balancing parenthood and employment factors affecting company receptiveness to family related...

7/31/2019 Balancing Parenthood and Employment Factors Affecting Company Receptiveness to Family Related Innovations i

1/8

Balancing Parenthood and Employment: Factors Affecting Company Receptiveness to Family-

Related Innovations in the WorkplaceAuthor(s): R. L. McNeely and Barbe A. FogartyReviewed work(s):Source: Family Relations, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 189-195Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/584319 .

Accessed: 14/05/2012 18:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Family Relations.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/584319?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/584319?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr


2/8

Balancing Parenthood and Employment:Factors Affecting Company Receptivenessto Family-Related Innovations in the Workplace*R. L. McNeely and Barbe A. Fogarty**

Findings reported in this article are presented to aid family life specialists and others interested in identifying companiesmost receptive to the adoption of innovative programs that enhance the "balance"between workand family life. Data were ob-tained from 276 employers revealing the influence of certain demographic and other features on the willingness of companyofficials both to consider and implement innovations. Advocates of balancing programs are urged to target initial efforts topromote innovative programming in companies displaying characteristics associated with receptiveness.

The ProblemRecent changes in the labor forceparticipation rates of womenhave given rise to a variety ofneeds requiringmodifications in tradi-tionally organized workplaces if an op-timal balance between the demands ofpaid employment and family life is tobe achieved. Forexample, although theorganization of all of our majorinstitu-tions is predicated on the assumptionthat male breadwinners and nonwork-ing wives constitute the predominantfamily form, only 11.2% of all currentday American families actually fit thismold (Friedman,1983). Fully two thirdsof all women with children, whether in

female-headed households or intactfamilies, presently participate in theworkforce and more than half (55%)ofall American children are growing up infamilies with both parents or the singleparent being employed (U.S. Depart-ment of Labor, 1982). Common prob-lems experienced by these parents in-clude scheduling conflicts, difficultiesarranging child care, and insufficienttime to meet adequately both workandfamily demands, resulting in roleoverload.Often, both the morale and on-the-job performance of these employeesare affected adversely (Pleck, Staines &Lang, 1978) and increases in lateness,absenteeism, and use of sick leave oc-cur (cf. Emlen & Koren, 1984). In addi-tion, mental fatigue, irritability, andphysical exhaustion can accompanyprolonged conflicts in the interface ofwork and family responsibilities,spawning tensions in spousal and par-ent-child relationships (cf. Pleck et al.,1978).Efforts to reduce the conflicts be-tween work and family life must be suc-

cessful lest continued sacrifices bemade in on-the-job productivity,familylife, social functioning, and physicalhealth (LaRocco, House, & French,1980). Speaking with reference to thelatter group of concerns, work-relatedmorale problems have been shown tobe associated with hypertension, heartattacks, and cardiovascular difficulties(Theorell & Rahe, 1972), gastroin-testinal ailments (Susser, 1967), a varie-ty of psychosomatic disorders (Gardell,1972), substance abuse (Roman &Trice, 1972),and even suicide (Li,1969).

Also, job morale problems arerelated to the incidence of spouseabuse (McNeely, 1979b; O'Brien, 1971)and child abuse (Gil, 1984; Justice &Duncan, 1977); and certain maternalwork schedules have been found to berelated to children's social adjustment(Farel, 1980), academic achievement(Gold &Andres, 1978), and even to theway in which both parents perceivetheir children (Bronfenbrenner,Alvarez,& Henderson, 1984). In addition, the"health" of communities may be af-fected, as several studies have shown arelationship between the constraints ofworkplaces and the willingness ofemployees to participate in civic affairs(McNeely, 1979a; Torbert & Rogers,1973;Walton, 1974).Despite a sufficiently abundantliteraturedemonstrating the efficacy ofsome workplace innovations in raisingmorale, increasing productivity, andenhancing the ability of employers torecruitand retainvalued employees (cf.Guzzo & Bondy, 1983; Perry, 1982),manyemployers remain reluctant to in-troduce innovations into their places ofwork.The study reported in this articlesought to examine employer reluc-

tance to consider and/or implement innovations by assessing the relationship between selected demographifeatures of companies and the receptiveness of these companies to the introduction of innovative changes, asreported by company officials. Ashould be obvious, there is a presenand growing need both to introducand promote the diffusion of "balancing" programs given the continued increase of women in the labor force(Shank &Getz, 1986). Additionally, thenumber of children (more than 22million)presently in homes where bothparents are working is almost certainto rise, given projections indicatingthat nearly as many births will be occurring in the 1990s as occurred durinthe baby boom of the late 1950s (BurudAshbacher, &McCroskey, 1984).Requisites of Advocacy

