Wlb Barrier Elly

7/31/2019 Wlb Barrier Elly

1/17

Over the past few decades, employerpolicies and practices to supportwork-life integration have prolifer-ated as a means to attract and retaina high-quality workforce (Kossek &

Lambert, 2005). Work-life policies includeany organizational programs or officiallysanctioned practices designed to assist em-ployees with the integration of paid workwith other important life roles such as fam-ily, education, or leisure. Examples of work-

life policies include flexibility in the timing,location, or amount of work (e.g., flextime,job sharing, part-time work, telework, leavesof absence), direct provision of caregiving

and health benefits (e.g., child or elder care,domestic partner), and monetary and infor-mational support for nonwork roles (e.g.,vouchers, referral services).

Despite rising adoption of the numberand range of work-life policies and growingpractitioner claims regarding their value (cf.Shellenbarger, 1997, 1999), it is clear thatthe existence of a policy alone does notguarantee employee recruitment, satisfac-tion, or retention. Sutton and Noe (2005) re-

cently provided a review of family-friendlyprogram effectiveness and concluded thatprograms had either no relationship or evena negative relationship with attraction of

WORK-LIFE POLICY

IMPLEMENTATION:

BREAKING DOWN OR CREATING

BARRIERS TO INCLUSIVENESS?

A N N M A R I E R Y A N A N D E L L E N E R N S T K O S S E K

Although many employers have adopted policies to support the integration of

work with personal and family life, expected positive gains are not always real-

ized. One reason for this gap is that practitioners and researchers often overlookhow variation in policy implementation and use by different employee stake-

holder groups fosters a culture of inclusiveness. We discuss four ways in which

work-life policies are implemented (the level of supervisor support for use, uni-

versality of availability, negotiability, and quality of communication) and show

how these affect the degree to which policies are seen as promoting inclusion

or exclusion. These implementation attributes affect whether an adopted policy

is perceived to fulfill work-life needs and act to signal the organizations support

for individual differences in work identities and life circumstances. Implications

for HR practitioners are discussed. 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correspondence to: Ann Marie Ryan, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI48824-1117, Phone: 517-353-8855, Fax: 517-353-4873, E-mail: [email protected].

Human Resource Management, Summer 2008, Vol. 47, No. 2, Pp. 295310

2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20213


2/17

296 H UMANRESOURCEMANAGEMENT, Summer 2008

new employees, improvement of retentionrates, reduction of stress, and enhancementof productivity. We believe that one reasonfor these findings is that more attentionmust focus on how work-life policies are im-plemented and how they promote or deterfrom a culture of inclusiveness.

The primary aim of this article is to dis-cuss how the implementation of work-lifepolicies can break down or reinforce (andeven create) barriers to the creation of an in-clusive workplace, and to provide four indi-cators employers can use to benchmark their

implementation effectiveness. Wefirst provide a definition of inclu-siveness and a framework to illus-trate how work-life policies relateto the goal of workforce inclu-

sion. We then discuss the uniqueimplementation challenges ofwork-life policies and introduceindicators that can be used to un-derstand the degree to whichpolicies are likely perceived aspromoting inclusiveness. We pro-vide illustrations as to how thoseimplementation differences canaffect whether work-life policiescreate feelings of inclusion or ex-clusion. Finally, we discuss how

HR professionals can implementwork-life policies to be more inclusive.

The Role of Work-Life Policies inCreating an Inclusive Workplace

An inclusive workplace is one that values dif-ferences within its workforce and uses thefull potential of all employees (Gasorek,2000; Mor Barak, 2005). Research by Pelled,Eisenhardt, and Xin (1999) found indicatorsof inclusion to include equality in the distri-

bution of decision-making influence, accessto information, and job security. Roberson(2006) conducted a study to distinguish def-initions of diversity from inclusiveness andfound that inclusion focuses on employeeinvolvement and integration. Consideringthese definitions, a workplace would be con-sidered inclusive with regard to work-life is-sues if the organization:

values individual and intergroup differ-ences in the primacy of work versusother life roles;

supports variation in domestic back-grounds and in blending work and non-work demands;

does not view differing nonwork or care-giving identities as barriers to an individ-ual fully contributing and fulfilling onespotential at work; and

promotes involvement of all employeesregardless of their nonwork demands andpreferences.

That is, an inclusive workplace wouldbe one where individuals feel accepted andvalued (Pelled et al., 1999; Roberson, 2006)regardless of whether they are single or

partnered, have children or not, are hetero-sexual or not, work full time or a reducedload, or are present daily or telecommute.An inclusive workplace promotes accept-ance and high levels of engagement of in-dividuals who telework so that they mayprovide home care for an aging parent, aswell as those that choose nursing homes asthe best option for their parents care. It isone that equally values those who believeleaving work early to attend a childs soccergame is critical as well as those who do not

mind missing games, and for those who useall their available paid time off to train fora triathlon as well as those who feel per-sonal time is reserved for family emergen-cies. It is one that equally engages thosewho rearrange work hours to attend reli-gious services or to perform National Guardduties.

The adoption of work-life policies is onemeans that companies use to create an inclu-sive workplace. To understand why an organ-ization might desire an inclusive workplace,

Thomas and Ely (1996) identified three per-spectives on diversity: a discrimination-and-fairness, an access-and-legitimacy, and an in-tegration-and-learning perspective. Note thatthese are not seen as mutually exclusive.

First, organizations may adopt work-lifepolicies due to a legal mandate and a desirefor equal treatment of employees. For exam-ple, in the United States, employers are

more attention

must focus on how

work-life policies

are implemented

and how they

promote or deter

from a culture of

inclusiveness.

Human Resource ManagementDOI: 10.1002/hrm


3/17

Work-Life Policy Implementation: Breaking Down or Creating Barriers to Inclusiveness? 297

legally mandated to offer unpaid leave andtime off from work up to 12 weeks for thebirth or adoption of a child, a serious healthcondition, or to care for a spouse, parent,minor, or disabled child who has a serioushealth condition (Block, Malin, Kossek, &Holt, 2005). In the European Union, Direc-tive 2002/73 requires that employers providea job to women returning from maternityleave that is equivalent to the one they heldprior to the leave (European Parliament andEuropean Council, 2002).

