Well-being among Canadian Armed Forces men and women: The roles of poor work-life balance and organizational support

Abstract

Introduction:

The military and family can be demanding institutions with competing priorities that can cause poor work-life balance. This balance is crucial for organizational outcomes such as job engagement and burnout, and for managing psychological distress among military personnel. While organizational support improves these outcomes, support for families is less common and less studied. Additionally, work-life balance challenges may differ between men and women. This study examined the role of work-life balance and the protective roles of organizational support for members and families among Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) men and women.

Methods:

The Your Say Matters: Defence Team Well-Being Survey was administered to Regular Force CAF members (n = 4,349). Regression analyses examined the roles of poor work-life balance, including work-life conflict (work affecting life) and life-work conflict (life affecting work), and organizational support to members and families in predicting burnout, job engagement, and psychological distress.

Results:

Work-life and life-work conflicts predicted burnout and psychological distress, but not job engagement. Organizational support predicted all outcomes for CAF men and women and mitigated the impact of work-life conflict on burnout and psychological distress. However, support to families predicted job engagement and psychological distress among men only, while it moderated the impact of life-work conflict on psychological distress among men and work-life conflict on job engagement for both genders.

Discussion:

Work-life balance and organizational support for members and families can improve outcomes and well-being. Leaders should reinforce work-life balance and provide support to both members and families, recognizing gender dynamics.

Lay Summary

The military and family can be demanding institutions with competing priorities that can cause poor work-life balance. This study examined the role of work-life balance and the protective roles of organizational support for members and their families for well-being among Canadian Armed Forces men and women. The results demonstrated that work-life and life-work conflicts predicted burnout and psychological distress. In addition, there was evidence that organizational support and support to families played important roles in some of the well-being outcomes. Overall, the study provided evidence that work-life balance and organizational support for members and families can improve outcomes and well-being. Leaders should reinforce work-life balance and provide support to both members and families, recognizing gender dynamics.

Introduction

The military and family are demanding institutions as they have high expectations from their members.^1–3 Specifically, military members are expected to prioritize their military duties, which often include frequent separations for deployment, relocations, and unpredictable work schedules, over their personal and family commitments.^2,4–8 Therefore, military life demands can negatively impact military members’ well-being.^9–20

In the military, poor work-life balance is an important source of negative well-being outcomes, including psychological distress.^21,22 Indeed, military service demands are often difficult to reconcile with personal and family obligations.^{13,18,23–26} This difficulty is often exacerbated for women compared with men, who are more likely to leave military service because of family issues.^27,28 While psychological distress can stem from poor work-life balance,^23,26 organizational support can enhance well-being among distressed military members.^29–31 However, there is a noticeable research gap in understanding whether organizational support can moderate the negative impact of work-life imbalance on workplace well-being among military members and whether the impact is different for men and women.

Poor balance between work and life domains: Work-life and life-work conflicts

Poor work-life balance involves incompatible responsibilities³² or conflicts between work demands and personal and/or family obligations.³³ Specifically, work-life conflict occurs when work demands, such as long hours or deployment, interfere with personal or family life;³⁴ conversely, life-work conflict arises when personal or family responsibilities, like caregiving or attending a child’s event, make it difficult to meet work obligations.³² Work-life conflicts can contribute to personnel attrition,^23,35–37 reduced job engagement,³⁸ burnout,³⁹ and psychological distress.^21,22 Life-work conflict, though less studied, can impact retention and quality of life among Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members.³⁹ It can lead to negative outcomes as personal stress spills into work, increasing psychological distress and overall conflict between life and work domains.^40–43

Research indicates that work-life balance challenges may vary by gender, with women experiencing more imbalance than men.⁴⁴ For instance, among those leaving military service, women were more likely than men to report family issues as their reason for release.^7,27–28,45 This highlights the need to explore gender differences in the impact of work-life imbalance on well-being outcomes.

