In 1960, 72% of adults were married, and over 90% would go on to marry. HR policies and management practices back then catered to nuclear families with a lone, male breadwinner.
Today, dual-career couples and working mothers are common, largely due to the growth of women in the workforce in the second half of the 20th century.
To recruit and retain talent, businesses have expanded family-friendly policies by offering flexible work hours, paid parental leave and subsidized child care. These are much-needed improvements, though many employers still lag in offering them.
Today, another demographic shift also demands employers’ attention: the growing share of the workforce that is single – particularly those without dependents. About 1 in 3 American adults haven’t gotten married by midlife.
More adults aren’t married
The workplace has always included recent grads, never-married professionals, divorced empty nesters and widowed retirees. But these categories now represent a far larger share of the labor force than they did a generation ago – and people move in and out of them throughout their lives.
As a behavioral economist and business school professor, I study what I call the “Solo Economy” – how institutions and markets are adapting, or failing to adapt, to this shift.
Workplace policy is one area where the gap is especially wide.
A growing mismatch
Today, 46% of U.S. adults are unmarried. Half of these unmarried Americans aren’t interested in dating. Population forecasters project that about 25% of millennials and 33% of Gen Z will never marry.
Around 29% of U.S. adults live alone – the most common household type in the country. Compare that to 1960, when the median age of first marriage was 20 for women and 22 for men, and single-person households were relatively rare.
The average age of getting hitched for the first – or only – time has risen by nearly a decade since then to 28.4 for women and 30.8 for men.
And yet, many HR policies have not adjusted to this new normal. Of course, there’s a word for this: amatonormativity. It’s the assumption that marriage and family are the ideal relationship model.
Amatonormativity underpins more than 1,000 legal benefits for married people, from tax breaks to Social Security payments. These disparities extend into the workplace when family-friendly policies don’t take the needs of the “family of one” into account.
In one survey, 62% of single workers reported feeling treated differently from married colleagues with children – and 30% said the disparity reinforced the message that their lives mattered less.
I believe that employers can do better by singles with no kids at home without putting anyone at a disadvantage.
Scheduling can seem unfair
Workers with spouses or who are raising children have real obligations that deserve support. But too often, single employees without dependents are expected to pick up the slack by working on holidays, traveling more for their jobs and taking vacations at less desirable times.
“My manager asked me to take on an extra responsibility, saying she couldn’t ask the teacher who handled it before because she ‘has four boys,’” Sarah Brock, founder of Sarah Bee Talent, posted on Linkedin. “I felt like my life didn’t have the same value because I wasn’t raising a family.” Brock received hundreds of similar stories in response to her post.
Researchers have found evidence that confirms these patterns: Single, childless employees are more often expected to travel, work longer hours and take less desirable vacation times than their married colleagues.
Krystal Wilkinson, a British human resource management professor, has written about finding that children and child care are considered far more legitimate reasons for placing boundaries on work than engaging in hobbies, fitness or dating. Even with policies such as unlimited paid time off, singles may hesitate to take vacations, fearing that their managers will see their reasons for taking time off as illegitimate.
Better benefits for married employees
Employee benefits often favor married workers – not by design, but by default.
The total compensation package is typically worth more for a married employee doing the same job as a single one. A 2021 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 95% of large employers extend health coverage to employees’ spouses, with employers subsidizing part of the cost. This is entirely reasonable – but single employees typically receive no equivalent value in return.
This gap extends to many life insurance policies, retirement plan features, wellness programs and employee assistance programs.
Leave policies reflect a similar pattern. The Family and Medical Leave Act grants up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a parent, child or spouse. Bereavement leave is typically limited to deaths of members of your immediate family. Yet singles without kids at home often have broader support networks that include their close friends and members of their “chosen family” – whom current policies don’t recognize. This tends to be especially true within the LGBTQ+ community.
The issue isn’t that married employees receive too many benefits. It’s that the system was built for one kind of lifestyle and hasn’t kept pace with how many people live today.
What employers can do
Employers can close these gaps without taking anything away from married employees – and in many cases, benefit everyone with these approaches.
Flexible benefits: A cafeteria-style model lets employees allocate a budget based on their own needs, covering everything from child care to gym memberships to pet insurance. Netflix already does this by offering up to US$16,000 per employee yearly to cover medical, dental and vision premiums – regardless of marital status – with unused portions partially refundable.
Broader leave policies: Bereavement leave could cover close friends. Employees might exchange one type of leave for another, based on need.
Fair scheduling: Rather than assuming single employees are more available, companies can adopt first-come, first-served vacation systems with seniority breaking ties. Or companies could adopt a points-based system, giving every employee an equal budget to bid on preferred time slots – ensuring those who value certain dates most get priority, regardless of relationship status.
Inclusive language and culture: Small changes signal who belongs. When employers use wording like “you and your loved ones” instead of “you and your family” in their communications with their staff, it acknowledges relationships beyond traditional structures.
Organizational values: Just as companies affirm diversity in age, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity, they can explicitly commit to valuing employees regardless of relationship status.
A simple test
If employers want to see whether any of their personnel policies could put their married or single employees at a disadvantage, I suggest they use this litmus test: Would this policy harm a married employee who gets divorced? If so, the policy needs to change.
Many people shift between singlehood and partnership throughout their lives due to breakups, divorce and the death of their spouses or partners. A workplace built for a family of one is built for everyone – wherever they happen to be in their life journey.
Peter McGraw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.