Reducing the Public/Private Split By Fulfilling the Needs
Of Employees Through the Use of Cafeteria-Style Policies
Erica Larson
Sociology 338
Dr. Markowitz
December 1, 2000
Reducing the Public/Private Split by Fulfilling the Needs Of Employees
Through the Use of Cafeteria-Style Policies
As more women enter the workforce
the needs for family-friendly policies have increased. This increased
participation in the workforce may cause a considerable amount of conflict
between the family and work. The concept of the public/private split along
with the theory proposed by Abraham Maslow may be able to describe why
this conflict arises and explain how to solve the conflict. By studying
these concepts, one may be able to propose solutions that would decrease
the public/private split and form policies that would provide the employee
with the necessary environment to achieve the highest level of the hierarchy
of needs; self-actualization.
One might ask how
increased participation in the workforce could cause an increase in the
conflict between family and work. The answer is simple.
Family-work conflict results when a person has trouble juggling their roles
at work and their roles in the home (Galinsky, Bond, and Friedman, 1996;Glass
and Estes, 1997). Both partners are away from the home for equal
amounts of time, yet the amount of work in the home has not decreased.
Instead of one person completing the work in the home, housework and caring
for the children now has to be completed by both partners. This may
be hard to do when working full time.
The amount of work completed
in the home increases when children are added to the situation. Parents
spend more time doing housework than those without children (Galinsky et
al., 1996). This makes sense, especially for those parents responsible
for young children. Parents spend a lot of time cleaning up after
children. There is an increase in the amount of laundry to be washed
and the amount of food to be prepared. Parents also have to spend
a lot of time running kids to their doctor appointments and after-school
activities. Parents with younger children have to spend a great deal
of time feeding and bathing their children. Not only do parents experience
more family-work conflict, they also experience more marital dissatisfaction,
more stress, and less successful coping than those without kids, all which
could contribute to the family-work conflict (Galinsky et al., 1996).
The addition of children may put added pressure on the marriage as well
as the couple because their responsibilities have increased greatly.
Not only do parents experience the pressures of work, they also have to
experience the added pressure to maintain a decent environment for their
children. This increased amount of pressure can explain the marital
dissatisfaction and the stress experienced by parents.
The family-work conflict
often results from long hours at work, little flexibility or autonomy within
one’s job, and/or an unsupportive work environment (Glass and Estes, 1997).
The family-work conflict is also a problem for the employer because these
conditions can often lead to absenteeism, loss of productivity, and increased
turnover, which may result in the loss of job or pay (Glass and Estes,
1997). If an employee is expected to work long hours, they are being
denied time that could be spent with their families. If a worker
has little or no freedom within his schedule or job, it is harder for them
to fulfill the duties involved in parenting. The worker will not
be able to take their children to their doctor appointments or after-school
activities. This could lead to absenteeism, low production, and increased
turnover because if the worker is unable to fulfill family duties, they
will start behaving in ways that will allow them to fulfill these duties.
Not only is the family-work
conflict a problem for the family, it is also a problem for the employer
as well. The logical step would be to install policies that decrease
the amount of family-work conflict. The decrease in family-work conflict
would be beneficial to both employees and employers. Employees would
have the opportunity to work productively while still fulfilling family
obligations and employers would not loose employees or money due to the
increased productivity and decreased turnover.
To make matters difficult,
not every family has the same needs. Every family goes through stages
that require different needs at different points in their life (Glass and
Estes, 1997). Some employees may need help with childcare while older
employees may need help caring for their aging parents. Since every
family has different needs, employers have to be aware of this fact and
try to develop a policy that would be sensitive to everyone’s needs.
Another problem is that some policies may only be applied on an individual
level (Glass and Estes, 1997). Employees often use flextime on an
individual basis; however, many times the policy is not extended to all
employees. Every employee should have equal access to all policies
offered to employees. When employees are not aware of the policies
offered by their employer, the policies remain useless because no one uses
them (Hertz, 1999).
What is the underlying cause
of this family-work conflict? What causes this inability to juggle
to multiple roles? The answer is the public/private split.
Since the beginning of time, women have participated in work. If
the women were not completing in work outside the home, they were completing
work inside the home such as selling goods or taking in borders (Bose,
1987). Since a lot of the work women did was completed inside the
home, the public did not acknowledge their work (Bose, 1987). The
public/private split introduced the stereotype that all women stay at home
and take care of the household and the children while all men are the breadwinners
and go to work every day. This allowed businesses to treat their
workers as if they had no obligations (especially family obligations) outside
of the workplace since someone was already taking care of the household
and the family (Bose, 1987). Now that we have many families with
both partners participating in the workforce, the idea of public/private
split should be discarded. The problem is that many employees still
feel the pressure to complete their job as if they had no outside (family)
obligations, which may have worked when only one partner was working.