Organizational support to members and families

Organizational support to members, referring to how valued employees feel by their organization and the extent to which their well-being is prioritized,⁴⁶ has been linked to various positive organizational outcomes.⁴⁷ Moreover, positive perceptions of organizational support can buffer the impact of poor work-life balance on burnout,^47,48 reduced job engagement,^{29–30,48–51} and psychological distress.⁵² In military contexts, perceived organizational support strongly relates to positive well-being outcomes^53,54 and helps buffer against poor well-being, while reduced support can contribute to job dissatisfaction and attrition.^16,29,47,55

Gender differences in the perceptions of organizational support in the military have been observed. For example, CAF women report lower perceptions of support compared with men, particularly in balancing work-life demands and fulfilling both spouse of partner and service member roles.⁴⁴ Research has shown that military organizations’ policies and practices still assume the norm of a military man partnered with a civilian woman, thereby reinforcing structural inequality and contributing to negative perceptions of organizational support among women.⁵⁶

Although it has received limited attention, existing findings show that organizational support provided to military families also is crucial for the well-being of military members.^16,57–59 Organizational support to families includes efforts to support workers who have family responsibilities.⁶⁰ Positive perceptions of such support have been linked to better organizational outcomes.^31,58 Specifically, the military’s responsiveness to families can lessen conflicts between life and work domains among U.S.⁵⁷ and Canadian military members and significantly impact their retention decisions.⁴⁴

The current study

Current research suggests that organizational support for both members and their families is critical for well-being outcomes among military personnel, as such support can buffer the impacts of work-life and life-work conflicts. However, it is unclear whether organizational support provided directly to CAF men and women versus to their families would be uniquely predictive of workplace well-being. Specifically, it remains unclear whether each form of support plays a distinct role in mitigating poor work-life balance’s effect on burnout, job engagement, and psychological distress. Therefore, the aims of this study were 1) to examine the roles of organizational support extended to both Regular Force (Reg F) CAF members and their families in mitigating the effects of work-life and life-work conflicts on burnout, job engagement, and psychological distress, and 2) to identify whether these associations differ between men and women. Understanding these relationships allows the CAF to more effectively tailor its support strategies to address the specific needs of men and women military members and their families, potentially enhancing their well-being.

Methods

This study is part of a larger research project: Your Say Matters: Defence Team Well-Being Survey (YSM). The study employed a stratified random sampling technique to ensure a representative cross-section for each of the three components: Reg F, Primary Reserve, Department of National Defence (DND) public service.⁶¹ For the weighting approach and the detailed information about the strata for different components, see Chamberland et al.⁶² This paper focuses on the Reg F component. The survey was administered online between March and May 2022, and participants could complete the questionnaire in English or French. The Reg F sample (n = 4,349) comprised mostly men (70%) between the ages of 25 and 44 (65%), and anglophones (76%) (see Table 1). This study was approved by the Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis Social Science Research Review Board.

Table 1.

Participant demographics

	No. (%)
Characteristic	Women; n = 1,221	Men; n = 3,128
First official language
English	894 (72.8%)	2,394 (76.5%)
French	321 (26.1%)	716 (22.9%)
Marital status
Married, no dependants	318 (25.9%)	706 (22.6%)
Married, with dependants	470 (38.3%)	1,587 (50.7%)
Single/divorced, no dependants	318 (25.9%)	651 (20.8%)
Single/divorced, with dependants	122 (9.9%)	179 (5.7%)
Age, y
<24	61 (5%)	80 (2.6%)
25–34	372 (30.3%)	829 (26.5%)
35–44	446 (36.3%)	1,153 (36.9%)
45–54	292 (23.8%)	860 (27.5%)
55–64	57 (4.6%)	203 (6.5%)
Rank
Junior NCM	519 (42.3%)	1,185 (37.9%)
Senior NCM	258 (21%)	920 (29.4%)
Junior officer	235 (19.1%)	541 (17.3%)
Senior officer	209 (17%)	475 (15.2%)
Environment
Land	517 (42.1%)	1,622 (51.9%)
Sea	239 (19.5%)	565 (18.1%)
Air	466 (37.9%)	932 (29.8%)

NCM = non-commissioned member.

Measures

All the measures used in the study were self-report scales. Burnout, job engagement, and psychological distress scales were used as indicators of well-being in this study.

Burnout

Participants completed an eight-item version of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory.⁶³ Participants rated their degree of agreement with each statement on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) — for example, “During my work, I often feel emotionally drained.” The Cronbach’s α coefficients were 0.91 for both the English and French versions, demonstrating that the scale has excellent internal consistency.⁶⁴

Job engagement

Participants completed a brief 9-item version of the 18-item Job Engagement Scale.⁶⁵ Participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale, indicating their degree of agreement with each statement, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) — for example, “I am enthusiastic about my job.” The Cronbach’s α coefficients were 0.91 for both English and French versions, indicating that the scale demonstrates excellent internal consistency.

