cornell paper

8/2/2019 Cornell Paper

1/23

Cornell University ILR School

DigitalCommons@ILR

Faculty Publications - Human Resource Studies Human Resource Studies

1-1-2003

Work-Life Integration: Challenges andOrganizational Responses

P. Monique ValcourCornell University

Rosemary BattCornell University, [email protected]

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Human Resource Studies at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in

Faculty Publications - Human Resource Studies by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact

[email protected].

Please take our short DigitalCommons@ILR user survey.

Valcour, P. Monique and Batt, Rosemary , "Work-Life Integration: Challenges and Organizational Responses" (2003).FacultyPublications - Human Resource Studies. Paper 25.http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/hrpubs/25
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/hrpubshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/hrmailto:[email protected]://cornell.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_0vPcL4LVvkEETgEhttps://cornell.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_0vPcL4LVvkEETgEmailto:[email protected]://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/hrhttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/hrpubshttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/


2/23

19Work-Life Integration: Challengesand Organizational Responses

I wish there w ere m ore flexibility, especially in ourproduction environm ent. I've worked all m y life aroundthe rotating-work schedule, but this year alone I lost threeexcellent em ployees. They had each becom e single parentsfor one reason or another, and there's no way you can getchild care in off hours and weekends. It just breaks myheart. T raditionally production has been a m ale-orientedthing, where one partner stays at home with the childrenand the other one works crazy schedules. . . . the world ischanging, but the schedule is not.

-M anufacturing production supervisormarried to p art-tim e educatio nalcoordinator and father of twochildren ages 8 and 14

P.Monique V alcour and Rosem ary Batt

T his chapter focuses on organ izational responses to the challengesdual-earn er coup les face in in teg rating th eir work and fam ily liv es.We examine th e effectiv eness o f v arious workplace characteristics and o rg an iza-tiona l in itia tives fo r supporting work -life in tegration. We then develop a compre -hensive model of organ izational fami ly respons iveness that incorpora tes work-lifepolicies, trad itio nal human resource in cen tiv es, and work red esign in th e contex t


3/23

Work-Life Integra tion 311of a workplace cultu re that fac ilita te s the fu ll imp lementa tion o f these polic ie s. Wethen test some of the components o f this model as pred ictors of outcomes of inter-est to both workers and employers. Specifically, w e assess the effects of form alpolic ie s and superv isor support fo r flex ib le work arrangements, traditional humanresource incentives , and work-des ign measures on work-fami ly conflic t, perceivedcontrol, and turnover intentions. W e do this w ithin the context of dual-earnercouples in T he C ornell C oup les a nd C areers Stu dy, which enables us to take intoaccount the cha rac te ris tic s o f both spouse s' jobs and workplace s.!

The Cha llenges of Work-Life IntegrationEmployees have traditionally faced the challenge of m eeting the competing

demands of work and family life with the assumption that they were solelyresponsible for m anaging their own balancing acts and could not expect signifi-can t assistan ce from their emp loyers in th is reg ard .2 Both emp loyers and employ-ees often treated w ork and fam ily dom ains as separate spheres of existence.3Typical of this presum ption is a statem ent by an executive in the early 1990s:"Com petent w orkers can handle w ork-fam ily problem s and there is nothing acompany can really do to help the incompetent w orkers.,,4 Sim ilarly, in A rlieHochschild 's s tudy o f a supposedly family -friend ly workplace, female execu tivesavoid placing fam ily photographs in their offices, and the norm of long w orkhours as a display of organizational comm itment is dom inant.5

Employees tend to experien ce work -fam ily conflict when demands from workand fam ily are both high and difficult to satisfy. Work-fam ily conflict is a formof interrole conflict in w hich incompatible dem ands em anating from work andfam ily domains mak e it difficult or impo ssible to satisfy both sets.6 Emp loyeesfrom dual-earner fam ilies (the subjects of our study) are particularly likely toexperience conflict between work and family.? W hereas most research hasfocused on individuals and the work-fam ily conflict they personally report, agrow ing number of studies suggest that w ork-life issues m ust be understood inth e contex t o f both spou ses' emp loymen t cond itions. One study , fo r example, doc-um ents crossover effects from husbands' and w ives' w ork schedules to fam ilylife,s and a 1988 study finds that husbands and wives in dual-earner couplesrestru ctured their work lives to accommodate fam ily partly based on the job char-acteristics o f th eir spou ses.9 A 1991 study finds relationsh ip s among emp loyees'job secu rity , income, and weekly work hou rs and their spouses' job involvementand satis faction.lOA 1999 s tudy using data f rom The Cornell Couples and CareersStudy reports that couples devise joint strategies for m anaging the dem ands oftw o careers, often by scaling back the dem ands of one spouse's job.lJ H ence, inour analysis, w e assess the effects of spouses' em ploym ent conditions on oneano ther's repo rted work -family outcomes.


4/23

312 It's about Tim eEvidence for the deleterious effects of work-fam ily conflict on individuals,

fam ilies, and organizations has been building (see R oehling, M oen, and B att,chap. 7 in this volume). R esearch suggests that dual-career couples are very con-cerned about work-life integration and comm itted to preserving tim e w ith theirfam ily.12Both quan titativ e and qualitativ e research sugg ests th at many workersfe el th eir emp loye rs could be-and shou ld be-much more family re sponsive.13Some compan ies h av e respond ed to employ ee d emands for b etter work -life in te-gration as a critical component of recruitm ent and retention strategies.14A fewfirm s are beginning to link fam ily responsiveness to overall corporate strategy,par ticularly as a component of work quality and productiv ity improvements .15Research h as b egun to document the positiv e ou tcomes of co rporate work -life

initiatives.16 Throughsuch programs as flexiblework arrangements,reducedworktime, d ependen t care, finan cial b en efits, an d cultu re-ch ange in itiativ es, compa-nies can reduce employees' work-fam ily conflict,17 improve their job satisfac-tion,18and imp rove e lemen ts o f co rpora te perfo rmance including absentee ism19and reten tion.2OBut th e re sea rch documen ts mo re positiv e outcomes fo r employ-ees21than for employers, for whom findings are more m ixed.22 In our quantita-tive analysis in this chapter, therefore, we examine outcomes of interest toemployees (work-fam ily conflict and employee control over work-fam ily inte-g ration) as we ll a s emp loyers (employee -tu rnover in ten tions ).

