31
Achieve Work-Family Balance through Individual and Organizational Strategies
BORIS B. BALTES AND MALISSA A. CLARK
As the average workweek is steadily increasing in the USA, along with the number of dual-earner households, many workers today find themselves struggling to balance their work and family lives. Indeed, a recent poll by the Equal Opportunities Commission found that nearly three out of five adults believe it is harder now for working parents to balance work and family life than it was 30 years ago. Because of concerns such as this, both organizations and researchers have become increasingly focused on a better understanding of what helps employees to balance their work and family lives. To date, most of the focus has been on how organizational initiatives (e.g. flextime) can help individuals manage these two goals but recent research has begun to realize the importance of individual level strategies in achieving this balance. The guiding principle of this chapter is that both individual and organizational strategies are necessary if employees are to achieve work-family balance and that the use of individual strategies can often be affected by organizational level factors. In the present chapter, we present a definition of work- family balance, followed by a discussion of the organizational and individual strategies that can help one to achieve balance.
Work-family conflict can be defined as “a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985, p. 77). Individuals may feel conflict because their work life is interfering with their family life, termed work interfering with family (WIF) conflict, or they may feel conflict because their family life is interfering with their work life, termed family interfering with work (FIW) conflict (Frone, Russell, and Cooper, 1997). Work-family balance is a newer term, but basically can be understood as a person achieving a low level of work-family conflict.
It should also be pointed out that researchers and practitioners have recently begun to focus on the positive aspects of participating in multiple life roles. Perhaps this shift was partially influenced by the ideas put forth by proponents of positive psychology or perhaps this shift was due to a realization that some individuals were finding ways to thrive in multiple life roles. In either case, research in the work-family domain has begun also to focus on the concept of work-family facilitation (often referred to as enrichment, or positive spillover). In the present chapter, however, we will focus solely on work-family balance.
What causes conflict between work and family roles?
In the work domain, significant relationships between levels of WIF conflict and a myriad of variables have been found (for a comprehensive review of antecedents of WFC, see Byron, 2005). Not surprisingly, a key variable is time. Both the number of hours worked and the amount of overtime worked have been linked to increased work-family conflict. Furthermore, having heavy workloads and responsibilities in one’s job can increase an individual’s stress, which can then carry over to his or her family life. Various shift schedules have also been linked to WIF conflict. For example, working second or third shifts can cause increased WIF conflict because these schedules often make it difficult to arrange childcare or attend children’s events that are often scheduled around the typical work shift (i.e. first shift).
Another factor that can increase an individual’s level of WIF conflict is a lack of job autonomy, presumably because having freedom to adjust one’s job responsibilities can lessen the extent to which work interferes with the demands of family. In addition to autonomy, job type can have an impact on WIF conflict, as some jobs (e.g. lawyer, doctor) require long hours and are less flexible than other jobs. Having a supportive supervisor has been shown to reduce the extent to which work can interfere with family life, because not only can supervisors provide instrumental aid to their employees, which can reduce workload and work stress, but they can also provide emotional support and advice. Conversely, a lack of supervisor support has been found to increase work-family conflict.
In the family domain, positive linkages have been found between WIF conflict and/or FIW conflict and marital status, size, and the developmental stage of family. Family stressors (i.e. parental workload, extent of children’s misbehavior, lack of spousal support, and degree of tension in the marital relationship) and family involvement have been shown to increase the extent to which family can interfere with work. For example, if individuals have many family responsibilities (e.g. picking children up from school, cooking dinner) and they do not get support from their spouse, such family stress could drain individuals both mentally and physically, thereby leaving less energy that can be devoted to their work. Both the number and age of children play a role in the level of FIW conflict experienced by parents. Past research has demonstrated that the number of children individuals have impacts their ability to accommodate family responsibilities with work demands. Additionally, younger children typically require more care and thus more resources from their caregivers, which results in greater conflict between work and family. More recently, eldercare has become a topic of interest since an ever-increasing number of employees are also dealing with this issue which can contribute to FIW conflict. Individuals can benefit from various forms of social support, as negative relationships have been found between WIF conflict and spousal and family support and between FIW conflict and spousal and family support.
In sum, there are a number of antecedents that cause work-family conflict. However, these can all be categorized as either work ( job) or family stressors. Furthermore, it should be apparent that any strategy to achieve work-family balance must be targeted at reducing these stressors. Indeed, organizational initiatives aimed at reducing such stressors have been attempted with varying levels of success; the next section will address such initiatives.