Second, the access-and-legitimacy per-spective suggests the adoption of work-lifepolicies is seen as good business in termsof recruitment and retention of underrepre-sented individuals and good public relations(Konrad & Mangel, 2000; Kossek & Friede,

2006). For example, employers seeking to in-crease the number of women in certain posi-tions may tout flexible work arrangements asa way to be more attractive to potentialhires. The organizations adoption of thework-life policy is driven by the view that amore inclusive workplace will make one amore attractive employer (Avery & McKay,2006).

Third, a learning-and-effectiveness per-spective integrates employee needs and val-ues in new ways into the culture as part of

organizational adaptation to a changinglabor market (cf. Lee, MacDermid, & Buck,2000). Individual family and personal lifeneeds are not considered irrelevant or detri-mental to profitability but are deemed im-portant to address to enhance organizationaland personal effectiveness (Rapoport, Bailyn,Fletcher, & Pruitt, 2002). However, re-searchers have found mixed support at the

organizational level for the connection of di-versity and effectiveness, in terms of produc-tivity and profitability (Kochan et al., 2003;Richard, 2000; Richard, McMillan, Chad-wick, & Dwyer, 2003; Sacco & Schmitt,2005). In the work-life area specifically, Sut-ton and Noe (2005) found inconsistency inwhether the adoption of policies relates toorganizational effectiveness.

Figure 1a illustrates conventional wis-dom about the presumed connection be-tween work-life policy adoption and inclu-sion and outcomes. Employers often assumethat adopting policies leads to perceptions ofinclusion. Figure 1b shows that in reality, thelink is more complex. We contend that a keyexplanation for why expected gains fromwork-life policy adoption are not consis-

tently found is because the ways policies areimplemented do not necessarily foster per-ceptions of inclusion. While policy adoptionmay be intended to promote inclusiveness, itis policy implementation that determineswhether inclusion occurs. Variations in pol-icy implementation will affect perceptions ofsupport for different needs and identities,through both direct experiences of employ-ees and vicarious experiences by observingwhat happens to other users of similar iden-tities. To increase the usefulness of work-life

policies as a diversity management vehicle,greater understanding of these linkages isneeded.

Work-Life Policy Implementationand Inclusion

Variability in implementing any human re-source policy can affect inclusiveness; work-


FIGURE 1a. Conventional View of Link Between Adoption and Inclusion


4/17


life policy implementation is particularlycritical for fostering or deterring from inclu-sion. First, while work-life policies histori-cally were adopted with a goal of breakingdown barriers to the inclusion of women andthose with caregiving demands (Rothausen,1994), the goals of work-life policies havenow broadened to include a multitude ofnonwork identities. Unlike many HR policies(with the exception of EEO and diversitypolicies), work-life policies are presumed todirectly impact inclusiveness (Rothausen,

1994) because they show that differences inrole primacy are accepted, variation inblending work and nonwork roles is sup-ported, and the involvement of all employ-ees regardless of nonwork demands is pro-moted.

Second, the use of work-life policies isdistinctive from the use of other HR policiesin that there are possible negative outcomesor backlash from their use. For example,many coworkers and managers assume thatusers of flexibility policies create more work

for supervisors and receive unfair benefits atthe expense of coworkers (Grover, 1991,Kossek, Barber, & Winters, 1999). Researchsuggests that users of work-life policies riskexperiencing possible backlash and negativecareer outcomes (cf. Powell, 1999;Rothausen, Clarke, Gonzalez, & ODell,1998). Although there are some exceptions(users of whistleblower, grievance, or sexual

harassment policies), users of work-life poli-cies are more likely to face backlash effectsthan users of most other HR programs. Inthis sense, use of work-life policies can leadto exclusion.

Third, implementing work-life policiesrequires a fundamental cultural change inthe assumed hegemony of work and non-work that typically is not required from im-plementing other HR policies. This perspec-tive is a radical departure for manyworkplaces, since most have been designed

based on the assumption that work identitiesare the central identity in an individuals life;hence, work-life policy implementation willhave a greater effect than other HR policieson whether a culture is transformed to be in-clusive.

Fourth, many firms have policies for-mally available, but in practice vary in thedegree to which use is sanctioned (Blair-Loy& Wharton, 2002; Lyness, Judiesch, Thomp-son, & Beauvais, 2001). For example, theAmerican Bar Association reported that al-

though 95% of law firms have a policy al-lowing part-time employment, only 3% oflawyers do so, fearing it will hurt their ca-reers (Cunningham, 2001). When policy useis not supported, it can detract from promot-ing feelings of inclusiveness.

Finally, and central to arguments in thisarticle, the wide variability in how work-lifepolicies are implemented affects whether


FIGURE 1b. Proposed Link Between Adoption, Implementation, and Inclusion


5/17


they break down or build up barriers to in-clusion. Consider how an organizationsmembers treat those on maternity orparental leave. In one implementation, thenorm is for coworkers to cover key areas ofan individuals job while s/he is gone; in an-other, no one is assigned the workers tasks,forcing the employee to work part-time dur-ing what is supposed to be a leave, receivenumerous work-related calls, cut the leaveshort, or work long hours on return (Ralston,2002). It is our contention that variability inimplementation can have strong effects oninclusiveness. In the next section, we outlinefour ways in which policy implementationvaries.

Implementation Attributes

While much literature has examined varia-tion in policy adoption across organiza-tions (cf. Ingram & Simons, 1995), thereare only indirect discussions of implemen-tation. As Bourne, Barringer, and McCombnoted, Family-friendly policies may origi-nate from the organization, but they areimplemented (or not) in the local workcontext (2004, p. 3). While policies to sup-port work and life integration are formallyadopted at the organizational level, varia-

tion in how they are implemented acrossworkgroups, business units, and locationsexists.