. A broad range of work-life program s that provide employees w ith controlover their w orking tim e and support in m eeting their fam ily and personalneeds

The D im ensions of O rganizationalFamily-ResponsivenessEarly stu dies o f work and fam ily focu s on p rogrammatic in itiativ es fo r dep en -

den t care, flexib le sch edulin g, and th e like. Over time, research ers h av e increas-ingly recognized the lim itations of programmatic initiatives for responding tononwork dem ands and have focused on a w ider range of workplace conditions,in clu ding work d esig n and workp lace cu ltu re. There is, h owever, n o g en eral con -sen su s on what, in fac t, c on stitu te s a fam ily -respons iv e wo rk environment. In th isp ap er, we dev elop a compreh en siv e model o f o rg anization al strategies for work -life integration. W e use the term "fam ily" as shorthand to signify the dem andsemployees face from the nonwork arena. T hus, we recognize that all employees,not only those w ith spouses and children living at home, experience the demandsthat result from personal rela tionships and invo lvements outs ide o f the workplace .In our v iew , a fam ily -re spon siv e emp loyer recognize s, le gitima tes , and re spondsto the challenges of integrating work and nonwork demands for employees at allstag es o f th eir fam ily life cy cle. A fam ily -resp on siv e employer p rov id es:


5/23

Work-Life Integrat ion 313. A dequate pay, benefits, and employment security. Work designed to provide em ployees with discretion and control in m eetingwork and life demands. A workplace culture, transm itted formally by organizational policies andinfo rmally by supe rviso rs and cowork ers, th at v alu es and supports the work-life in teg ration of a ll employ ee s

With resp ect to fo rmal work -life po lic ies, we in clud e d ep end en t-care po lic iesas well as those designed to create greater flexibility in working time. Inflexibleschedu les and ex cessiv e work hours consistently p roduce con flict b etween workand family.2 3Wo rk ing time po licies constitu te a range o f app roache s to flex ibleschedules as well as those designed to reduce total work hours. S pecific policiesin clu de flextime, fam ily leav es, d epend en t-c are time, time o ff for vo lun teerin g,compressed w orkw eeks, job sharing, part-tim e w ork, and telecommuting.24Employees from dual-earner fam ilies value flexibility highly;25 some are evenw illing to sw itch jobs to have more.26The ro le of sup ervisors is p articula rly important in implemen ting formal flex -

ib le sch edu ling and work time po licies as well a s info rmal working arrang ementsand sch edules. Supe rviso rs are respon sible fo r sta ffin g leve ls, alloc ation o f workassignments, and unit output. A lthough supportive supervisors often can allowmore flexibility than exists in the w ritten policies of the organization, unsup-portive superv isors can subvert employers ' family -friend ly polic ies.27Thus , com-panies m ust train supervisors and create a workplace culture that facilitatesconsis tent policy implementation .

The se cond dimensio n o f a family-re sponsive workplac e is ad equa te employ -ment and income security. H istorically, employers used pay, benefits, and pro-motio n oppo rtun itie s to redu ce tu rnover and induce lo ng -term commitmen t to th efirm . These policies, or internal labor-m arket rules, protected (m ostly m ale)breadw inners (and their fam ilies) from the vicissitudes of competitive labormarkets.28 Such policies provided the kind of employment security and incomegrow th that create fam ily stability.29Thus, high pay and benefits, employmentsecu rity, and care er deve lo pmen t oppo rtun itie s should crea te an enviro nment inwhich employees view their employers as supportive of fam ily needs anddemands. Ironically, how ever, at a tim e when employers have begun to initiatefamily -friend ly polic ie s, many have simu ltaneously undertaken polic ie s o f down-sizin g, ou tsou rcin g, and contin gen t staffin g in o rde r to reduce p ay , benefits, anda commitmen t to lo ng -term emp loymen t re lation s.

The third dimension of a family-responsive workplace comprises workdesigned to allow employees to meet their w ork and non work demands on a dailyb asis. F lex ible sch edu ling po licies h av e proven insufficient to mee t the se needs.For example , a nationa lly repre senta tiv e su rvey o f nea rly th ree thousand employ-ees found that working parents experience less work-fam ily conflict when they


6/23

314 It's about T imehave jobs with greate r autonomy,m ore schedu le con tro l, and fewer demands.30By contrast, form al fam ily-friendly policies had no effect on reported levels ofw ork-fam ily conflict for these em ployees. A utonom ous w ork design not onlylead s to h igher lev els o f mo tiv atio n and satisfactio n,3 ' b ut also signals to employ-ees th at th ey are tru sted to g et th eir work done and manage th eir time effectiv ely .32Emp loyees who report greater control ov er managin g work an d fam ily demandsalso report lower work -fam ily conflict, more job satisfactio n, and fewer phy sio -logical s tre ss -re la ted symptoms.33

Employers often w orry, how ever, that greater individual autonomy sim plyunderm ines productivity. S om e research by L otte B ailyn and others, how ever,suggests o therw ise .34Ba ilyn's re search g roup undertook in te rven tion p ro je cts a tthree corporations in the early 1990s. In one case, a team of product-d ev elopmen t engin eers at Xerox work ed in an environmen t th at emphasized longhours and "face tim e" as a sign of commitm ent to the em ployer. Long m eetings,d ocumentation requirements, and the interference of su pervisors in th e day-to-day w ork of the engineers m eant that the real w ork of product developm ent tookplace before or after daytim e work hours, thereby creating a vicious circle oflo nger hou rs, h igh stress, and low p roductiv ity . T he in terv en tio n team exam inedtim e use and red esigned the work so that superv isors w ere severely restricted inthe time they could interact with the engineers. As a result, the engineersincreased their autonom y and control over w ork routines and schedules, sub-stantia lly increas ed their p roductiv ity , and dec reased their to ta l work hou rs.T he relatio nsh ip b etween work -life in teg ratio n and o th er d imen sions o f work

design is m ore ambiguous. F or example, firm s have increasingly adopted morecollaborative or team -based form s of work organization to improve work placequality , efficien cy , and coord in atio n. A lthough th ere is consid erab le support fo r~ e id ea th at team co llaboratio n and coord in atio n improve o rg an izatio nal p erfo r-mance,35 t here is little research on how th ese form s of work organization affectem ployees' ability to m anage work and fam ily. O n the one hand, the ability tocollaborate or coordinate work w ith other co lleagues may increase flexibility ifcow orkers are able to substitute for one another or establish norm s of reciproc-ity in which they agree to help one another meet work and nonwork demands.Som e studies have found positive effects of team -based system s on w ork-lifeoutcom es?6 On the other hand, the dem ands of collaboration and group coor-dination may increase work hours or the rigidity of work if they lead totime -consuming meetings o r heightened pee r-g roup p re ssu re??The u se o f in fo rmation techno logy is anoth er area o f work design th at is rap id ly

changing, and the nature of its im pact on w ork-life integration is also unclear.Portab le computers, fax es, v oice mail and email allow workers to b ring work in tothe hom e more easily, but m ay have effects that are sim ilar to those of telecom -mu ting. Researche rs have found very mixed outcomes fo r te le commuting because ,a lthough it increases flexib ility , it a lso a llows work to invade or spill ove r in to home