Organizational initiatives intended to help employees balance their work and family lives are becoming increasingly popular. These initiatives include implementing flexible work hours (flextime), allowing telecommuting, compressed workweeks, offering on-site childcare, and implementing part-time schedules and job sharing. Research has shown that these initiatives can reduce employees’ work-family conflict and increase their family satisfaction. For example, in a 2000 study by the Boston College Center for Work and Family, which surveyed over 1300 employees and 150 managers in six companies, flexible work arrangements had a positive impact on productivity, employees’ quality of work, and employee retention. We believe that with careful implementation and a supportive organizational culture, these initiatives have the potential to increase employees’ work- family balance. We will discuss each of these organizational initiatives and their benefits and potential drawbacks in more detail below, and will conclude with a discussion of how an organization’s culture can help or impede an organization’s effort to increase their employee’s work-family balance.
Flextime. To date, the most widely used organizational initiative to help workers balance their work and family lives is flextime, or flexible workweeks. Flextime involves setting a band of time where all employees are required to be in the office (typically from 9 or 10 A.M. until 2 or 3 P.M.), but employees have the discretion as to exactly what time they will arrive and leave work outside that band of time. An obvious benefit of a flexible workweek is that employees can start or end their day earlier or later, depending on their other non-work obligations and needs at that time. Thus, if employees have an outside obligation in the afternoon on a particular day (e.g. doctor’s appointment, child’s sporting event) they can simply arrive at work earlier in the morning, which allows them to leave earlier in the afternoon. According to a Families and Work Institute national study, 68% of companies allow at least some employees to periodically change starting and quitting times (although only 34% of companies allowed employees to do this on a daily basis), and the percentage of companies offering flextime has increased from 1998 to 2005. This national study also found that flextime was offered more frequently in smaller companies (50-99 employees) than larger companies (1000+ employees). Also, according to a large-scale study of over 30,000 government employees, approximately 41% of employees surveyed utilize flextime (Saltzstein, Ting, and Saltzstein, 2001).
Overall, research has shown that flextime is associated with many individual as well as organizational benefits. Several studies have found that flextime is associated with positive attitudinal outcomes. For example, flextime has been associated with greater employee loyalty to the organization, and greater employee job satisfaction (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, and Neuman, 1999). Additionally, employees who have greater control over their work hours have also reported reduced work-family conflict. In addition to these attitudinal outcomes, research has linked flextime to various organizational outcomes, such as increased productivity and reduced turnover.
There is some evidence that all forms of flextime are not created equal, however. For example, researchers have found that some flexible schedules offered by organizations allow for very little flexibility, and that the number of hours in which an employee actually works may increase with a flexible schedule. In fact, one study of Canadian employees found that the percentage of employees working 50+ hours doubled or sometimes tripled in the presence of flexible work arrangements (Comfort, Johnson, and Wallace, 2003). In the Boston College Center for Work and Family’s 2000 study, researchers made a distinction between traditional flextime and daily flextime. Whereas traditional flextime involves employees choosing their start and end times, which must include certain core hours, daily flextime is a working schedule in which employees are allowed to vary their work hours on a daily basis. The researchers at the Center for Work and Family found that employees using daily flextime were more satisfied with their jobs, lives, and more productive than employees using traditional flextime.
Compressed workweeks. Compressed workweeks are used in a broad range of industries, including manufacturing, health care, food service, government, the airline industry, and law enforcement (Harrington and Hall, 2007). With a compressed workweek, the workweek is shortened to fewer than five days by having employees work longer hours on the days they do work. There are many different variations of a compressed workweek, but the most typical is to have full-time employees (i.e. 40 hour workweek) work four 10-hour days per week instead of five eight-hour days per week. According to the Families and Work Institute’s study, 39% of companies allow at least some employees to work a compressed workweek schedule, and the number of companies offering compressed workweeks has increased since 1998.
As with many of the family-friendly policies we discuss, there are pros and cons to implementing a compressed workweek in an organization. Among the benefits are that compressed workweeks have been shown to decrease work-family conflict, stress, and fatigue, as well as increase work satisfaction and positive attitudes about the effect of work schedules on one’s family and social life. In addition to these attitudinal benefits, compressed workweeks have been shown to reduce employee absenteeism and increase productivity.
