Home / Research Paper / Family and Childcare Issues for Single Head-of-Household, Research Paper Example

Family and Childcare Issues for Single Head-of-Household, Research Paper Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2195

Abstract

The focus of this work in writing is to examine family and childcare issues for single head-of-household individuals in regards to the impacts of these issues on the workplace. This work will address how problems could be solved using various social controls such as organizational policies and practices, training, education, and government or corporate investment and to explain what the potential social or economical benefits may be if the recommended changes are implemented.

Objective

Introduction

Hastert and Owen (nd) state in their work entitled “Career Counseling with Working Mothers” state that the working mother is faced with complex issues as she struggles to balance the demands of work and family…” and this is true of many single fathers in today’s workforce. The State of Oregon in its work entitled “Family Friendly Workplace Policies: A Guide to Meeting Business and Employee Needs” states the fact that employee turnover negatively affects all organizations and a high rate of turnover results in cost increases in the areas of locating, recruiting and training all employees as well as in the time spent recruiting and the salaries and benefits to other staff in recruiting, interviewing selecting and appointing new employees. Finally high turnover rates costs the organization in terms of orientation and training costs and time required by staff to conduct training and orientation. There is another aspect that must be considered and that is the costs associated with absenteeism due to work-family conflict of those who are single head-of-household workers.

Review of Literature

According to the State of Oregon publication employers should in the interest of the promotion of “involvement and continuous improvement” in services provided by the state ensure that their managers: (1) use problem-solving processes which encourage employee participation; (2) solicit input from employees doing the job; (3) encourage employee collaboration to improve work processes; and (4) implement those techniques and ideas that contribute to the program. (State of Oregon,2000) Flexible work options are stated to involve job sharing and teleworking as well as other alternatives to the traditional workplace environment. It is related contributors to workplace stress include such as unresolved dependent care needs, lack of personal time and feeling out of control…” (State of Oregon, 2000) Flexible Work Option result in employees having greater job satisfaction as well as having higher morale. Flexible Work Options further result in the production of higher quality work and more employee loyalty to the employer. (State of Oregon, 2000) In addition, flexible work options are touted to be “generally inexpensive to implement.” (State of Oregon, 2000)

Job compatibility is an important consideration and involves such as: (1) early start, early quit time; (2) additional hours at the beginning or end of shift to accommodate a longer lunch hour; (3) compressed work schedule – working four, 10 hour days per week; and (4) varied start and quit times to total 40 hours per week. (State of Oregon, 2000) Employee suitability factors are also important requiring that the following characteristics be examined when determining the suitability of a flexible work schedule: (1) does the employee’s work style and history support the schedule? (2) Can arrangements be established for communicating andmeasuring performance and accountability? (3) Can the schedule successfully meet business needs? (State of Oregon, 2000)

The work of Hardill and Green (2003) entitled “Remote Working – Altering the Spatial Contours of Work and Home in the New Economy” states that the work pattern has changed in terms of its’ “daily, weekly, and monthly rhythms, but so has the spatiality of work for some paid work is undertaken at home, or in cyberspace.” Hardill and Green (2003) state additionally that a solution to the issues associated with changes in family lifestyles and structure is that of telecommuting.

The work of Berg, Arne, and Kalleberg (2003) entitled “Balancing Work and the Family: The Role of High-Commitment Environments” reports that researchers have only recently begun to acknowledge that “the nature of jobs, the workplace environment, and more generally, the culture of the workplace can have a significant impact on the ability of workers to balance their work and family lives.” Berg, Arne, and Kalleberg (2003) report that by using data from a survey conducted among workers in three manufacturing industries that findings show that “a high commitment environment – characterized by high performance work practices, intrinsically rewarding jobs, and understanding supervisors – positively influences employee’s perceptions that the company is helping them achieve this balance.”