The basic goals of human serviceprofessionals who intervene in theworkplace involve: (a) enhancing thepersonal well-being of employees; (bincreasing employee productivity; (cimproving relationships among workers, unions, and management; (d) im

*The authors wish to acknowledge Beth Schultz anWilliamFeyerherm or theirassistance in the completioof this report.**R. L. McNeely is Professor and Chairmanof the Idustrialand OccupationalSocial WelfareProgramoffereat the School of Social Welfare, Universityof WisconsinMilwaukee,WI 53216. Barbe A. Fogarty is CommuniDevelopment Specialist with the Regional Council oNeighborhood Organizations, 2147 Manton StreetPhiladelphia,PA19146.Key Words:administration, amily,industrialand laborelations, management, occupational social work.(Family Relations, 1988, 37, 189-195.)

April1988 FAMILYRELATIONS 189


3/8

proving the stability of the work force;and (e) improving consumer and com-munity relations. Attainment of each ofthe five broad goals listed above maybe realized in part by the introductionof innovative programs that fosterorganizational development.Speaking with reference to goalsa, b, and d, family life specialists, fami-ly life educators, family policy special-ists, and occupational social workersmust join with other change agents(foundations, government agencies,unions, voluntary associations, etc.)presently seeking to increase employerutilization of programs designed tobalance work and family life (Friedman,1983). To achieve this objective, ad-vocates must be prepared to do twothings. First, they must be able todemonstrate to chief executive officersand others in corporate decision-making roles that properly designedand implemented family support pro-

grams can yield benefits that may bemeasured in terms of productivity in-creases, cost savings, or enhancedprofits. Demonstrating increasedcapability to attract and retain talentedworkers also is important. Scientificevidence to convincingly supportassertions that all of these gains arepossible is sufficiently available in theliterature (cf. Katzell & Yankelovich,1975; O'Toole, 1981).Second, advocates must be ableto gauge corporate "ripeness" to risktests of innovative balancing pro-grams. Alternatively stated, if organiza-tional leaders are too traditional, toofiscally constrained, or simply too waryto assume the risk of program experi-mentation, change agents will have ex-pended their energies and effortsfruitlessly. Consequently, knowledgeof factors associated with corporatereceptivity is one of the key elementsinfluencing effective advocacy (cf.Friedman, 1983).

Of course, occupational socialworkers employed in employee assis-tance programs (EAPs) may be inclinedto regard their change efforts in termsof marketingratherthan advocacy. Theterm "marketing" mplies a need to in-crease the management consultantcomponent of EAP service delivery toenhance expertise in guiding the iden-tification, introduction, and subse-quent operation of innovative balanc-ing programson a fee-for-service basis.Additionally, EAPs will need to en-hance capabilities to demonstrate, interms to which managers are sensitive,the effectiveness of programs thathave been implemented. These same

points are relevant to family life spe-cialists seeking the development offamily life programs in industrial set-tings.Finally, those involved in familypolicy analysis may find their pro-posals elicit less opposition frombusiness and industry when themesadvanced in the proposals are sensitiveto the concerns of corporate leaders,as well as to the constraints withinwhich these leaders must operate. Oneimplication of information supplied insucceeding sections is that it may beunwise to propose universal policies inevery instance, inasmuch as the needsand circumstances of corporate em-ployers vary greatly. This is especiallythe case with regard to small versuslarge companies, and with regard tocompanies experiencing profit down-turns, versus those that are not.The ProgramsThere are a number of nontradi-

tional programs in the literaturepresumed to reduce conflicts betweenwork and family demands. Advocatesshould be knowledgeable of these pro-grams, particularly insofar as theirpotential strengths and weaknessesare concerned. Some strengths andweaknesses associated with each pro-gram are discussed in McNeely (inpress).Employer receptiveness to 14work/familyprogramswas examined inthis study. The programs included re-scheduling programsand policies suchas flextime, job sharing, part-timework, sick child leave, maternity leave,and paternity leave. On-site child care,employer subsidized child care, con-sortium child care, and employer will-ingness to contract with external childcare providerswere examined. Informa-tion services such as resource andreferral programs, worksite seminars,and employer willingness to dissemi-nate helpful printed materials were ex-amined, as were flexible benefits. Aflexible benefits program (also knownas "cafeteria benefits") involves allow-ing employees to select their benefitsfrom a "menu," possibly including in-formational services and employer-assisted child care arrangements.Background and Purposeof the Study

Data analyzed for purpose of thepresent study were obtained from aparent study designed to determine thelevel of employer involvement and in-terest in providing nontraditionalserv-ices to employees located throughoutthe state of Wisconsin. The ultimate

objective of the parent study was todevelop a series of informationaseminars for corporate leaders wishingto be informed of the extent to whichWisconsin employers were providinservices and the receptiveness of nonproviding employers to consider instituting services.The parent study was conductedby the Wisconsin Association of Manufacturers and Commerce (WAMC), heWisconsin Child Care ImprovemenProject, and the University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee Center for Consumer Affairs. The present studysought to analyze data generated bythe parent study to determine factorsassociated with the actual provision oservices, and employer willingness toconsider providingservices.