Compressed workweeks can be problematic for some employees, however; specifically, for those employees who have time-specific responsibilities (e.g. picking up a child from school). Indeed, Saltzstein et al. (2001) found that mothers with an unemployed spouse (who can presumably help with childcare or eldercare obligations) experienced significantly more satisfaction with their work-family balance as a result of a compressed workweek, whereas unmarried mothers experienced significantly less satisfaction with work-family balance. This finding illustrates that compressed workweeks may only benefit employees when they have someone to assist in their time-specific responsibilities. In the case of childcare, most daycare facilities close at 6 P.M., which can make it difficult for employees who do not have outside assistance to find childcare on the days they work extended hours.
Telecommuting. Telecommuting is generally defined as working from home or off-site for all or part of the workweek, made possible by advances in telecommunication and information technology. According to the 2005 Families and Work study of employers, 31% of companies allowed some of its employees to work from home or off-site on a regular basis. However, telecommuting is not suitable for all jobs, or all people. Telecommuting is most often used in jobs that rely heavily on phones, the internet/computers, and other technology devices, where face-to-face time with other employees or customers is not as essential, and where constant supervision is not necessary. Further, researchers have identified several personality traits and skills that differentiate employees suitable for telecommuting from those who would struggle with such a work arrangement. Examples include self-motivation, time management and organizational skills, trustworthiness, comfort with solitude, strong communication skills, independence, and confidence.
Like flextime and compressed workweeks, there are pros and cons to telecommuting. From an employee’s perspective, telecommuting can have many advantages, including the cost savings on gas, reduced time spent commuting to work, greater autonomy, and greater flexibility of the work schedule. From an organization’s perspective, telecommuting can increase employee productivity, lower employee absenteeism, and reduce overhead costs. Research has shown telecommuting to have a positive impact on employees, in that telecommuting has been linked to greater work-family balance than traditional occupations, more perceived control over one’s work and family roles, higher performance ratings, and reduced depression rates.
Conversely, telecommuting can pose challenges to employees and organizations alike. Employees may feel isolated from their co-workers, or have difficulty separating their work and family roles, while organizations may have difficulty monitoring employees as well as fostering team synergy. Indeed, research has linked telecommuting to increased work-family conflict, increased spillover from work to family, and higher depression rates. Kossek, Lautsch, and Eaton (2006) point out that telecommuting may lead to increased work-family conflict because the border between the work and family domains is more permeable if one is working at home. To resolve this, some employees have developed routines to help solidify the role boundaries between work and family, such as putting on work clothes, reading the business section of the newspaper, or saying goodbye to the family before stepping into the home office.
On-site childcare. Another recent trend within organizations is to provide a daycare facility on-site. Providing an on-site childcare facility has the potential to increase work-family balance for employees with children, presumably because employees do not have to travel to drop off and pick up their children, and they can visit their children at various times in the workday (e.g. during their lunch hour), thus helping parents to feel close to their children even while at work. Although a recent study found that the usage of employer-provided childcare is relatively low, those using such services have reported more positive attitudes towards managing their work and family responsibilities and were less likely to experience problems with daycare. On-site childcare has also been found to result in positive organizational outcomes, such as increased organizational loyalty, and reduced absenteeism and turnover. A potential unintended outcome for on-site childcare is that there may be a backlash, or “frustration effect,” from workers who are not able to take advantage of such a policy, either because they do not have children, are on the waitlist, or cannot afford such services.
Part-time and job sharing. Another type of organizational policy aimed at helping employees balance their work and family involves reducing the total number of hours employees work per week. This can be accomplished either by reducing the number of hours an employee works from full-time to part-time, or by dividing up the responsibility of one full-time position among two employees (i.e. job sharing). Many organizations currently use these policies, with 53% allowing employees to switch from full-time to part-time and 46% allowing employees to share jobs (Bond, Galinsky, Kim, and Brownfield, 2005). Research has shown that employees who reduced their hours to part-time experienced greater life satisfaction, increased work-family balance, felt less stressed, and reported better relationships with their children.
However, part-time work may not be a feasible alternative for certain occupations (e.g. lawyer, doctor) thus limiting its usefulness. Job sharing is also only suitable for some positions, mostly ones that require long workweeks (greater than 40 hours/week) or jobs that cannot be easily reduced to part-time positions. If the employees sharing a particular position are able to coordinate and work well together, job sharing can be a great option for employees. For example, if one employee has an unexpected family situation, he/she can work out an arrangement with his/her job sharing partner to cover this time lost. Understandably, there are some potential disadvantages that come with sharing a job with another person, particularly if one of the partners is not carrying his/her share of the workload, or there are communication breakdowns. Additionally, sometimes the job performance of each individual employee is not easily distinguished, which can be problematic if individuals make unequal contributions.
