Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources-2004-Thornthwaite-166-84

Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources
http://apj.sagepub.com/
Working Time and Work-Family Balance: A Review of Employees'

Preferences
Louise Thornthwaite
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2004 42: 166
DOI: 10.1177/1038411104045360
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://apj.sagepub.com/content/42/2/166
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI)
Additional services and information for Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources can be found
at:
Email Alerts: http://apj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://apj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://apj.sagepub.com/content/42/2/166.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Aug 1, 2004
Downloaded from apj.sagepub.com at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14, 2014
What is This?
APJHR_42_2_Thornthwaite.qxd
166
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources
Page 166
2004 42(2)
Working time and workfamily balance: A review of

employees preferences
Louise Thornthwaite*
University of Western Sydney, Australia
In discussions about how HR policy can facilitate workfamily balance, working

time arrangements are a critical issue. Recent research in Europe, North America
and Australia has shed light on the preferences of employees who are juggling
work and family in regard to three key aspects of working time total working
hours, access to part-time work, and flexibility. This article compares data from a
number of these studies on working time preferences in order to explore the
relative strength of different preferences, the factors underpinning differences
among employees, areas of strongest unmet demand, and the implications that
these findings suggest for HR policy.
Keywords: family-friendly workplace, flexibility, working time
The subject of workfamily balance is not only a barbecue stopper as

Australias Prime Minister recently suggested, but also a simmering human
resource management issue in Australian organisations (Editor 2002). As a
basis for policy formation, recent research in Australia and other western
countries sheds considerable light on what employees want in regard to work
arrangements to assist them in reconciling these two spheres. The object of
this article is to compare recent Australian research findings on employees
* The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge the support of the Australian Centre for
Industrial Relations Research and Training, University of Sydney, in the early stages of
this project.
Correspondence to: Louise Thornthwaite, Sydney Graduate School of Management,
University of Western Sydney, PO Box 6145 Parramatta Delivery Centre, NSW 2159,
Australia; fax: +612 9685 9933; e-mail: l.thornthwaite@uws.edu.au
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Published by Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and
New Delhi; www.sagepublications.com) on behalf of the Australian Human Resources Institute. Copyright 2004
Australian Human Resources Institute. Volume 42(2): 166184. [1038-4111] DOI: 10.1177/1038411104045360.
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 167
Working time and workfamily balance
preferences for workfamily balance1 practices with those from Europe, the
US and Canada, in order to distil and highlight their relative significance, and
their implications for HR strategy. While the quest for workfamily balance
encompasses a variety of issues, including but not confined to working time,
parental leave, and childcare, and it embraces people with diverse family
responsibilities, this article focuses on working time arrangements and
working parents. The three critical working time issues are total working
hours, access to part-time work, and flexibility.
The importance of identifying working parents preferences for work
family balance practices is underlined by the sheer magnitude of their labour
market presence. Just over half of all Australian families are either couple
families with dependants (40%) or one-parent families with dependants (11%).
Of couple families with dependants, 93% have one or both partners employed,
including nine in ten men, almost all working full-time, and six in ten women,
one-quarter working full-time. Womens participation in full-time employment rises dramatically with the age of their youngest child, reaching 40%
when the child is 15 years or over. Among one-parent families, 51% of parents
are employed, and this proportion rises to 70% when the youngest child
reaches 15 years (ABS 2002). Thus, most Australian families are juggling
work and family. For one-quarter of the workforce, satisfaction with work
family balance is declining (DEWRSB 1999, 46). Researchers have extensively
documented the implications of this growing dissatisfaction, and the associated role overload and jobfamily spillover, for children, families, work organisations and communities (Glezer and Wolcott 1997; Russell and Bowman
2000; Pocock 2002). In undermining employees psychological contracts, this
growing imbalance poses a threat not only to employee performance but also
to levels of commitment and loyalty, both of which are central to high performance work systems.
This article focuses on the findings of some of the largest studies from
Australia, Western Europe2, the USA and Canada on employees preferences
for working time arrangements that facilitate workfamily balance. They
include research by publicly funded family policy institutes in Australia and
Canada, the US Families and Work Institute, and the European Foundation
for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, as well as the 1991
Gteberg study in Sweden, the UK Worklife Balance Study 2000 and earlier
1 In workfamily discussions, the objectives and outcomes of interventions are variously cast
in terms of balancing, managing, juggling, navigating, combining, reconciling and
integrating these spheres, often as though these words are interchangeable. None of these
terms exclusively capture the issues involved and their use can be misleading. However,
for simplicity, this article uses the term balancing in describing the debate.
2 In this article, the term Western Europe refers to the 15 European Union Member States
as at December 1998, and Norway. The European Foundation for the Improvement of
Living and Working Conditions surveys cited encompass these 16 countries.
167
168
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 168
2004 42(2)
British Social Attitudes surveys. Before discussing employees preferences in

regard to the working time issues outlined above, this article examines what
balancing work and family means and the factors that shape employees
diverse preferences.
What does balancing work and family mean?
For working parents, balancing work and family involves establishing some
degree of workable and acceptable combination of the two. Ultimately, an
individuals experience of balance rests upon a perception of satisfactorily
resolving the multiple and often incompatible demands of work and family
roles. The experience is shaped by the level of demands that individuals face
in each domain, their psychological attachment to the different roles, the
opportunities available for establishing balance, and their conceptions as to
what is possible (Saltzstein, Ting and Saltzstein 2001; Felstead, Jewson,
Phizaclea and Walters 2002). Research suggests that an essential element of
balance is some autonomy in how working parents manage their roles within
these constraints. Thus, for example, dual-earner couples with children
typically choose one of the following strategies to reduce and restructure their
work commitments: they place limits on the encroachment of work on family
life; prioritise the job or career of one partner; or engage in trading off,
whereby partners take turns to focus on their careers (Hand and Lewis 2002).
Each strategy requires that working parents have some autonomy to adapt
their working time arrangements in response to life-cycle and parenting phase.
Factors shaping diverse preferences
The particular working time needs and preferences of working parents vary
within and between countries. Although this prevents any simplistic transfer
of findings, the differences throw into sharper relief those consistencies to
which surveys point. Preferences vary according to life-cycle stage and
parenting phase, defined by the age of the youngest child in a household. Also
critical is the household model, based on three factors: the number of resident
parents, and income earners, and the proportion working full-time and parttime. Employees preferences also vary according to gender, occupation, career
orientation, and country. Inter-country variables include public childcare
provision, employment regulation, labour market characteristics, income
levels, socio-cultural characteristics and public policy, particularly in regard to
womens labour-market participation. Also significant are employees direct
experiences in regard to current length of working hours, partners working
hours, forms of workfamily imbalance and management support (Buchanan
and Thornthwaite 2001).
Given the variety of factors that moderate preferences, it is difficult to
generalise from studies of individuals preferences. As well, stated preferences
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 169
of working parents indicate desirability more than intent, particularly as survey