MethodA structured 76-item mail questionnaire consisting mainly of Liker

type items was constructed to surveythe prevalence to which selectedemployer sponsored nontraditionaservices were offered to employeesand the attitudes of nonprovidingcompany officials regarding the establish-ment of these services within theirfirms. The services surveyed includethose depicted in the section of this article designated as "The Programs."The questionnaire was designed to provide additional information regardingthe types of incentives employers feltwere important in influencing corporate decisions to adopt innovativprogramming. Several items soliciteddemographic informationregardingthepercentage of females employed, thedegree to which employees wereunionized, location of the firm beingsurveyed by land area type (e.g., ruraurban,suburban),and the total numbeof individuals employed at the time ofthe survey.

The following designations toclassify companies were employed"industrial," "service," and 'fi-nance/trade." Industrial companiesprimarily included firms involved inmanufacturing, construction, transportation, and public utilities. Serviceorganizations primarily includedhospitals and humanservice providersFinance/trade included those involvedin finance, insurance, real estate, andretail and wholesale trade.Firms participating in the studywere selected from the membershiplist of WAMO.About 2,900 firms areWAMCmembers. Systematic randomsampling was utiized to select thstudy group. WAMC's existing mem

190 __ FAMILYRELATIONS April 1988


4/8

bership list was not used to selectstudy participants. Instead, a new listwas developed, with WAMC membersplaced in alphabetical order, to avoidsampling bias due to periodicity. Eighthundred and fifty members (approx-imate sampling fraction = 1/3.4) wereselected to comprise the samplingframe. Questionnaires were placed inthe mail during July 1985. A follow-upmailing to nonrespondents was con-ducted in August.Given the nominal/ordinal natureof the data, chi-square (x2)and gamma(G)were selected as the principaltoolsfor analyses. Gamma was included toavoid misinterpreting findings basedsolely on the chi-square statistic, as iscommon in social research (Miller,1977, pp. 172-176). Cramer'sV (CV), n-stead of gamma, was used to examineassociations involving a nominalvariable (cf. Kurtz, 1983, pp. 296-306).Categories were collapsed for x2analysis when cell frequencies were in-adequate for proper computation. Forexample, only one company actuallyprovided on-site child care. This com-panywas combined with 40 companiesresponsive to considering on-site childcare. These 41 companies were thencompared to those that would not con-sider this form of care.Findings

Officials of 276 companies re-turned their questionnaires, resultingina response rateof 32.5%.This returnrate compares well to the returnrate ofsome similar surveys. For example, asurvey of human resource personnelconducted in Minnesota by Parents inthe Workplace, Inc. (1981) generated aresponse rate of less than 12%. TheMinnesota survey sought to determinethe prevalence of innovative programssuch as flextime, cafeteria benefits, on-site child care facilities, and so forth,and the willingness of business of-ficials to consider adoption of theseand other programs. A subsequent(1982) survey of company officials con-ducted in Marylandfor the same pur-poses generated a response rate of29% (Friedman,1983, p. 41). Apparent-ly, many surveys of executive man-agerial types do not elicit high rates ofresponse.Industrial companies constitutedthe largest (61.20%) company typerepresented in the present survey,followed by service organizations(16.70%) and finance/trade firms(14.5%). Twenty-one companies(17.6%/) were not classified; they con-sisted principallyof small newspapers,mailIorder houses, research and other

consulting firms, distributors, and soforth. The majority of companies(51.8%) employed 100 or fewerworkers, 33% employed between 101and 500 workers, and 15.2% employedmore than 500 workers. Twenty com-panies employed more than 1,000workers.More than two fifths (45.3%) re-ported that female employeesamounted to no morethan 25% of theirtotal workforces, 28.9% indicated thatfemales comprised between 26% and500% of all workers, and 25.80%hadwork forces wherein the majority ofworkers were female. Slightly morethan one third (33.9%) of the com-panies were at least partly unionized.Most (56.9%) were located in urbanareas, 22.8% were located in suburbanareas, 19.9% were located in ruralareas, and 4% were either in unincor-porated villages or had brancheslocated in more than one type of area.As indicated in Table 1, a com-paratively high percentage, 35.1%, ofcompanies represented in the surveyoffered flextime options to employees.Job sharing is not nearly as well re-ceived, with 43.8% of all respondentsindicating that it would not be consid-ered. On the other hand, only 10.5% in-dicated that part-timework would notbe considered.Nearly forty percent (37.7%) per-mitted employees to take leave to carefor sick children, and 30.1% indicatedthat sick child leave either was underconsideration, or that it could be con-

sidered. Although 56.5% allowed ma-ternity leave, only 15.6% had both ma-ternity and paternity leave, and 47.5%indicated that leave for new parentswould not be considered by their com-panies.