We reviewed the work-life research andpopular literature to examine cases wherepolicies did not lead to desired effects, con-cerns were raised about policy fairness, orwhere a variation in implementation wasnoted. We used an iterative analysis in an in-tentional manner to develop, test, and refineour framework (Creswell, 1994). We identi-fied four implementation attributes as

sources of variability: supervisor support forpolicy use, the degree to which policies areseen as universallyavailable to all employees,whether policy use is an entitlement or mustbe negotiated, and the quality of communica-tion regarding how and when the policy canbe used. Table I summarizes the aspects ofimplementation. Next we define each ofthese implementation attributes, followed

by a discussion of how they relate to inclu-siveness.

Supervisor Support

Considerable research has indicated that su-pervisor support plays a key role in the expe-rience of work-family conflict (Allen, 2001;Casper & Buffardi, 2004; Casper, Fox, Sitz-mann, & Landy, 2004; ODriscoll et al., 2003).Supervisors are the gatekeepers to effectiveimplementation of work and family policiesas they (a) often have final approval as towhether employees can use a pro-gram such as reduced workload,telework, or flextime; (b) influencewhether employees are cross-trained to back up each other dur-

ing absences; (c) affect whetherpolicies are well publicized; and(d) lead in the creation of normssupporting use of policies (Hop-kins, 2005). The majority of re-search examines general supervi-sor supportiveness (e.g., Anderson,Coffey, & Byerly, 2002) rather thansupport of a specific policy.

Supervisor supportof policy useinvolves both emotional and in-strumental support. Do supervi-

sors remove any obstacles to pol-icy use? Or do they discourage usethrough making it difficult? Forexample, employees may have theright to telecommute one day a week, but su-pervisors can vary in how easy they make itfor an employee to do so through how meet-ings are scheduled, how those who telecom-mute are communicated with and treated,and so on. As another example, greater super-visor support of a policy that allows job shar-ing would be shown by a supervisor who clar-

ifies roles and pinpoints obstacles than by asupervisor who does not communicateequally with both job sharers regarding re-sponsibilities. A third example: supervisorsupport for use of a reduced load policy wouldinvolve guarding against individuals workingmore hours than they are paid for because ofineffective workload management (Lirio, Lee,Williams, Haugen, & Kossek, 2004). Supervi-

A lack of supervisor

support can lead to

nonwork roles

serving as barriers

to full contribution

and engagement

and to

nonsupported

employees feeling

excluded.



6/17


sors can affect backlash and jealousy in

coworker relations by considering policyeffect on the entire workgroup. For example,this can involve cross-training, setting corehours, and modes for communication andback-up systems when people are flexing.

As we will develop further, supervisorsupport of policy use affects inclusion. In theabove examples, individuals are not purpose-fully excluded, but the lack of support for

policy use leads to a less inclusive work envi-

ronment. A lack of supervisor support canlead to nonwork roles serving as barriers tofull contribution and engagement and tononsupported employees feeling excluded.

Universalism

Universalism refers to the degree to whichwork-life policies are perceived as readily avail-


Implementation Attribute Breaks Down Barriers Reinforces/Creates Barriers

Supervisor Support Support for policy use recognizes

individual needs and value

preferences

Support promotes feelings ofrespect and inclusion

Removing obstacles to policy use

signals that employee is valued

Looks at how implementation will

affect the workload and social

justice perceptions in workgroup

Lack of support can prevent

individuals from being able

to fully engage in the

workplace Lack of support for policy

use can be a form of subtle

discrimination

Discourages employees from

using a policy by making it

difficult to use

Signals a lack of apprecia-

tion for individual needs and

preferences

Universality Universal policies (i.e., by defini-

tion of being open to all employ-

ees simply on the basis of beinga member of a firm) reflect inclu-

siveness

Particularistic policies signal

that some are excluded

Particularistic policies canserve as barriers to full en-

gagement for some individuals

Particularistic polices can

have adverse impact against

certain groups if availability

is limited on the basis of job

level and geographic region,

and these are related to eth-

nicity and/or gender

Negotiability Negotiable policies allow for con-

sideration of individual needs and

avoid a one-size-fits-all approach

to implementation

When individuals feel nego-

tiations are unfair or based

on some bias that creates a

barrier to inclusionQuality of Communication Effectively communicated policies

signal inclusion and employer car-

ing by demonstrating that policies

exist not merely as public relations

vehicles.

Selective communication of

policies creates barriers to

inclusion

Ineffective communication

leads to policies existing on

paper for employer symbolic

purposes without adding in-

strumental value to employees

T A B L E I Architecture for Intangibles


7/17


able for use by everyone in all levels and jobsrather than limited to specific groups (e.g.,partners but not associates; managers but notclerical workers) or geographic locations (e.g.,corporate headquarters but not at the plants;U.S. but not non-U.S. locations). Researchshows wide internal variation in the degree towhich different employee groups have accessto policies (Lambert & Waxman, 2005).Unionized workers are less likely to haveaccess to flexibility policies than nonunionworkers (Golden, 2001). Workers in low-wagejobs are less likely than managers and profes-sionals to have flextime, on-site child care, orcompany-sponsored tax breaks to pay for childcare (Holcomb, 2001). Without same-sexdomestic partner benefits (offered to only 18%of U.S. workers; Bradsher, 2000), without the

public sector bridging coverage for uninsuredpart-time low-income workers, and with vari-ability in co-pays across employee groups,health care is low on universalism.

To the extent that a policy is more partic-ularistic, it can create barriers to inclusivenesswithin the organization, particularly becauseaccess often is not available to those at lowerwages, who tend to be disproportionatelyminorities and women (Lambert & Waxman,2005). Particularistic policies can lead to indi-viduals feeling that they are not valued simi-

larly to those who can access the policy.

Negotiability

Negotiability reflects both the degree towhich an individuals policy use or practice

can be negotiated with an organizationalagent (e.g., supervisor, HR department) andthe perceived fairness of the negotiationprocess. For some work-life policies, such asthe ability to take an unpaid maternity leaveafter the birth of a child, organizationalactors have little latitude in how the policy isinterpreted in practice. For other policies,such as the ability to work at home one daya week, someone must approve use of thepolicy, resulting in greater intraorganiza-tional variability in policy use (Eaton, 2003;Kossek, Noe, & DeMarr, 1999). For example,research on reduced workload policiesshowed wide variation in how workloadsand work arrangements were customizeddepending on the individual workers de-sires, the nature of the job, and the degree of

organizational learning about the practice(Lee, MacDermid, Williams, Buck, & Leiba-OSullivan, 2002). Negotiation also mayreflect subtle discrimination. Barham, Got-tlieb, and Kelloway (1998) found that super-visors may be more willing to approve a re-quest in reduction of hours for female thanfor male employees.