Psychological distress

The 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale assessed psychological distress,⁶⁶ with participants rating statements (e.g., “tired out for no good reason”) on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time) based on their experiences in the past 4 weeks. Cronbach’s α was 0.94 for the English version, and .93 for the French version, showing excellent internal consistency for both.

Work-life balance

To measure imbalance between the work and life domains, participants completed two sub-scales. The Life-Work Conflict Scale, adapted from the 5-item Family-Work Conflict Scale³² (α = 0.87, both English and French), included 3 items focusing on general life responsibilities (e.g., “The demands of my home, family, or spouse/partner interfere with work-related activities”). The Work-Life Conflict Scale, adapted from the 5-item Work-Family Conflict Scale³² (α = 0.92 and 0.91, English and French, respectively) included 3 items assessing how work conflicts with personal life (e.g., “My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill my personal and family duties”). Agreement with the items was rated using a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Organizational support to members

The Organizational Support Scale⁴⁷ included eight items (α = 0.94 and 0.93, English and French, respectively)^20,67 used to measure participants’ level of agreement with statements such as “The CAF/DND cares about my opinions.”

Organizational support to families

To evaluate support to families, the Family Support Scale was incorporated consisting of seven items (Cronbach’s α = 0.95).³¹ It gauges participants’ satisfaction with support received by their family from entities such as Military Family Resource Centres.

Statistical analyses

Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between burnout, psychological distress, work-life/life-work conflicts, and organizational support to members and families among CAF men and women. Correlations with a magnitude between 0.10 and 0.29 were interpreted as small/weak, between 0.30 and 0.49 were interpreted as medium/moderate, and greater than 0.50 were interpreted as large/high.^68,69

Furthermore, three separate hierarchical regressions were conducted to assess the moderating effect of organizational support on the association between poor work-life balance and each of the well-being outcomes (i.e., burnout, job engagement, and psychological distress). The series of hierarchical regressions were conducted separately for CAF men and women. Work-family and family-work conflicts were entered in the first step of the analyses, and organizational support to members and support to families were entered in the second step. Their interaction terms were entered in the third step to ascertain whether they explain any incremental variance in burnout, job engagement, and psychological distress, respectively. Simple slope analyses using mean centring approach⁷⁰ was conducted to follow-up on the significant interaction terms.

Results

Correlational analyses

The study reveals significant correlations between burnout, psychological distress, work-life/life-work conflicts, and organizational support to members and families, with notable differences between men and women (see Table 2). Burnout and psychological distress were highly correlated among both CAF men and women. Similarly, perceptions of organizational support to members and families were also highly correlated. The rest of the correlations were moderate or weaker. There was no correlation between work-life conflict and job engagement for either gender.

Table 2.

Pearson correlations among variables for men (italic, above the diagonal) and women

Variables	Mean (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Burnout	2.50 (0.70)	-	−0.36*	0.70 *	0.33 †	0.50 †	−0.55†	−0.45†
2. Job engagement	3.94 (0.73)	−0.30*	-	−0.24*	0.00	−0.16†	0.33 †	0.28 †
3. Psychological distress	21.10 (9.42)	0.67*	−0.16*	-	0.32 †	0.38 †	−0.47†	−0.40†
4. Work-life conflict	4.33 (1.80)	0.25†	0.00	0.22†	-	0.41 †	−0.21†	−0.22†
5. Life-work conflict	2.74 (1.50)	0.50†	−0.20†	0.40†	0.30†	-	−0.40†	−0.39†
6. Organizational support	4.10 (1.40)	−0.48†	0.21†	−0.41†	−0.15†	0.30†	-	0.64 †
7. Support to families	3.81 (1.24)	−0.37†	0.11†	−0.31†	−0.18†	−0.40†	0.63†	-

^*p < 0.01.

^†p < 0.001.