The strongest opposition recorded in Table 1 was in response tothe provision of on-site child care, with80.40% indicating they would not consider providingthis service. While thisfinding may be surprising to some,readers should be aware that no morthan 200% f family members surveyedby General Mills (1981) reported thaon-site child care facilities would be ogreat help to them. Sixty-two percensaid it would provide virtuallyno helpor that on-site child care simply didn'apply to them. Part of the Wisconsinemployers' resistance to providinchild care options is due to the fac(not reflected in the table) that morthan half (54.7%) of the employersassessed child care needs among theiemployees either as minimalor virtualy nonexistent.Proposals involving tax benefits,as indicated in Table 2, are likely to beeffective in generating employer recep

tiveness to child care options. Fiftyfour percent of the officials surveyedagreed that child care focusedwork/family programs involving taxbenefits to the employer offer substan-tive incentives for serious considera-tion, and 34.8% regarded the presenceof employee tax benefits in programming choices as a positive inducement. Child care options requirinworkers to partially offset operatingcosts would be received well by 31.20%of the employers surveyed; 29.3% saidthey would be willing to purchase services from EAP programs operatingchild care programs or from existingchild care facilities operating locallyPrograms involving employees managing their own child care, makingperiodic donations to offset costs, orinvolving loans to enable employers to

Table 1.Programs and Policies: Employer Practices and Attitudes (N = 276)Practices and AttitudesCurrently Are orWould Would Not NoHave Consider Consider ResponsePrograms and Policies (%) (%) (%) (%)

Flextime 35.1 34.4 27.6 2.9Job Sharing 8.3 42.0 43.8 5.8Part-time Work 60.9 24.6 10.5 4.0Sick Child Leave 37.7 30.1 26.8 5.4Maternity Leave 56.5 24.6 16.3 2.5Maternity and Paternity Leave 15.6 32.2 47.5 4.7On-site Child Care .4 14.5 80.4 4.7Subsidized Parent-Selected Child Care .4 18.5 76.1 5.1Consortium Child Care Benefits .7 46.7 46.7 5.8Contract with Outside Agenciesa 8.7 35.1 51.8 4.3Resource and Referral 5.8 48.6 39.5 6.2Worksite Seminars 1.1 43.8 49.3 5.8Printed Materials 4.0 70.3 21.0 4.7Flexible Benefits 6.2 48.9 40.6 4.3aThis item was stated as follows: Describe what your company is doing in regard to con-tracting with outside agencies to provide family-related services to employees.

April 1988 (hi AMILYRELATIONS 191


5/8

Table 2.Self-Reported Factors Influencing EmployerReceptivity (N = 276)% Reporting % WishingIncentives Positive Inducement Interests Information

Employer Tax Advantages 54.0 Cost 55.1Employee Tax Advantages 34.8 Productivity 53.6Employee Contributions 31.2 Absenteeism 52.5Contract with Providers 29.3 Employee Job Satisfaction 51.4Employee-Managed Care 13.0 Employee Morale 50.4Donations to Company 8.3 Regulationsa 42.0Loans to Employers 5.8 Lateness 40.9Other 3.6 Turnover 35.5Obstaclesb 33.0Recruitment 31.2Employer Public Image 29.0

aThis item was stated as: "If I could learn from other employers' experiences, I would liketo know more about dealing with regulations."bThis item was stated as: "If I could learn from other employers' experiences, I would liketo know more about overcoming obstacles."meet programstart-up costs, were notregarded favorably.Speaking with reference to the in-centives depicted in Table 2, all werelisted on the questionnaire, with com-pany officials merely checking those

they believed would constitute an in-ducement for consideration. Perhaps asecond question provides more insightinto the concerns of employers makingdecisions about work/familyprograms.When asked what they would like to

know about the experiences of otheemployers regarding work/family prgrams, the greatest number(55.1%)idicated they would like to know moabout the cost of these programThere was considerable agreemenamong company officials regarditheir wish to know more about the impact of these programs on worker prductivity, absenteeism, job satisfaction, and morale. These findings sugest proposals most likely to elicfavorable reactions from employers ivolve the following features: employtax advantages; cost containment; anpotential to spur productivity, lesseabsenteeism, increase satisfactionand improve morale.As indicated in Table 3, somdemographic features are associatedwith employer receptivity.Forexamplcompany location and type and degreof unionization were related temployers' receptivity to flextim