When both partners are working, the household duties have to be shared.
Now that one can see the
causes of the family-work conflict, it is necessary to look at how Maslow’s
hierarchical need satisfaction theory can explain why the conflict occurs
and how the conflict can be resolved. Maslow’s theory is based on
a hierarchy of needs that must be met in order to reach self-actualization,
the highest need. At the bottom of the hierarchy are the physiological
needs such as food and water. The second level of needs are the needs
for safety and security (both physically and emotionally). The third
level consists of the needs of belongingness and acceptance within friends,
peers, and coworkers. The fourth level needs are those needs that
are considered esteem needs such as recognition, attention and appreciation
form relationships and work. The last and final level is the need
for self-actualization; the need to reach one’s fullest potential.
Maslow’s theory is a hierarchy, meaning that one has to have met the needs
of the lower levels to move to the next level (Hodson and Sullivan, 1995).
How does this theory
relate to the concept of the family-work conflict? The conflict results
from the jobs failure to allow the employee to meet his or her needs.
If an employee is experiencing tension in the home because their employer
expects them to put work before the family, the employee is being denied
his or her needs for belongingness and acceptance. If a job does
not meet a level of needs, the employee may experience some conflict between
work and the home.
A job may not meet the basic
physiological needs. The job may pay poorly and the employee may
not have enough money to buy food or pay the rent. Even if the job
pays well it may still not meet the need for safety and security.
The job could pay enough to meet the first level of needs, however if it
still pays low, the employee may have to live in an unsafe neighborhood
where the rent is cheaper. If an employee works in an unstable business,
he or she may not be guaranteed job security, which is an important factor
of the family-work conflict (Galinsky et al. 1996).
Job security not only decreased
family-work conflict, it also lowered stress and improved coping for the
employee (Galinsky et al., 1996). If an employee knows their job
is secure then they do not have to worry about being unable to pay bills
and buy food thus lowering stress and conflict.
When employees have family
obligations, coworkers and supervisors may not be very accepting and when
a parent or partner has to fulfill a work obligation, the family may not
be very accepting. The coworkers and supervisors could become irritated
with the employee and it could affect the employee greatly. If the
employee feels they are not being appreciated at the office or at home,
or if they feel out of the loop at work, they will experience a loss of
the essential needs of acceptance and belongingness. This aspect
of the family-work conflict could cause the employee to be unhappy in the
work place and/or the home, which could influence marital satisfaction
and family dynamics as well as problems at work such as low productivity
and increased absenteeism (Glass and Estes, 1997).
The need for appreciation,
recognition, and attention from relationships and work can cause the same
problems as the need for acceptance and belongingness. If an employee
is feeling under appreciated at the office, they may react the same way
as above. The employee could retaliate by missing work, slowing down
at work, or quitting work all together. If an employee is not getting
the recognition or the attention they feel they deserve, they are probably
not going to stick around much longer.
As for the need for self-actualization,
if an employee has had a hard time reaching their full potential, they
may look elsewhere to reach that final level. Businesses should want
to offer their employees the most freedom and job autonomy possible.
The more job autonomy and freedom an employee is given, the more likely
they will reach self-actualization because they are given more room to
expand and grow as a worker. An employee who experiences more job
autonomy and freedom experience less stress and family-work conflict (Galinsky
et al., 1996). The decrease in stress and conflict may very well
allow for a worker to reach their full potential. If an employee is able
to reach their full potential with a business, they more likely will stay
employed at that business.
It is a smart idea for businesses to offer lucrative policies to their
employees because the policies designed to decrease the public/private
split will not only reduce family-work conflict, they will also allow for
one to reach his or her fullest potential, or self-actualization.
If an employee has a chance of reaching self-actualization, they are likely
to stay with the business, which is beneficial to the business.
Since employees are diverse
and have different needs at different points in their life, a cafeteria-style
system is the best solution (Glass and Estes, 1997). This allows
for employees to pick and choose the policies that would be most beneficial
to them. Not only do parents benefit from the policies offered, but
non-parents can benefit too.
There has been research done on the many concerns of employees and
it was found there were seven issues that employees were concerned about
(Galinsky and Stein, 1990). These seven issues are childcare, eldercare,
amount of time at work and work schedules, job autonomy, relationship with
supervisor, leaves, and work environment (Galinsky and Stein, 1990).
Although childcare only relates to parents, the other six issues could
relate to any worker. These issues are fairly diverse and could be
used by other businesses, however, if the business wanted to look at the
issues their employees are most concerned with they could have the employees
fill out a questionnaire.