Note that negotiability is conceptuallydistinct from supervisor support of using apolicy, although it is not always unrelated.A supervisor can be nonsupportive when

an employee uses a policy regardless of itsnegotiability, and a policy can be nego-tiable whether there is or is not supervisorsupport for using what is negotiated (e.g.,employee has negotiated ability totelecommute one day a week but important


Chris manages 35 employees at a computer systems organization who telecommute to some

degree. He is supportive of telework because it gives employees a way to get uninterrupted time

to work. I have seen an increase in productivity as my workers have had the time to process,Chris says. Chris feels that telecommuting has increased morale as well as increased his ability

to recruit and retain knowledgeable employees. Chris has to work continually to convey to upper-

level management that these employees are valuable and promotable as they still dont under-

stand how telecommuters can be just as productive as those who work in the office. They still

value face time. Chris does certain things to make sure that telework works for everyone in the

officeall employees have touch points in the office so that they can keep connectedness to

the group. He requires that all spend at least some time in the office to enhance team interaction.

Chris is proud of providing a telework option.

Supervisor SupportC A S E B O X


8/17


meetings are not scheduled considering theemployees preferences for day out of theoffice). Negotiability also is conceptuallydistinct from universality, although thetwo may connect in practice. A policy canbe universal (anyone can telecommute oneday a week), but the terms of enactment(which day of the week) may be negotiatedor fixed. Further, negotiability can lead toparticularistic implementation of a policythat is universal in principle (i.e., allemployees can request reduced loads; onlythose that are top performers are able tosuccessfully negotiate them).

Negotiable policies can lead to greaterinclusion or exclusion. Inclusive implemen-tation does not equate to meeting allemployee requests, but to insuring that ne-

gotiable factors are approached consistentlyacross all employees. Jealousy and backlashare likely to occur if individual deals are notcommunicated effectively. The tenets orparameters for negotiation and customiza-tion must be clearly developed in order tofoster positive perceptions of justice andfeelings of inclusion.

Quality of Communication

Variability exists within organizations in the

degree to which formal written work-lifepolicies exist for different organizationalunits (Kropf, 1999), impeding employeeawareness. Written policies that are poorlycommunicated also limit cognizance of the

policys availability and applicability to in-dividual situations (Christensen, 1999).Research has indicated employees are not al-ways aware of the availability of governmentmandated entitlements (Baird & Reynolds,2004). One reason many fathers may nottake parental leave is a lack of knowledge oftheir right to use the policy (Powell, 1999).As another example, a department mayallow some top performers access to flexibil-ity but will not publicize that this option isavailable in order to prevent lesser-perform-ing employees from requesting it (Williams,2000). Employee groups without regularaccess to the organizations Web site and e-mail (e.g., custodial staff, plant line workers,store associates) may be less aware of policyavailability. Further, Casper et al. (2004)

demonstrated that supervisors generally re-port low levels of awareness of work-life pro-grams, which affects their referrals of em-ployees to those programs.

Studies have long demonstrated thatcommunication affects acceptance of HRand managerial innovation (e.g., Kossek,1989; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). For exam-ple, Nord and Tucker (1987) found that ifcommunication channels are open, dissatis-faction and resistance to innovations aremuch lower. Greater application of concepts

regarding quality of communication fromthe innovation and change management lit-eratures should lead to greater perceptions ofinclusiveness related to the implementationof work-life policies.


Ann has been supervising a teleworker at a major electronic systems corporation for the past

year but has recently asked that individual to take a new position and discontinue telework. Whenshe came to the department, the telework arrangement with this individual was already in place.

She stated that there was no written contract, no structure. I was handed a difficult scenario and

I had to make it work. Ann sees telecommuting as difficult to carry out unless there is a structure

in place that sets up expectations, standards, feedback, and a contingency plan if the arrange-

ment is not going well. While some supervisors in the organization contend that there is a formal

written policy on teleworking, Ann has never seen it. Ann expressed frustration as the organiza-

tions treatment of telework is that it is not being publicized and that makes it difficult to find

ways to make it work.

Quality of CommunicationC A S E B O X


9/17


Linking Policy Adoption andImplementation to Inclusiveness

We have argued that policies vary in imple-mentation attributes and that variationaffects perceptions of inclusion. In this sec-tion, we outline how work-life policies affectinclusion through two non-mutually exclu-sive mechanisms: need fulfillment and valuesignaling.

Need Fulfillment

The existence of a policy can fulfill a need(e.g., for a flexible schedule, for child care),and therefore provide individuals withinclusionthe ability to be fully engaged intheir work role or, in some cases, even to

take on a work role. For example, a familyleave policy that has broad parameters canmeet the needs of individuals with uniquefamily situations: a lesbian couple adoptinga child would be afforded the same benefitas a heterosexual woman giving birthwithin the context of a traditional marriageor a single male taking on a guardianship oran individual whose parent is sufferingfrom a debilitating illness. Allowing all ofthese individuals the opportunity to ad-dress life needs without conflict with the

work role would increase inclusion; disal-lowing one to fulfill the need would in-crease feelings of exclusion.

Individuals vary in their needs, prefer-ences, and values with regard to managingwork and nonwork roles and recognizing orignoring this variability will affect percep-tions of whether the organization is pro-moting inclusiveness or creating barriers toinclusion. Using demographic variablessuch as gender or number of children ormarital status as proxies for needs, prefer-

ences, and/or values is problematic (e.g.,Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brin-ley, 2005). For example, the commonassumption is that work-life policies de-signed to assist with caregiving (i.e., forchildren or elders) should have greater im-pact on the work attitudes and behaviors ofthose with such responsibilities than thosewithout (Grover, 1991). However, such a

link has not been found consistently. Care-giving responsibility does not automaticallyequate to positive reactions to policies re-lated to caregiving because individualneeds, preferences, and values are not wellcaptured by the demographic has or doesnot have caregiving responsibility. For ex-ample, some caregivers may not see an on-site childcare center as meeting their needsbecause of the specific setting they wouldlike for their child (e.g., one provider andno other children) or because of mixedneeds (e.g., easier to enroll younger child inpreschool at same locationwhere older child attendsschool). The most inclusive ap-proach to implementing a work-life policy would be one where

the organization obtains a directassessment of needs and prefer-ences rather than assumes these.