In order for organizational strategies/initiatives to help employees balance their work and family lives, the employees first need to (1) use the policies that are offered to them and (2) perceive that the organization is fully supportive of the use of such policies. For example, if the organization offers on-site childcare, but charges so much for these services that only the top executives in the company can afford such a service, then it will not be effective in helping most of the organization’s employees manage their work and family (a point we discuss below in one of our case studies). Second, employees will not take advantage of such policies if they perceive negative ramifications may come from utilizing such a policy. For example, if an organization offers telecommuting but employees believe that if they take advantage of such a policy their manager will think negatively of their work ethic, which may subsequently impact their potential for promotions or pay raises, then they will not take advantage of such a policy. Indeed, Allen (2001) points out that offering family-friendly policies may not be sufficient; rather it is the perception that the organization is family supportive that mediates the relationship between the family-friendly policies available and positive outcomes. Perceptions of a family-supportive environment are an individual level variable that reflects individual perceptions and can vary widely within an organization. Family-friendly culture on the other hand is an organizational level variable that should reflect “reality” and assumes that agreement exists between employees on how family-friendly the culture actually is. Family-friendly culture has been found to act as a moderator. Specifically, we believe that family-friendly policies will have a greater impact on facilitating work-family balance in organizations with a family-friendly culture than those with a culture that does not support its policies. Indeed, Thompson, Beauvais, and Lyness (1999) found that a supportive work-family culture was related to employees’ use of work-family benefits, and both the availability of such policies and a supportive work culture predicted lower work-family conflict. Taking the organization’s family-friendly climate into account may explain why some prior organizational initiatives did not work, as it may be difficult to fully take advantage of such family-friendly policies if the climate does not support it.
In sum, while some organizational initiatives have been successful at increasing work- family balance, it appears that many factors such as individual perceptions as well as organizational level culture play a role in their success. Simply implementing organizational policies such as flextime or telecommuting is not enough; the organization must ensure that its culture is supportive of such policies as well.
From our discussion, we hope it is clear that organizations cannot simply implement one or more family-friendly policies, sit back, and watch the employees thrive. On the contrary, an organization must ensure that its leaders fully support and embrace such a policy and make efforts to change the company culture if it is currently not supportive of such endeavors.
Additionally, we believe that even effectively implemented organizational initiatives are only half of the equation. That is, employees should realize that organizational policies aimed at reducing their employees’ work-family balance are not one-size-fits-all solutions. Instead, employees must take the initiative and evaluate their particular work and family stressors and how they are working to cope with them. Effective management of work and family roles takes efforts by both the organization and the individual. Thus, the following section will discuss how employees can take steps to improve their work-family balance through various individual strategies.
Over the past 15 years a relatively small but increasing amount of research has examined the role of the individual in reducing their work-family conflict (i.e. achieving work-family balance). For example, it has been found that women who possessed self-control skills were less stressed by handling multiple roles than were women who did not possess these skills. Furthermore, qualitative research studies have also shown that both dual-career men and women use certain coping strategies more during stages of their lifecycles which included more stressful situations (i.e. young children at home). For instance, Becker and Moen (1999) found that many dual-earner couples engaged in what they called scaling back strategies (i.e. reducing and restructuring a couple’s commitment to paid work). While early research on individual strategies lacked a cohesive framework, this recently changed with the introduction of a meta-theory entitled Selection, Optimization, and Compensation (SOC).
Selection, optimization, and compensation
SOC was originally developed as a lifespan model to explain successful adaptation to the loss of resources due to aging through adjustments in the use and allocation of resources (Baltes and Baltes, 1990; Baltes, 1997). It is based on the underlying assumption that limited internal and external resources (e.g. mental capacity, time, social support) require people to make choices regarding the allocation of those resources. These limitations of resources necessitate the use of several processes: selection, optimization, and compensation.
Selection is divided into two categories, elective selection and loss-based selection. The primary focus of both types of selection is on choosing goals. Specifically, one always has a limited amount of resources and selection is needed to focus on a subset of possible goals. Elective selection involves choosing from among positive options. Loss-based selection occurs when an individual is pressured to change or abandon certain goals (or change one’s goal hierarchy) by the loss of some internal or external resource.