7/23

Work-Life Integra tion 315life more. A s Noelle C hesley, Phyllis Moen, and R ichard Shore (chap. 14 in thisvolume) describe, the little research on this aspect of w ork design has producedambiguous findings on the effects of technology on the w ork-life interface.38Accord ing ly, we in clud e a measu re of info rmatio n technology use in ou r analy ses.F ina lly , th e workplac e cultu re in g en eral must support and legitimate employ-ees' nonwork role dem ands. This environm ent shapes the attitudes of m ana-gerial as w ell as nonm anagerial em ployees. For exam ple, Susan Eaton, in her2000 study of five hundred technical and professional employees in biotechnol-ogy firm s, found that formal and informal fam ily-friendly policies and benefitsincreased organizational commitm ent and satisfaction only to the extent thatemployees felt free to use the policies w ithout detriment to their workplace rela-tions o r career success .39The o rgan izatio n must also c reate an enviro nmen t th at recognize s v ariation in

the work-life interface of employees over their life course. Parents experiencemore work-fam ily conflict than nonparents,40 and thus need to be given specialatten tio n. However, to the exten t tha t employe rs view work-life po licy as focusedon parents (particularly w omen) and privilege them over other employees whoare single or w hose children are grown, employers risk creating divisiveness atwo rk .41Acco rd ingly , in th is chapte r we frequen tly u se the te rm "work -life " ra th erth an "work-family" to sig nify th at employees, bo th male and female, o f all familystructures and life stages have legitim ate dem ands on their tim e, energy, andpsychologic al in vo lv ement from domains outsid e of th eir jo bs.

Qualitative Evidence from The CornellCouples and Careers StudyOur field research includes a series of focus groups involving 114 employees

in our seven partic ip ating org an ization s. The demog raphic p rofile s of the fo cu s-group participants m irrors those of the survey respondents. Employees' super-visors were not present at the discussions, w hich were structured to cover thefollow ing three broad open-ended questions. First, what are the challenges youface and the strategies you use in com bin:ing work and fam ily? Second, whatarrangements (e.g., formal policies or informal arrangements) does youremployer offer to help you combine work and fam ily? A lso, w hat arrangementshave you used, what have you not used and why, and what has been helpful?Third, w hat would be ideal for you in term s of com bining w ork and fam ily?

Our re su lts a re based on a textual ana ly sis o f th e focu s-g roup transcrip ts, wh ichinvolved coding passages relating to work-life support offered by the organiza-tion s. Tab le 19.1 p rov ide s frequen cies fo r the thematic codes we hav e id entified .The statements from the focus groups highlight the importance of flexiblew orking tim e arrangem ents. They emphasize the utility of such policies as the


8/23

316 It's about Tim eTable 19.1 Frequency of Them es in Focus G roup Transcripts

Frequencyhemes Rela te d to Work -L ife Polic yA ccess to Flexible Working T im eNo company policy o n flex time; u p to su perv iso r d iscretio n; varies b ydepartment/supervisorMy department/supervisor i s f lex ib leIn my department, fle xib ility is h andle d in fo rmally (e.g ., lea ve if you need to ,m ake the tim e up later)My depar tment/s upervis or is not f lexib le

F lex time can mak e it d ifficu lt to co ord in ate work and man ag e th e dep artmen tF le xib ility is d iffic ult b ec au se o f la ck o f c oworker supportFamily le ave policy help fu lHigher -level employees have more f lex ib ili tyB eing able to use vacation tim e in sm all chunks for fam ily needs is helpfulLack o f fle xib le work polic ies signa ls la ck o f investmen t in emp loye esTotal W ork H ours aud WorkloadT he company has w ork-life policies, but the reality is it is hard to use them becauseo f work d emands

The m ain problem is that w e are asked to do too m uch w ork (due to dow nsizing andbeing unders taffed)Ability to work part-time is a help fu l work -life policyAbility to job-sh are is a h elp fu l work -life polic yWagesO rgan iza tion shou ld pay u s mo re ; th at wou ld be a fam ily -frie nd ly polic yUnp aid leav e is n ot h elp ful b ecau se p eo ple can no t afford the loss o f w ag esand benefits

D ep enden t C areD ependent care time is a h elp fu l p olicyCultureThe cu ltu re doe s not support u se o f work -life polic ie s

524631161197955

2216116

94

3

17

ability to leave in case of emergencies to attend to fam ily needs, to arrange workschedules to accommodate fam ily demands, and to do part of their w ork at home.Schoo l holid ay s, ch ild ren 's illn esses, o r b reakdowns in ch ild -care arrangemen tsare particularly problematic for the dual-career fam ilies in this study if neitherparent has access to flexible scheduling. The comments also reveal the resent-m ent felt by employees due to unequal access to flexible working tim e. A secondrelated theme concerns the negative effects of long work hours and overlydemanding workloads, w hich underm ine the benefits of flexible work arrange-ments or other work-life policies. A third thematic area is the need for adequatepay and benefits. In sum , although m any em ployees report being able to m akeindiv idual flex ib ility arrangemen ts w ith th eir superv iso rs, a w id e range o f criti-cal comments from employees indicates dissatisfaction w ith overall organiza-tiona l support fo r work -life in tegration.


9/23

Work-Life Integration 317Access to Flexible SchedulingA dom inant them e in the focus groups is that the companies either have no

fo rma l polic ie s fo r flexib le scheduling o r make the imp lementation o f fo rma l poli-cies contingent on su pervisor approval and that, as a result, access to such sched-uling is unequal, arbitrary, and often insufficient. Unequal access derives fromseveral sources, in cluding variatio n in departmen tal task s, th e natu re o f work andtechnology , occupationa l d ifferences , and supervisor a ttitudes. Inte rdepar tmenta lv ariab ility is a p ersisten t th eme runn ing th rough th e fo cu s-g roup d iscu ssions. Forexample, a professor w ith tw o grown children describes the extent of variationamong departmen ts at Upstate Univ ersity :

There's a lot of variation from one area to another. I didn't realize just how muchvariation until I ended up on a committee last year that was looking at some of thethings like flex time. W ell, we were informed that there is no flex time. There is nocomp tim e. However, in reality, I've been very fortunate to work for a departmentall these years that is very flexible and very humane, and kind of just does its ownthing. It's sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of thing. And what happens as aresult is that people are fiercely loyal and grateful to their supervisor.

O ther focus-group participants emphasize technological and occupationalsources of variation. One T ransco manager explains th at he feels caught betweencompany rhetoric emphasizing fam ily supportiveness and manufacturing tech-nology that has to be run on a rigid schedule:

To a certain extent I think it's lip service. These fam ily-friendly policies are niceon paper, but a lot of them are hard to implement. I as a supervisor can't alwaysimplement what the company has set up, so I think we are setting people up withunrealistic expectations, and then som etim es w e can't follow through on them . LikeI had a guy in my group who wanted to do flex time and flex to the second shift,but it would've been very difficult to do. I really made an effort, but we needed twopeople in the department doing what he did on first shift.

Another Upstate University professor in her m id-forties (the mother of foursch ool-age children, married to a computer programmer) observes, "I think a lotof it has to do with whether you're faculty or staff. As a faculty mem ber, I'vealw ays felt a great deal of freedom . But there are a lot of people w ho are strictlyhourly w age people w ho don't have near the flexibility in trying to do the kindsof things that w e can do. So it's really two different worlds in the sam e office."