Whether a work-life policywill lead to greater inclusion alsocould depend on the resources anindividual has available to meetneeds. For example, flextimepolicies may have little impacton inclusion if ones spouse/part-ner is unconstrained by a setwork schedule and can handle

time-based family interferences with workfor the partner. As another example, emer-gency well-child care may be an importantresource for a single mom newly moved toan area even if other employees with hercaregiving responsibilities do not use thebenefit, simply because of her lack of familyresources. Thus, neither policy availabilitynor individual demographics are the key towhether the policy will break down barriersto inclusion, but whether individuals haveunmet needs met.

The implementation attributes of a pol-icy will affect whether it fulfills needs. As anexample, if an employee has a need for flex-ibility in his work schedule during certainmonths to allow him to train and competein a sport, whether flextime is available,negotiable, supported by his supervisor, andcommunicated well will affect whether hehas his needs met or unmet, and hence

work-life policies

affect inclusion

through two non-

mutually exclusive

mechanisms: need

fulfillment and value

signaling.



10/17


whether he feels included. In general, if amanager does not support policy use or cre-ates obstacles to use or if one is unaware thepolicy is available or does not understandthat the policy can help meet a need,employees will experience exclusion.

A slightly different relationship occurswhen one considers particularistic or nego-tiable policies because the level of the imple-mentation attribute means that differentemployees will receive different outcomes(i.e., some can use a policy and some cannot,or the nature of use differs across employees).

Those employees who are directlynegatively affected by the particu-laristic or negotiable nature of thepolicy are more likely to see theorganization as less inclusive than

those not adversely affected. Re-search has shown that a frustra-tion effect occurs for those whorequire a policy and find it un-available to them, as Kossek andNichol (1992) found in compar-ing work-life outcomes for users ofan on-site child care center andthose on the waiting list.

Further, if employees seek flextime ortelecommuting privileges and do not obtainthem, they are more likely to see the decision

as unfair than if they obtain the outcomesthey seek. However, justice theory has estab-lished that it is not just self-interest that drivesperceptions of fairness (Colquitt, Conlon,Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). A work-life policythat allocates resources on the basis of locationor seniority rather than on the basis of equity(e.g., those who derive the benefit are thosewho put forth the most effort at work or per-form the best) may be viewed as an unfair dis-tribution of resources to those who feel equityshould be the rule in allocating resources (Lev-

enthal, 1976). As another example, if a depart-ment decides only one employee can telecom-mute on Fridays and this will rotate amongemployees (an equality allocation), those withlong commuting times may see this as less fairthan a need-based allocation. In general,employees who see a work-life policy as allo-cating resources on a basis that they perceiveas less fair (Grandey, 2001) will have fewer pos-

itive evaluations of the organizations culturein terms of inclusiveness.

Value Signaling

A second mechanism for work-life policyinfluence on inclusion is via the role a policyserves in signaling the organizations values.Traditionally, work-life policies are presentedas good business because they let employ-ees know that the organization is a caringand family-friendly workplace. While indi-viduals do show preferences for organizationsthat display concern for others, research hasfound that individuals specific value orienta-tions also play a role (Cable & Judge, 1996;Judge & Bretz, 1992). Rynes and Cable (2003)noted that while some organizational charac-

teristics are widely valued by most job seek-ers, the strength, and sometimes direction, ofpreferences varies according to individual dif-ferences in values and beliefs.

Employees vary in their values, andwork-life policies may not match employeevalues. For example, an organization mightprovide a certain number of days of visitingnurses to stay with sick children; for some in-dividuals in certain cultural traditions, thismight not coincide with their values andhow they view their parental role. They may

see this policy, in fact, as being un-family-friendlyas not allowing a parent to stayhome with a sick child.

Implementation attributes convey orga-nizational values related to inclusion. For ex-ample, research has indicated that caring isa value that individuals universally seek inemployers (Ravlin & Meglino, 1989). Super-visor support for a policys use will be seen asvalidating that the organization cares andwill be seen as reflective of overall organiza-tional supportiveness (Eisenberger, Stingl-

hamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, &Rhoades, 2002). Conversely, a positive mes-sage of concern that adopting a policy ismeant to send easily can be offset by mes-sages of lack of caring through a lack of su-pervisor support for use.

Implementation attributes also send sig-nals regarding organizational values aboutdifferentiation among employees. Whether

Employees vary in

their values, and

work-life policies

may not match

employee values.



11/17


this signaling will affect an individualdepends on the extent to which the way apolicy is implemented is inconsistent withindividual values. For example, collectivistsare motivated by the goals and norms of thecollective, prefer egalitarian rewards, and aremore likely to object to inconsistency intreatment across the collective (Colquitt,2004; Hui, Triandis, & Yee, 1991). Hence, wewould expect collectivists to react more neg-atively to particularistic and negotiable poli-cies, as these lead to differential treatmentacross the collective.

Interactive and Dynamic Effects ofImplementation Attributes onInclusion

These implementation attributes are concep-tually distinct, but their covariability withinorganizations and for specific policies islikely to vary. For example, universal policiesmay be high or low in negotiability (e.g.,everyone can work flextime but you mustnegotiate; everyone has health care and thenature of coverage is nonnegotiable). An in-dividuals perceptions of the organization asan inclusive environment are influenced bymultiple policies. Examining single-policyeffects on work outcomes (e.g., does organi-

zation-sponsored day care increase employeesatisfaction) requires consideration of therole of other policies and their implementa-tion attributes. Negative and positive influ-ences of different policies may be offsetting.