Table 3.Demographic Features and Employer ReceptivityDemographic Features Programs

Flextime Job Sharing Part-Time Work Sick Child LeaveLocation X2 = 10.6;p < .05 N.S. N.S. N.S.CV = .144Company Type X2 = 22.9;p < .0002 X2 = 11.7;p < .02 X2 = 11.6;p < .03 X2 = 22.6; p < .0003CV = .213 CV = .155 CV = .154 CV = .215Company Size N.S. N.S. N.S. X2 = 11.9;p < .02G = -.017% Female Employees N.S. N.S. N.S.Unionization X2 = 17.8; p < .002 X2 = 12.9; p < .02 X2 = 25.9; p < .0001 X2 = 22.8; p < .0003G = -.349 G = -.347 G = -.373 G = -.284

Maternity/Maternity Leave Paternity Leave On-Site Child Care SubsidiesLocation N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.Company Type X2 = 11.2; p < .03 X2 = 11.9;p < .02 N.S. N.S.CV = .148 CV = .156Company Size N.S. N.S. X2 = 7.5; p < .03 N.S.G = .457O/o Female Employees N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.Unionization N.S. X2 = 10.5;p < .04 N.S. N.S.G = -.256

Consortium Contract with Agencies Resource/Referral Worksite SeminarsLocation N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.Company Type N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.Company Size N.S. X2 = 11.9; p < .02 X2 = 32.3; p < .0002 N.S.

G = .421 G = .573% Female Employees X2 = 4.6; p < .03 X2 = 7.8; p < .02 X2 = 7.2; p < .05 X2 = 4.3; p < .04G = .299 G = .336 G = .286 G = .282Unionization N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.

Distribute Materials Flexible BenefitsLocation N.S. N.S.Company Type N.S. N.S.Company Size N.S. X2 = 7.1; p < .03G = .489% Female Employees N.S. N.S.Unionization N.S. N.S.

192 t FAMILYRELATIONS April 1988


6/8

Companies located in urban areas weremore likely than those in other areas tooffer flextime, although companieslocated in suburban areas were quiteopen to considering the possibility ofimplementing flextime. Companieslocated in rural areas were the leastlikely to have or consider having flex-time. Service and finance/trade com-panies were much more likely than in-dustrial companies to have flextime op-tions, or consider implementation offlextime. Nonunionized companieswere more likely to offer flextime thanpartiallyunionized companies, and farmore likelyto offer or consider offeringflextime than totally unionized com-panies.Industrialcompanies were signifi-cantly less likely than other companiesto have or consider adopting job shar-ing, part-time options, or sick childleave policies. Totally unionized com-panies were less likely than nonunion-

ized or partially unionized companiesto have or consider having job sharing,part-time work, or formal policiesallowing leave to care for sick children.Large companies (more than 1,000employees) were the least likely tohave sick child leave options. Medium-sized companies (500-999 employees)were the most likely to have this op-tion. The highest percentage (29%) ofcompanies indicating they would notconsider offering this option wasobserved among small companies(fewer than 500 employees). Althoughlarge companies, as a group, had thesmallest percentage (15%) of com-panies offering sick child leave, thesecompanies had the largest percentage(60%) of those that were considering orwould consider offering this option.(The nonlinearity apparent in theseobservations accounts for the smallgamma value reported in the table.)Industrial companies were theleast likely company type to have orconsider having policies allowingleaves for either or both parents ofnewborns. Totally unionized com-panies were less likely than partiallyunionized or nonunionized companiesto offer or consider offering child careleave for both parents of newborns.Both partiallyunionized and nonunion-ized companies were considerablymore receptive than totally unionizedcompanies to maternity/paternityleave.Small companies were less likelythan medium or large companies tooperate or consider having on-sitechild care facilities. Companies withmajorityfemale work forces (more than50/% of the employees were female)

were more likely than those withminority female work forces (less than50% female) to have or consider im-plementing consortium child care ar-rangements, or to contract with or con-sider contracting with outside childcare providers. Majority female com-panies also were most likely to con-sider offering resource and referralservices, but about equal percentagesof minority female companies (6.8%)and majority female companies (6.4%)offered these services. Majority emalecompanies also were more likely bothto offer and consider offering worksiteseminars "to help parents learn tobalance work and family responsibil-ities." None of the demographicfeatures examined were related to em-ployer receptivity to offer subsidies toparents selecting their own child careprovider.Small companies, compared tomediumand large companies, were theleast likely to have contracted with out-side agencies or consider contractingto providechild care services, the leastlikely to offer or consider offeringresource and referralservices, and theleast likelyto offer or consider offeringflexible benefits.Discussion

