تعادل کار و زندگی:آیا رویکرد بی تمایز مناسب است؟ تحلیلی اکتشافی بر آثار متمایز تعادل کار و زندگی بر مراحل زندگی حرفه ای
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|18734||2012||10 صفحه PDF||22 صفحه WORD|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : European Management Journal, Volume 30, Issue 2, April 2012, Pages 111–120
رویکرد چرخۀ زندگی- تأثیر سن بر تعادل کار و زندگی
حمایت مدیریتی ادراک شده
پیامد زندگی حرفه ای ادراک شده
حمایت مدیریتی ادراک شده
پیامد زندگی حرفه ای ادراک شده
تعادل کار و زندگی
مرحلۀ اولیۀ زندگی حرفه ای/18 تا 29 سال
مرحلۀ رشد زندگی حرفه ای/30 تا 39 سال
مرحلۀ استحکام زندگی حرفه ای/ 40 تا 49 سال
مرحلۀ پیش از بازنشستگی زندگی حرفه ای/ بالای 50 سال
دلالت های عملی
محدودیتهای تحقیق حاضر
جدول2: خلاصۀ همبستگی ها، میانگین ها، و انحراف استانداردها برای نمرات تعادل کار و زندگی، درگیری شغلی، حمایت مدیریتی و پیامد زندگی حرفه ای به عنوان تابعی از مرحله/سن زندگی حرفه ای.
جدول 3: تحلیل های رگرسیون چندگانۀ سلسله مراتبی پیش بینی کنندۀ تعادل کار و زندگی از درگیری شغلی، حمایت مدیریتی و پیامد زندگی حرفه ای.
This paper explores the antecedents of work–life balance for employees as they progress through different career stages denoted by age. To date, research has failed to adequately explore how work–life balance issues develop over the course of an employee’s working life. As a consequence, much of the work–life balance policy and practice research examines WLB issues from a relatively static and unchanging perspective resulting in praxis which is undifferentiated. Such a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the design and development of work–life balance initiatives is not only costly but likely to be ineffective in terms of meeting the real needs of different categories of employees. This paper challenges the static approaches and instead seeks to examine if and how WLB is affected and shaped by different antecedents as they impact on differing career stages as defined by distinct age categorisations. The research was carried out among a sample of 729 employees in 15 organisations (10 private sector and 5 public sector organisations) in the Republic of Ireland. Four career stages are considered with regard to both men and women irrespective of their parenting status. The findings suggest that factors which impact upon work–life balance differ marginally across various career stages thereby indicating that WLB is a concern for employees at all career stages and not the preserve of parents with young children only. These findings shed new light on our understanding of the antecedents of work–life balance and have particular implications for organisations who wish to foster a culture which values work–life balance across all career stages for all their employees.
Changes impacting on the work environment over the past 10–20 years such as globalisation of competition, changes in the patterns and demands of work, and the fast pace of technological innovations have placed extra demands upon employees (Coughlan, 2000, Department for Education and Employment, 2000 and Fisher, 2000). Coupled with these organisational and work design changes are demographic changes including the increase in the number of women in the workplace, dual career families, single parent families and an aging population (Brough and Kelling, 2002, Frone et al., 1992, Frone and Yardley, 1996, Hobson et al., 2001 and Smith and Gardner, 2007). Together, these have combined to generate an increasingly diverse workforce whose personal and work related needs are often complex. Organisations that aspire to promote a healthy work–life balance environment within their organisations are now faced with an equally complex problem. How do you assist such a diverse group of employees achieve a healthy balance in a fair and transparent way whilst maintaining organisational efficiency? Work–life balance is the general term used to describe organizational initiatives aimed at enhancing employee experience of work and non-work domains. Cascio (2000, p. 166) defines work–life balance programs as “any employer sponsored benefits or working conditions that help employees balance work and non-work demands”. Work–life balance arrangements and practices refer to initiatives voluntarily introduced by firms which facilitate the reconciliation of employees’ work and personal lives. Such initiatives include: temporal arrangements that allow employees to reduce the number of hours they work (e.g. job sharing where two employees share one job, part-time working where an employee works less than a full-time equivalent); flexible working arrangements such as flexi-time where employees choose a start and finish time which matches their personal needs but work certain core hours, tele-working/home-working/e-working where employees have locational flexibility in completing their work; work–life balance supports such as employee counselling, employee assistance programs, time management training, stress management training; and childcare facilities on-site or financial support for childcare off-site (e.g. through subsidised