the United States. Capella University.

75.

Kinman

Wray

(2020). Well-being in academic employees: A benchmarking approach. In Burke

R. J.

Pignata

(Eds.), Handbook of research on stress and well-being in the public sector (pp. 152–166). Edward Elgar Publishing.

76.

Kohtamäki

(2022). Autonomy-driven segmentation for competition among Finnish universities: Leaders’ perceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 47(1), 67–79.

77.

Kohtamäki

Zheng

Jinia

(2024). Gender inequality in academic leadership: Bangladesh, China and Finland. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(1), 78–92.

78.

Koşarsoy

Özgül

(2024). A study on the mediating role of work-family conflict in the effect of workload perception on professional burnout of employees in the energy sector. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 11(3), 1052–1073.

79.

Kossek

E. E.

Perrigino

M. B.

Lautsch

B. A.

(2023). Work-life flexibility policies from a boundary control and implementation perspective: A review and research framework. Journal of Management, 49(6), 2062–2108.

80.

Kyambade

Tushabe

Namatovu

(2024). Work life balance and women representation in leadership positions in Ugandan public universities. SN Social Sciences, 4(8), 142.

81.

Lahaie

Earle

Heymann

(2013). An uneven burden: Social disparities in adult caregiving responsibilities, working conditions, and caregiver outcomes. Research on Aging, 35(3), 243–274.

82.

Lam

W. Y.

(2024). The life of juggling paid work and informal eldercare: the demand and resource perspective. University of Sheffield.

83.

Lawson

K. M.

Lee

Maric

(2021). Not just work-to-family conflict, but how you react to it matters for physical and mental health. Work & Stress, 35(4), 327–343.

84.

Lester

(2015). Cultures of work–life balance in higher education: A case of fragmentation. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(3), 139–156.

85.

Lewis

Cooper

(2005). Work-life integration: Case studies of organisational change. John Wiley & Sons.

86.

Lewis

Smithson

Kugelberg

(2002). Into work: Job insecurity and changing psychological contracts. In Brannen

Lewis

Nilsen

Smithson

(Eds.), Young Europeans, work and family (pp. 69–88). Routledge.

87.

Liao

Yang

Wang

Lin

(2024). Typological analysis of teachers’ self-regulation based on conservation of resources theory: A new perspective on the success of blended instruction. Education and Information Technologies, 30(1), 1–27.

88.

Lockwood

N. R.

(2003). Work/life balance: Challenges and Solutions. SHRM Research, 22(1), 53–59.

89.

Lokhtina

I. A.

Castelló

Lambrechts

A. A.

Löfström

McGinn

M. K.

Skakni

van der Weijden

(2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early career researcher activity, development, career, and well-being: The state of the art. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 13(3), 245–265.

90.

Lord

Vinnicombe

(2010). Learning from life experiences: A study of female academic leaders in Australia. In Rothstein

M. G.

Burke

R. J.

(Eds.), Self-management and leadership development (pp. 447–463). Edward Elgar Publishing.

91.

Lott

Wöhrmann

A. M.

(2023). Spillover and crossover effects of working time demands on work–life balance satisfaction among dual-earner couples: The mediating role of work–life conflict. Current Psychology, 42(15), 12957-12973.

92.

Lucas

(2004). Employment relations in the hospitality and tourism industries. Routledge.

93.

J. Y.

Kerulis

A. M.

Wang

Sachdev

A. R.

(2020). Are workflow interruptions a hindrance stressor? The moderating effect of time-management skill. International Journal of Stress Management, 27(3), 252.

94.

Magtalas

S. A.

(2024). Teacher’s workload in relation to burnout and work performance. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 5(10), 4111–4123.

95.

Marecki

Ł.

(2023). Impact of work-life balance on employee productivity and well-being. Journal of Management and Financial Sciences, 16(50), 165–178.

96.

Mathew

R. V.

Panchanatham

(2010). An empirical analysis of the impact of various dimensions of work-life balance on organizational commitment among service sector employees in India. International Journal of Management Studies (IJMS), 17(1), 129–147.

97.

Mathew

R. V.

Panchanatham

(2011). Work-life balance among women employees: A study of selected industries in India. Journal of Contemporary Management, 16(2), 77–105.

98.

Mathur

Gulati

Sankpal

Kee

D. M. H.

(2024). Work-life balance and withdrawal behaviors among knowledge workforce: High performance work system comes into play for managing boundaries. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 43(6), 24–40.

99.

Mattarelli

Cochis

Bertolotti

Ungureanu

(2024). How designed work environment and enacted work interactions impact creativity and work–life balance. European Journal Of Innovation Management, 27(2), 648–672.

100.

Maurya

V. N.

Jaggi

C. K.

Singh

Arneja

C. S.

Maurya

A. K.

Arora

D. K.

(2015). Empirical analysis of work life balance policies and its impact on employee’s job satisfaction and performance: Descriptive statistical approach. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 4(2–1), 33–43.

