Work-Family Conflicts: Flexible Jobs Determine Who Adjusts

When schools closed and child care vanished during COVID-19, dual-earner households faced an immediate dilemma: which job could absorb the shock? A new study led by Kristen Shockley of Auburn University and co-authored by Eden King, Lynette S. Autrey Professor of Psychological Sciences at Rice University, analyzes how couples made those decisions in the pandemic’s first weeks.

Rather than treating work-family tradeoffs as a simple “who earns more” calculation, the research focuses on job attributes that shape real flexibility. Using observational methods in a period when many families had to improvise in real time, the study examines how couples chose short-term schedule adjustments to accommodate children as care arrangements collapsed.

The key predictors were two job characteristics. First was schedule flexibility—how easily work demands could be reshaped without major disruption. Second was job role indispensability, defined as how critical each partner’s responsibilities were perceived to be for organizational functioning. These factors mattered not only within an individual’s job but also in comparison with a partner’s job.

In other words, couples evaluated the relative cost of adjusting: decisions about shifting work to meet family needs depended on the flexibility and indispensability of both partners’ roles simultaneously. Importantly, the pattern did not disappear when researchers controlled for household income contributions, suggesting money alone cannot explain which partner became the primary adjuster.

The study also clarifies why gendered outcomes often appear. Although women were more likely to make professional compromises, the effect did not vary by gender in response to job characteristics. Instead, differences in men’s versus women’s job characteristics likely drive the unequal burden rather than gender itself.

A further finding points to potential consequences for well-being. Frequent work adjustments were associated with negative effects on women’s relationship well-being, implying that repeated career “adaptation” to family demands may carry psychological costs.

For employers, the implications are practical. Because dual-earner couples often work for independent organizations, both sides benefit from recognizing interdependence: employees’ work-life experiences are linked through their household roles. Providing flexibility for workers—especially around caregiving contingencies—may reduce strain across the entire family system.

More broadly, the research highlights that large career decisions are not the only determinants of outcomes. Everyday micro-adjustments—leaving work early, re-negotiating schedules, stepping away during emergencies—can accumulate and meaningfully shape relational and mental well-being.