Author: Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, Boston College: Graduate School of Social Work

Date: 08/14/02

Basic Concepts and Definitions

The terms "family-friendly workplace," "family-friendly company," and "family-friendly employer" refer to a workplace that, to some extent, acknowledges and responds to the work and personal/family responsibilities assumed by employees. Strachan and Burgess (1998) note, "… (a) 'family friendly workplace' is one which … develops and implements policies that allow employees to simultaneously fulfill work and family responsibilities." (p. 251) The concept of a family-friendly workplace is usually conceptualized as a continuum, rather than a dichotomous variable.

Work-family leaders have identified four interrelated components to family-friendly workplaces:

	1.	benefits, policies and programs that promote employees' quality of life and work/life balance;
	2.	workplace cultures and climates that reflect "family" or employee-centered assumptions and beliefs;
	3.	workplace relationships (e.g., with supervisors and coworkers) that are respectful of employees' work-family and work/life responsibilities; and
	4.	work processes, systems, and structures/practices that keep the dual agenda (e.g., beneficial outcomes both for the organization and for employees) in the forefront.

Benefits, Programs & Policies: Benefits, policies, and programs are, perhaps, the most visible indicators of a family-friendly workplace. This aspect of an employer's work/life initiative is sometimes considered to be the "benefits approach to work/life." Family-friendly policies and programs have been categorized in various ways (see, for example, Lobel & Kossek, 1996). Although there is no single, widely-accepted approach to the classification of work-family policies and programs, it is possible to organize them into six basic groups:

	•	dependent care supports (e.g., information and referral, subsidies, child care programs, elder care supports, etc.);
	•	flexible work options (e.g., flexible scheduling, work-at-home options, etc.);
	•	family and personal leaves (e.g., paid parental leave; sabbaticals, etc.);
	•	options for maximizing time and money resources (e.g., discount programs, assistance with preschool tuition, concierge services, etc.);
	•	education and training (e.g., work/life planning, seminars pertaining to specific work/life issues such as helping dependent children apply to college, etc.); and
	•	conventional provisions for job quality and compensation/benefits (e.g., "family-wage," health insurance, long-term care insurance, unemployment insurance, career development options, etc.).

Workplace Culture and Climate: The salient values and attitudes at the workplace affect virtually every aspect of employer-sponsored work-family initiatives, including: the organization's adoption of different initiatives (see Pitt-Catsouphes et al., 1995), perceptions of the strategic importance of the initiatives, and the utilization of particular work-family policies, such as gradual return to work after family leave. Employees might feel that it would be too risky to use some of the benefits that are available (e.g., reduced hours) if they are concerned that their careers and/or workplace relationships could be jeopardized as a result (see Judiesch & Lyness, 1999). Thompson, Beauvais, and Lyness (1999) developed a 20-item Work-Family Culture and found that employees' perceptions of a supportive organizational culture were positively related to utilization of work-family benefits. In addition, a supportive culture was positively related to employees' affective commitment and negatively related to work-family conflict and intentions to leave the organization. Most importantly, they found that a supportive work-family culture was predictive of work attitudes above and beyond the availability of work-family benefits.

Other studies also suggest that employees' perceptions of supportive workplace cultures are related to important employee and family outcomes, such as work-family balance and life satisfaction (see Litchfield & Pitt-Catsouphes, 1999). Some workplaces have introduced training programs for supervisors/managers as a way to promote a family-friendly culture.

Workplace Relationships: Several studies have found that employees' perceptions of the "family-friendliness" of their workplaces reflects the informal social supports connected to the relationships that employees develop at the workplace, especially those with their supervisors and coworkers (see Allen, 2001; Bond, Galinsky, & Swanberg, 1998; and Kossek & Nichol, 1995).

Work Systems, Processes, and Practices: The fourth component of the family-friendly company is tied to the work itself (see Appelbaum, 2000). Rapaport and her colleagues conducted a ground-breaking study linking work-family experiences to work redesign. The investigators of this study articulated two reasons why work/life champions should pay close attention to the very nature of the work itself (Rapoport et al., 1996). In the first place, employers and supervisors tend to be more supportive of work-family strategies when they are connected to core businesses objectives. The linkage to work redesign can help move work-family from the periphery of business practices to a more integral and strategic position. Secondly, work inefficiencies and unquestioned assumptions about work processes may create significant challenges to employees' abilities to achieve work/life balance. For example, businesses that respond to variations in business cycles by requiring mandatory overtime may create hardships for employees. Therefore, improvements in work processes may mitigate and/or prevent some types of work/life conflicts.

There has been controversy about the use of the term, "family-friendly" workplace. The concerns expressed are similar to those associated with the term "work-family" (see Barnett, 1999). Many have commented on the constraints imposed when the word "family" is attached to the concept of a responsive workplace, principally because this term suggests to some the 1950s image of the two-parent, male breadwinner/female housewife family structure (see also discussion in Strachan & Burgess, 1998).

