It is commonly
called, "work and family conflict". The premise is that a good family life
takes time and energy and that work and family compete for this fixed
resource. Â Most research in work and
family conflict looks at possible tradeoffs: does working affect family life
negatively, or does placing too much attention on family, leave less energy for
work?
One type of
behavioral research has found negative spillover effects in both directions -
from work to home and home to work. Â
Whatever time and energy you spend in one area will take away from your
performance in the other area.
Another branch of
behavioral research looks at the different requirements of each role and notes
that individuals have difficulty moving from one sphere to the other, and so
end up concentrating on one area at the cost of the other. Â
It is interesting to
note that in a recent case study where "family friendly" policies were
introduced in the workplace, it was found that employees were not taking
advantage of the new policies. Â When
asked why, the employees stated that they would rather be at work than
home. Â Is work becoming, for both men
and women, a haven from home?
Peter Cappelli and
Jill Constantine and Clint Chadwick take a new approach to the subject in their
article It Pays to Value Family: Work and
Family Tradeoffs Reconsidered in Industrial Relations, Vol. 39, No. (April
2000)
Instead of asking if
there is a tradeoff between work and family they ask, "how does making family a
priority affect one´s long-term labor market success?" Â In other words, is there a cost to putting
family first?
This research is innovative
because they have considered the two streams of research - behavioral and
economic. Â Until now the two literatures
have been quite separate. Â Labor
economics looks at the effect family have on earnings and behavioral research
looks at emotional or behavioral effects associated with work and family
conflicts. Â
In "It Pays to Value Family" the authors´
hypothesize that "the greater importance given to family should be negatively
related to subsequent earnings for men and women." Â
As they note, the
higher earnings of married men do not mean that these individuals value
family. Â In fact it could mean the exact
opposite - that their "success" at work cost them a happy family life.
Instead, as an
indicator of commitment to family, this study used data in which those surveyed
were asked about their attitudes towards marriage, work, family and
community. Â Fourteen years later, wage
data were collected for the same group. Â
All data used in the study were derived from the National Longitudinal Survey.
How the respondents
graded the importance of "finding the right person to marry and having a happy
family life" Â -- called the family life
priority variable --was positively related to their earnings fourteen years later.
Men who placed more
importance on the value of family earned more money than men who did not think
that family and a good marriage were a priority. Â The variable was not significant for women.
Â
The implication of
this study is that the tradeoff between work and family, identified in the
behavioral literature, does not always apply. Â
Giving importance to a good family life means success in the workplace
as measured by earnings.
What is valuable
about this research is that it suggests a different way of asking questions
about work and family. Â The authors
conclude with a discussion about our assumptions. Â We assume that the effort taken to have a good family life is
effort that we could be using at work. Â
But this is probably not true. Â
Instead we could look at what having a poor family life costs us. Â The demands of conflicts that arise from bad
marriages and divorce can have huge consequences at work. Â
"Thus the relevant
question may not be how much a good family life costs but how much a bad family
life costs and whether avoiding one has a labor market payoff."
By: Vicki Skelton