Although the percentage of com-panies offering flextime in the presentstudy (35.1 %) is high compared to thepercentage of companies offering thisoption in the nation (20%),some othersurveys have recorded even higherpercentages. For example, a survey ofMinnesota employers noted that 54%of 563 respondents offered flextime op-tions to employees (Parents in theWorkplace, 1981). These high percent-ages are partly a reflection of thegeographical region in which thesurveys were conducted. Employerslocated in Northcentral and North-eastern states have significantlygreater numbers of innovativework/family programs than employerslocated in other parts of the nation(Magid, 1983). The fact that fewer than30% of respondents indicated thatflextime would not be considered at allshould be suggestive to advocates ofchange that flextime has good poten-tial for further diffusion.

Forty-four percent indicated thatjob sharing would not be considered,whereas only 10.5% indicated theywould not consider part-timework op-tions. This suggests that changeagents initially may wish to considerproposing plans that emphasize thedivision of single jobs into twoautonomous part-timepositions, as op-

posed to plans seeking to maintaintheintegrity of single jobs by job sharing.Almost half of the employers(49.3%) would not consider providingworksite seminars conducted to helpemployees balance work and familylife. Although no information was collected to determine why many employers were unwilling to consider thisbenefit, one interpretation is that mostemployers would prefer not to allocatepaid work time for employees deemedto have minimalorvirtuallynonexistentchild care problems. The reader mayrecall that more than half of therespondents assessed their em-ployees' child care needs as minimalorvirtually nonexistent. Too, perhapsemployers could imagine little relationship between this benefit and enhanced worker productivity. As statedpreviously, advocates must be able tolink their proposals to potential productivity or profit gains, if the initiatives are to receive the most favorable consideration. Despite their opposition to worksite seminars, about 70%of employers were willing to considerdistributing printed materials.

High percentages of employersprovided flextime, part-time work options, sick child leave, and maternitleave. Speaking with reference tomaternity leave, although employersoffering disability coverage are mandated by law (PregnancyAct of 1978)toprovide leave to new mothers, onlyabout 40% of working women areemployed by companies that providthis coverage (Friedman,1983).Taken together, the findings reported above suggest that employersare likely to be most receptive to proposals involvingflextime and part-timworkoptions, sick child leave, maternty leave, and the distribution of printedmaterials. Change agents workingwithcompanies to promote the diffusion oinnovations may wish to focus initiallupon proposals involving these options, at least until sufficient credibilityhas been developed creating opportunities for the proposal of other innovations. They may wish to point outhat pioneering areas of the countrysuch as the Northcentral regionalready have comparatively largenumbers of companies offering theseprograms.The high level of concerns expressed by employers regarding program costs is warranted with regard tosome innovations. For example, startup costs to establish a child care facility serving between 25 and 75 childrenwas estimated several years ago torange from $25,000 to $75,000 (Hewit

April 1988 rI FAMILYRELATIONS 193


7/8

Associates, 1981). Perhaps this is anadditional factor explaining why morethan 80% of the company officials par-ticipating in this study would not con-sider this option.The strong inducement qualitiesof options involving tax benefits toemployers and/oremployees is a bit atodds with what employers offeringchild care options in other states ex-press as the most important benefitderived. In her survey of 204 companieslocated across the nation, Magid(1983)found that the ability to attract atalented stable work force was theprimary motivation for establishingthese services. Indeed, tax incentiveswere ranked 10th out of the 14 motiva-tors examined.Several demographic featureswere substantially related to employeereceptivity. For example, it appearsthat the proposals of change agentsare likely to be received more favorablyby service organizations and com-panies involved in finance, insurance,real estate, and retail and wholesaletrade. Some researchers have sug-gested that these types of companiesare most receptive because they tendto have larger percentages of femaleemployees than industrial companies(Magid,1983). However, the findings ofthe present study contradict this inter-pretation inasmuch as the kinds of in-novations that were well received byservice, finance, and trade companieswere different from those well receivedby companies with majoritypercentage

female work forces. Nonetheless, thepercentage of females in thecompany's work force does appear tobe related to the receptiveness of com-pany officials to several innovations.The degree to which a company isunionized, too, is related to recep-tiveness. Heavily unionized companiesare less receptive than partiallyunion-ized or nonunionized companies. Inpart, this may be due to the fact thatunions generally have not sought topenetrate high growth industries, norhave they focused much on women,