T hese statements are consistent w ith past research show ing that workers w ithhigh er wages and occupational status have a w ider range of flexible benefits thantheir lower-wage counterparts.42


10/23

318 It's about Tim eVariation in access, however, can also occur among people in the same depart-

ment or occupational group, based largely on the arbitrary discretion of supervi-so rs. For example , a fo rty -yea r-o ld female part-time marketing spec ia list a t U tilcow ith a preschool child reports, "M y manager allow s m e to w ork part of m y tim eat hom e, w hereas som e others don't. M y situation hasn't gone through H umanResources and probably shouldn't, because it probably wouldn't get approved."

A lthough many employees rate their own supervisor favorably, they go on tocite o ther example s o f inequitab le trea tmen t. A lso , although employee s a re g rate -ful for the flexibility that they have personally negotiated, informal deals comeat a price-employees feel beholden to supervisors, w ho expect a return for theirfavors. As one m other of two in her late thirties em ployed by Lake Universitystates:

Access to Reduced Work Hoursand Work load s

We'v e talked abou t flexibility, b ut it's all b ased on what you r su perviso r is w illingto allow you to do. And that puts you in a mode of groveling, begging, feelinganxious about w hether it's going to be okay. Y ou worry about how you m ight endup paying for it later. A t som e point down the road som ebody is going to say, "youknow , we gave y ou all th e b reak s." S ince it's n ot a formal p olicy , it's seen as a priv -ileg e rather than as a rig ht, an d th ere's a b ig difference there.These in fo rma l dea ls can c reate hard feelings o r re sen tment from o ther emp loy-

ees who do not receive such special treatm ent, leading to divisiveness at w ork.In fo rma l app roaches to flexib ility also la ck the symbo lic stamp of p rograms devel-oped and supported by the o rgan ization. If emp loyees and their supe rv iso rs believethat the only w ay they can accommodate work and fam ily demands is by circum -venting employers' rules and regulations, then it is likely that a breakdow n ofresp ect and trust w ill occu r b etween employer and employee. This ero sion o f trustcou ld , in tu rn , underm ine morale and commitmen t to th e o rgan ization . A 48-y ear-old man working for U tilco as a system s engineer notes, "A real flextim e policywould be a part of a covenant in that it w ould be a form al recognition by manage-m ent that we are professionals who do our work. W hen things need to be done,w e're here, regardless of the tim e. Y et all the company has is the paternal systemwhere your boss is th e one who decid es wheth er you 'll hav e th is flex ibility ."

A ll in all, the lack of form al policies for flexible working tim e not only lim itsaccess but leads to the development of inform al deal-m aking betw een employ-ees and their supervisors and to divisions and perceptions of inequality amongemployees who do and do not gain access to privileged schedules.

Excessiv e work demarid s also make fo r a fam ily -unfriend ly work experien ce,even w hen employers have w ork-life policies on the books. A lthough flexible


11/23

Work-Life Integration 3 1 9schedules help so lv e wo rk -life in teg ration when to tal wo rk hou rs are reasonab le,excessive w ork hours, no m atter how flexibly allocated, are likely to interferew ith fam ily and personallife.4 3 Employees in companies that h ave downsized orthat emphasize "face time" and prioritize work above all else ty pically h ave morecompla in ts about workplace in flexib ility and heightened work -family con flic t. ATransco production planner w ith a schoolteacher wife and grown daughterexplains, "Y ou've got the w orkload of tw o people, but it's all on you. A ll theseprogram s are com ing in, but forget the program s, just think about w hat's a real-istic expectation w ith out causing me to leave this jo b."

A colleague from the planning department (a father of three, married to amedical transcriptionist, w ith a live-in parent) seconds this opinion, "We don'tneed an employee assistance program , w e need more em ployees!" Sim ilarly, afo rty -eig ht-y ear-old Vantech software engin eer, married to a CPA and mother toone m iddle schoo l and one co lleg e studen t, explain s th at sh e o fficially wo rk s part-tim e w ith a low er salary and reduced benefits so she can, in fact, lim it herself toa regular full-tim e (forty-hour) workweek: "The hours w e are expected to workjust seem to grow and grow. I'm part-time, 32 hours a week. Now that my kidsare older, I would be more ready to go to 40, but once you officially work 40,then they expect you to work 60. So if I say I'm working 32, most of the time Iend up working 40, but at least it stops at 40."

Focu s-g roup particip an ts feel th at a fam ily -respon siv e emp loyer would guardagain st the tend ency for work time to expand w ithou t lim it. A ltho ugh emplo yersalone do not determ ine how much time employees spend at work,44 they setstaffing levels, expectation s, and demands. A female engineer w ith two teenagechildren and tw enty-four years of service to V antech comments, "It used to beyou were working really hard if you worked 50 hours a week. Now this is justadequate, and the new buzz word is to say you work 60 hours a week. I thinkthere is som ething w rong w ith that, and businesses should stop prom oting it. Ithink that this com pany can do som ething about changing the perception thatyou're not a professional unless you w ork 60 hours a w eek."

Past research show s that em ployers' efforts to set lim its on the workday canred uce employees' work-fam ily conflict and even improv e corporate pro ductiv-ity.45 In some focus groups, employees identify these types of efforts asimpo rtant org anizational strategies to su pport work-life integratio n. A Vantechproduction supervisor in his late thirties w ith tw o school-age children says, "Ithink the company should step up to the plate and address the issue of how manyhours a week people actually work. W e should not allow the demands of workto creep beyond 50 to 60 hours-w here does it stop? The company needs to stepin and put som e lim its in effect, because otherw ise it w ill continue to creep."

O ther solutions include job-sharing or part-tim e arrangem ents, but theseoptions are not w idely available to employees at the seven participating organi-zations in The Cornell Couples and Careers Study. Indiv idual emp loyeeinitiative is the common catalyst for these types of arrangem ents, and som e


12/23

320 It's abou t T imeprofessionals are able to reduce hours through negotiations w ith their supervi-sors. One Upstate University adm in istrator w ith two child ren (ag es th ree and six)explains her situation: "I job share w ith another professional. It works great, butI had to write up a proposal for it and work it out with my boss. We workedtogether to go forw ard on it."

A nother T ransco planning specialist, a m other of a nine-year-old and four-year-o ld tw in s and married fo r fifteen years to a busin ess admin is trato r, d escrib esher efforts to set up a job-sharing situation and her feeling that she is lucky tohave succeeded:

I was lucky to work out a job sharing arrangement because there was anotherw om an in m y departm ent w ho did the sam e thing as m e and w as also strugglingafter she had her second baby. So w e went to the human resources person and shewas supportive but said the com pany doesn't have this in place. So we did theresearch and went to the president of the division and we went through a couple ofstruggles, but eventually they accepted it. I'm so glad it worked out, because it'sbeen great for m e and m y fam ily.