Hierarchical regression analyses

Burnout

The first step of the hierarchical regression indicated that work-life and life-work conflicts, reflecting poor work-life balance, were significant predictors of burnout among both men, R²_change = 0.271, F_2,2245 = 418.18, p < 0.001, and women, R²_change = 0.270, F_2,744 = 137.63, p < 0.001 (Table 3). Both were positively correlated with burnout such that higher scores on the work-life balance scale were associated with higher scores on the burnout scale, and both remained unique predictors. The second step illustrated that support significantly reduced burnout over and above poor work-life balance among women, R²_change = 0.093, F_4,742 = 105.83, p < 0.001, and men, R²_change = 0.146, F_4,2243 = 401.30, p < 0.001. Notably, organizational support to families was uniquely predictive of burnout only among men, while organizational support to members was uniquely predictive of burnout among both groups. Finally, the third step demonstrated that the interactions (Figure 1) between poor work-life balance and support uniquely predicted burnout over and above the main effects among both men, R²_change = 0.003, F_8,2239 = 202.40, p < 0.05, and women, R²_change = 0.016, F_8,738 = 56.28, p < 0.001, but they explain only a small proportion of the variance in burnout. Furthermore, the interaction between work-life conflict and organizational support was predictive of burnout only among women. Follow-up slope analyses indicated that, among women experiencing work-life conflict, burnout levels were higher among those reporting low organizational support.

Table 3.

Hierarchical regressions with work-life balance and support factors predicting burnout

	Women; n = 747			Men; n = 2,248
Variable	R2change	r	β	R2change	r	β
Step 1. Work-life balance	0.270*			0.271*
Life-work conflict		0.25*	0.11†		0.33*	0.15*
Work-life conflict		0.51*	0.48*		0.50*	0.44*
Step 2. Support	0.093*			0.146*
Support to families		−0.38*	−0.02		−0.46*	−0.09‡
Organizational support		−0.49*	−0.33*		−0.56*	−0.36*
Step 3. Interactions	0.016*			0.003‡
Life-work conflict* support to families		0.04	0.17		0.05†	0.11
Work-life conflict* support to families		0.19*	0.26		0.10*	−0.05
Life-work conflict*organizational support		−0.03	−0.09		0.01	0.08
Work-life conflict*organizational support		0.08‡	−0.48*		0.00	0.07

^*p < 0.001.

^†p < 0.01.

^‡p < 0.05.

Figure 1.

Work-life conflict and organizational support in predicting burnout among Canadian Armed Forces women

Job engagement

The first step of the hierarchical regression indicated that work-life and life-work conflicts were significant predictors of job engagement among both men, R²_change = 0.032, F_2,2315 = 253.34, p < 0.001, and women, R²_change = 0.046, F_2,763 = 81.00, p < 0.001 (Table 4). Life-work conflict was correlated with job engagement among both men and women, but work-life conflict was not. The second step demonstrated that support was significant over and above poor work-life balance at predicting job engagement among both men, R²_change = 0.138, F_4,2313 = 247.53, p < 0.001, and women, R²_change = 0.054, F_4,761 = 63.00, p < 0.001. Of note, organizational support to families was uniquely predictive of job engagement for men but not for women, while organizational support to members was uniquely predictive of job engagement among both men and women. The final step (Figure 2) indicated that the interactions main effect was significant for both men, R²_change = 0.008, F_8,2309 = 128.35, p < 0.001, and women, R²_change = 0.014, F_8,757 = 37.72, p < 0.001, but they explained only a small amount of the variance. The interaction between work-life conflict and organizational support to families was uniquely predictive of job engagement among both men and women. Simple slope follow-up analyses indicated that although job engagement increased as work-life conflict increased among those members reporting low organizational support to families, job engagement remained similar for those members reporting high organizational support to families.

Table 4.

Hierarchical regressions with work-life balance and support factors predicting job engagement

	Women; n = 766			Men; n = 2,318
Variable	R 2 change	r	β	R 2 change	r	β
Step 1. Work-life balance	0.046*			0.032*
Life-work conflict		−0.20*	−0.23*		−0.17*	−0.20*
Work-life conflict		0.01	0.07†		−0.01	0.08‡
Step 2. Support	0.054*			0.138*
Support to families		0.12‡	−0.02		0.28*	0.14*
Organizational support		0.22*	0.26*		0.34*	0.31*
Step 3. Interactions	0.014†			0.008*
Life-work conflict* support to families		−0.13†	−0.25		0.00	−0.07
Work-life conflict* support to families		0.07†	−0.37†		0.20*	−0.19†
Life-work conflict*organizational support		0.17*	0.23		0.26*	0.09
Work-life conflict*organizational support		0.05	0.17		0.03	−0.14

^*p < 0.001.

^†p < 0.05.

^‡p < 0.01.

Figure 2.