Also, a policy initially may be viewed aspromoting inclusion but then reassessed. Forexample, job applicants may view telework-ing as a way to achieve work-life balance.However, several studies have shown thatteleworkers have difficulties in establishingboundaries between work and personal lives

(Hill, Miller, Weiner, & Colihan, 1998;Loscocco, 1997) and those whose telework-ing leads to putting in more hours thanbeing in the office actually experience a de-crease in work-life balance (Cree, 1998).Thus, the policy as actually experiencedinpart due to implementation attributesmaynot be as positive as the individual expectsand may not lead to greater inclusion.

Further, family needs of individualschange over time as unions are made and dis-solve and children are born and grow;changes in views of policies may reflectchanges in family needs. Phenomena such asfamily-friendly backlash (Harris, 1997;Rothausen et al., 1998) also may result fromreevaluations over the course of time. A sin-gle, unattached job seeker who does not havefamily issues may not be considering anorganizations stance on work-life in choicedecisions. However, once on the job, suchpolicies may lead to problems for the indi-vidual. For example, s/he may ex-perience problems in how thework of someone on parentalleave is reassigned to him/her(Herst & Allen, 2001) or experi-

ence greater expectations regard-ing client entertainment in theevenings or travel than coworkerswith young children. This canlead to reassessing whether the or-ganization is inclusive of all indi-viduals or if singlism exists (De-Paulo, 2006).

Implications for HRPractice

What are the implications of thisframework for HR professionalsseeking to break down barriers toinclusion via implementing work-life poli-cies? We see three general checkpoints for de-termining if policies are promoting inclusion:

Consider what implementation attrib-utes will be part of planned adoption.

Consider how policy implementationbreaks down or reinforces or creates bar-riers to inclusion.

Consider that there will be interactiveand dynamic effects between implemen-tation attributes of a policy and acrosspolicies.

Planning Implementation

An organization must consider how it plans toimplement policies broadly and how intraor-

Examining single-

policy effects on

work outcomes

requires

consideration of the

role of other policies

and their

implementation

attributes.



12/17


ganizational variation is likely to be manifest.For example, an employer should considerwhat policies it wants to make particularisticand what it wants to make negotiable. Suchdecisions might be based on a desire to attracta particular group with a policy, or a desire toattract a diverse applicant pool (in terms ofwork-life concerns). The decisions may also bebased on the overall human resource strategy:is this an organization with individualized HRpolicies or is it a goal to have only one contractacross the workforce? Or, is this an organiza-tion where business-unit variation in policies,such as based on geography, product, or orga-

nizational levels, is desirable? Thelevel of permissible intraorganiza-tional variability can be controlledvia clarity in organizational-level

communication, managementtraining, and regular auditing ofpolicy awareness and use.

Further, is policy implementa-tion a conscious strategic deci-sion? Sutton and Noe (2005)noted that organizations mayadopt policies because of norma-tive pressure (e.g., a group ofinternal employees pressures foradoption), mimetic pressure (e.g.,a successful competitor offers the

policy), or coercive pressure (e.g.,government mandate such aswith regard to family leave).Implementation attributes mayrelate to what pressures led to

policy adoption. For example, institutingflextime in a department in response tomimetic pressure might lead to a more uni-versally implemented policy than if a spe-cific group had pressured for flextime.

Lambert and Waxman (2005) suggest aneed to consider whether a policy is con-

sciously particularistic or just unavailable. Inpractice, policy variations may be attributedto obstacles that an organization or unit isunwilling to address. For example, to imple-ment a policy universally may require a busi-ness unit to rethink how work is scheduledor conducted, to invest in new technology,or to negotiate new contracts with unions.Changing the way a policy is implemented

may meet with resistance or dramaticallychange cost considerations. It also mayrequire fundamental changes in work redesignand the way employees are managed(Rapoport et al., 2002). For example,employees may require cross-training toallow backup, or employees may be giveninput as a group to decide how and if flexi-ble work arrangements would be imple-mented in their work unit. These barriersmay need to be overcome to implement thepolicy in a more inclusive manner.

Considering Barriers

Firms must recognize that a single best prac-tices approach to work-life issues may notexist because of the great variability in needs,

preferences, and values. Attempting toreduce intraorganizational variability in pol-icy content and policy implementation maynot be possible or desirable, and thereforetraining and supporting managers so thatimplementation is inclusive is imperative.Table I provides indicators that HR profes-sionals and managers can use in determiningwhether implementation is breaking downor reinforcing barriers to inclusion.

Organizations must monitor when poli-cies do not have the intended effects. For

example, an employee may expect that s/hewill be able to work flextime when a policy isannounced but then find s/he cannotbecause the policy is not universal, is nego-tiable, and s/he is unable to secure thearrangement, or that a lack of supervisor sup-port makes it difficult to carry out. Raising ex-pectations and not meeting them can haveundesirable effects (e.g., Grandey, 2001;Parker & Allen, 2001). Organizations mustrecognize some of the inherent tensions inmaking work-life policies attractive and used.

For example, negotiability may meet moreemployee needs, but it may also increase thelikelihood of being seen as unfair.

Considering Interactive andDynamic Effects

Understanding the relative role of work-lifeissues vis--vis other determinants of inclu-

Firms must

recognize that a

single best

practices approach

to work-life issues

may not exist

because of the

great variability in

needs, preferences,

and values.



13/17


sive culture such as compensation, meaning-ful work, and coworker relations is essentialto making predictions regarding the effectsof work-life policies. Empirical research isneeded to understand the role in affectinginclusion relative to other employment con-cerns that have established relationships tosatisfaction, commitment, and other work-related outcomes.

Because organizations may be simultane-ously enacting multiple policies related towork-life integration and these may vary inhow they are implemented, considerationneeds to be given to this covariation. Forexample, a manager might consider howimplementing a particularistic policy will bereceived when other policies in the work-lifedomain are universal, or how implementing

a policy with little room for negotiationmight be viewed in relation to other more

negotiable policies. Such interactive effectsmay affect perceptions of inclusion.

Conclusion

In order for research on work-life policies toreach a higher level of sophistication, organ-izations and scholars need to move beyondpromoting the mere existence of work-lifepolicies as a means to a more inclusive work-place. Considering how implementationleads to feelings of inclusion and exclusioncan aid in understanding how work-life poli-cies can lead to more positive individual andorganizational outcomes.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank Casey Schurkamp forher assistance.