white collar, or technical workers.These groups constitute the fastestgrowing segments of the work forceand they are affected by employer will-ingness to provide innovative benefits(Friedman,1983).One implication to bedrawn from these observations is thatchange agents need to work intimatelywith union officials in order thatunionists become convinced of the ad-visability of implementing child care in-itiatives and other quality worklifefeatures into the workplace. These ef-

forts should be targeted planfully,given the fact that enhanced recruit-ment capability can be a strongmotivating force to implement innova-tions. Some heavily unionized in-dustries, such as steel, auto, and rub-ber, have been laying off employeesrather than trying to recruit new work-ers. Thus, these companies presentlymay not be interested in or capable ofexpanding benefits (Friedman, 1983).On the other hand, nonunionizedcompanies may implement innovationsin order to avoid unionization (Fried-man, 1983). Advocates wishing to joinwith union leaders as fellow changeagents must be cognizant of this, andjointly develop strategies that areresponsive to this fact.Company size was related to em-ployer receptiveness in several in-stances. The fact that small companieswere least likely to consider imple-menting on-site child care facilities

suggests that agents seeking to imple-ment child care options in these com-panies should gear their proposals toconsortium arrangements, other ar-rangements involving minimized costssuch as salary reduction plans, or pro-grams wherein employees' child carecosts are subsidized by the company.Inall of these cases, employers receivefavorabletax advantages as prescribedby the Economic Tax Recovery Act of1981. Unfortunately, proposed changesin the tax code have placed some taxadvantages associated with these op-tions in jeopardy (McNeely, in press).Consortium arrangements to pro-vide resource and referral servicesmight be received more favorably bysmall companies than proposals sug-gesting sole establishment of theseservices. Whatever the advocated pro-posals, change agents must bear inmind that small companies are lessable to afford the cost of experiment-ing with innovations.The resistance of industrial com-panies to a numberof innovations maybe a bit puzzling. According to Fried-man (1983),several factors account for

this. First, companies operating in highgrowth fields with entrepreneuriallead-ership are less bound to tradition andmore receptive to new practices. Bycontrast, industrial managers tend notonly to be more conservative inoutlook, but more preoccupied with in-creasing profits. Second, the nationaland international geographical disper-sion of large industrial companiesmakes it more difficult for senior of-ficials to be in touch with the needs ofemployees. These points suggest that

change agents may find it useful tofocus initial change efforts on nonindustrial companies. When industriacompanies are approached, changeagents need to be well armed with datashowing productivity increasesassociated with the implementation ofinnovations. Informationshowing howother management objectives (such asincreased recruitment capabilities,stabilized work force, etc.) can beachieved by implementing work/familoptions will be useful. Finally, union officials must be an integral part of thechange effort in order that qualityworklife needs of employees can bepresented at the bargaining table.ConclusionAs stated by Kanter, "If the tensions between work and family are tobe resolved, it may be more satisfac-tory to alter work rather than thefamily" (1981, p. 295). In the spirit ofthis observation, the present research

team has sought to provideinformationto those engaged in efforts to create abetter "fit" between work and familylife. Because the study was limited toone state, prescriptions advancedwithin the body of the article must beconsidered within the context of ques-tions concerning the generalizabilityofthe findings. Until additional similarstudies are conducted, questionsfocusing upon whether or not thesefindings can be generalized to com-panies located in other states remainopen. (Unfortunately, other surveysthat have been conducted for similarpurposes are not useful in answeringgeneralizability questions. For onething, of the few similar studies, mosthave been conducted within singlegeographical areas, and virtuallynonehave involved the level of statisticalanalysis presented in this report.) Inthe interim,and assuming that the findings of this study do reliably depictcompanies in other parts of the country, perhaps adherence to some of theprescriptions suggested in this articlewill be of assistance in avoiding fruitless forays into companies that currently are unlikely to be receptive. Presumably, knowledge is a prerequisitefor successful action.

REFERENCESBronfenbrenner, U., Alvarez, W. F., & Henderson, C. K(1984). Working and watching. Maternal emp(oymentstatus and parents' perceptions of their three year oldchildren. Child Development, 55, 1362-1378.Burud, S., Aschbacher, P., & McCroskey, J. (1984). Employer-supported child care: Investing in human resources. Boston: Auburn House.