respondents can express preferences without having to bear the associated
monetary and non-monetary costs or negotiate within their household, as
they might have to do in practice (Bielenski, Bosch and Wagner 2002;
Thornthwaite 2002). Thus, such surveys provide neither a perfect nor even
robust measure of future behaviour. Nonetheless, to the extent that they
indicate discrepancies between current and preferred realities, the findings
constitute a challenge for HR policy-makers (Bielenski, Bosch and Wagner
2002; European Foundation 2001a).
Working hours
Surveys in Australia, Western Europe, the US and Canada have all found a
widespread and growing preference among men and women in general, and
working parents in particular, for shorter working hours. In part, this interest
reflects the well-documented growth in working hours in Australia and the
US in recent decades (Schor 1992; Pocock, van Wanrooy, Strazzari and Bridge
2002). The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) recently
found, in its Reasonable Hours Test Case decision, that Australian employees
work some of the longest hours in the western world. On the basis of its
concern with the growing phenomenon of excessive working hours, the
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) had launched the test case with
the objective of gaining recognition and appropriate regulation of working
hours (AIRC 2002; ACTU 2002). Campbells (2002) background paper had
highlighted that not only were Australians on average working the second
longest hours in the OECD, but that this was the only country in which the
trend was so strongly driven by increases in unpaid overtime. However, even
in Western Europe, where average working hours in most countries are lower
than in Australia and the US, and in some countries have declined, there is
strong interest in reduced hours. Those countries and workers averaging the
longest working hours record the greatest interest in reductions of hours.
Overall, men have more interest in this than women but, for both, this preference is linked strongly to the desire for more family time.
In Australia, almost two-thirds of employees are satisfied with the number
of hours they currently work, but interest in reduced hours is strong and
growing. Whereas in 1995, 26% of full-time workers wanted fewer hours, by
2001, 30% had this preference (Glezer and Wolcott 2000, 53; ABS 2001). Recent
survey data suggests that this preference may be even more widely held. In an
early analysis of the HILDA findings, Wooden (2002) found indications that
almost 37% of full-time workers wanted reduced hours. In Australia, about
two-thirds of fathers work more than 41 hours, and many more than 51 hours
each week. Typically, fathers are not satisfied with these arrangements.
According to Wooden (2002), one-third of men working 4148 hours and more
than half those working 49 hours and over would prefer fewer hours. Yet, the
169
170
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 170
2004 42(2)
breadwinner role remains central to most working fathers. Thus, rather than
shaking the preference of most for full-time work, this dissatisfaction has
strengthened their desire for a 40-hours cap (Russell and Bowman 2000).
Women are more likely than men to be dissatisfied with long full-time
working hours. Just over half those working 4148 hours each week and almost
two-thirds of those working 49 hours or over would prefer fewer hours
(Wooden 2002). Women working between 15 and 29 hours per week are the
most satisfied among working women. Of those in long part-time work (3034
hours weekly), 25% would prefer fewer hours. However, there is also a large
unmet demand for longer hours among part-timers seeking larger incomes:
more than one-third want more hours and, among male part-timers, in particular, two in five want longer hours (Glezer and Wolcott 2000, 53; Wooden 2002;
ABS 2001). A substantial proportion of women with children prefer not having
paid employment. Among mothers currently without paid employment, the
majority with youngest child under five years prefer this arrangement, and
overall, 44% of women with youngest child under 18 years favour this option.
Even so, to most mothers who are active in the labour market, paid employment is important: almost two-thirds (64%) would still want employment even
if their household did not need the income (Glezer and Wolcott 2000, 53).
As in Australia, most workers in the US, Canada and Western Europe
would prefer shorter working hours. In the US, this preference is growing:
between 1992 and 1997, the proportion of mothers wanting to work fewer
hours climbed from 47% to 63%, and for fathers, from 54% to 67% (Galinsky
and Swanberg 2000, 35). In Western Europe, over 80% of surveyed respondents who work very long hours (50 and over) want a shorter working week,
even taking into account the income implications. At the same time, however,
more than half of those in short part-time jobs (20 hours or less) wanted longer
hours (Latta and OConghaille 2000; European Foundation 2001a).
While there is no evidence on the precise working hours preferences of
Australian men and women, US and European data is more revealing. In the
US, employed mothers favour a 30.6 hour week on average (compared with
the 41.4 hours they actually work) and employed fathers, 38.8 hours (compared
with 50.9 hours). Similarly, in Europe, on average, men want a 37-hour week
and women a 30-hour week, which would constitute an average weekly
reduction of six hours for men and four for women. The greater reductions
sought in the US, close to ten hours weekly, reflect the longer hours currently
worked there. Job seekers have similar working time preferences to those in
employment. In addition, however, a substantial proportion of European men
would prefer to work 30 hours or fewer (Families and Work Institute 1997;
Latta and OConghaile 2000).
Generally, men in advanced, western countries strongly link their experience of workfamily imbalance to the length of their working hours. The
majority of fathers consider that job demands substantially eat into the time
available to spend with their children and prevent them from being the kind
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 171
of father they want, hoped and intended to be. Thus, in Australia, 68% of
fathers feel that they have too little involvement with their children (Russell
and Bowman 2000). Similarly, in the UK, only one in four men believes his
family relationships are not damaged by his working life (Families and Work
Institute 1998). Research shows that work patterns are the single greatest determinant of fathers relationships with children. Involved fathers are those
employed fewer hours than other men, and whose wives work more hours
outside the home than other women. While in many countries, new fathers
often increase their working hours, this is largely to compensate the household
for the mothers loss of earnings rather than an innate preference for long
hours. Thus, in Sweden, where most mothers with children under three have
paying jobs, fathers work the shortest hours of all fathers (Burgess 1997, 1435).
In contrast to men, women are more likely to exit the labour market if shorter
working time arrangements prove unavailable (European Foundation 2001a).
Dissatisfaction with working hours is related not only to the actual