Childcare has been a hot
topic because of the increase of dual-earner families. When both
partners are working outside of the home, it decreased the amount of time
spent in the home with children. Children need full-time care when
they are too young to attend school and part-time care when they do attend
school. Although most employees are not interested in on-site daycare
specifically, they are interested in receiving help with child care, whether
it be referrals to care centers, help locating centers, or deduction of
salary in order to pay for childcare (Galinsky and Stein, 1990).
The universities of Berkeley and MIT along with a corporation called Merck
help their employees locate childcare and Bell Labs provides their employees
with care from an outside agency (Galinsky and Stein, 1990). Johnson
& Johnson and Stanford provide their employees with childcare when
their children are sick (Galinsky and Stein, 1990). This allows the
parent to continue working without having to take the day off and lose
pay. Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Harvard, University of Texas at Austin,
Johnson & Johnson, and AT&T allow their employees to reduce their
salaries in order to help pay for childcare (Galinsky and Stein, 1990).
Although childcare is only relevant to parents, the issue of eldercare
is important to all, especially with the aging of the baby boomers.
Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and IBM all have policies involving eldercare
(Galinsky and Stein, 1990).
Flextime and job autonomy
is important to all employees (Galinsky and Stein, 1990). Flextime
has been shown to increase productivity and decrease absenteeism and turnover
as well as to lower stress (Glass and Estes, 1997; Galinsky et al., 1996).
Job autonomy is an important issue because job autonomy has been shown
to decrease stress and experience less conflict (Galinsky et al., 1996).
If an employer has more freedom over his work schedule, he or she is likely
to be more productive since there is less conflict and stress to distract
his or her attention. For those with family, having the option of
part-time work with benefits is great. Stanford, MIT, Harvard, and
University of Texas all offer part-time work with benefits to their employees
(Galinsky and Stein, 1990).
Having a supportive and
sensitive supervisor was important to employees also (Galinsky and Stein,
1990). If an employee feels that their supervisor is understanding
about outside obligations the employee may be more happy with their work
environment. Supervisors should be trained on how to work with employees
and the problems that may arise (Galinsky et al., 1996; Galinsky, Hughes,
and David, 1990). If the supervisor is trained well, he or she will
be able to help their employees more efficiently.
Leave policy is important
to many people not just parents. People have to take leaves when
a parent becomes ill, when they become ill, or when they have children.
It is important that businesses offer their employees leave options because
the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) does not apply to all employees (Galinsky
et al., 1996). The FMLA only covers those employees that are employed
over twenty hours a week, at a firm with more than 50 workers, and has
worked there for at least a year (Galinsky, et al., 1996). More than
50 percent of employees are ineligible for the FMLA (Galinsky et al., 1996).
Since there are many employees not covered by the FMLA, there is a great
need for more leave benefits for employees.
The policies mentioned
above are great policies, and there is plenty more that could be discussed.
However, these policies are useless unless the culture of the workplace
is changed (Galinsky et al., 1990). If the employees do not feel
comfortable taking advantage of the policies offered by the business because
the culture of the business does not approve of employees taking advantage
of the policies, those policies are never going to be used (Galinsky et
al., 1990). Employees may not be aware of the policies offered to
them, so it is important that the policies are well known, possible stated
in a handbook (Galinsky et al., 1990).
If the employees are
given the use of policies that reduce the family-work conflict, they are
more likely to meet their needs through work. If the workplace fulfills
their physiological and safety needs by paying well while fulfilling their
needs of acceptance and recognition by giving them the freedom and autonomy
accompanied with such policies as flextime and part-time work, the employee
is likely to be more productive which is advantageous to the employer because
the productiveness of the employee will increase profit.
Bibliography
Bose, Christine. 1987. “ Dual Spheres.” In Analyzing
Gender, eds. Beth B. Hess and Myra
Marx Ferre, 267-285. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Galinsky, Ellen; Hughes, Diane; David, Judy. 1990. “Trends
in Corporate Family-Supportive
Policies.” Marriage and Family Review 15: 75-94.
Galinsky, Ellen and Stein, Peter. 1990. “The Impact of Human
Resource Policies on
Employees.” Journal of Family Issues 11: 368-383.
Galinsky, Ellen; Bond, James; and Friedman, Dana. 1996.
“The Role of Employers in
Addressing the Needs of Employed Parents.” Journal of Social
Issues 52: 111-136.
Glass, Jennifer and Estes, Sarah Beth. 1997. “The Family
Responsive Workplace.” Annual
Review of Sociology 23: 289-313.
Hertz, Rosanna. 1999. “Working to Place Family at the Center
of Life: Dual-Earner and
Single-Parent Strategies.” Annuals of the American Academy of
Political and Social
Science 562: 16-31.
Hodson, Randy and Sullivan, Teresa. 1995. The Social Organization
Of Work. California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.