|
Article Excerpt
This paper re-examines the concept of work-family balance by analyzing qualitative data from interviews conducted with Australian senior female staff and managers at a major metropolitan bank and a large, regional hospital. Extant research suggests that managers and staff in senior roles, who have greater autonomy and discretion than other employees, are better able to balance their work and family demands. This paper finds evidence for work-family conflict among participants, who perceive they have "no balance" and must make many personal sacrifices to meet the conflicting demands of work and family. Our findings are confronted with the greedy institutions framework which provides a suitable metaphor to understand the role of organizations in supporting the dual demands of work-family.
Este documento reexamina el concepto de conciliacion trabajo--familia mediante un analisis cualitativo de entrevistas conducidas en Australia con cuadros principales femeninos y directivos de uno de los principales bancos metropolitanos y de un importante hospital regional. Las investigaciones existentes sugieren que los directivos y cuadros en puestos principales, que tienen una mas grande autonomia y discrecion que otros empleados, son mas capaces de equilibrar sus respectivos trabajos y responsabilidades familiares. Este documento es concluyente respecto al conflicto trabajo--familia entre los participantes; ellos perciben la ausencia de conciliacion que les lleva a hacer muchos sacrificios personales para sobrellevar las exigencias conflictivas del trabajo y la familia. Nuestros resultados son confrontados con el esquema de las "instituciones voraces" que procura una metafora apropiada para comprender el rol de las organizaciones respecto a las exigencias duales del trabajo--familia.
**********
The question of work-family balance has increasingly come to the fore over the past two decades. Two key factors emerge to explain the urgency of finding a balance between the two domains. Foremost among these is the changing roles of women. Their movement from the private to the public domain and their increased presence in the world's workforces have challenged traditional notions of the locus of responsibility for childcare and for the care of members of families and communities (Calas and Smircich, 1996; Chhachhi and Pittin, 1996; Greer, 1970). As women--the traditional providers of care--spend more time outside the home, and are less available to provide time for caring, the question of who can or should contribute to the provision of care for children and other individuals in need of care, has increasingly been directed to governments and employers (De Bruin and Dupuis, 2004; De Cieri et al., 2005).
The effects of trends in work-change emerge as another key factor highlighting the need to balance work and family. Since the 1980s, work has changed through the deregulation of labour markets (Beynon et al., 2002), globalization, and increasing competitive pressures on business organizations to cut costs and find greater profit margins (Rapoport and Bailyn, 1998). Management practices and innovations have resulted in many employees working longer hours, and an increased trend towards work intensification (Allan, O'Donnell, and Peetz, 1999; Appelbaum et al., 2000).
Some literature suggests that the movement of women into the workforce, longer working hours and work intensification have resulted in less rime for family, recreation and community (Pocock, 2003, 2005). In Australia and other advanced industrial economies, governments have advocated for the development of work-family balance initiatives (De Bruin and Dupuis, 2004). Employers have embraced the work-family balance concept, and there is some evidence suggesting that many organizations have introduced policies and practices to assist the balancing of work and family (De Cieri et al., 2005). However, a number of academics question how much employers are doing to support the achievement of work-family balance (Burchell, Ladipo, and Wilkinson, 2002; De Bruin and Dupuis, 2004; Fleetwood, 2006; Greenblatt, 2002; Watson et al., 2003).
Furthermore, some literature suggests that work-family balance may be achieved by senior staff and managers who have greater autonomy and discretion, and greater access to resources that support a balance between work and family (Whitehouse, Baird, and Hoskin, 2007). This area is under-researched. The aim of this paper is to critically re-examine the concept of work-family balance in light of data from senior staff and managers in an Australian context. A further aim is to investigate whether they are able to balance their work and family demands. In addressing this question we collected data from senior female staff and managers in a multi-national bank and a public hospital to understand their specific challenges and responses in the domains of work and family. We confront our findings with the theory of the greedy organization to help explain the role of organizations in the work-family balance equation. Our research is guided by the following key questions: how do these senior staff and managers meet the demands of work and family? What does the organization do to provide support for work and family balance for these employees? Further, do senior staff and managers believe they achieve a balance between work and family? Finally, is there any evidence to suggest that these organizations are greedy?