194 LaAMILYRELATIONS April 1988


8/8

Emlen, A., &Koren,P. (1984).Hardto find and difficult tomanage: The effects of child care on the workplace.Portland, OR:Regional Research Institute for HumanServices, PortlandState University.Farel, A. (1980). Effects of preferred maternal rules onschool adjustment and competence. Child Develop-ment, 51, 1179-1186.Friedman, D. (1983). Encouraging employer support toworkingparents. Reportprepared or the Carnegie Cor-poration of New York.New York:Centerfor Public Ad-vocacy Research, Inc.Gardell,B. (1972). Health and the worksetting-a socio-logical perspective. Psychologist News, 7.General Mills. (1981). Families at work: Strengths andstrains-the General Mills American family report1980-81. Minneapolis, MN:Author.Gil, D. (1984).Reversing dynamics of violence by trans-formingwork.Journalof International nd ComparativeSocial Welfare,1,1-15.Gold, D., & Andres, D. (1978). Developmentalcompari-sons between ten-year-oldchildren and employed andnon-employedmothers. ChildDevelopment,49, 75-84.Guzzo, R. A., & Bondy, J. S. (1983). A guide to workerproductivityexperiments in the United States 1976-81.Elmsford,NY:PergamonPress, Inc.Hewitt Associates. (1981). A new employee benefit: De-pendent care. Lincolnshire,IL:Author.Justice, B., & Duncan, D. (1977).Child abuse as a work-related problem. Correctiveand Social Psychiatry, 23,53-55.Kanter,R. M. (1981). Jobs and families: Impact of work-ing roles on family life. In J. O'Toole, J. L. Scheiber, &

L.C. Wood (Eds.), Workingchanges and choices (pp.295-301). New York:HumanSciences Press.Katzell, R. A., &Yankelovich, D. (1975). Work,productiv-ity and job satisfaction. New York:The PsychologicalCorporationsubsidiary of HarcourtBrace Jovanovich,Inc.).Kurtz,N. R. (1983). Introduction o social statistics. NewYork:McGraw-Hill,nc.LaRocco, J., House, J. S., and French, J. (1980). Socialsupport, occupational stress, and health. Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior,21, 203-218.Li, F. P. (1969). Suicide among chemists. Archives ofEnvironmentalHealth, 19, 518-520.Magid,Y.(1983).Childcare initiatives for workingparents.New York:AmericanManagementAssociation.McNeely, R. L.(1979a).Social participationof non-indus-trialworkers. WisconsinSociologist, 16, 62-80.McNeely, R. L. (1979b). Sources of alienation at workand household violence. Social DevelopmentIssues, 3,12-34.McNeely, R. L. (in press). Managing work and familydemands: Strengths, weaknesses and barriers to im-plementing twenty innovative programs. Social WorkPapers.Miller,D. C. (1977). Handbook of research design andsocial measurement(3rded.). New York:DavidMcKay,Inc.O'Brien, J. (1971). Violence in divorce-prone families.Journal of Marriage nd the Family,33, 692-698.O'Toole, J. (1981). Making America Work. New York:ContinuumPublishingCo.Parents in the Workplace, Inc. (1981). Parents in the

workplace report (a six part series). Minneapolis, MNParents in the Workplace Project, Resources for ChiCaring,Inc., GreaterMinneapolisDayCareAssociationPerry, K. (1982). Establishing services through the worplace. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Labor,WomenBureau.Pleck, J., Staines, G., &Lang, L.(1978).Workand familFirst reports on work-family interdependence anworkers'formal child care arrangements. WashingtoDC:U.S. Departmentof Labor.Roman, P. M.,&Trice, H. M.(1972).Spirits and demons awork:Alcohol and drugs on thejob. Ithaca,NY:CorneUniversityPress.Shank, S. E., & Getz, P. M.(1986).Employmentand unemployment: Developments in 1985. Monthly LabReview, 10, 3-12.Susser, M. (1967). Causes of peptic ulcer: A selectivepidemiological review. Journal of ChronicDisease20, 435-456.Theorell, T., & Rahe, R. (1972). Behaviorand life satisfaction characteristics of Swedish subjects with myocadial infarction. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 25139-147.Torbert,W. R., & Rogers, M. P. (1973).Being for the mospart puppets. Cambridge, MA:Schenkman PublishinCo.U.S. Departmentof Labor. 1982).Twenty acts on womeworkers.Washington, DC:U.S. Dept. of Labor,WomenBureau.Walton, R. E. (1974). Alienation and innovation in thworkplace. In J. O'Toole (Ed.),Work nd the quality olife (pp. 227-245). Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

A I Tenessays by nurses,psychiatrists, awyers,sociologists, and social

3 workers iscussvariousaspects of a serioussocialISSUESAND ANNOTATEDBIBLIOGRAPHY problem.Theessaysareaccompanied by a biblio-BENAND RACHELSCHLESINGER graphy f 260 entries fmaterialpublished inCanadaandthe UnitedStatesbetween 1979and1987. $13.95

April 1988 __ FAMILYRELATIONS 195

balancing parenthood and employment factors affecting company receptiveness to family related...

Documents