101.

Medina-Garrido

J. A.

Biedma-Ferrer

J. M.

Bogren

(2023). Organizational support for work-family life balance as an antecedent to the well-being of tourism employees in Spain. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 57, 117–129.

102.

Moges

(2022). Impact of work-life conflict on employees job satisfaction: The case of Maereg Business Group. St. Mary’s University.

103.

Mramba

N. R.

(2024). Exploring work-life balance among women entrepreneurs of food vending business in Africa. Review of Business and Economics Studies, 12(1), 25–36.

104.

Mubashir

Malik

Arif

Nawaz

R. R.

Kazmi

S. Q.

(2023). Work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and supervisor support: Effects on employee performance. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 33, 477–502.

105.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Boles

J. S.

McMurrian

(1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(1), 400–410.

106.

Nix

Pickett

J. T.

Baek

Alpert

G. P.

(2019). Police research, officer surveys, and response rates. Policing and Society, 29(5), 530–550.

107.

Nulty

D. D.

(2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.

108.

Oumer

Yilma

(2024). Redressing gender inequality in academic rank and leadership at Addis Ababa University. The Ethiopian Journal of Education, 44(1), 43–88.

109.

Paitaridou

Lainidi

Montgomery

(2024). Locating academic staff wellbeing within the organization: the interplay between personality, workload and burnout among academic staff. In Edwards

M. S.

Martin

A. J.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Cox

L. E.

(Eds.), Research handbook of academic mental health (pp. 261–275). Edward Elgar Publishing.

110.

Paudel

Kunwar

Ahmed

M. F.

AYedgarian

(2024). Work-life equilibrium: Key to enhancing employee job satisfaction. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(7), 1146–1159.

111.

Pihie

Z. A.

Bagheri

Sani

Z. H.

(2009). Examining the entrepreneurial attitudes of Malaysian secondary school students. International Journal of Learning, 16(10), 181–190.

112.

Rahmasari

N. P.

Wibowo

P. A.

Abidin

Ramadhanityas

K. N.

(2024). The relationship of workload and job stress with work fatigue in factory employees. Journal La Medihealtico, 5(4), 732–741.

113.

Randall

D. M.

Gibson

A. M.

(1990). Methodology in business ethics research: A review and critical assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 457–471.

114.

Ratnaningsih

I. Z.

Idris

M. A.

(2024). Spillover–crossover effect of work–family interface: A systematic review. The Family Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807241226709 .

115.

Rony

M. K. K.

Numan

S. M.

Alamgir

H. M.

(2023). The association between work-life imbalance, employees’ unhappiness, work’s impact on family, and family impacts on work among nurses: A cross-sectional Study. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked, 38, 101226.

116.

Rosa

(2022). The trouble with ‘work–life balance’ in neoliberal academia: A systematic and critical review. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(1), 55–73.

117.

Rothbard

N. P.

Dumas

T. L.

(2006). Research perspectives: Managing the work-home interface. In Jones

Burke

R. J.

Westman

(Eds.), Work-life balance: A psychological perspective. Psychology Press, 1–9.

118.

Rowley

D. J.

Sherman

(2003). The special challenges of academic leadership. Management Decision, 41(10), 1058–1063.

119.

Saiyad

F. B. J.

Aftab

Baig

Fernandes

L. P.

Hasan

(2024). Managing stress level of the female teachers by adopting work-life balance mechanism. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(5), 11367–11372.

120.

Sallee

Lester

(2017). Expanding conceptualizations of work/life in higher education: Looking outside the academy to develop a better understanding within. In Paulsen

(eds) Higher Education: handbook of theory and research: Published under the sponsorship of the Association for Institutional Research (AIR) and the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) (pp. 355–417). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

121.

Saltmarsh

Randell-Moon

(2015). Managing the risky humanity of academic workers: Risk and reciprocity in university work–life balance policies. Policy Futures in Education, 13(5), 662–682.

122.

Sandhiya

(2020). A study on work life balance of employee at Narayani Hospital and Research Centre, Thirumalaikodi Vellore. EPRA International Journal of Research and Development, 5(3), 278–282.

123.

Sani

K. F.

Adisa

T. A.

(2024). Work–life balance: Does leadership matter? Employee Relations: The International Journal, 46(2), 269–286.

124.

Selim

Kee

D. M. H.

(2022). Using job demands–resources theory to predict work–life balance among academicians in private universities in Egypt during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information, 14(1), 12.

125.

Shah

M. S.

Gawande

R. P.

(2024). Work-life balance and its impact on employees: Navigating strategies for better work-life balance at workplace. International Journal of Cultural Studies and Social Sciences, 20(1), 1–7.

126.