However, as in the case of flexib le sch edu les d iscu ssed previously, ind ividu-ally negotiated deals to reduce work hours create div isio ns among employees andperceived inequality at work. S ome employees are not successful in their nego-tiatio ns. For example, a C itizen's Health senio r accoun t ex ecu tive w ith two chil-dren describes her experience: "I had a job-sharing arrangem ent when my firstchild w as little, but I now have a tw o-year-old and the com pany won't allow m eto do this. I think that when the company was sm aller, they w ere w illing to workwith us, but now that w e've grow n to be a bigger organization, they just don'tdo that. A nd they're really strict w ith the hours. I asked if I could w ork 8-4:30,but they w eren't w illing to do that."

Simi la rly , a for ty-f ive-year-o ld Vantech information systems manager , marr iedto a lab technician and with two grown children, expresses his frustrationw ith the lack of organizational consistency regarding reduced w orking tim earrangements:

W ith job sharing and part time, it's not consistent throughout the company. Thereare some areas where if you say you want to go part time, they'll say either workfull-time or you have no job. They don't give you the flexibility even though if youlook at the structure of your job and what is required for the position, you couldeasily do that on a part time basis, or by taking part of the work home if need be.

In sum , fo cus-gro up p articipants hig hlig ht the need for redu ced work hours aspart of an overall flexible working tim e policy. In the absence of such policies,


13/23

Work-Life Integration 321workers push fo r indiv idua l excep tions to ru les, le ad ing to percep tions o f inequal-ity between the haves and have-nots.

Beyond W ork-Life Policies andInform al SupportsThus, increasing the apparent flexibility of a job or career w hile still expect-

ing w orkers to commit boundless tim e and energy to w ork does little or nothingto advance th e cau se o f work -life in teg ration.46Note th at th e p ro fessionals in ourstudy tend to enjoy job autonom y and control over their w ork, but also experi-ence conflict betw een work and nonwork life.

Formal and inform al work-life policies alone do not address the full range ofchallenges th at work ing fam ilies face in try ing to su ccessfu lly in teg rate work andthe rest of life. Job security, pay, career-development prospects, benefits, andother job features that are important to employees and their fam ily stability area lso components of organ izationa l family responsiveness.47 Several focus-groupparticipants frame the issue of compensation in term s of its impact on the work-life interface. A forty-six-year-o ld U tilco engineer, father of two teenagers andmarried to a nurse, says:

I haven't had a pay raise in three years, and that may appear to be a personal "bitch,"but it has a tremendous impact on the fam ily and the strain. I honestly feel that itfalls very closely in line with the theme of what we're talking about here. And also,every year for benefits, we get a smorgasbord of options, but they're all reduced.They've gone down for the last five years now. We've been forced into an HMO-type m edical benefit, and our cost has increased. That impacts on your family lifebecause it impacts on your budget. And also on the quality of medical care you andyour fam ily get.

Repeated comments among focus-gro up members also emphasize the impor-tance of embedding work-life policies in an overall organizational culture thatvalidates and respects employees' needs to reserve time and energy for no nworkactiv ities. Themes o f resp ect, tru st, and emp loyee empowermen t were recu rren t,as in the statem ent of a Vantech chemical engineer in her thirties with an ele-mentary school child: "I think there needs to be an environmental shift fo r peopleto say that w e really do embrace people w ho have fam ilies that are im portant tothem , that they can still be very good workers and excellent contributors, and w ewill work with them so they can m anage well w ith work and with fam ily. AndI don't know how you do that in a policy; it's more of a complete shift inthinking."

The overall conclusion that w e draw from our review of the qualitative datais th at fo rmal work -life policies alone do not make a fam ily -respon siv e emp loyer.


14/23

322 It's about Tim eThe d esig n o f human resource p ractices, th e org an izatio n o f work, and th e ov erallcu ltu re reg ard in g th e relative impo rtan ce of employees' work and nonwo rk livesform the backbone of an integrated approach to work-life balance.

Quantitative Results from The CornellCouples and Careers StudyWe now turn to survey data of a subsample of couples from T he C ornell

C ouples and C areers Study and use regression analysis to investigate the pre-d icto rs of work -fam ily con flict, co ntro l o ver work circumstances, an d in dividu -als' in tentio n to leave th eir presen t employer. We repo rt resu lts from 264 marriedor cohabiting opposite-sex couples in which both m embers are employed. Thissu bsample, ap proximately one-third o f th e ov erall Corn ell stu dy , represen ts p ar-ticipants who were random ly adm inistered the module of survey questions con-taining the measures of job and workplace characteristics. (F or a description ofthe overall sample, please see app.)

MeasuresD ependent Variables We have three dependent variables: w ork-fam ily

conflict (negative spillover from work to fam ily), employee control over work,and intention to quit one's job. T he first tw o m easures capture individuals' day-to-day ability to m anage tim e and commitm ents to work and fam ily.

W ork-fam ily conflict. This is a tw o-item scale of negative spillover fromw ork to fam ily (see Roehling, M oen, and Batt, chap. 7 in this volum e, forsource and wording of item s).

Employee control over work. To measure this, we asked employees howmuch choice they have over their daily work schedule, weekly work sched-u le, th eir use o f v acatio n and perso nal time, th eir ability to receiv e perso nalphone calls and em ail at w ork, the am ount and tim ing of w ork that m ust bedone at home in order to meet work demands, and the place at which theywork (home versus regular workplace). The scale (alpha = .76) is adaptedfrom L inda Thomas and Daniel Ganster. R esponses are measured on a scaleof 1 -5 .4 8

Intention to turn over. This is measured by a scale score comprising fiveitem s that ask whether respondents plan to stay w ith their present employ-ers until retirement, how many more years they expect to stay, whether theyhave recently talked to colleagues or friends about looking for another job,


15/23

Work-Life Integration 323whether they are actively looking for another job, and whether they areseriously considering quitting.

Independent Variables Independent variables include three m easures oftraditional hum an resource incentives, tw o m easures of form al and inform alwork -life suppo rt, and five work -des ign measu re s.Human Resource IncentivesSalary. This is m easured w ith a single item based on the question: "W hat isyou r annual sa la ry from paid employment, including any bonuse s, ove rtime ,and/o r commissions , befo re taxes and o ther deduc tions? "49

Job security. This is based on respondents' answ er to: "Think of a scale of 0to I 00, where 0 means you are certain you will lose your present job andI 00 m eans you are certain you w ill be able to keep it. H ow certain is it thatin the next couple of years you will be able to keep your job?"

C areer development benefits. T his is m easured by an additive index of threetypes o f career support: education and train ing, tu ition reimbu rsemen t, andcareer-development services.

Form al and Inform al W ork-Life SupportF lexible scheduling policies. T his is an index measuring whether employeesare granted five types of benefits relating to the flexible use of w ork tim e:paid fam ily leave, p ersonal/d ependen t-care time (small in cremen ts of timeoff during work hours to attend to personal or family needs), flextime,telecommuting, and time off for volunteering. Note that we measure avail-ability, not use, of flexible scheduling policies.5OThe variable takes onvalues ranging from 0 (have none) to 5 (have all five).