WORK-FAMILY BALANCE AND THE AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT
In Australia, since the late 1970's the female participation rate in paid employment has continued to increase (ABS, 2006a). In 2004, women's participation in paid employment was 53 per cent. This growth is explained by an increase in full-time employment and especially in part-time employment (Rammohan and Whelan, 2007) (see Table 1).
The table indicates that there has been greater growth in the proportion of women who were employed part-time. (1) The proportion of women in precarious forms of employment, such as "casual" employment (2) remained relatively stable at approximately 31 per cent (ABS, 2006b). Managers and administrators were less likely to be employed as casuals (ABS, 2006).
With the growth in female employment participation, particularly working mothers, childcare has emerged as a significant social and political issue in Australia, with implications for the health of communities, and financial costs borne by families (Rammohan and Whelan, 2007). Some international (Blau and Robins, 1998; Michalopoulos and Robins, 2002) and Australian (Doiron and Kalb, 2005) research has identified a negative relationship between childcare costs and female employment. According to ABS (2005), 46 per cent of children aged between zero and twelve years received some type of regular childcare. In most instances paid employment represented the major reason for the use of childcare by Australian parents (ABS, 2005).
There are a variety of childcare arrangements in Australia: before-and after- school care; long day-care (childcare centres); family day-care (government subsidized care delivered by paid individuals); informal care (delivered by relatives, friends and neighbours); paid, private childcare (nannies), and occasional care (government subsidized care delivered at childcare centres) (ABS, 2005). Almost 33 per cent of children used informal care (e.g., care by a grandparent), relative to 19 per cent of children that used formal care (e.g., before and after school care) (ABS, 2005). Despite the Australian Federal Government providing some financial assistance for the costs of childcare, many families continue to voice concern at the high costs of raising children (3) and the availability of childcare (Doiron and Kalb, 2005; ABS, 2005).
Australian workplaces have adopted a variety of leave arrangements which take into account the family demands of working parents. These include: paid maternity leave; paid parental leave (including fathers); unpaid parental leave; and carers' leave (short-term leave to care for relatives) (De Cieri et al., 2005; Whitehouse et al., 2007). Recent evidence suggests that most parents are accessing some form of unpaid maternity leave (Whitehouse et al., 2007). However, there is evidence suggesting that once parents return to work after the birth of a child, they may not access leave arrangements for childcare (De Cieri et al., 2005; Pocock, 2005; Probert, Ewer, and Whiting, 2000).
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, WORK INTENSIFICATION, AND GREEDY ORGANIZATIONS
The effects of trends in work-change emerge as another key factor highlighting the need to balance work and family. Since the 1980s, work has changed through the deregulation of labour markets (Beynon et al., 2002), globalization, and increasing competitive pressures on business organizations to cut costs and find greater profit margins (Rapoport and Bailyn, 1998). Similar cost-cutting pressures forced changes to work in public-sector industries such as health and education (Burchell et al., 2002; Luke, 2004). Business and public-sector organizations alike responded to external pressures with paradigm shifts evident in the development and use of management innovations, such as Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) practices (Bartram et al., 2007; Guest, 1997; Schuler and Jackson, 1987). These integrate personnel functions with the strategic goals of the organization to increase flexibility, efficiency and productivity in jobs. Management innovations such as changes to work design, skills development, technological and organizational change, and increased measurement and auditing practices, have resulted in many employees working longer hours, and an increased trend towards work intensification (Allan et al., 1999; Appelbaum et al., 2000).
Work intensification is defined as increased "work effort" (Green, 2001: 56). Work effort is linked to performance and may be intensified by increasing the skills of employees, or by changing job design (Godard and Delaney, 2000; Green, 2001). Work intensification is linked to longer working hours (Green, 2001). A key feature of work intensification is the reduction of "down time" and breaks from work. The negative effects of work intensification on employees include the decline of workers' health and well-being (Allan, 1998; Green, 2001 ; Willis, 2002), job stress (Green, 2001; Watson et al., 2003), burnout (Guglielmi and Tatrow, 1998; Pocock et al., 2001), low staff morale and work-family conflict (Burchell et al., 2002; Pocock et al., 2001; Probert et al., 2000; Watson et al., 2003).
While intensification manifests through changes such as increased...
|