Sheikh

M. A.

Ashiq

Mehar

M. R.

Hasan

Khalid

(2018). Impact of work and home demands on work life balance: Mediating role of work family conflicts. Pyrex Journal of Business and Finance Management Research, 4(5), 48–57.

127.

Shih

F.-C.

Yeh

S.-C. J.

(2024). Conservation of resources perspective on authentic leadership and employee well-being: The influence of job stress and emotional intelligence. Health Care Management Review, 49(4), 323–330.

128.

Stella

O. I.

Paul

S. O.

Olubusayo

F. H.

(2014). Work-life balance practices in Nigeria: A comparison of three sectors. Journal of Competitiveness, 6(2), 3–14.

129.

Stevens

E. K.

Aziz

Wuensch

K. L.

Walcott

(2024). Caregivers of children with special healthcare needs: A quantitative examination of work-family culture, caregiver burden, and work-life balance. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 33(5), 1365–1377.

130.

Thoits

P. A.

(1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 53–79.

131.

Tian

(2024). Investigating impacts of caregiving on cognitive function: Role of social support (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama at Birmingham).

132.

Uddin

Ali

K. B.

Khan

M. A.

(2020). Perceived social support (PSS) and work-life balance (WLB) in a developing country: The moderating impact of work-life policy. Interdisciplinary Journal of Management Studies (Formerly known as Iranian Journal of Management Studies), 13(4), 733–761.

133.

Uddin

Ali

K. B.

Khan

M. A.

Ahmad

(2023). Supervisory and co-worker support on the work-life balance of working women in the banking sector: A developing country perspective. Journal of Family Studies, 29(1), 306–326.

134.

Ugwu

F. O.

Ugwu

L. E.

Nwali

A. C.

Onyishi

I. E.

Okafor

C. O.

(2024). Cost of high workload on work–life balance: A moderated mediation model. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(11), 3326–3340.

135.

Urooj

Bhutto

S. A.

Andleeb

(2023). Employee performance and work-family conflict: A study of the education sector in Pakistan. Academy of Education and Social Sciences Review, 3(3), 290–297.

136.

Van den Brink

(2015). The politics of knowledge: The responses to feminist research from academic leaders. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 34(6), 483–495

137.

Van Egdom

Piszczek

M. M.

Spitzmueller

Lindner

Clauset

(2024). Supporting academic parents: The effects of dependent care policies on research productivity trends. Journal of Business and Psychology, 40(3),731–752.

138.

Vatharkar

P. S.

Aggarwal-Gupta

(2020). Relationship between role overload and the work–family interface. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 9(3), 305–321.

139.

Visser

Williams

(2006). Work-life balance: Rhetoric versus reality. Work Foundation.

140.

Watare

S. H.

Alemu

M. A.

Tayachew

Yohannes

Gizachew

Kebede

Tessema

Kassa

Biru

Teferi

(2022). An investigation of a hundred COVID-19 cases and close contacts in Ethiopia, May to June, 2020: A prospective case-ascertained study. PLoS One, 17(10), e0275596.

141.

Wen

Bai

Jintao

Zhao

Fang

Abdirizak Jama

(2024). Effects of work-family conflict, social support and burnout on job satisfaction among primary care physicians in Huaihai economic zone. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1439636.

142.

Wood

Park

Kim

(2020). The relationship between work engagement and work–life balance in organizations: A review of the empirical research. Human Resource Development Review, 19(3), 240–262.

143.

Yerkes

M. A.

van Hedel

(2024). The value of work-life balance: Cross-country and cross-worker comparisons. In Kruyen

André

Van der Heijden

(Eds.), Maintaining a sustainable work–life balance (pp. 38–51). Edward Elgar Publishing.

144.

Yesuf

Y. M.

Getahun

D. A.

Debas

A. T.

(2024). Impacts of work environment and family-work resource spillover on employees’ creativity at work place in the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2315668.

145.

Yıldırım

Darıcan

. (2024). The effect of perceived social support on work-life balance and work engagement: A case of banking sector. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 22(52), 758–784.

Work-Life Balance Among University Academic Leaders in a Developing Country Context: Empirical Evidence From Ethiopia

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Overview of Work-Life Balance

Theoretical Lens

Work-Life Balance and Academic Leaders

Factors to Assess Work-Life Balance

Role Overload

Quality of Health

Dependent Care Issues

Time Management

Support Networks

Research Methodology

Study Design

Sampling

Instrument and Data Collection Technique

Analysis technique

Results and Discussion

Preliminary Statistics

Descriptive Study Results

Result of Factor 1: Role Overload

Result of Factor 2: Quality of Health

Result of Factor 3: Dependent Care Issues

Result of Factor 4: Time Management

Result of Factor 5: Support Network

Result of Factor 6: Overall Perception of Work-Life Balance

Discussion

Conclusions

Theoretical Contribution

Empirical Contribution

Managerial, Practical, and Social Implications

Limitation of the Study and Future Research Avenues

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References