Universities' role in promoting learning, research, and innovation for social change is undeniable. Academic careers have undergone significant changes in recent years, necessitating a critical re-evaluation of traditional linear career models to more adequately account for the complexities and dynamics of contemporary academia. Work-life balance is a critical area of research as it directly impacts individuals' well-being, quality of work, and overall quality of life. Understanding how people manage their professional responsibilities alongside personal commitments is essential in today’s fast-paced world, where blurred boundaries between work and personal life in academic institution can lead to stress and burnout (Darmawati, Suryani, 2024). Although prior research has addressed various aspects of career development in academia (White-Lewis, O’Meara & Mathews, 2023; Geuna & Shibayama2014), the research potential can also be devoted to the exploring the current situation of academic work-life balance at a particular university.

The starting point for the presented research aiming at exploring opportunities and barriers of academics´ work-life balance at a particular university was the results of a questionnaire survey from 2023. At that time, 1237 university employees (64% of whom were women) completed the questionnaire out of a total of 4,111 employees (a further 8,404 have a non-working arrangement). 38% of those responding, i.e. 474 respondents, indicated that they were rather unlikely to believe that their employer actively sought to enable employees to balance work and personal life. This formed the basis for further data collection in 2024.

The research design was exploratory. A series of differently designed focus groups and individual interviews (Creswell, 2015) were conducted from May to September 2024. These were preceded by the document analysis (job descriptions, regulations on human resources development, annual reports, etc.). Focus groups, explored the work-life balance from two different aspects: the opportunities and barriers to work-life balance and the opportunities and barriers to career development/diversity support. The semi-structured individual interviews were performed with the academics in the position of head of departments again from two perspectives: from the perspective of leaders and managers responsible also for human resource quality care and quality improvement at department level; and from the systemic perspective of how the institution perceives them as managers, and to how it supports, develops, monitors or evaluates them in their activities. Criteria for participants selection included the diverse length of working at the particular university (from a more then decade up to the relatively short work experience, min. three months...); number of employment obligations (those for whom the university is the only employer, but also those with experience in different workplaces and positions including foreign ones) and gender. Five focus groups (ranging from 90 to 180 minutes with altogether 32 university staff from five different parts of the university and predominantly women agreed to participate) and five individual interviews (minimum 60 minutes with five staff in middle management positions, mainly heads of departments) were performed. Participants are/were taking care of close family member(s) (child/children, their parents, but also both generations simultaneously; those caring for a long-term ill spouse were also represented). The respondents were both full-time and part-time employees, longer or shortly after returning from parental leave or shortly before the end of parental leave.

This research provides valuable insights into work-life balance issues not only for academics but also for other professionals in related fields in academia. The findings shows that university is mostly perceived as a quality employer, which stands out especially when compared with employees´ previous work experience. The key findings comprehensively reveal the change of individuals´ perception of the work-life balance throughout various stages of professional development. The outcomes helped to identify a number of existing sources of support (such as a high level of autonomy and degree of flexibility in the distribution of work duties etc.) and barriers (including rather formal approach to professional development of diverse academics, the absence of an ombudsman for academics and staff etc.) that significantly influences overall satisfaction in academia and their work-life balance. However, outcomes also show that academics are also cognizant of the relatively frequent attrition of distinguished colleagues from the university, which may suggest that the area of equity and care alignment is not being addressed systematically enough and is a major opportunity to further support of the quality care of academics.

Creswell, J. (2015). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Pearson Education Inc. Darmawati, Nugroho, P. S., S, W. H., & Suryani, E. E. (2024). Employee well-being represents a significant domain of productivity and pursue work performance: Insight from the conservation of resources theory. International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management Studies, 6(5), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.38193/IJRCMS.2024.6501 Geuna, A. & Shibayama, So, (2016) Moving Out of Academic Research: Why Scientists StopDoing Research? SWPS 2015-01. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2743162 Hauw, S., & Greenhaus, J. (2014). Building a sustainable career: The role of work–home balance in career decision making. Career Development International, 19(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-06-2013-0086 Khatri, P., & Shukla, S. (2022). A review and research agenda of work-life balance: an agentic approach. Community, Work & Family, 27(3), 286–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2022.2127348 White-Lewis, D.K., O’Meara, K., Mathews, K. et al. (2023) Leaving the Institution or Leavingthe Academy? Analyzing the Factors that Faculty Weigh in Actual Departure Decisions.Research in High er Education.64, 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09712-9