number of hours but also to the way they are managed. Increasingly, in
Australia, for instance, workers experiences of workfamily imbalance are
linked to the increasing prevalence of routine, unpaid overtime, anti-social
working hours, less predictability and security of hours, and an increasing work
pace and intensity (Pocock 2002; Pocock et al. 2002; Buchanan, van Wanrooy,
Considine and Bretherton 2001). Also a problem for men are organisational
cultures that promote long working hours, management expectations that men
will prioritise work over family, and the stress and fatigue resulting from the
combination of long hours, overwork and overwhelming workloads (Russell
and Bowman 2000; Hand and Lewis 2002; Galinsky and Swanberg 2000).
However, societal assumptions as to their breadwinner role constrain
mens preferences. In the US, one in five men consider that, if the household
had enough money to live comfortably, they would prefer to look after the
family at home. Yet, given the dependence of households on mens incomes,
and the addictiveness of the workspend cycle to which Schor (1992) refers,
for the most part, the idea of living comfortably remains incompatible with
a reduced household income. This may partly explain why in the UK, while
43% of men with children under 12 years view their jobs as simply an income
source, only 4% had changed their job or employer to obtain more familyfriendly hours (Burgess 1997; DTI 2000). In contrast, in Sweden, which
strongly supports the labour-market participation of mothers, almost twothirds of men restrict their job commitments because of their children
(Bjornberg 2000, 678). Nonetheless, even there, most working fathers are
uninterested in the primary parenting role, particularly after their first child.
In Australia, as in Sweden, most men consider that income-earning is fundamentally their responsibility, and household labour, a womans responsibility
(Eveline 2001). Hence, for men, the most common motivation for seeking to
reduce long full-time hours is to gain more time for themselves, whereas for
women, it is specifically to spend more time with children (Latta and
171
172
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 172
2004 42(2)
OConghaille, 2000; Spalten-Roth et al. 1997). However, for most men, the
desire to spend more time with their children is also a significant reason for
this preference, and for men aged 3039, it rates more highly than the need to
reduce work stress. In practice, these issues are interlinked for many working
parents searching for worklife balance (Latta and OConghaile 2000, 9).
Research in EU member states on the combined working hours preferences of couples has found that the presence of children has little influence on
either the actual or preferred combined working hours of couples. The overwhelming preference for couples with and without children is to work 61
hours each week. The actual working hours of those with children under six
years and those without children are only two hours below and two hours
above this preference, respectively. It is the way these hours are distributed
within couples that varies by group. While the modified dual-earner model
(one full-time/ one part-time) correlates strongly with the presence of children,
the younger the children, the less likely it is that both partners work full-time,
and the more likely that the man is the sole income earner (European
Foundation 2000a). It is also more likely that this sole male breadwinner will
work longer hours. Hence, while almost one-half of sole breadwinners in
Western Europe work 4050 hours per week, a further one in four work 50
hours or more (Latta and OConghaille 2000, 14).
In sum, the strong preference among working men and women for
shorter working hours found in Australian surveys is common throughout the
western industrialised world. Given the continuing dominance of traditional
patterns in the sexual division of household labour, it is not surprising that for
women, this preference is clearly linked to workfamily balance issues,
whereas, for men, broader worklife balance issues are more important. In
many cases, the preference for shorter working hours represents a specific
desire to work part-time.
Access to part-time work
In Australia, the strongest preference among men and women with dependent
children is for the modified dual-earner model (one employed full-time, one
part-time), with the mother taking part-time employment. For many
Australian women, full-time employment is not an attractive option, given
that typically, they also have primary responsibility for domestic labour. The
experience of women in dual-earner households is not encouraging: when both
parents are employed full-time, 70% of mothers always or often feel rushed,
compared to 56% of fathers, and 52% of women with no dependent children.
Hence, most Australian women prefer part-time employment or none at all,
and do not appear to desire any extreme social engineering to change this
arrangement (Glezer and Wolcott 2000, 53).
The sustained growth in part-time employment in Australia over the last
two decades, particularly among women, reflects this preference. Presently, in
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 173
Australia, those employed part-time include just over half of all employed
mothers (partnered and single), 5% of employed partnered fathers, and 18% of
employed sole fathers (FACS and DEWR 2002, 11). Further, three in five
employees believe they could get access to permanent part-time work,
including more than 70% of female carers. Reviews of industrial instruments
bear this out: for example, some 75% of the top 100 federal industrial awards
and 27% of federal enterprise agreements currently provide for regular parttime work, although one in six awards limit this to those returning from
parental leave (DEWRSB 1999, 47; FACS and DEWR 2002, 43, 70).
However, part-time employment is not an unproblematic option. Many
part-timers remain dissatisfied with their arrangements, particularly where
these inhibit career advancement, they find managerial cultures unsupportive,
or certain conditions are lacking, such as advance notice of roster changes and
overtime payment for excess hours. There is evidence also that employers may
provide less family-friendly flexibility in return for part-time employment: for
instance, in Australia and the US, part-timers have slightly less control over
such factors as start and finish times than other employees (Higgins, Duxbury
and Johnson 2000; Gray and Tudball 2002, 21).
Among Australian women, the preferred number of working hours tends
to increase with the age of their youngest child. Women choose to remain at
home after child-bearing for substantial periods: half those previously
employed do not return to employment within 18 months. Women who return
sooner are those whose profiles include some of the following factors: they have
high levels of education, high status occupations, high incomes, strong work
attachment, lower earning husbands than their peers, and a positive attitude
towards substitute childcare (Glezer and Wolcott 2000, 51). As table 1 shows,
when their youngest child is under five years, most returning mothers prefer
Table 1
Actual versus preferred working hours, Australian women
Hours in paid work