Importance of Topic to Work-Family Studies

The United States has relied on employer-sponsored work/life initiatives as the key strategy for providing the supports needed by working families. Employers who have established work-family or work/life initiatives usually anticipate that they will have a positive impact on the "bottom line". These employers view work/life initiatives as strategies that can help them recruit and retain talented employees, remain competitive with the benefits offered by other employers, and enhance employee performance and productivity (see, for example, Catalyst, 2000, Catalyst, 1998, Catalyst, 1997).

State of the Body of Knowledge

The descriptive information about family-friendly workplaces addresses two important issues: the operationalization of the concept of family-friendly workplace and the prevalence of different types of work-family initiatives.

The Corporate Reference Guide to Work-Family Programs, published by the Families and Work Institute (Galinsky, Friedman, and Hernandez, 1991), details measurable indicators of the family-friendly workplace within a developmental framework. Based on the findings of organizational studies, Galinsky et al. suggest that there are three basic stages associated with the development of family-friendly initiatives:

	1.	Developing a Programmatic Response;
	2.	Developing an Integrated Approach;
	3.	Changing the Culture.

The Corporate Reference Guide describes The Family-Friendly Index, a tool that can be used to ascertain a company's family-friendliness. The Family-Friendly Index assesses the availability of alternative work schedules, leaves and time-off, family-oriented benefits, supports for dependent care (childcare and elder care), and other initiatives (e.g., EAPs, management training, etc.) at the workplace. This inventory has been widely used to compare the progress that individual workplaces have made toward becoming more family-friendly.

Corporate members of the Work & Family Roundtable at Boston College developed "Principles of Excellence of Work" (1996) as a statement of the members' vision of the characteristics of a family-friendly workplace. The Roundtable focused its work on four principles:

	1.	The employer recognizes the strategic value of addressing work and personal life issues.
	2.	The work environment supports individual work and personal life effectiveness.
	3.	The management of work and personal life effectiveness is a shared responsibility between employer and employee.
	4.	The employer develops relationships to enhance external work and personal life resources.

Most of the documentation of the prevalence of work-family initiatives has focused on trends in employers' adoption of specific types of policies and programs. Clearly, it has been more difficult to track changes in the other three aspects of work-family initiatives (e.g., workplace culture, relationships at the workplace, and work redesign) because the indicators of these changes are often informal rather than formal. Researchers, consultants, and government agencies have been interested in documenting the availability of work-family policies and programs at US workplaces.

As part of its Survey of Employee Benefits, the Bureau of Labor Statistics gathers data about employees' access to specific work-family policies and programs. According to the findings of the 1997 survey, the percentage of full-time employees in the US have access to work-family policies and programs include: 20% have access to paid personal leave, 93% have access to unpaid family leave (note the exemptions as specific in the Family and Medical Leave Act) and 2% have access to paid family leave, 10% have access to some type of child care support, and 10% have access to adoption assistance (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1999).

In 1998, Galinsky & Bond conducted a national survey of 1,057 workplaces with 100+ employees. Among their findings, Galinsky & Bond report:

	•	68% of the organizations reported that they periodically allow employees to change their starting and quitting times;
	•	81% allow employees to return to work gradually after childbirth;
	•	55% allow employees to periodically work at home;
	•	53% provide at least some income replacement during maternity leave;
	•	13% provide at least some income replacement during paternity leave;
	•	36% provide access to information to help locate childcare in the community;
	•	9% offer child care at or near the worksite;
	•	50% offer dependent care assistance pretax accounts; and
	•	43% train their supervisors in responding to work-family needs of employees.

Implications for Practice and Research

The media has focused significant attention on the efforts of large, for-profit corporations to establish work/life initiatives. Some studies have profiled the responsiveness of small businesses (see, for example, Pitt-Catsouphes and Litchfield, 2001; MacDermid et al., 1994; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1995), public sector agencies (see, for example, Durst, 1999), and non profit firms (see Sweet, 2000). It may be important for work-family leaders to consider whether it is appropriate to develop different sets of workplace responses for small businesses, public sector agencies, and nonprofits than those used for large corporations.

References

Allen, T. (2000). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 414-435.

Appelbaum, E. (Ed.). (2000). Balancing acts: Easing the burden & improving the options for working families. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Barnett, R. (March 1999). A new work-life model for the twenty-first century. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 562. Special Issue The Evolving World of Work and Family: New Stakeholders, New Voices. 143-158.

Bond, T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. (1998). The national study of the changing workforce. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (January 7, 1999). Employee benefits in medium and large private establishments, 1997. News. USDL-99-02. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor.