Supervisor support. This is a four-item scale based on the follow ing item s:how frequently in the past three months employees' supervisors havesw itch ed schedules to accommodate their fam ily responsib ilities, h ave lis-tened to their problem s, have juggled tasks or duties to accommodate theirfam ily responsibilities, and have shared ideas or advice. R esponses rangefrom I (never) to 5 (very often). The alpha reliability coefficient is .68.51

Work-Design MeasuresDecision-mak ing au tonomy . This is a scale b ased on th e fo llowing th ree items:"I determ ine what I need to do in order to complete m y assignm ents," "I amable to influence what procedures, tools, and material I use in doing my


16/23

324 It's about Tim ework ," and "I am ab le to in flu ence which sp ecific task s I am assig ned to do."52The response form at w as a scale of 1-5, w here 1 = stro ngly d isag ree and 5 =s trong ly agree . The a lpha relia bility coeffic ie nt fo r th is s ca le is .68.

Coordination. This is a three-item additive scale that measures how fre-quently employees coordinate w ith colleagues in their own departm ents,c olle agues outs id e o f th eir d epartments , and manage rs o r superv iso rs in th eirdepartm ents in order to accomplish their work tasks.53

Flexible technology use. This is an additive index of six item s that m easureemployees' use of email, beepers, cellular phones, or fax machines to com -m unicate w ith w ork w hile at hom e or w ith hom e w hile at w ork and the useof a portable com puter or hom e com puter to do w ork.

Wo rk hours. T his is a single-item measure that asks employees, "On average,how many hours a w eek do you actually work, including any paid or unpaidextra hours that you put in beyond your official w ork w eek?"

Travel. This is a dummy variable that m easures w hether the respondent isrequired to do overnight travel as a regular part of the job.

Results

Control Variab lesChildren. This is the num ber of children living in the hom e. It is likely thathaving children w ill be positively related to work-fam ily conflict and neg-atively related to perceptions of control over m anaging w ork and fam ilymatters.

A ffect. This is a five-item scale used to control for negative disposition oraffect.54 Employees rated how frequently in the past m onth they have feltin good spirits (reverse scored), so sad that nothing could cheer them up,restless or fidgety, nervous, or that everything w as an effort. C oefficientalpha for this m easure is .61.

Age. This is self-reported and should be negatively related to turnoverintentions.

Job tenure. This m easures the num ber of years that em ployees have been inthei r jobs.

M ean L evels of W ork-Fam ily C onflict, Em ployee C ontrol over W ork, andT urno ver Inten tio ns Most of our husbands and w ives report experiencingwork interference w ith fam ily at least some of the tim e; the mean for both groupsis approxim ately 2.7 on a scale of 1 to 5, w ith 1 representing "never" and 5 rep-resenting "all of the tim e." Eighty-one percent of w ives and 72 percent of hus-bands report that their jobs m ake them feel too tired to do the things that need


17/23

Work-Life Integra tion 325attention at hom e at least som e of the tim e. Fifty-seven percent of w ives and 67percent of husbands report that job worries distract them while they are at hom eat least som e of the tim e. B oth w ives and husbands report having a fair am ounto f contro l over th eir wo rk circumstance s, w ith husbands repo rting slightly h igherlevels-a mean score of 3.6 on a scale of 1 to 5 versus 3.2 for wives. Approxi-m ately two-thirds of the employees in our sam ple have no plans to leave theircurrent employers. Slightly more husbands than wives do intend to changeemp loye rs befo re th ey reach re tiremen t.

R esults from Regression A nalysis Table 19 .2 p resen ts th e resu lts (co effi-cients and overall model fit) of the regression analyses of work-fam ily conflict,em ployee control over w ork, and turnover intentions for w ives and husbands,respec tiv ely . For e ase o f in terp re tation, we p resen t s tanda rd ized beta coefficien tsfor the models of work-fam ily conflict and control over work, which w ere esti-m ated using ordinary least squares (OLS ) regression. T he figures in the columnsunder Turnover Intentions are coefficients from ordered probit m odels. Thepredictors, w hich are grouped into sets, include three of the four dim ensions ofo rgan izationa l family re sponsiveness iden tif ied in the in troduc tion to th is chapte r(formal and in formal policies fo r work -life suppo rt, trad ition al human resourceincentives , and work des ign) , spouse's work cha racte ris tic s, and con tro l variable s.W e discuss the findings for each set of predictors for all three dependent vari-ables. We present results for w ives and husbands separately because in modelsusin g th e full sample, the co efficien t fo r an ind icator variab le for gender was sig -nificant in regressions of all three outcom es. G ender is a key consideration, notonly because past research has documented differences in the level and nature ofwork-fam ily conflict experienced by wom en and men, but also because som eresearch reports that w omen have higher levels of turnover than m en.Concerning policies for work-life support, access to flexible scheduling hassurprisingly little impact on the work-fam ily outcomes tested. It has no effect onthe work-fam ily conflict or the reported control over work of either w ives or hus-bands. It is negatively related to turnover intentions, but this relationship holdsonly for husbands. By contrast, supervisor supportiveness has a strong negativeeffect o n w iv es' work -fam ily con flict an d is negativ ely related to bo th w ives' andhusbands' turnover intentions. T hus, w omen whose supervisors support theirefforts to integrate work and the rest of life experience low er levels of work-fam ily conflict, and both women and m en who enjoy supervisor support are lesslikely to quit th eir employers.

Traditional hum an resource incentives (salary, job security, and career-development benefits) affect all three outcomes. Salary is positively related toboth work-fam ily conflict and control over work for husbands; this seem inglyparadoxical effect m ay signify that highly paid jobs are likely to both im poseex ten sive d emands on their incumbents and also g ran t them a h igh level o f control


18/23

326 It's about TimeTable 1 9 . 2 R e g r e s s io n s o f W o rk - F am i ly C o n f l i c t , C o n t r o l o v e r W o rk , a n d T u r n o v e r I n t e n t io n s "

Work-Family Control over TurnoverConflict Work Intentions

Wives Husbands Wives Husbands W ives HusbandsWork -L ife Suppo rtFlexible scheduling -0.08 0.04 -0.04 0.02 -0.20 -0.32*Supervisor support -0.27*** 0.03 0.05 0.02 -0.62* -0.75*

HR IncentivesSalary ( log) 0.05 0.16* -0.02 0.27** -0.53 -0.63Career development 0.04 0.07 -0.04 0.04 0.35 0.36Job securi ty -0.14* -0.15* 0.04 0.00 -0.02* -0.04***Work D esignDecision autonomy -0.01 -0.05 0.26*** 0.17** 0.27 0.00Coordination 0.07 0.13* -0.07 -0.11 t 0.07 0.05Flexible technology 0.12t 0.05 0.35*** 0.36*** 0.19 0.25tWork hou rs 0.15t 0.05 -0.17* -0.19** -0.02 -0.02Travel 0.04 -0.06 0.20** 0.18** 0.74t 0.13Control over Workb -0.40 -0 .81 **Spouse Variab lesWork hours -0.02 -0.08 0.08 0.05 0.03 -0.01Salary (log) -0.03 0.01 -0.04 0.03 -1.18* 0.37Job securi ty 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00Flexible technology 0.00 -0.03 -0.08 -0.14* 0.12 0.14Flexible scheduling 0.00 -0.02 -0.05 -0.04 0.06 -0.24t