Optimization and compensation pertain to the means for attaining goals. Optimization refers to the acquisition of and refinement in the use of resources to achieve selected goals. General categories of optimization include persistence, practice, learning of new skills, modeling of successful others, as well as the scheduling of time.
Compensation occurs when lost resources (or those anticipated to be lost, for example time) are replaced by new ones in order to sustain progress towards one’s existing goals. The use of external aids (e.g. the internet) or help from others (e.g. childcare) are examples of compensatory behaviors.
As stated previously, work-family conflict occurs when both are important goals and an individual’s time and energy resources are limited. Since the theory of SOC hypothesizes (and research supports) that, when faced with the limitation of resources (e.g. time, energy), those who use SOC strategies are more likely to maximize gains and minimize losses, it is plausible to assume that individuals who use SOC behaviors will be more successful at dealing with the competing roles of work and family. For example, after the birth of a child, an individual could engage in loss-based selection and choose to focus on a more limited number of work goals (e.g. no longer focus on organizational networking) and/ or family goals (only focus on the immediate and not extended family) given that their resources have become more limited. Further, an individual could engage in optimization and decide what individual skills (e.g. organizational, technological) could be acquired or improved to help insure successful goal completion. For example, if an employee has decided that successfully leading/managing her workgroup is a goal she will pursue then she can decide to take a leadership training program to enhance her skills. By enhancing her skills she should more efficiently achieve the same level of productivity allowing more time for family commitments. Finally, individuals can engage in compensation by maintaining their prior productivity (even though they may have to work less because of family commitments) through the use of delegation. They could attempt to give more responsibility to subordinates to decrease their actual workload but maintain overall productivity.
Research has now demonstrated that the use of these SOC strategies are related to lower amounts of job and family stressors and thereby lower amounts of WFC. For example, the results from a study by Baltes and Heydens-Gahir (2003) show that employees who reported using SOC strategies at work and/or at home also reported lower amounts of job and family stressors, and subsequently work-family conflict.
Qualitative, interview-based research has provided us with some specific examples of SOC that employees report using.
Examples of selection strategies in both the work and family domain included: “I prioritize my workload.”
“I say no to other projects because I don’t have the time.”
“(We) sit down as a family and say ok this is what we want to do, this is our five year plan, and this is our five month plan. You have to prioritize!”
Examples of optimization in both domains included:“I try to find the best way to do it, or the fastest way to complete home or job tasks.”
“I increase my efficiency by eating my lunch at my desk while I continue to work.”
“I have increased my listening skills so as to better understand my family.”
“I reevaluate what didn’t work to make sure I do things more efficiently the next time.”
“I keep a calendar of when things are due.”
Examples of compensation in both domains included:“I try to empower more people to do more things; I try to delegate more.”
“I try to share (the workload) between different individuals so that it’s not all put on me to complete tasks.”
“I verbalize to my boss that I need help.”
“We give the kids more responsibility at home.”
“I hired a part-time housekeeper.”
Additional research appears to indicate that, given one’s selected goals, the strategy of optimization seems to be the most effective in reducing work and family stressors. Of course, the exact way individuals choose to engage in SOC strategies is open to much variability. While the use of the SOC model as a framework has demonstrated that at a broad (or general) level the reported use of SOC strategies is related to lower work family conflict, what is still needed is more research that generates an exhaustive list of specific behaviors that might be used in the future as part of a training program for employees.
Research has suggested two major types of possible moderators with respect to individual level strategies. First, one can have variables that act as moderators with respect to the potential efficacy or even the possibility of using any of the SOC strategies. For instance, the presence of training programs that allows an employee to optimize (i.e. become more efficient at work tasks) would probably moderate the effect that optimization strategies might have. Specifically, attempts at optimization might be more effective if the organization offered training programs. Another example of this type of moderator would be job type. For example, some research suggests that use of SOC strategies is affected quite a bit by job type/level. A manager may have much more flexibility when it comes to prioritizing his/her workload (i.e. elective selection) than a clerical employee has. Thus, even if a clerical worker would choose to engage in elective selection they do not have the autonomy to do so. Finally, socio-economic level could act as a moderator with respect to the use of compensation strategies.
For instance, wealthier families would be able to engage in compensatory behaviors such as the use of daycare and/or household help much easier than poorer families.