childcare). Essentially, work–life balance initiatives are offered by organizations to assist staff to manage the demands of work and personal life (Grady, McCarthy, Darcy, & Kirrane, 2008; McCarthy, 2004). The business case for the introduction and continued support of these arrangements and practices is that work–life balance has been shown to be a factor which has the potential to affect important workplace issues such as employee turnover, stress, organisational commitment, absenteeism, job satisfaction, and productivity (Bloom and Van Reenen, 2006, Frone et al., 1992, Parasuraman et al., 1996, Parris et al., 2008, Thomas and Ganster, 1995 and Veiga et al., 2004). In a European study conducted by The Boston Consulting Group and the European Association for People Management (2007) of Human Resource Directors across Europe, work–life balance was ranked as one of the top three challenges facing HR. To date, much of the research in the work–life balance arena has investigated individual level work–life balance factors such as employee demands for flexible working practices (Brannen and Lewis, 2000, Coughlan, 2000 and Den Dulk, 2001), employee satisfaction with work–life or work–family policies and programs (Anderson et al., 2002 and Galinsky et al., 1996) and the impact of work–life balance programs on a number of employee level outcomes such as stress, commitment and productivity (Bedeian et al., 1988, Darcy and McCarthy, 2007, Frone et al., 1992, Grady and McCarthy, 2008, Lambert, 2000 and McCarthy and Cleveland, 2005). Other research has explored how work–life balance affects performance at the organizational level (Bloom, Kretschmer, & Van Reenen, 2006). However there is a lack of consensus about whether the positive effect of work–life benefits is universal (i.e. experienced by all employees, irrespective of their individual characteristics or circumstances) or whether the effect of work–life benefits differ for particular sub-populations of employees (Smith & Gardner, 2007). Some research exists to suggest that employee demographic differences impact upon the outcomes of work–life benefits. For example, McKeen and Burke (1994) explored the extent to which managerial women valued different types of work–life benefits and found significant differences according to age and parental status. Blair-Loy and Wharton (2002) found that in a homogeneous sample of managers and professionals, the work–life benefits of family-care and flexibility were used by employees possessing different demographic and family status characteristics. Despite the potential advantages to be gained from the implementation of work–life balance initiatives, some initiatives may be costly to implement and it is therefore imperative that organisations firstly consider the likely potential benefits before deciding to provide such initiatives (Darcy & McCarthy, 2007). This paper explores work–life balance for employees as they progress through different career stages denoted by age. To date, the majority of focus both in the literature and in practice has been on working parents to the exclusion of other employee stakeholder groups. It is the intention of this paper to broaden the discussion beyond working parents to a consideration of different employee career stages to examine the impact of WLB on these very different employee groupings. Life cycle approach – the impact of age on work–life balance Researchers have long since recognised that depending on one’s life-stage, different factors take on differing degrees of importance and that these varying factors and issues may affect both attitudes towards work and behaviours in the workplace (Giele & Elder, 1998). Research on adult development has found that as individuals age, they pass through different development stages that affect their employment priorities (Veiga, 1983). ‘Age’ is a marker of a number of life circumstances: career stage, family stage, maturity, biological aging (Moen & Yu, 2000). Finegold, Mohrman, and Spreitzer (2002) offer a theoretical rationale for the significance of age effects within the employment relationship. This rationale draws upon the work of Sparrow (1996) who found that individuals have very different employment preferences as they age and that these preferences when acknowledged and considered by the employer have a significant impact upon job satisfaction and motivation. Guest (1998) found that firms which better meet individuals’ work preferences are more likely to retain employees and gain their commitment. Therefore, as Finegold et al. (2002) argue, age is just one factor that may shape differences in what people want from work and how attached they are to their organisation. The Kaleidoscope Career Model (KCM) proposed by Mainiero and Sullivan (2006) offers some insight into the changing patterns of individual careers. The model suggests that individuals rotate varied aspects of their lives in order to arrange their relationships and roles in new ways. Individuals evaluate the choices and options available through the lens of the