Work-life conflict and family support in predicting job engagement among Canadian Armed Forces men

Psychological distress

The first step of the hierarchical regression indicated that work-life and life-work conflicts were significant predictors of psychological distress among men, R²_change= 0.183, F_2,2258 = 38.87, p < 0.001, and women, R²_change = 0.177, F_2,753 = 18.44, p < 0.001 (Table 5). Both were correlated with and served as unique predictors of psychological distress among both men and women. The second step illustrated that support was significantly associated with psychological distress over and above poor work-life balance among women, R²_change = 0.074, F_4,751 = 21.10, p < 0.001, and men R²_change = 0.122, F_4,2256 = 119.03, p < 0.001. While organizational support served as a unique predictor among both men and women, support to families served as a unique predictor among men only. The results of the third step (Figure 3) illustrated that the interactions did significantly predict psychological distress over and above the main effects among both women, R²_change = 0.036, F_8,747 = 12.10, p < 0.001, and men, R²_hange = 0.008, F_8,2256 = 62.70, p < 0.001, however, the variance explained among men was very small. The interaction between life-work conflict and support to families was uniquely predictive of psychological distress among men (Figure 3). Further, the interaction between work-life conflict and organizational support was uniquely predictive of psychological distress among both CAF men and women (Figures 4–5). Follow-up slope analyses indicated that psychological distress was lower among men and women reporting high support to families (than among those reporting low support to families), especially when life-work conflict was perceived as high. Similarly, follow-up slope analyses indicated that psychological distress was lower among those reporting high organizational support (than among those reporting low organizational support), especially when work-life conflict was perceived as high.

Table 5.

Hierarchical regressions with work-life balance and support factors predicting psychological distress

	Women; n = 756			Men; n = 2,261
Variable	R 2 change	r	β	R 2 change	r	β
Step 1. Work-life balance	0.177*			0.183*
Life-work conflict		0.23*	0.12†		0.33*	0.20*
Work-life conflict		0.41*	0.37*		0.39*	0.31†
Step 2. Support	0.074*			0.122*
Support to families		−0.31*	−0.01		−0.40*	−0.10*
Organizational support		−0.42*	−0.30*		−0.48*	−0.32*
Step 3. Interactions	0.036*			0.008*
Life-work conflict* support to families		0.04	0.01		0.06†	0.15‡
Work-life conflict* support to families		0.11†	−0.14		0.02	−0.07
Life-work conflict*organizational support		−0.02	0.11		0.01	−0.07
Work-life conflict*organizational support		0.00	−0.57*		−0.05†	−0.24‡

^*p < 0.001.

^†p < 0.01.

^‡p < 0.05.

Figure 3.

Life-work conflict and organizational support in predicting psychological distress among men

Figure 4.

Work-life conflict and organizational support in predicting psychological distress among men

Figure 5.

Work-life conflict and organizational support in predicting psychological distress among women

Discussion

This study aimed to assess the relation between poor work-life balance and workplace well-being outcomes among Reg F men and women, as well as the moderating roles of organizational support and support to families. Integral to this study’s framework was a gender-based analysis, which is mandated by Government of Canada’s requirements for examining gender impacts and informing policy and program development.⁷¹ Within the defence team, this analysis is vital for informed decision-making, promoting an inclusive, equitable, and safe work environment.⁷² The study results demonstrated distinct patterns in how support factors contribute to the outcomes and buffer work-life and life-work conflicts, with some variations between men and women.

Work-life and life-work conflicts

Overall, both work-life and life-work conflicts were strongly related to increased burnout and psychological distress. These findings support existing literature emphasizing the importance of balancing work and personal life to maintain positive health and well-being, especially in the demanding military environment.^2,4,18,36,40 Given the important role of work-life balance, military organizations should consider taking into account personal circumstances and provide accommodations, if possible (e.g., if someone cannot fulfill their job duties because of a family emergency, flexible working arrangements could be provided). Indeed, as previous research indicates, fostering a culture of reasonable accommodation can enhance work-life balance within the CAF.³⁶

The relationships between poor work-life balance and job engagement were more complex. While, as expected, life-work conflict was negatively related to job engagement, no correlation was found between work-life conflict and job engagement. Work-life conflict may be more strongly related to burnout and psychological distress, while factors like meaningful work and person-job fit are more closely tied to job engagement.⁷³ These findings suggest that personal or family-related stressors, rather than work stressors, have a more significant impact on an individual’s ability to engage fully in their work. Yet it is important to note that there was a significant main effect in the way that work-life conflict was uniquely and positively related to job engagement. It is possible that there is a bidirectional relationship in a way that excessive engagement in a job can contribute to work-life conflict, whereas work-life conflict in turn contributes to higher job engagement in order to get the work domain under control.