The work of Frye and Breaugh (2004) entitled “Family Friendly Policies, Supervisor Support, Work-Family Conflict, Family-Work Conflict and Satisfaction: A Test of A Conceptual Model” reports a study that testing a “model of antecedents (the use of family-friendly policies, supervisor support, number of hours worked, having childcare responsibility) and consequences (i.e., job and family satisfaction) of work-family conflict and family-work conflict.” The study conducted is stated by Frye and Breaugh (2004) to support the hypothesis that the use of “family-friendly p9olicies, hours worked per week and supervisor support were predictive of work-family conflict. In addition, as predicted, childcare responsibility and supervisor support were found to be related to family-work conflict. Work-family conflict was found to be related to both job and family satisfaction.” (Frye and Breaugh, 2004) The work of Kossek and Ozeki (1999) entitled “Bridging the Work-Family Policy and Productivity Gap: A Literature Review” states that policies to assist employees in managing work and family roles can be expensive as well as studies demonstrating that they are “often marginally effective.” The review is stated to show that the relationship between work-family policies and organizational effectiveness “is mixed and their connection to work-family conflict often under-examined.” (Kossek and Ozeki, 1999)

The work of Eby, et al (2005) entitled: Work and Family Research in IO/OB: Content Analysis and Review of the Literature (1980-2002) published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior states that one area of research conducted intheir study examined the interest of the organization is assisting employees in managing work and family responsibilities which can be classified as: (1) dependent care; (2) work-at—home programs; and (3) organizational responsiveness to work-family issues. (Eby, et al, 2005) Eby et al (2005) reports that four studies reviewed examined the on-site childcare issues and findings show that “both satisfaction with on-site childcare and supervisor support were related to lower work-family conflict…” It is additionally reported that those who used on-site childcare “reported fewer problems with childcare and more favorable attitudes about their ability to manage their childcare responsibilities than non-users of on-site childcare.” (Eby, et al, 2005) It is additionally reported that those who used on-site childcare “…also more strongly believed that such assistance had positive effects on recruiting and retentionefforts and were more satisfied with the organization’s support for dependent carethan non-users. “ Eby, et al, 2005) It is reported by Eby, et al (2005) that two recent studies examined issues of eldercare and state findings that “the dual role of being a caregiver and being employed related to more depressive symptoms than occupying just one of these roles.”

Eby et al (2005) additionally reports the examination of two studies, which examined the work-family variables in relation to work-at-home programs. The first of these studies was that reported by Duxbury, Higgins, and Thomas (1996) in which a comparison was made between users and non-users of computer supported supplemental work-at-home”programs and states findings of there being differences found in the work but not found in the family environment of users and non-users. Parent users reported greater taskvariety, job involvement, and work expectations and less role clarity than non-users. Further, users weremore likely to report high role overload, greater stress, and more work–family interferencethan non-users.” (Eby, et al, 2005) The second study reviewed was that conducted and reported by Hartman, Stoner, and Arora, which involved the investigation of predictors oftelecommuting productivity and satisfaction. The study findings state “Self-reported productivity and telecommutingsatisfaction related positively to favorable attitudes toward the capacityof the performance evaluation system to evaluate work done at home. Moreover,satisfaction with telecommuting related to the receipt of technical and emotionalsupport from one’s supervisor while working at home and less family disruption” (Eby, et al, 2005) Eby, et al (2005) states countering expectations findings show that “more time spent telecommuting related to lower productivity. In addition, telecommuters reported greater satisfaction and higher productivitywhen employed in government agencies compared to business firms. Finally, telecommutersemployed full-time rather than part-time, and those in employee-initiatedor mutually-initiated rather than supervisor initiated telecommuting arrangements,reported higher productivity.” (Eby, et al, 2005) In the category of ‘organizational responsiveness to work-family issues’ it is stated that several studies were reviewed that examined the factors association with organization’s decisions to adopt work–family policies and programs…[and that] it is indicated in research that “factors (i.e., organizations in industries where work–family benefits are morecommon, industries where female unemployment is lower, being in the healthcareor financial services industry), structural factors (i.e., larger organizations, greaterproportion of female employees), employer beliefs (i.e., greater expected benefits,greater knowledge about services, issue salience among executives), and employeeinvolvement all relate to an organization’s responsiveness to work–family issues.” (Eby, et al, 2005)