ANN MARIE RYAN is a professor of organizational psychology at Michigan State Uni-

versity. Her major research interests involve improving the quality and fairness of em-

ployee selection methods, and topics related to diversity and justice in the workplace. In

addition to publishing extensively in these areas, she regularly consults with organiza-

tions on improving assessment processes. She is a past president of the Society of In-

dustrial and Organizational Psychology and past editor of the journal Personnel Psy-

chology.

Professor ELLEN ERNST KOSSEK (PhD, Yale) teaches in the School of Labor and Indus-

trial Relations at Michigan State University. She served on the National Academy of

Managements Board of Governors, as chair of the Gender and Diversity Division, and is

a fellow of the American Psychological Association and Society for Industrial and Orga-

nizational Psychology. She is associate director of the Center for Work, Family Health,

and Stress, affiliated with the National Institute of Healths Workplace, Family Health and

Well-being Network. She is researching two major Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grants on

implementing workplace flexibility (http://ellenkossek.lir.msu.edu). Her latest book is

CEO of Me: Creating Lives That Work.

REFERENCES

Allen, T. (2001). Family-supportive work environ-

ments: The role of organizational perceptions.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414435.

Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002).

Formal organizational initiatives and informal

workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict

and job-related outcomes. Journal of Manage-

ment, 28, 787810.

Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice: An

organizational impression management approach

to attracting minority and female job applicants.

Personnel Psychology, 59, 157187.

Baird, C. L., & Reynolds, J.R. (2004). Employee

awareness of family leave benefits: the effects of


14/17


family, work and gender. Sociological Quarterly,

45, 325353.

Barham, L., Gottlieb, B., & Kelloway, E. (1998). Vari-

ables affecting managers willingness to grant

alternative work arrangements. Journal of Social

Psychology, 138, 291302.

Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. (2002). Employees use of

work-family policies and the workplace social con-

text. Social Forces, 80, 813845.

Block, R., Malin, M., Kossek, E., & Holt, A. (2005). The

legal and administrative context of work and fam-

ily leaves and related policies in the United States,

Canada, and the European Union. In F. Jones, R.

Burke, & M. Westman (Eds.), Managing the work-

home interface: A psychological perspective (pp.

3958). Oxford, UK: Routledge Press.

Bourne, K. A., Barringer, M. W., & McComb, S. A.

(2004, August). Understanding the effect of family-

friendly benefits: The moderating role of social

support. Presented at the annual meeting of theAcademy of Management, New Orleans, LA.

Bradsher, K. (2000, June 9). Big carmakers extend

benefits to gay couples. New York Times, pp. C1,

C12.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organiza-

tion fit, job choice decisions, and organizational

entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-

sion Processes, 67, 294311.

Casper, W. J., & Buffardi, L.C. (2004). Work-life bene-

fits and job pursuit intentions: The role of antici-

pated organizational support. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 65, 391410.

Casper, W. J., Fox, K. E., Sitzmann, T. M., & Landy, A.

L. (2004). Supervisor referrals to work-family pro-

grams. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

9, 136151.

Christensen, P. (1999). Toward a comprehensive

work/life strategy. In S. Parasuraman & J. Green-

haus (Eds.), Work and family: Challenges and

choices for a changing world (2nd ed., pp. 2537).

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Does the justice of the one inter-

act with the justice of the many? Reactions to pro-

cedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 89, 633646.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C.

O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millen-

nium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organi-

zational justice research. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 86, 425445.

Cree, L. H. (1998). Work/family balance of telecom-

muters. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cali-

fornia School of Professional Psychology, San

Diego, CA.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative

and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Cunningham, K. (2001). Father time: Flexible work

arrangements and the law firms failure of the fam-

ily. Stanford Law Review, 53, 967.

De Paulo, B. (2006). Singled out. New York: St. Mar-

tins Press.

Eaton, S. (2003). If you can use them: Flexibility poli-

cies, organizational commitment and perceived

performance. Industrial Relations, 42, 145167.

Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., &

Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in

IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the litera-

ture (19802002). Journal of Vocational Behavior,

66, 124197.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C.,Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived

supervisor support: Contributions to perceived

organizational employment, and annual payroll by

employment size of the enterprise for the support

and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 87, 565573.

European Parliament and European Council. (2002).

Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amend-

ing Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implemen-

tation of the principle of equal treatment for men

and women as regards access to employment, vo-

cational training and promotion, and working con-ditions. Retrieved July 28, 2004 from http://eu-

ropa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/search/search_lif.html

Gasorek, D. (2000). Inclusion at Dun & Bradstreet:

Building a high-performing company. The Diversity

Factor, pp. 2529.

Golden, L. (2001). Flexible work schedules: What are

we trading off to get them? Monthly labor review,

March. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Grandey, A. A. (2001). Family friendly policies: Organi-

zational justice perceptions of need-based alloca-

tions. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the work-

place: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 145174).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grover, S. (1991). Predicting the perceived fairness of

parental leave policies. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 76, 247255.

Harris, D. (1997, September). The fairness furor: Child-

less workers complain that work-family benefits

are unfair and discriminatory. Whats behind this

backlash? Working Mother, pp. 2832.



15/17


Herst, D. E. L., & Allen, T. D. (2001). Coworker reac-

tions when women take maternity leave. Pre-

sented at the annual conference of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San

Diego, CA.

Hill, E. J., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., & Colihan, J.

(1998). Influences of the virtual office on aspects of

work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology,51, 667683.

Holcomb, B. (2001). Friendly for whose family? In A.

Leckey (Ed.), The best business stories of the year:

2001 edition (pp. 327335). New York: Pantheon

Books.

Hopkins, K. (2005). Supervisor support and work-life

integration: A social identity perspective. In E. E.

Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life inte-

gration: Organizational, cultural and individual per-

spectives (pp. 445468). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Hui, C. H., Triandis, H. C., & Yee, C. (1991). Cultural dif-ferences in reward allocation: Is collectivism the

explanation? British Journal of Social Psychology,

30, 145157.