Contro l Va riable sChildren -0.08 0.02 -0.13* -0.18** 0.12 -0.02Negative affect 0.31 *** 0.47*** 0.07 -0.02 0.14 -0.29Age 0.02 -0.04 0.08 0.02 -0.07* -0.13***Job tenure -0.01 -O.l1t -0.06 0.01 -0.20*** -0.11**N (couples) 234 218 234 218 205 198F 5.6*** 6.72*** 5.99*** 6.61*** 65.23*** 83.02***R2c 0.33 0.39 0.35 0.39 0.15 0.18Adjusted R2 0.27 0.33 0.29 0.33

"Figures in columns under Work-FamilyConfl ic tand Controlover Work are s tandardizedbeta coef-f ic ient s; f igures under Turnover Inten tions are coef fi cien ts f rom ordered probit model. t lnd icates p


19/23

Work-Life Integration 327feel secure in their jobs experience low er levels of work in terference w ith fam ilyand are less likely to leave their employers.T he work design b lo ck o f p red icto rs affects work -fam ily conflict and tu rnover

intentions to a m odest degree and has a very strong im pact on em ployee controlo ver work. D ecision-making autonomy, flexible techn ology use, an d travel areall strongly and positively related-and w ork hours is strongly and negativelyrelated-to control for both w ives and husbands. In addition, the coefficient forcoord in atio n w ith o th ers is n eg ativ e and marg in ally significan t, b ut only fo r hus-bands' reported control over work. These results suggest that both men andw om en who have a high level of autonom y in their jobs, who use technology tostay connected betw een work and home, and who travel as part of their jobs enjoyhigh levels of control, w hereas those w ho work long hours report low er levels ofcontrol. W ith respect to w ork-fam ily conflict, husbands w ho must coordinateextensively w ith others in the course of their w ork report higher levels of w orkin te rfe rence w ith family . For w ives, u sing flexib le te chno logy and work ing longerhou rs are both asso ciated w ith more work -fam ily conflict, alb eit th e co efficien tsfo r th ese v ariab les are only marg in ally significan t. Two variab les reach marg in allev els o f sig nifican ce in th e models p red ictin g tu rnover in ten tio ns: w iv es who sejobs involv e travel and husbands who use techno logy to stay connected b etw eenwork and home both tend to report increased plans to leave their employer.

T here are very few significant effects of spouse variables in our models. N oneof the variables m easuring spouses' w ork hours, salary, job security, flexibletechnology use, or access to flexible scheduling has any effect on the reportedwork-fam ily conflict of either w ives or husbands. One coefficient is sig nificantin the m odels predicting control over work-w ives' use of technology to stayconnected betw een work and home is negatively related to husbands' reportedcontrol. In the turnover models, husbands' salary is negativ ely related to w iv es'turnover intentions, whereas the coefficient for wives' access to flexibleschedu ling is ma rg inally signific an t and negatively re la ted to husbands' tu rnoverintentions.

Summing UpThis chapter extends previous research o n work -life integratio n by identify-ing challenges th at employees from du al-earner couples face in integrating their

w ork and nonwork lives and by developing a comprehensive model of organiza-tiona l family re sponsiveness invo lv ing fo rma l and in fo rma l polic ie s and p ractic esfo r work -life support, trad itio nal human resource in cen tiv es, a nd work red esign,all w ithin the context of an organizational culture that values and supports thework -life in teg ratio n o f all emp loyees. We u se both qualitativ e and quan titativ edata to exam ine the model.


20/23

328 It's about Tim eT h e r e s p o n d e n t s in T h e C o r n e l l C o u p le s a n d C a re e r s S tu d y a r e a g r o u p o f

middle- and upper m iddle-class employees. For the most part, they are well paid,are well educa ted, work p rimarily in p rofession al o r manage ria l occupation s, andenjoy a relative ly h ig h level of control ove r th eir work . Despite these adv antag es,however, th ey report a conside rable amoun t o f work-fam ily con flict. Analyses offocu s-group discussio ns in dica te th at many of the work-nonwork conflicts expe-rienced by our couples are time-based. L ack of flexibility in the tim ing and placeof w ork and excessive tim e dem ands hamper the effective integration of w orkw ith the rest of life, and the simple availability of benefits and policies designedto provide temporal flexibility does not represent an adequate organizationalresponse to the work -life challenges employ ees face . In the regressio n analyses,flexib le schedu ling polic ie s have no e ffect on work -family con flic t o r con tro l ove rw ork, but are associated w ith low er turnover intentions for husbands. Focus-g roup re su lts do, however, suggest th at employees value flexib le schedu ling poli-cies and find them useful. Y et although m any focus-group participants reporthaving w orked out useful flexible scheduling arrangem ents on an individualbasis, the fact that such arrangements are not available across the board consti-tutes a shortcom ing in organizational responsiveness to the challenges of work-life integration. Our qualitative data suggest that employees' access to flexiblescheduling is uneven and m ay depend on the type of work they do, the hierar-chicalleve l th ey o ccupy in th eir o rgan iz atio ns, and/o r the id iosyncratic a ttitud eso f their superv isors .W ith respect to inform al w ork-life policies, the im portance of supervisor

suppo rt is qu ite evid ent bo th in th e regressio n and qualita tiv e an alyse s. Superv i-sor support is associated w ith less frequent w ork-fam ily conflict, w ith higherlevels of control over work for w ives, and w ith decreased turnover intentions forbo th w iv es and hu sbands. Focus-g roup an alyses sugg est th at sup ervisors who a rehe lp ful and suppo rtive of th eir employees' fam ily demand s tend to eng ender moregra titude , loya lty , and respec t from workers . Yet a lthough superv isor support, likefo rmal policies, is clearly important, it is no magic bu lle t for dual-earn er coup le sstru gg lin g to in tegrate work and life demand s. In formal workplace support fromsuperviso rs and fo rmal work-life policies should represent two complementarye lemen ts o f a family -re sponsive o rgan ization. A lthough some o f the employees inthe Cornell study appea r to enjoy both types o f work -life support, our focu s-g roupda ta sugg est tha t in some o rgan iz atio ns fo rmal and info rmal elements fun ctio n ina com pensatory rather than com plem entary m anner. For exam ple, the focusgroups at the two large m anufacturing organizations (Vantech and Transco)indicate th at, a lthough these firms have work -life polic ie s on the books, th e ove ra llorg anization al culture is no t pa rticu la rly supportive o f work-life integ ra tio n. Bycontrast, som e of the health-care and educational em ployers have few form alpo lic ie s in effect, y et most employees indica te th at supportive superv isors g rantthem the flexib ility they need to manage their family and personal responsib ilities.