A second set of moderators of any of the SOC strategies are those variables that could affect the demand on one’s resources or the supply of one’s resources. These types of variables would make the use of individual level strategies more important to achieving work-family balance. That is, it is most likely that employees in the most demanding situations can benefit the most. To date, we are aware of only one study that had theorized and examined these types of potential moderators of individual level strategies (Young, Baltes, and Pratt, 2007). This study examined SOC-type strategies and theorized that SOC strategies should be most effective for the individuals who have the most demands on their resources. Several factors that impact the amount of resources demanded of, or resources available to, an individual with respect to the domains of work and family were tested as potential moderators. Furthermore, the study found that the age of a participant’s youngest child at home, family support, the number of family-friendly policies offered by the organization, supervisor support, and participant age moderated the work (family) SOC-job (family) stressor relationship. For example, as the age of the youngest child in the house decreased (it has been found that younger children put more resource demands on parents) the use of SOC strategies became much more effective/useful. In sum, it appears as though these individual level strategies are very important for achieving work-life balance especially for the employees who are in the most demanding situations.
Implementation of individual strategies is obviously in the hands of each employee. However, we hope it has become clear that organizational level factors may influence the extent to which SOC behaviors can be undertaken by employees and potentially also the extent to which these behaviors/strategies are effective. For example, an individual attempting to optimize through the use of new skills training will have a harder time if the organization does not offer or support the use of training programs.
CASE EXAMPLES
First Tennessee Bank
First Tennessee Bank has earned top ratings when it comes to being a family-friendly company by both Business Week and Working Mother. First Tennessee offers a wide variety of family-friendly programs, including flextime, telecommuting, on-site childcare or vouchers, job sharing, prime-time schedules (reduced hours with benefits), and adoption benefits. In addition, First Tennessee was one of the only companies surveyed by Business Week that have actually measured the effect of work-family strategies on profits. However, perhaps even more impressive is that family friendliness is ingrained in both culture and business strategy. Realizing that family issues do affect business results, executives have integrated issues pertaining to balancing work and family into job design, work processes, and organizational structures. Company executives have made strides to show workers that the company is serious in their endeavors to help employees balance their work and family lives. To ensure that the work-family policies are working smoothly and that employees are satisfied with them, First Tennessee has created the First Power Council, which is comprised of high level executives and currently chaired by the HR manager. The First Power Council meets quarterly to go over employee satisfaction surveys and to discuss any matters (work-family related and otherwise) of concern to the employees. John Daniel, HR manager at First Tennessee, views the work-family benefits offered to employees as a win-win: “I often get more productivity from the people we offer work-family benefits to than the average person because they are so appreciative of the flexibility the program allows. In sum, offering work-family benefits is a great way to attract and retain the right people.”
First Tennessee Bank provides a great example of how a supportive culture can enhance the effectiveness of family-friendly policies. Regardless of how many benefits are offered to employees, if only a select few are able/allowed to use them, or if the company culture still does not support the use of such policies on a regular basis, then employees will not feel the benefits of such programs.
XYZ Company
The top management at XYZ Company (a fictional but representative company) has recently implemented several work-family policies in response to employee satisfaction surveys that indicated many employees were concerned about balancing their work and families. After consideration of which policies would work best for their particular company, executives decided to offer flextime and part-time work to employees. Despite their good intentions and initial excitement for these work-family programs, recent events at the company suggest that the top management did not follow through to ensure that these work-family policies were being properly implemented.
Since the implementation of the two work-family policies, several employees have filed complaints that they have been denied the opportunity to use them. Several employees were denied flextime because their supervisor reportedly stated that their particular job within the company required that they be there during normal operating hours to deal with clients. Other supervisors reportedly denied part-time work because, in their opinion, it was an “all or nothing” position - either the employee commits to full-time work, or they will find someone who will commit to full-time. Some complaints were filed because managers did offer flextime or part-time work, but only when the employees agreed to a lesser pay or a lower level position. Upon investigation of these instances, top management discovered that some supervisors were strongly opposed to such policies because they feared this would decrease the productivity of their work group.
According to recent focus groups held with XYZ employees, once employees learned of these grievances regarding the flextime and part-time work options offered to employees, employees began to fear that taking advantage of such policies would in fact limit their ability to move up within the organization. These fears were not entirely unwarranted, as there have been at least two documented instances of an employee being demoted or transferred to a less desirable position within two months of requesting either the flextime or part-time work option from his/her supervisor. Although the supervisors in these two instances deny such a link, the focus group discussions revealed that many employees believe otherwise.