Catalyst. (2000). Flexible work arrangement III: A ten year retrospective of part-time options for managers and professionals. New York, NY: Catalyst.

Catalyst. (1998). Two careers, one marriage: Making it work in the workplace. New York, NY: Catalyst.

Catalyst. (1997). A new approach to flexibility: Managing the work/time equation. New York, NY: Catalyst.

Durst, S. (1999). Assessing the effect of family friendly programs on public organizations. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Atlanta, Georgia.

Galinsky, E., Friedman, D., and Hernandez, C. (1991). The corporate reference guide to work-family programs. New York, NY: The Families and Work Institute.

Galinsky, E., & Bond, T. (1998). Business work-life study: A sourcebook. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

Judiesch, M. & Lyness, S. (1999). Left behind? The impact of leaves of absence on managers' career success. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6). 641-651.

Litchfield, L. & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (1999). Culture and work/life balance: Findings form the Business Week Study. Research Highlights Series. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for Work & Family.

Lobel, S., & Kossek, E., (1996). Human resource strategies to support diversity in work and personal lifestyles: Beyond the 'family-friendly' organization. In Kossek, E., & Lobel, S. (Eds.) Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the workplace. (pgs. 221-244). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

MacDermid, S., Williams, M., Marks, S. and Heilbrun, G. (1994). Is small beautiful: Work-family tension, work conditions, and organizational size. Family Relations, 34(2). 159-167.

Pitt-Catsouphes, M. & Litchfield, L. (2001). How are small businesses responding to work and family issues? In Hertz, R. & Marshall, N. (Eds.) Working families: The transformation of the American home. 131-151. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Mirvis, P., and Litchfield, L. (1995). Behind the scenes: Corporate environments and work-family initiatives. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for Work & Family.

Rapoport, Rhona; Bailyn, Lotte with Kolb, Deborah; Fletcher, Joyce; Friedman, Dana E.; Eaton, Susan; Harvey, Maureen; & Miller, Barbara. (1996). Relinking Life and Work: Toward a Better Future. http://www.cpn.org/sections/topics/work/index.html

Strachan, G., & Burgess, J. (1998). The 'family-friendly' workplace: Origins, meaning and application at Australian workplaces. International Journal of Manpower, 19(4), 250-265.

Thompson, C., Beauvais, L., & Lyness, K. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392-415.

Work & Family Roundtable. (1996). Principles of excellence. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for Work & Family.

Other Recommended Readings on this Topic:
(Click on titles to link to citations/annotations in the Literature Database.)

Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 414-435.

Bankert, E., & Googins, B. (1996). Family-friendly-says who? Across the Board, 33(7), 45-49.

Bowen, G. (2000). Workplace programs and policies that address work-family and gender equity issues in the United States. In Haas, L., Hwang, P., and Russell, G. (Eds.). Organizational change and gender equity: International perspectives on fathers and mothers at the workplace (pp. 79-97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Catalyst. (1998). Two careers, one marriage: Making it work in the workplace. New York, NY: Catalyst.

Catalyst. (1997). A new approach to flexibility: Managing the work/time equation. New York, NY: Catalyst.

Friedman, D., & Johnson, A. (1997). Moving from programs to culture change: The next stage for the corporate work-family agenda. In Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. (Eds.). Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pgs. 192-208).

Galinsky, E., & Bond, T. (1998). The 1998 business work-life study: A sourcebook. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

Galinsky, E., Friedman, D., & Hernandez, C. (1991). The corporate reference guide to work-family programs. New York, NY: The Families and Work Institute.

Glass, J., & Estes, S. (1997). Family responsive workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 289-313.

Lobel, S., & Kossek, E., (1996). Human resource strategies to support diversity in work and personal lifestyles: Beyond the 'family-friendly' organization. In Kossek, E., & Lobel, S. (Eds.) Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the workplace. (pgs., 221-244). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Kolb, D., Fletcher, J., Friedman, D., Eaton, S., Harvey, M., & Miller, B. (1996). Relinking life and work: Toward a better future. http://www.cpn.org/topics/work/relink.html

Strachan, G., & Burgess, J. (1998). The 'family-friendly' workplace: Origins, meaning and application at Australian workplaces. International Journal of Manpower, 19(4), 250-265.

Witkowski, K. (1999). Becoming family-friendly: Work-family program innovation among the largest U.S. corporations. In Parcel, T. (Ed.) Research in the Sociology of Work: Work and Family. (pgs. 203-232). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

 

Locations in the Matrix of Information Domains of the Work-Family Area of Studies

The Editorial Board of the Teaching Resources section of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network has prepared a Matrix as a way to locate important work-family topics in the broad area of work-family studies. (More about the Matrix…)

To download the matrix, click here: http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/downloads/Family_Friendly_Workplace.pdf