Work-life benefits have been examined as well and the general organization’s support for work and family issues. It is reported that Honeycutt and Rosen (1997)”… examinedwork–family responsiveness from the perspective of the applicant.” (Eby, et al, 2005) Findings reported indicate that organizations in the perception of participants are attractive places to work “if they offered flexible career paths and policies.” (Eby, et al, 2005) It was further found that individuals “with a salient family identity were more attracted to companies with flexible options whereas those with comparable family and career identities were attracted toorganizations offering either flexible options or dual-career paths and policies. Thissuggests some work-life benefits are universally appealing to all applicants.” (Eby, et al, 2005)

Eby et al (2005) reports the study of Lambert (2000) conducted an examination of the relationship between usefulness of benefits and citizenship of the organization and found it be to be “positively related to citizenship behaviorsat both the individual and organizational levels.” Furthermore, benefit usefulness was found to be related to “stronger perceptions of organizational support.” (Eby, et al, 2005)

Eby et al (2005) also reports a study of “perceived work-life family benefits” and found that individuals with young children viewed these benefits as being more desirable than did individuals who older children. In another study reviewed in the work of Eby, et al (2005) and specifically that of Behson (2002b) a comparison of perceived organizational support, fair interpersonal treatment at work, trust in management, work-family culture, and family supportive organizational perceptions as predictors of work attitudes was conducted and findings show that job satisfaction and commitment of employees “were better predicted by perceived organizational support, fair treatment and trust in management whereas work-to-family conflict was best predicted by work-family culture and family supportive perceptions.” (Eby, et al, 2005)

The influence of the impact of work schedules on family life was examined and findings show that those working nonstandard workdays, “reported less time spent with children and in housework” that those working regularly scheduled days.” (Eby, et al, 2005) However, a study conducted by Staines and Pleck (1986) reports that the negative impact of nonstandard work schedules on family life was moderated by schedule flexibility.” (Eby, et al, 2005)

Summary and Conclusion

This study has examined work-related issues for single head-of-household individuals and family-work conflict as it related to alternative work schedules and alternatively structured work policy and has found that in today’s business world it is necessary and critical that employers develop policies that serve to assist single-parents in coping with work-family, and family-work conflict. Such initiatives of flexible work scheduling result in higher employee satisfaction, higher employee commitment and serves to increase the overall productivity of employees as well as increasing employee attendance rates.

References

A Guide to Meeting Business and Employee Needs (2000) State of Oregon, Department of Administrative Services, Human Resources Services Division. January 2000. Retrieved from: http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/HR/docs/train/ffp_guide3.pdf

Hardill, Irene and Green, Anne (2003) Remote Working – Altering the Spatial Contours of Work and Home in the New Economy. 2 Oct 2003. New Technology, Work and Employment. Vol. 18, Issue 3. Online available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-005X.00122/abstract

Glass, J.L. and Finley, A. (2002) Coverage and Effectiveness of Family-ResponsiveWorkplace Policies. Human Resource Management Review. Vol. 12 Issue 3 Autumn 2002. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4J-46087PW-2&_user=10&_coverDate=12/31/2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5e5ca39d507a5783f4ccec445a1bb78a&searchtype=a

Berg, P., Arne, L. and Kalleberg, E.A. (2003) Balancing Work and Family: The Role of High-Commitment Environments. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society. Vol. 42, Issue 2. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-232X.00286/abstract

Kossek, E.E. and Ozeki, C. (1999) Bridging the Work-Family Policy and Productivity Gap: A Literature Review. Community, Work & Family, Volume 2, Issue 1 April 1999. Retrieved from: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a789296321

Eby, Lillian T. et al (2005) Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002) Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) Retrieved from: http://management.uta.edu/Casper/PDFfiles/WF%20Monograph%20JVB%202005.pdf

Hastert, Cindy J., and Owen, Anne B. (nd) Career Counseling with Working Mothers. Online Retrieved from: http://www.people.ku.edu/~tkrieshok/pre846/ASSIGNMENTS/REVIEWS/review2.pdf