per week
Happy with
hours (%)
Prefer more
hours (%)
Prefer fewer
hours (%)
Prefer no
paid work (%)
Women with youngest child 04 years

114 hours
79
1529 hours
79
3034 hours
70
35 + hours
50
15
5
0
0
3
8
30
43
3
8
0
8
Women with youngest child 512 years

114 hours
69
1529 hours
75
3034 hours
70
35 + hours
56
31
13
7
2
0
7
19
35
0
4
4
7
Sources. Glezer and Wolcott 1997, 3. Data is from the Australian Family Life Course Survey, of 2000 respondents
aged 2550 years, conducted by Australian Institute of Family Studies, 1996.
173
174
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 174
2004 42(2)
part-time work. Of those working up to 29 hours per week, 79% are happy
with their hours, and the remainder are split between those who would prefer
either more or fewer hours, or no employment at all (Glezer and Wolcott
1997).
In Europe as in Australia, a pronounced shift occurs with motherhood.
Throughout Europe, employed mothers are more involved in part-time jobs
and less likely to work long hours than women without children. Women with
younger children are the most likely to prefer part-time hours. In the UK,
perhaps Australias closest cultural counterpart, most returning mothers take
part-time employment, and of those formerly working full-time, about 70%
shift to part-time. As in Australia, women in Europe usually increase their
preferred and actual hours of work as their children grow. Where women
without children on average prefer 33 hours per week, working mothers prefer
27 hours when they have a child under six years, but 31 hours once children
reach 15 years (European Foundation 2001a).
In other ways too, the preferences of working parents in other advanced
western countriesare similar to those in Australia. For example, the majority
of men and women in couple households there also prefer that both parents
have paid employment (Spalten-Roth et al. 1997; Clarkberg and Moen 1999;
European Foundation 2000a). In Western Europe, for example, two-thirds of
couples favour two-income households: while 30% of couples currently
practice the dual-earner model (both employed full-time), only 20% of couples
practice the modified dual-earner model (one full-time, one part-time), but,
one-third of couples express a preference for each model. A further one in six
couples favour both partners working part-time, but only 2% practice this and
the preference is not linked to parental status (European Foundation 2000a).
This interest in part-time employment is stronger among working women
than men. Whereas one in five European men who are currently employed
full-time would prefer part-time work, one in three women favour this option.
Yet, among those currently employed part-time, a substantial proportion of
men (24%) and women (18%) would rather have full-time employment
(European Foundation 2001a; Latta and OConghaille 2000).
Working fathers in Western Europe are less likely than their partners to
prefer part-time work for several reasons. First, part-time work has a negative
image, many men associating it with damaging career implications. Then there
are financial restrictions, societal conceptions of gendered roles, and differences in family support structures (Latta and OConghaille 2000). Thus, even
where men have access to part-time work, they are unlikely to use it.
Wilkinson et al. (1997, 187) found that in the UK, while almost six in ten
eligible women used this option, only one in ten eligible men did. While we
lack comparable data on eligibility, in Australia, more than one-third of
women, but fewer than 2% of men take permanent part-time work so as to
care for children (FACS and DEWR 2002, 48).
Among those full-timers who would prefer part-time employment, mens
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 175
and womens motivations differ. UK research, for instance, indicates that for
women, the choice to work part-time is overwhelmingly based on two reasons:
the desire for more family time (52% of women) and the need to meet domestic
commitments (37%). For men who choose to work part-time, spending more
time with family is the second most common reason (20%). Other common
reasons are that they are already financially secure (22%), earn sufficient
income as part-timers (13%), or need to meet domestic responsibilities (12%)
(Hogarth, Hasluck and Pierre 2000).
The capacity of mothers to work part-time rests upon a web of countryspecific factors, including the availability of part-time employment, childcare
and family leave provisions (European Foundation 2001a). Relative income
levels also influence preferences: in relatively low wage countries, such as Spain
and Portugal, despite the dominance of the male breadwinner model, more
women would prefer full-time to part-time work because of the income implications (European Foundation 2001a; Bielenski, Bosch and Wagner 2002).
Partners working arrangements also strongly influence womens choices. For
example, when men in single breadwinner households work long hours, in the
absence of extended families, this often effectively precludes their partners
from seeking paid employment (Latta and OConghaille 2000).
Beneath the widespread preference among working mothers for part-time
work lie differing motivations linked to their occupations and career attachments. Research suggests that managerial and professional (career)3 women
are far more likely than other working women to attribute their decision to
take regular part-time work to family reasons. For them, part-time work
accommodates work to family demands: they have more time and energy left
for their children and themselves. Those not in managerial and professional
fields (earners) are more likely to have been full-time at home with children
and thus, to claim that they needed the stimulation of part-time employment
and a respite from childcare to restore their equanimity and sense of self
(Spalten-Roth et al. 1997; Higgins, Duxbury and Johnson 2000). For earners,
part-time work also significantly reduces role overload, time management
conflicts, and other forms of workfamily interference, whereas career women
experience a high degree of workfamily conflict regardless of their part-time
or full-time status. One reason for this is that, where work is more central to
their lives, career women may perceive fewer positive outcomes from their
part-time employment. Second, job-related factors such as greater work
demands, organisational culture, and career expectations may restrict its
benefits to them (Higgins, Duxbury and Johnson 2000).
3 In their analysis of survey findings for 23,000 public and private sector respondents in
Canada, Higgins, Duxbury and Johnson (2000: 18) classified part-time female employees
as career women (those in career-oriented jobs managers and professionals) and
earner women (those in earner positions technical, clerical, administrative, retail and
production).
175
176
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 176
2004 42(2)
Working time flexibility