Organizational support

Perceptions of organizational support were uniquely predictive of the workplace well-being outcomes. Organizational support moderated the link between work-life conflict and psychological distress among both men and women, suggesting that military organizations can protect against psychological distress in the face of work-life conflict. Conversely, organizational support moderated the path between work-life conflict and burnout for women only. Research suggests that burnout from role overload and role conflict is mainly a woman’s experience, whereas burnout among men may be related to other work-specific factors.⁷⁴ For instance, CAF women often report being expected to perform dual roles as both civilian spouses and service members, with little support for the complexities of these roles.⁴⁴ Recent research has found that women with more “traditional” values (e.g., homemaking and nurturing roles) report greater burnout than men.⁷⁵ This effect can be exacerbated in the military — a historically male-dominated organization⁷⁶ — in which traditional gender norms intersect with military obligations, leading to heightened stress, burnout, and turnover intentions.^27,28 Consistent with the research findings, work-life conflict may be particularly challenging for women, who are frequently expected to prioritize family over work.^77,78

Alternatively, the absence of a moderating role of organizational support between work-life conflict and burnout among men may be related to societal norms that discourage men from expressing vulnerability or seeking help such as when experiencing burnout.⁷⁹ Discomfort with seeking support may be exacerbated if the organization itself has a high masculinity contest culture^80–82 and perceives burnout as predominantly affecting women.⁷⁴ Recognizing that men and women may experience burnout differently⁸³ is crucial, as emotional exhaustion is often more pronounced in women compared with men,⁷⁸ especially in military contexts.^27,28 Military organizations should consider implementing tailored support strategies, implementing flexible work arrangements, and creating psychologically safe environments for both men and women to reduce stigma and encourage seeking help.^84,85

Finally, there was no moderating effect of organizational support in predicting job engagement. This may be either because work-life conflict plays a minor role in job engagement or because other factors, such as support for families, plays a more key role so that when other variables were considered, the unique interactions with organizational support were not statistically significant.

Support to families

The results showed that support to families was uniquely predictive of burnout, job engagement, and psychological distress among Reg F men only. Although not anticipated, it is important to note that support to families often involves spouses and partners, predominantly women. The lack of significant results for Reg F women might be due to a smaller sample size, or because men might be less involved in family responsibilities, making them more likely to value support for their spouses. This aligns with traditional views of men as primary breadwinners and protectors.⁷ Some military men often perceive fatherhood as conflicting with their military duties,^86,87 heightening the perceived need for organizational support for families. Given the importance of organizational support for families, organizations should enhance these services by exploring specific supports, such as parental leave and flexible work arrangements, to better understand their impact on work-life balance and well-being.

Furthermore, support to families moderated the effect of life-work conflict on psychological distress among Reg F men only. Family-related responsibilities (e.g., child care) might be more strongly related to psychological distress among men⁸⁶ and support to families is viewed as more critical when experiencing life-work conflict in order to balance the domains of work and family.⁷⁷ Alternatively, men might be more focused on their careers/work requirements, whereas family requirements could interfere with these priorities for men more than for women. For instance, research shows that men often avoid family communication during deployment because of psychological distress and moral struggles, which can distract them from their military duties.⁸⁵

Finally, a significant interaction was found between work-life conflict and support to families when predicting job engagement. Specifically, job engagement increased with work-life conflict when support to families was low but remained almost the same when support was high. While unexpected, it could reflect a reversed relationship between variables — job engagement (or over-engagement) may serve as a compensatory mechanism. Specifically, the absence of support for Reg F families may drive them to immerse themselves in work as an escape from family-related stressors, further blurring the boundaries between work and personal life. This possibility of a reverse effect has been suggested in previous literature,^88,89 where individuals engage in resource substitution behaviour, including increased job engagement. If employees perceive a conflict between their work and family life and lack resources to address family issues, they may work harder to compensate for the losses they experience in their private life.⁹⁰ Although job engagement is viewed as a positive construct, over-engagement may be unhealthy, contributing to burnout and psychological distress. Therefore, providing support to military families with necessary resources and support, as shown in previous literature,^91,92 would allow military members to maintain consistent and healthy levels of job engagement.