21/23

Work-Life Integra tion 329The qualitative data shed light on the sym bolic im portance of form al w ork-

life initiatives. Em ployers w ho develop, im plem ent, and publicize w ork-lifepolicies send a signal th roughout th e o rg an iza tio n th at work -life issu es are impor-tant. T his signal serves to legitim ate employees' d esires an d efforts to integratew ork and nonw ork roles and to dem and reasonable accommodations from theirem ployers to help them be successful at w ork and beyond. If the bulk of organi-zational fam ily responsiveness occu rs in formally at the level of su pervisor d is-cretion, employees may perceive a lack of trust and respect from their emplo yer.T his und erstan ding, in turn, m ay underm in e jo b satisfaction and org anizationalcommitmen t while c reatin g resen tmen t toward th e emp loye r.

B oth qualitativ e and quantitativ e resu lts pro vide su pport for our con tentionthat th e d ifficulties of work-life integ ration cann ot be addressed solely throu ghpro gram s d esign ed to pro vide flexibility and lim it overall w ork d emands. T rad i-tional hum an resource incentives also playa part. Focus-group results demon-stra te th at ad equate p ay and benefits a re importan t componen ts o f o rg an iz atio nalfam ily responsiveness. For instance, employees identified salary freezes andunsatisfacto ry h ealth in su ran ce as stresso rs. A lthough reg ression analy ses showthat salary is p ositiv ely related to work-fam ily conflict for husb ands, w e susp ectthat this may be picking up the fact that highly paid jobs often have a higheroverall level of w ork dem ands. Salary is also positively related to control overwork for husbands, and husbands who report high levels of control over w orkhave significan tly lower tu rnover in ten tio ns. The re gression analy se s also rev ealthe importance of job security ; this variable is associated w ith less work-fam ilyconflict and lower tu rnover in ten tio ns fo r both w iv es and husb ands. Among dual-earner cou ples, w orries abo ut losing a job con stitu te a work -domain stressor th atnegativ ely affects fam ily an d personal life. B ecause two careers must be co nsid -ered in any episode of job change, our employees may be less mobile thanemployees without working spouses and therefore place a high value on jobsecu rity . This suggests that o rgan iz ations can enhance their employees' wo rk -lifein teg ratio n by emphasiz ing job secu rity in th eir human resource p rac tices.

Work design constitutes another dim ension of our m odel of organizationalfam ily respo nsiv eness. B oth q uantitative and qualitative d ata demonstrate theim pact that job dem ands and w ork design elem ents have on the w ork-life inter-face. Regression analyses show that long w ork hours are linked to increasedw ork-fam ily conflict and low er levels of w ork control, w hereas job autonom yin creases contro l ove r work . Wo rk th at re qu ires frequen t coord in atio n w ith o th erpeople is associated w ith more w ork-fam ily conflict and less control over w orkfo r husbands. The use o f communication te chno logie s, in cluding cellu la r phones,faxes, em ail, and portable com puters, gives w ives and husbands m ore controlover th eir work , but is also associated w ith more work-fam ily con flict fo r w ives.This m ay be due to the fact that the use of these technologies allow s the dem andsan d p ressu res from th e work domain to in trude into the home itself. F ocu s-gro up


22/23

330 It's about T im eresults also highlight som e of the w ays in w hich w ork design affects w ork-lifeintegration. Frequent m eetings and inflexible work schedules both impairemployees' ability to m esh work and life harm oniously. For instance, som eemploy ees describe how rigid manu facturin g work processes p reven t them frombeing able to modify their work schedules in order to meet fam ily demands.O thers report having cow orkers w ho expect them to be continuously availablefor m eetings, even early in the m orning or in the evening, thereby reinforcingworkplace cu ltu res o f overwork .

O rganizations m ust be vigilant and responsive to the problem of overw ork.Our qualitative data show that crush ing work load s (often resu lting from organi-zational downsizing and th e red istrib ution o f task s to fewer emp loyees) and work -place norms that demand long work hours constitute serious barriers tosatisfactory work-life in tegratio n. A lthough several of the o rg an izations in theC ornell study have a number of flexible scheduling and other work-life policieson the books, these employers have made little progress in institutionalizing rea-sonable lim its on work tim e demands. Workplace norm s that demand extensive"face tim e" underm ine and lim it the effectiveness of form al work-life policies.One employ ee in th e focus groups even reported electing a part-time work sch ed-ule, w ith reduced pay and benefits, in order to lim it herself to a regular full-tim eworkweek . Such indiv idualized so lu tions to th e challenges o f work -life in teg ra-tio n clearly indicate th at o rg an izations are failin g to sy stematically meet emp loy-ees' work -life n eed s.

A ll in all, the results of the study reported in this chapter provide support forthe argument that organizational fam ily responsiveness involves multiple ele-ments. F ormal work -life policies, informal work-life support from supervisorsand other organizational m embers, favorable hum an resource incentives, andw ork designed to provide em ployees w ith a reasonable level of work dem andsand a high level of control over the conditions of their w ork are all im portant forsupporting employee work-life integration. O ur qualitative data suggest that aworkplace cu ltu re o f fam ily respon siv eness is also a critical elemen t and th at b ar-riers to effectiv e work -life in teg ration deriv e in part from o rgan izational cu ltu resthat fail to appreciate the im portance of employees' fam ily and personal lives.Unequal access to flex ib le sch eduling, unreasonab le work demands, in adequatecompensation and benefits, job insecurity, and employees' often having to takeon p rimary respon sib ility fo r p resen ting a conv in cing case to th eir emp loyers th atthey should be granted flexibility all signal a lack of system atic respect foremployees' perso nal and fam ily need s. In order to fully address th e challenges ofwork-life integration, there must be support from all levels of the organization,from the CEO on down through the ranks. Only when employers truly believethat systematic work-life integration constitutes a w in-w in situation for them -selves and their employees and back this belief up w ith policies and program s to


23/23

Work-Li fe In tegra tion 331give employees flexibility, lim it w ork dem ands, and provide adequate hum anresource incen tiv es w ill th e p romise o f work -life in teg ratio n be realized .

This chapter has im plications for future research on work-life integration.R ather than focusing on a lim ited set of work-life policies, w e have advanced andtested a broader, m ore integrated model of factors that affect employees' w ork-life in teg ratio n. We u rge futu re research ers to continu e in th is v ein by measuringmultiple elemen ts of fo rmal and in fo rmal work -life supports, trad itio nal humanresource incentives, w ork design, and organizational culture. O ur regressionana ly ses a lso reveal some in te resting gende r d iffe rence s in the p redic tion o f work -fam ily conflict, control over work, and turnover intentions that are deserving offurther research. Finally, although w e do not find m any significant effects ofspou ses' work characteristics and work -life supports on husb ands' o r w iv es' o ut-comes, w e encourage future scholars to take a couple-level approach to the studyof work-life integration in dual-earner couples. It is possible, for instance, thatthe w ork-life supports that husbands and w ives enjoy in their w orkplaces couldhave either an additive or multiplicative effect on w ork-life integration at thecouple level. To the extent that future research can identify the combination ofworkplace cha rac te ristic s and work -life supports that best enhance work -life in te -g ra tion fo r dua l-e arner couple s, emp loye rs, employee s and their fam ilie s a ll standto benefit.

cornell paper

Documents