Flexibility is the third critical working time issue pertaining to workfamily
balance. Flexible working time practices are those that provide some degree
of responsiveness and adaptability that helps employees to reconcile the two
spheres (Felstead et al. 2002). The two main sources of information on
employees preferences for family-friendly flexible working time are large
employee attitude surveys and collective agreements. The extent to which
collective bargaining encompasses these practices varies by country and
industry sector, and depends upon the scope of bargaining that legislation,
tradition, bargaining strength and other factors allow.
In Australia, research suggests that many working parents, but particularly women, value job flexibility as more critical for carving out time with
children than reduced working time. In the UK, where more than 90% of
women believe that employers should provide greater flexibility for parents,
women returners tend to prefer greater working time flexibility (56%) to
longer maternity leave (43%). As with womens interest in part-time work,
however, these preferences are related to occupational status, with career
women returners showing far more interest in greater flexibility than longer
maternity leave. Womens stronger preference for flexible working time not
only reflects the domestic division of labour but also practical difficulties in
accommodating work to school hours and calendars, given well-documented
limits in the availability of accessible, affordable childcare, particularly for
infants, emergencies, vacations, irregular demand and non-standard working
hours (Hogarth, Hasluck and Pierre 2000; Thornthwaite 2002).
Men and women also exhibit different levels of interest in particular forms
of flexible working time. In Australia, women workers especially want some
control over start and finish times, and exemption from night and weekend
shifts. Ironically, fathers (41%) are more likely than mothers (32%) to have
flexible start and finishing times. As well, employers more commonly offer
this arrangement to their more highly skilled employees (Millward 2002, 45).
Women also show a stronger interest than men in working only during school
hours (men 12%, women full-time 34%, women part-time 52%) and school
terms (13%, 34% and 47% respectively) (Wolcott and Glezer 1995, 414). In
Western Europe, both men and women express a strong preference for
compressed weeks (some long days, some days off), but whereas women
exhibit the strongest demand for shorter daily hours and school-hours
schedules, men tend to prefer flexible schedules organised around core hours
but fixed at short notice, longer working weeks followed by longer periods off,
and annualised hours systems (European Foundation 2000b, 5; Hogarth,
Hasluck and Pierre 2000; Wilkinson et al. 1997). Among single parents, the
strongest preferences are for flexitime, term-time working, and compressed
weekly hours. Their interest in shorter working hours is also stronger than
that of parents in couple households, although the practicability of this option,
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 177
given the income implications, is unclear. Younger men, regardless of parental

status, are more concerned with work flexibility than older men, partly because
they are more likely to hold the intention of being actively involved fathers
(Hogarth, Hasluck and Pierre 2000).
Although women express stronger preferences for flexible working time,
in Australia, mens interest in various forms of flexible working time is strong
and growing. This is despite the tendency of men to underreport their preferences for flexible working time because of their often limited expectations
of involvement in family life (Levine and Pittinsky 1997; Hand and Lewis
2002). In the US, where working fathers are also increasingly seeking familyfriendly working time, and four in five men aged 2039 considered family
time to be their top priority, studies report the ingenuity and persistence of
fathers in fiddling work arrangements to collect children from school and
otherwise claw out family time (Burgess 1997; DTI 2000).
In most western countries, the strong demand for flexible working time
practices is largely still unmet. In the UK, where nearly half the respondents
to the Worklife Balance Survey 2000 expressed an unmet preference for
flexitime, whereby rostered hours can vary within the working week, there
was also an unmet demand for compressed weeks (35%), part-time work
(26%), school-term time work (25%), temporarily reduced hours (24%) and
annualised hours (21%). Among women returners, only two in five actually
obtain greater working time flexibility, the vast majority instead accommodating work and family by taking part-time work (70%) and making other
changes (32%), such as obtaining different jobs or shifts (Hogarth, Hasluck
and Pierre 2000).
In the absence of family-friendly working time arrangements, Australian
parents often decide to forgo income and/or advancement. Some change to
lower status/income jobs, others reject promotions to jobs that involve travel,
and many change shiftwork preferences as their children grow older (Lewis,
Tudball and Hand 2001). Similar behaviour is evident among working parents
in Western Europe, the US and Canada. In the US, the proportion of working
mothers and fathers wanting greater job responsibility is declining: interest
among men has dropped the most, from two-thirds of fathers to one-half
between 1992 and 1997 (Galinsky and Swanberg 2000, 26). In Sweden too,
almost one in four men refuse more job responsibility for family reasons, and
interest in promotion has declined particularly among middle level whitecollar workers where it may increase absence from home (Haas and Hwang
2000, 14751). Also, however, research suggests that despite their stated preferences, a significant proportion of women and men fail to use the flexible
provisions available to them (see discussion below) (Hogarth, Hasluck and
Pierre 2000).
In many Western European countries, collective bargaining, particularly
at local/company levels, has encompassed a range of flexible working time
measures. Table 2 lists a variety of these. Most are common to many countries,
177
178
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 178
2004 42(2)
but some, such as the 6 x 6 shifts found in Finland, and multiple choice agreements in the Netherlands, are currently almost unique to particular countries.
Employers have driven most of this bargaining, either to cut costs and raise
productivity or to improve recruitment and retention in tight labour markets.
Even so, there are now numerous collective agreements in Western Europe
that have advanced employees autonomy over working time in ways that
facilitate workfamily balance (European Foundation 2001b; EIRO 2003). This
is particularly significant, given that recent research suggests that the
paramount preference of working parents is not for particular flexible
schedules, but for greater autonomy, or time sovereignty, over the hours of
their attendance (Levine and Pittinsky 1997; Wilkinson et al. 1997).
In Australia, although family-friendly measures are increasingly on the
bargaining agenda, the diversity of such practices is limited and delivery
uneven. Survey data indicates that nearly half of all employees believe they
Table 2
Flexible working time arrangements in collective agreements, Western Europe
Form of flexibility
Regular flexible
working time
Time accounts
Provision *
part-time
school-term time
flexitime: rostered hours vary during week
compressed week
4-day week
6 x 6 hour shifts
phased return from parental leave (e.g. short then longer part-time)
guaranteed part-time positions for mothers until youngest child turns 12
VTIME: voluntary reduced working time (limited period)
multiple choice: provisions for employees to swap conditions within

organisation
time-autonomous work groups: block scheduling (e.g., 24 hours on/off or