Aligning with previous research findings,^40,59 these results suggest that providing support to families can positively impact well-being outcomes, including reduced burnout and psychological distress. While a detailed examination of CAF support services for families is beyond the scope of this study, future research should explore how the specific types of support (e.g., Military Family Resource Centres)⁹³ impact job engagement, burnout, and psychological distress.^94,95 For instance, expanding daycare services to accommodate deployment schedules and improving counselling services for both immediate and long-term work-life balance issues could provide crucial support. Therefore, investigating these existing CAF supports could help better mitigate poor work-life balance, particularly considering the varying gender experiences highlighted in this study.

Limitations

There are limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results of this study. First, the use of a cross-sectional design means causality cannot be assumed, so it cannot be fully ascertained which variables occurred first or their impact on CAF members. For example, psychological distress experienced by CAF members may lead to reduced job engagement and negative perceptions of poor work-life balance and organizational support. Additionally, while this paper examined both positive (job engagement) and negative (psychological distress and burnout) constructs of workplace well-being, the negative constructs were more prominent in results. This study did not use a specific measure for positive well-being (e.g., job satisfaction, life satisfaction, or resilience), which might have provided a more balanced understanding of overall workplace well-being.

In addition, because of the small sample sizes, gender diverse and prefer not to disclose categories in the analyses could not be included as they might have compromised anonymity. Furthermore, additional demographic characteristics, such as rank, years of service, and number of children, can play important roles in the perceptions of work-life conflict and contribute to poorer psychological well-being.^{40,41,96–101} In particular, junior military members may be at a greater risk for work-life conflict because they have less military experience and lower incomes to manage family responsibilities. In addition, younger military members are more likely to have younger children, which, in combination with the number of children, may strongly contribute to poor work-life balance and cause psychological distress.^101,102 Future research should examine how these characteristics affect the relationships between poor work-life balance, organizational support to members and families, and well-being outcomes.

Additionally, this study focused on the Reg F component; however, Primary Reserve members may face different work-life balance issues because of additional civilian obligations.^103,104 Moreover, a quantitative study could be complemented with a qualitative component to directly discuss the sources of poor work-life balance with military members and identify optimal organizational support for members and families. Additionally, the results reflect only the organizational support for families’ perspectives of CAF members without considering the views of spouses or partners, which may be different. Further, CAF members may not realize the severity of their psychological distress, highlighting the need for spousal perspectives. Future research should explore both members’ and spouses’ views on poor work-life balance and organizational support with matched samples, which can provide a more comprehensive understanding of factors contributing to military personnel’s well-being. Despite these limitations, this study provides important insights into the roles of poor work-life balance and organizational support to military members and their families in the workplace well-being of CAF men and women. Future research could explore how specific supports influence individual and family outcomes to enhance well-being strategies within the military.

Biographies

Alla Skomorovsky, PhD, received her doctorate in experimental social psychology from Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. Since 2005, she has worked as a defence scientist at Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis (DGMPRA) in Ottawa. Currently, she is a section head leader of the Organizational Effectiveness and Performance section in DGMPRA. She conducts quantitative and qualitative research in the areas of organizational health and well-being, as well as stress and resilience of military families.

Nadine Charanek is a doctoral candidate in the cognitive science program at Carleton University. Her research examines memory differences between humans and chimpanzees. Specifically, she is training humans to obtain chimpanzee-like photographic memory of visual environments while monitoring changes in brain functional connectivity. Her research has direct implications for military helicopter pilots. She has been working as a research assistant at the Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, since 2023. Her research interests include work-family conflict, organizational support, and well-being outcomes among military members.

Alexandra Campbell is a PhD student in experimental psychology at the University of Ottawa. She has been working as a research assistant at the Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, since 2023. Her research interests include well-being for military members and their families.

Kathryn Reeves is a graduate student at Mount Saint Vincent University in the Family Studies and Gerontology Department. Her research interests include military family members and moral injury, with a particular focus on the well-being of adult children of military members.

Deborah Norris, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Family Studies and Gerontology at Mount Saint Vincent University. Informed by ecological theory and critical theory, Dr. Norris’s research program is applied, collaborative, and interdisciplinary. She has facilitated studies focusing on the mental health and well-being of Veteran families with a particular emphasis on resilience. Dr. Norris’s military and Veteran family research program was recognized through her designation as a Fellow with the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research in 2017.

Funding Statement

This study received funding from the Department of National Defence.