Work and Family
Robin D. Johnson
Work, family: Programs, policies, and practices designed to help people manage the boundary between work–professional life and family–personal life.
Work–family programs include parental leave, child and elder dependent care support (onsite daycare, child–elder care referral ser vices, financial subsidies for dependent care), flexible work systems (part time work, com pressed work week, flextime), job sharing, work–family sensitivity training, and work from home options (telecommuting, virtual office). Some companies have relabeled their existing general employee benefits ‘‘work– family programs’’ (e.g., employee assistance pro grams, disability insurance/income, tuition aid, etc.). What these programs share is an intent to help employees manage the boundary between their personal (family, private) lives and their professional (public, work) lives. Considerable difference of opinion remains about which pro grams to implement, how much influence companies, individuals, and government will have in determining programs, and who will or who should pay for these programs.
Early discussions about work and family focused attention on the creation–establishment of programs and policies designed to limit, if not eliminate, the intrusion of dependent concerns on employee work productivity. More recently the discourse regarding work–family programs has included issues of implementation of coherent, consistent, and fair work–family policies. Companies that have tried various work–family programs initially found their implementation challenging. Work–family policies were and are often misaligned with, or under mined by, other corporate policies, social norms, and gender role expectations. Barriers include widespread belief in the existence of, and necessity for, a boundary between work and family lives; what some executives see as unrealistic expectations that companies take care of dependents resulting from individuals’ personal decisions; a gap between policy and everyday managerial practice when employees attempt to use work–family programs; employer liability; invasion of privacy; and unfairness to or backlash from those who do not have dependents. Aligning programs, policies, and practice can grow into a major effort to change organizational culture.
Research, Areas of Inquiry
Programs. In addition to widespread research on the specific types of programs needed, much of the program oriented research is designed to assess the potential benefits to companies with enlightened work–family programs and policies implemented by sensitive managers. Research asserts that work–family programs can decrease absenteeism, tardiness, turnover, and product waste while increasing employee commitment, morale, and empowerment – for women and men, frontline workers and executives.
Policies and practices. Many companies attempt to mandate acceptance of work–family programs, adding them to a menu of other human resource management programs for the increasingly diverse workforce. This strategy of trying to implement work–family programs while keeping existing systems and cultural values in place caused implementation difficulties. Managers frequently (re)interpret work–family in fairly narrow terms (flextime for women parents only, for example). In most cases the onus is on employees to present some plan for maintaining productivity while using the work–family pro gram, or to accept some negative consequence (e.g., a ‘‘mommy track’’ or limited promotion opportunity). The negotiation between the man ager and the employee often ends up with one (the manager) or both of them prioritizing work over family. If an employee has a risk averse manager it is possible that the request to use some work–family program will be denied. In the US, work–family programs are still seen mostly as privileges from benevolent organizations implemented by sensitive managers. The practice varies considerably in other cultures. Whatever the culture, where work–family pro grams exist – either by corporate benevolence or social requirement – managerial responses to employee requests determine how these pro grams are used in practice.
Theorizing
The work family boundary. It is argued that the boundary between work and family, if it exists, is permeable, asymmetrical (i.e., work interferes more with family than family interferes with work), or mythical. Moreover, insistence that work should be separate from family is dysfunctional for society, unrealistic given current work force demography (working parents, more women as paid workers, greater number of dual career couples, more single male and female parents, an aging population, different family structures by sexual orientation and ethnicity, etc.), gendered (has a more negative impact on women than on men), and unfair.
The dichotomy: work vs. family. Productivity and other business needs were often placed in contrast to or conflict with employee needs. This mirrors the public/private dichotomy. The boundary theories mentioned above challenge the assumed separateness of the two spheres. The dichotomy theories also challenge the un equal valuation of the two spheres, while exploring the possibilities for integrated, blended lives at home and at work.
Definition of family. In the early stages of work– family programs, most companies defined family for employees – trying to limit their costs – and enforced their definition of family as a nuclear tied (by birth or marriage) male–female relation ship. In implementation, companies often find both their presumed right to define family and their narrow definition of family challenged by employees. Alternative definitions of family include extended family (by blood and marriage), friends, cohabitants, and emotional supporters. The process of defining family, and the actual definition of family in any organization, are an important aspect of work–family program implementation.