7 days on/off)
Individualised hours banking (weekly, monthly or annualised); may provide

that:
a) time is accrued in advance or time credits available
b) time may be used for extended and/or shorter leave
Flexibilisation of
daily working time
flexible start and finish times with/without core hours (short/long core)
employee self-rostering
personalised work schedules
interrupted working day, together with make-up time
* This list does not include measures specifically related to carers leave (e.g., parental leave or 48/52 schemes)
as these are a separate category of workfamily balance measures to working time measures.
Sources: European Foundation (2001b); EU Network on Family and Work (1998); Rossi and Demetriades (2001).
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 179
have some control over start and finish times. Yet, while four in five federal
enterprise agreements contain at least one flexible hours provision, only two
in five contain more than one. Thus, while such practices may exist by
informal arrangement, many are rarely available as a formal entitlement to
employees. Further, in 1998, only 1% of certified agreements provided for
compressed working weeks, 6% for flexible start and finish times, and makeup time, 7% for employee negotiation of working hours, and 31% for
banking/accrual of rostered days off (DEWRSB 1999, 84). Contrary to government rhetoric, non-union Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) have
delivered little family-friendliness in working hours: for example, only 14%
of employees covered by AWAs have provisions for choice over work schedules
or start and finish times (FACS and DEWR 2002, 48).
Flexible working time measures with some family-friendly intent are
more commonly found in public sector agreements (Whitehouse and Zeitlin
1999). Yet, even in those, measures other than part-time work are rare: the next
most common provision is for some employee negotiation of working hours
(22.5% of agreements) (Wynd 2001). Where flexibility provisions exist, there
remain problems with implementation and efficacy. The measures often fail to
fulfil the promise of family-friendliness for employees, in part because of
chasms between policy and practice, in part because of ambivalent managerial
intent and commitment. As well, many employees perceive such provisions
more as privileges than entitlements, so using them entails risks to career
advancement and job security (Whitehouse and Zeitlin 1999; Saltzstein, Ting
and Saltzstein 2001).
This raises questions as to who are the beneficiaries of these arrangements.
Employer rhetoric may project family-friendly intentions but new conditions
may simply allocate labour in more profitable ways and with negligible consideration of family needs (Hogarth, Hasluck and Pierre 2000). Moreover, as
Whitehouse recently observed, family-friendly provisions may be artificial
sweeteners, used to sweeten agreements that otherwise introduce familyunfriendly practices (ACIRRT 2001, 4).
What does this mean for HRM?
While it is difficult to draw conclusions from cross-national comparisons on
the basis of available survey evidence, some patterns in regard to the working
time preferences of working parents are clear whether for Australia, North
America and Western Europe. In particular, there is a strong, unmet demand
among working parents for shorter working hours, part-time work and
flexible working time. These preferences vary according to stages of the lifecycle, household model, the ages of dependent children and other factors.
Employees who are working the number of hours they prefer and/or have
some control over their time use have higher job satisfaction and experience
179
180
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 180
2004 42(2)
less job stress (DEWRSB 1999, 52). The implicit preference is that these
arrangements are available as entitlements rather than privileges. Male
employees, in particular, but not exclusively, are reluctant to use provisions that
rely upon an employers discretion, due to fear of adverse career consequences.
Whatever the stated preferences of working parents in regard to working
hours arrangements, however, they reflect only what employees can conceive
as possible. Employees desires are influenced by the objective characteristics of
their situation, and they evolve as circumstances change. That there are such
strong, consistent patterns in employees preferences throughout the western
world is, perhaps, more surprising than that there are differences.
One of the challenges for HRM, therefore, is to make family-friendly
working time arrangements a real option for all employees within an organisation. There are a number of mutually reinforcing initiatives that can facilitate this. First, senior executives must provide a stated recognition that
workfamily balance is an issue for both women and men. Second, senior
managers need to investigate the needs and prospects for flexible working
arrangements in their organisation. This includes obtaining data on the demographics of the people they employ and surveying employees on their needs
and preferences in regard to working arrangements. It also includes a comprehensive examination of work requirements and job design to identify ways in
which requirements can be met through a more flexible organisation of
working hours.
Third, management must communicate their organisations familyfriendliness in such a way that all employees feel that they have equal access to
alternative working time provisions. An effective way of doing this is to make
flexible working arrangements available to all employees regardless of their
personal reasons for the request, provided only that no negative business
impact will result. As Russell and Powell (1999, 21) suggested, the organisation could require simply that employees address the question: How will we
get the work done to the same standard? Fourth, advertisements for positions
should include statements that support applicants who wish to work in flexible
arrangements that management have deemed appropriate for particular jobs.
Fifth, employees need assurance that their careers will not suffer through the
use of family-friendly arrangements. In concrete terms, this means that the
performance appraisal and rewards system must be based clearly on outputs
and performance outcomes rather than time spent or physical presence in the
workplace. This would require the setting of clear and realistic performance
expectations that can be effectively evaluated. Senior male and female executives can also provide assurance that career progress will not be impeded by
actively using family-friendly working arrangements themselves.
The literature also suggests a need in organisations for HRM to cast the
net wide, to encompass a cafeteria of mutually reinforcing working time
practices which attempt to meet employee preferences while also providing
some employee control over their schedules. The evidence suggests overDownloaded from apj.sagepub.com at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14, 2014
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 181
whelmingly that it is having some control or time sovereignty over when