In sum, although XYZ Company had intended to help employees balance their work and family by offering flexible benefits, these policies are not having the intended consequences. First, because top management have not clearly conveyed to company supervisors that these work-family policies should be encouraged, and every attempt should be made to accommodate employees who wish to take advantage of them, some supervisors have been reluctant to grant these flexible arrangements to their subordinates for fear that they would decrease their work group productivity. Thus, in many ways, these work-family policies failed in their attempt to help employees balance their work and family, because either the employees have been denied such benefits or the employees were reluctant to ask for such an arrangement for fear of demotion or other work-related consequences. Most importantly, at XYZ Company, the implementation of the work-family policies has actually caused more damage than benefit. Specifically, since the flextime and part-time work policies have been implemented, recent employee satisfaction surveys have shown a decrease in job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Moreover, turnover has increased from 20% to 28% since flextime and part-time work were first offered to employees. Thus, not only have these work-family policies failed to help improve employees’ work-family balance, they have actually lowered (based on the employee surveys mentioned above) employee satisfaction and commitment to the organization. Company XYZ is a prime example of just how important it is that all company employees, as well as the company culture, is supportive of such policies. The bottom line is this: if you are going to offer work-family policies to employees, you have got to do it right.
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435.
Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52(4), 366-380.
Baltes, P. B., and Baltes, M. M. (eds). (1990). Successful Aging: Perspectives from the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., and Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496-513.
Baltes, B. B., and Heydens-Gahir, H. A. (2003). Reduction of work-family conflict through the use of selection, optimization, and compensation behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1005-1018.
Becker, P. E., and Moen, P. (1999). Scaling back: Dual earner couples’ work-family strategies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 995-1007.
Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., Kim, S. S., and Brownfield, E. (2005). The 2005 National Study of Employers. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169-198.
Comfort, D., Johnson, K., and Wallace, D. (2003). Part-time work and family-friendly practices in Canadian workplaces. Human Resources Development Canada, 6, 1-78.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., and Cooper, M. L. (1997). Relation of work-family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 325-335.
Greenhaus, J. H., and Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.
Harrington, B., and Hall, D. T. (2007). Career management and work-life integration: using self-assessment to navigate contemporary careers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., and Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 347-367.
Saltzstein, A. L., Ting, Y., and Saltzstein, G. H. (2001). Work-family balance and job satisfaction: The impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees. Public Administration Review, 61, 452-467.
Thompson, C., Beauvais, L. L., and Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392-415.
Young, L. M., Baltes, B. B., and Pratt, A. (2007). Using selection, optimization, and compensation to reduce job/family stressors: Effective when it matters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 1-29.
Designing and implementing family-friendly policies from the top down
Students may work individually or in groups, and they are to assume the role of CEO of a large electronics manufacturer. The company has 150 employees - of which 75 are manufacturing, 30 are support staff (accounting, administrative), 30 are sales representatives and account managers, and 15 are high-level executives. The company is 50% males, average age of 35. The shareholders recently decided they want the organization to become more family friendly, and wishes to implement a family-friendly policy, but they can’t decide on the best one, how it should be implemented, and who should be allowed to use it (i.e. should everyone in the company be able to use the policy, or a select group of employees?). As CEO, he/she must come to decisions on several points:• Which policy or policies will you be implementing (e.g. flextime, compressed workweeks, job sharing)?
• Who should be allowed to use the particular policy/policies? Will it cause problems if everyone is not treated the same?
• Finally, how can you ensure the organizational culture is going to support the policy?
Generating individual strategies/behaviors
Judy is a HR manager with a full-time position at a large beverage company. She has a significant other who also has a full-time position and two small children (both of whom are in daycare). Given that her job as a manager is not always limited to a 9 to 5 schedule (e.g. sometimes she needs to work late or take work home) combined with the fact that her children are involved in quite a few activities (e.g. soccer, swimming) she finds it very difficult to successfully fulfill both her roles as a manager and as a parent/spouse. She often finds that her work interferes with her family (e.g. needs to work late which causes her to miss or cancel family activities) but also that her family role interferes with her work (e.g. cannot meet deadlines partly due to family responsibilities that do not let her complete work at home). Students may work individually or in groups and they are to try to identify behaviors/strategies that Judy could use to try to better balance her work and family life.