kaleidoscope to determine the best fit among work demands, constraints, and opportunities as well as relationships and personal values and interests (Sullivan, Forret, Carraher, & Mainiero, 2009). Interestingly Sullivan et al. (2009) when advancing their career model did so on the basis of age while looking at both men and women. The hypotheses presented in this paper specifically aim to capture and group key work–life influences as they relate to individual employees within each of the four identified career stages denoted by age. The research is cross-sectional in this regard rather than longitudinal. The research hypothesises that as an individual moves through various career stage categories the challenges he/she faces in relation to their work and non-work domains change. The researchers were not specifically concerned with the working lives of parents per se and so present an adapted model of Roehling, Roehling and Moen’s (2001) life-stage model. This model was originally concerned with six distinct life-stages reflecting working parents with and without children notably; young non-parents – up to 29 years of age with no children living at home; preschool aged children – young working parents up to age 29 whose youngest child is five or younger; Mid-age non-parents – respondents aged 30 through 39 with no children living at home; mid-age 30–39 year old workers withschool aged children – parents whose youngest child is aged between 6 and 17; older non-parents – respondents aged 40 through 49 with no children living at home; shifting gears – respondents with no children living at home aged 50+ who are preparing for retirement. The current research seeks to operationalize ‘life-stage’ based on age as reflecting distinct career stages and in this way expand the research by moving the discussion beyond dependent children and working parents in order to encapsulate a broader definition of work–life balance as it applies to all employees. To this end four age groupings are presented and examined which are posited as representing distinct career stages. These stages would be as follows; age 18–29, early career stage; age 30–39, developing career stage; age 40–49, consolidating career stage while finally age 50+, represents pre-retirement career stage. If it is the case that employees experience work–life balance in different ways depending on their career stage, then the implications for organisations and government policy are significant. For example, to persist in offering ‘a one size fits all approach’ to work–life balance where a range of WLB practices are offered across the organisation irrespective of particular needs and requirements of different categories of employees is likely to result in less than effective policies and practices for the organisation and a mismatch between employee needs and organisational WLB responses (Grady et al., 2008). The 2007 Work–Life Balance in Ireland Study (McCarthy, Grady, Darcy, & Kirrane, 2007) identified the most common work–life balance arrangements in place in both the public and private sector in Ireland. This study highlighted the fact that the majority of organizations offer a limited set of arrangements to their employees. While this set of arrangements was open to all employees it tended to be more focused on those with caring responsibilities such as childcare or eldercare issues. They reported that there was little evidence of Irish organizations offering broad WLB programmes or initiatives which could not be construed as targeting this one narrow sub-set of employees. The findings from this paper will offer us an opportunity to analyse work–life balance for individuals at differing stages in their career as defined by their age. In doing so we hope to advance the literature on work–life balance while at the same time providing some insights for practitioners as they try to grapple with the very different needs of an increasingly work–life balance conscious workforce across the various categories under examination.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper set out to explore the differential effects of career stage as denoted by age on the work–life balance of employees within four distinct categories. While this research is seen as an exploratory study, it is clear that examining work–life balance from a career stage perspective can produce valuable insights from both a theoretical and practitioner perspective. It is clear that organisations need to adopt a more tailored approach to work–life balance programmes and initiatives and have the courage to move away from a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Organisations need to consider new ways to approach the issues and complexities of modern day living for their employees and begin to target specific groups with relevant tailor-made work–life balance initiatives. What has emerged from the study is the absence of attention to the older workers in terms of their work–life balance concerns and this group in particular are therefore deserving of renewed consideration.