they work that is far more important to working parents than the actual
number of hours they work. HR practices also need to be flexible and responsive in ways that enable employees to vary working time arrangements in
response to parenting phase and life-cycle stages. Having a comprehensive
bundle of policies is crucial also because a bundle becomes embedded in organisational culture in a way that isolated practices do not.
The challenge for HRM is to experiment with, and market effectively the
benefits of family-friendly policies in organisations. However, there is now a
wealth of information available in the public domain on the features and
benefits of numerous forms of working hours arrangements, steps for effective
implementation and solutions to common issues. Several government websites
contain case study databases on the effective use of various flexible, familyfriendly working arrangements in the private, public and community sectors.
Some of the most comprehensive include the websites of the Equal
Opportunity for Women Agency (Australia), the Office of the Director of
Equal Opportunity in Public Employment (NSW), the Department of Trade
and Industry (UK), and the Department of Labour (New Zealand).
At a macro level, national policy in support of family-friendly working
time arrangements would assist the spread of these options through the
workforce. Recent legislation in Britain provides an example: under the
Employment Act 2002, parents of children under 6 and disabled children under
18 have the right to apply to work flexibly and their employers have a duty to
consider their requests seriously. The legislation covers a broad range of
flexible working hours arrangements, including annualised hours, compressed
hours, flexitime, home-working, job-sharing, self-rostering, shift working,
staggered hours and term-time working.
The range of flexible working time practices negotiated through collective bargaining in advanced western countries demonstrates that most occupations and industry sectors do not in themselves pose a barrier to their
implementation. Through much of Europe, it is industry and sectoral collective agreements that have assisted the diffusion of family-friendly working
time provisions. In Australia, the current federal governments preoccupation
with eliminating industry pattern bargaining impedes the prospects for any
rapid diffusion of these arrangements, at least for employees working under
the federal award system. Thus, implementation of these practices is even
more reliant on management sensitivity to workfamily challenges, senior
management commitment, and a culture of efficient management practice.
However, given the difficulty of maintaining employee commitment and
loyalty in the absence of reciprocal employer commitment, in this era of
portfolio careers and individual employee responsibility for career development, family-friendly flexible working time arrangements may prove to be
crucial building blocks for healthy psychological contracts. Finally, where
traditional, low-trust working time arrangements collide with strategic HR
181
182
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 182
2004 42(2)
emphases on employee commitment, organisational citizenship, initiative and

self-discipline, increased employee autonomy in working time arrangements
may reinforce high performance work systems.
Louise Thornthwaite is an Associate Professor of Management, Sydney Graduate School of