Ingram, P., & Simons, T. (1995). Institutional and

resource dependence determinants of responsive-

ness to work-family issues. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 38, 14661482.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work val-

ues on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 77, 261271.

Kochan, T., Bezruhova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi,

A., Jehn, K., et al. (2003). The effects of diversity on

business performance: report of the diversity re-

search network. Human Resource Management,

42, 321.

Konrad, A., & Mangel, R. (2000). The impact of work-

life programs on firm productivity. Strategic Man-

agement Journal, 21, 12251237.

Kossek, E. E. (1989). The acceptance of human re-

source innovation by multiple constituencies. Per-

sonnel Psychology, 42, 263281.

Kossek, E. E., Barber, A., & Winters, D. (1999). Using

flexible schedules in the managerial world: The

power of peers. Human Resource Management

Journal, 38, 3346.

Kossek, E. E., & Friede, A. (2006). The business case:

Managerial perspectives on work and the family.

In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweet

(Eds.), The work and family handbook: Multi-disci-

plinary perspectives, methods, and approaches

(pp. 611626). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Kossek, E. E., & Lambert, S. J. (2005). Work and life

integration: Organizational, cultural and individual

perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kossek, E. E., & Nichol, V. (1992). The effects of

employer-sponsored child care on employee atti-

tudes and performance. Personnel Psychology, 45,

485509.

Kossek, E. E., Noe, R. A., & DeMarr, B. (1999). Work-

family role synthesis: Individual, family and orga-

nizational determinants. International Journal of

Conflict Resolution, 10, 102129.

Kropf, M. (1999). A research perspective on work-

family issues. In S. Parasuraman & J. Greenhaus

(Eds.), Work and family: Challenges and choices for

a changing world (2nd ed., pp. 6976). Westport,

CT: Praeger.

Lambert, S. J., & Waxman, E. (2005). Organizational

stratification: Distributing opportunities for balanc-

ing work and life. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert

(Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational,cultural and individual perspectives (pp. 103126).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lee, M. D., MacDermid, S., & Buck, M. (2000). Organi-

zational paradigms of reduced-load work: Accom-

modation, elaboration, and transformation. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 43, 12111226.

Lee, M. D., MacDermid, S. M., Williams, M. L., Buck,

M. L., & Leiba-OSullivan, S. (2002). Contextual fac-

tors in the success of reduced-load work arrange-

ments among managers and professionals.

Human Resource Management, 41, 209223.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relation-ships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson

(Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology

(pp. 211240). Morristown, NJ: General Learning

Press.

Lirio, P., Lee, M., Williams, M., Haugen, L., & Kossek,

E. E. (2004). The managers role in supporting new

ways of working: Perspectives from managers and

their reduced-load employees. Paper presented at

annual meetings of the Academy of Management,

New Orleans, LA.

Loscocco, K. A. (1997). Work-family linkages among

self-employed women and men. Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 50, 204226.

Lyness, K., Judiesch, M., Thompson, C., & Beauvais, L.

(2001). The influence of work-family culture, bene-

fits, and perceived organizational characteristics on

turnover intentions. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the Academy of Management, Wash-

ington, DC.

Mor Barak, M. E. (2005). Managing diversity: Toward a



16/17


globally inclusive workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Nord, W., & Tucker, S. (1987). Implementing routine

and radical innovations. New York: Lexington.

ODriscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath,

T., Allen, T. D., Cooper, C. L., et al. (2003). Family-re-

sponsive interventions, perceived organizational

and supervisor support, work-family conflict, and

psychological strain. International Journal of

Stress Management, 10, 326344.

Parker, L., & Allen, T. D. (2001). Work/family benefits:

Variables related to employees fairness percep-

tions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 453468.

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K.R. (1999). Ex-

ploring the black box: An analysis of work group

diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 44, 128.

Powell, G. (1999). The sex differences in employee in-

clinations regarding work-family programs: Why

does it exist, should we care, and what should be

done about it (if anything)? In S. Parasuraman & J.

Greenhaus (Eds.), Work and family: Challenges and

choices for a changing world (2nd ed., pp.

167176). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Ralston, J. (2002, June/July). The state of maternity

leave. Parenting, pp. 123129.

Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J., & Pruitt, B. (2002).

Beyond work-family balance: Advancing gender

equity and workplace performance. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass.

Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1989). The transitivity

of work values: Hierarchical preference ordering of

socially desirable stimuli. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 44, 494508.

Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strat-

egy, and firm performance: A resource-based view.

Academy of Management Journal, 43, 164177.

Richard, O. C., McMillan, A., Chadwick, K., & Dwyer, S.

(2003). Employing an innovation strategy in

racially diverse workforces. Group and Organiza-

tion Management, 28, 107126.

Roberson, Q. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of

diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group and

Organization Management, 31, 212236.

Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communica-

tion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rothausen, T. J. (1994). Job satisfaction and the parent

worker: The role of flexibility and rewards. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 44, 317336.

Rothausen, T., Clarke, N., Gonzalez, J., & ODell, L.

(1998). Family-friendly backlash fact or fiction? The

case of organizations on site child care centers.

Personnel Psychology, 51, 685706.

Rynes, S. L., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Recruitment re-

search in the twenty-first century. In W. C. Bor-

man, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Hand-

book of psychology: Industrial and organizational

psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 5576). Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley.

Sacco, J. M. & Schmitt, N. (2005). A Dynamic Multi-

level Model of Demographic Diversity and Misfit

Effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,

203231.

Shellenbarger, S. (1997, September 17). Sought-after

workers now have the clout to demand flexibility.

Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

Shellenbarger, S. (1999). Work and family: Essays

from the Work and Family column of the Wall

Street Journal. New York: Ballantine.

Sutton, K. L., & Noe, R. A. (2005). Family friendly pro-

grams and work-life integration: More myth than

magic? In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work

and life integration: Organizational, cultural and in-

dividual perspectives (pp. 151170). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. D. (1996, SeptemberOcto-

ber). Marking differences matter: A new paradigm

for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review,

pp. 7990.

Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why work and

family conflict and what to do about it. New York:

Oxford.



17/17

Wlb Barrier Elly

Documents

Transcript of Wlb Barrier Elly