Rethinking work assumptions. Many see work– family relationships as requiring changes in our assumptions about work. Work–family researchers have mentioned at least two assumptions that need rethinking: (1) face time ¼ commitment, and (2) heroes who put out fires should be rewarded.
With changes in both technology and work force demographics, it is easy to work from a number of locations. However, organizations frequently require ‘‘face time’’: time in front of a manager in order for that manager to see the employee as real and committed. For work– family to succeed it is argued that face time must be decoupled from attributions about employee commitment. The second assumption – firefighters are heroes to be rewarded – refers to a tendency to seek, recognize, and reward people who are able to handle organizational crises well (called firefighters). Often, little attention is paid to who started the fire or, more importantly, what could have been done to prevent it in the first place. Fire crisis prevention in an organizational system that lauds firefighters as heroes is invisible work. Firefighters have tended to be male. Invisible work keeping fires from starting has tended to be done by females. Rethinking the firefighter as hero assumption, and shifting the reward focus to collective task performance (requiring relational skills correlated with women’s managerial style) rather than individual heroics (requiring firm command control leadership correlated with men’s style) would mean a reassessment of the contribution to the organization from both men and women, and more gender equity in our organizations.
Connecting work family to gender equity. Balancing work and family is a top priority for women and men that cuts across class, race, and national culture. Much of the earlier re search and common discourse assumed work– family was a women’s issue. This notion has (and continues to be) challenged by men who are becoming more outspoken about their changing roles. In one study, dual earners both restructured their work, although women restructured work more than men did. Researchers argue that the increase in women at work has expanded women’s roles rather than caused a redefinition of gender roles for both men and women. Cross culturally, it is argued that in the more ‘‘masculine’’ cultures these gender roles are more dis tinct (and presumably gender equity more difficult to attain), and in more ‘‘feminine’’ cultures gender roles are more blended, so that gender equity at work becomes less of an issue altogether. Mazrui and Mazrui (2001) describe how the separate but (un)equal doctrines/practices for gender in Islamic countries is being affected by technology and Internet access. Examining practices, assumptions, and policies that cause unequal opportunities and constraints (hence, gender inequity) is a continuing area for research and inquiry.
The ideas for this entry originated in my role as a researcher with the Ford Foundation Work– Family/Gender Equity Project. All collaborators from this project have published works on this subject. Collaborators include Lotte Bailyn, Susan Eaton, Joyce Fletcher, Dana Friedman, Ellen Galinsky, Maureen Harvey, Deborah Kolb, James Levine, Barbara Miller, Joyce Ortega, Leslie Perlow, and Rhona Rapoport. The Center for Gender in Organizations was established as a result of our work: www.sim mons.edu/gsm/cgo/. The entry supplements those findings with research published in the articles listed in the bibliography.
Bibliography
Ely, R. J. and Myerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Center for Gender in Organizations CGO Paper, No. 8.
Fletcher, J. K. (2001). Invisible work: The disappearing of relational practice at work. Center for Gender in Organizations CGO Insights No. 8.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., and Cooper, M. L. (1992). Prevalence of work family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 723 9.
Hall, D. T. (1990). Promoting work, family balance: An organization-change approach. Organizational Dynamics, winter, 5 18.
Hochschild, A. (1997). The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Hochschild, A. and Machung, A. (1989). The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York: Viking.
Hofstede, G. et al. (1998). Masculinity and Femininity: The Taboo Dimension of National Cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Karambaya, R. and Reilly, A. H. (1992). Dual earner couples: Attitudes and actions in restructuring work
and family. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 585 601.
Lewis, S. (2000). Work and family issues: Old and new. In R. Burke and D. Nelson (eds.), Advancing Women’s Careers. Oxford: Blackwell, ch. 5.
Linehan, M. and Walsh, J. S. (2001). Key issues in the senior female international career move: A qualitative study in a European context. British Journal of Management, 12, 85 95.
Mazrui, A. and Mazrui, A. (2001). The digital revolution and the new reformation: Doctrine and gender in Islam. Harvard International Review, spring, 52 5.
National Research Council (1991). Work and family: Policies for a Changing Workforce. Panel report on Employer Policies and Working Families, Committee on Women’s Employment and Related Social Issues and Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, ed. M. A. Ferber and B. O’Farrell, with L. Allen. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Schor, J. B. (1992). The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. New York: Basic Books.