Management, University of Western Sydney, Australia. She has a background in industrial relations and
human resource management research. Louises current research interests include work and family
issues, diversity policy and management strategy.
References
ABS 2001. Forms of employment Australia, Cat. 6359.0, November. Canberra: Commonwealth
Government.
ABS 2002. Australian social trends 2002: Work-paid work: Employment arrangements. Australia
Now. Canberra: Commonwealth Government.
ACIRRT. 2001. Family friendly provisions. Workplace Intelligence June: 14.
ACTU. 2002. The reasonable hours test case. Background paper. Melbourne: ACTU.
AIRC. 2002 Decision. Print SO871: 23 July. www.airc.gov.au/documents/full_bench.
Bjornberg, U. 2000. Equality and backlash: Family, gender and social policy in Sweden. In
Organizational change and gender equity: International perspectives on fathers and mothers at
the workplace, eds L. Haas, P. Hwang and G. Russell, 5775. California: Sage.
Bielenski, H., E. Bosch, and A. Wagner. 2002. Working time preferences in sixteen European
Countries. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions.
Buchanan, J., and L. Thornthwaite. 2001. Paid work and parenting: Charting a new course for
Australian families. Working Paper 70. Sydney: ACIRRT.
Buchanan, J., B. van Wanrooy, G. Considine, and T. Bretherton. 2001. Working time
arrangements in Australia: A statistical overview for the Victorian government. Sydney:
ACIRRT.
Burgess, A. 1997. Fatherhood reclaimed: The making of the modern father. London:Random
House.
Campbell, I. 2002. Cross-national comparison Work time around the world. Background
Paper, August. Melbourne: ACTU.
Clarkberg, M., and P. Moen. 1999. The time squeeze: Married couples work hours patterns
and preferences. In IRRA Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting, ed. P. Voos, 1523.
New York: Industrial Relations Research Association.
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry: Employment Relations) 2002. Work and parents:
Competitiveness and choice, December. United Kingdom Government.
DEWSRB (Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business). 1999.
Work and family: State of play 1998. Canberra: Commonwealth Government.
Editor. 2002. Maternity leave debate hots up. Sydney Morning Herald, 18 July: 10.
EIRO (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions).
2003. A new organisation of time over working life. Dublin. Available at:
www.eurofound.eu.int
European Foundation. 2000a. Combining family and work: The working arrangements of women
and men. Dublin: European Foundation.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. 2000b. Fulltime or part-time work: Realities and options. Dublin: European Foundation.
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 183
European Foundation. 2001a. Gender, employment and working time preferences in Europe.
Dublin: European Foundation.
European Foundation. 2001b. Working time developments and the quality of work, European
Industrial Relations Observatory Online, December. Dublin: European Foundation.
EU Network on Family and Work 1998. Work-time solidarity. New Ways, No. 3. Steinhof:
European Commission.
Eveline, J. 2001. Managing fathers: Male managers and early child care in Australia and
Sweden. Proceedings of the 15th AIRAANZ Conference, Wollongong, 8794.
FACS and DEWR (Dept of Family and Community Services and Dept of Employment and
Workplace Relations). 2002. OECD review of family friendly policies: Australias
background report. Canberra: Commonwealth Government.
Families and Work Institute. 1997. National study of the changing workforce: Executive
summary. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Families and Work Institute. 1998. Ahead of the curve: Why Americas leading employers are
addressing the needs of new and expectant parents. New York: Families and Work
Institute.
Felstead, A., N. Jewson, A. Phizacklea, and S. Walters. 2002. Opportunities to work at home
in the context of worklife balance. Human Resource Management Journal 12(1): 5476.
Galinsky, E., and J. Swanberg. 2000. Employed mothers and fathers in the United States:
Understanding how work and family life fit together. In Organizational change and
gender equity: International perspectives on fathers and mothers at the workplace, eds L.
Haas, P. Hwang and G. Russell, 1528. California: Sage.
Glezer, H., and I. Wolcott. 1997. Work and family values, preferences and practice. Australian
Family Briefing no. 4. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Glezer, H., and I. Wolcott. 2000. Conflicting commitments: Working mothers and fathers in
Australia. In Organizational change and gender equity: International perspectives on fathers
and mothers at the workplace, eds L. Haas, P. Hwang and G. Russell, 4356. California:
Sage.
Gray, M., and J. Tudball. 2002. Family-friendly work practices. Research Report no. 7.
Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Haas, L. and P. Hwang. 2000. Programs and policies promoting womens economic equality
and mens sharing of child care in Sweden. In Organizational change and gender equity:
International perspectives on fathers and mothers at the workplace, eds L. Haas, P. Hwang
and G. Russell, 13361. California: Sage.
Hand, K., and V. Lewis. 2002. Fathers views on family life and paid work. Family Matters 61:
26629.
Higgins, C., L. Duxbury, and K. Johnson. 2000. Part-time work for women: Does it really
help balance work and family? Human Resource Management 39(1): 1732.
Hogarth, T., C. Hasluck, and G. Pierre. 2000. Worklife balance 2000: Summary report.
Warwick: Institute for Employment Research.
Latta, M., and W. OConghaile. 2000. Aspirations, restrictions and choices Combining life and
work in the EU. Dublin: European Foundation.
Levine, J., and T. Pittinsky. 1997. Working fathers: New strategies for balancing work and family.
New York: Addison-Wesley.
Lewis, V., J. Tudball and K. Hand. 2001. Family and work: The familys perspective. Staff
paper commissioned for the Department of Family and Community Services and the
Marriage and Family Council, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.
Millward, C. 2002. Work rich, family poor? Family Matters 61: 4047.
Pocock, B. 2002. The effect of long hours on family and community life. Policy Background
Paper. Melbourne: ACTU.
Pocock, B., B. van Wanrooy, S. Strazzari, and K. Bridge. 2002. Fifty families: What
183
184
7/06/2004
9:39 PM
Page 184
2004 42(2)
unreasonable hours are doing to Australians, their families and their communities.
Policy Background Paper. Melbourne: ACTU.
Rossi, I., and S. Demetriades. 2002. Reconciliation of work and family life and collective
bargaining. Working Paper. Dublin: European Foundation.
Russell, G., and L. Bowman. 2000. Work and family: Current thinking, research and practice.
Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services.
Russell, G., and A. Powell. 1999. Advancing flexibility: A case study in implementing flexible
work practices in the NSW Attorney Generals Department. Sydney: ODEOPE.
Saltzstein, A., Y. Ting, and G. Saltzstein. 2001. Workfamily balance and job satisfaction:
The impact of family-friendly policies on attitude of federal government employees.
Public Administration Review 61(4): 45267.
Schor, J. 1992. The overworked American. New York: Basic Books.
Spalten-Roth, R., A. Kalleberg et al. 1997. Managing work and family: Nonstandard work
arrangements among managers and professionals. Washington: Economic Policy Institute.
Thornthwaite, L. 2002. Workfamily balance: international research on employee
preferences. Working Paper 79. Sydney: ACIRRT.
Whitehouse, G., and D. Zeitlin. 1999. Family friendly policies: Distribution and
implementation in Australian workplaces. Economic and Labor Relations Review 10(2):
22139.
Wilkinson, H. with S. Radley, I. Christie, G. Lawson, and J. Sainsbury. 1997. Time out: the
costs and benefits of paid parental leave. London: Demos.
Wolcott, I., and H. Glezer. 1995. Work and family life: Achieving integration. Melbourne:
Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Wooden, M. 2002. Changing hours of work: whats happening? Copy of powerpoint
presentation from Working Time Today Conference, 16 August, Sydney: ACIRRT.
Wynd, R. 2001. Survey finds Australian public service certified agreements family-friendly.
Work & Family 27: 13.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources-2004-Thornthwaite-166-84

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources-2004-Thornthwaite-166-84

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Asia Pacific Journal of

Working Time and Work-Family Balance: A Review of Employees'

Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI)

>> Version of Record - Aug 1, 2004

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Working time and workfamily balance: A review of

In discussions about how HR policy can facilitate workfamily balance, working

The subject of workfamily balance is not only a barbecue stopper as

Working time and workfamily balance

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

British Social Attitudes surveys. Before discussing employees preferences in

Working time and workfamily balance

of working parents indicate desirability more than intent, particularly as survey

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Working time and workfamily balance

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Working time and workfamily balance

Actual versus preferred working hours, Australian women

Hours in paid work

Women with youngest child 04 years

Women with youngest child 512 years

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Working time and workfamily balance

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Working time flexibility

Working time and workfamily balance

given the income implications, is unclear. Younger men, regardless of parental

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Flexible working time arrangements in collective agreements, Western Europe

flexitime: rostered hours vary during week

guaranteed part-time positions for mothers until youngest child turns 12

VTIME: voluntary reduced working time (limited period)

multiple choice: provisions for employees to swap conditions within

time-autonomous work groups: block scheduling (e.g., 24 hours on/off or

Individualised hours banking (weekly, monthly or annualised); may provide

daily working time

personalised work schedules

interrupted working day, together with make-up time

Working time and workfamily balance

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Working time and workfamily balance

whelmingly that it is having some control or time sovereignty over when

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

emphases on employee commitment, organisational citizenship, initiative and

Louise Thornthwaite is an Associate Professor of Management, Sydney Graduate School of

Working time and workfamily balance

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Anda mungkin juga menyukai