Socioeconomic Context

The need to reconcile work and home demands has become progressively more salient due to de-industrialization, modernization, and subsequent changes in the nature of work. At the end of the twentieth century, the changing nature of work from physically demanding industrial jobs to service-oriented work created opportunities for women to engage in paid employment (Crompton & Lyonette, Reference Crompton and Lyonette2006). Gender differences in labor force participation have greatly diminished across Europe (Oláh, Reference Oláh2015), and the resulting participation of both genders in paid work introduces new challenges at both the individual and societal level. Across Europe, de-industrialization has been met with declining fertility rates since the 1970s (Myrskylä, Kohler, & Billari, Reference Myrskylä, Kohler and Billari2009), with rates in Western Europe hovering below the necessary level for population replacement, and rates in Southern Europe remaining well below replacement level (Oláh, Reference Oláh2015). As fertility rates and women’s employment rate serve as indicators of the effectiveness of work–family supports, low birth rates reported in these regions may be indicative of women’s inability to manage work and family in a satisfactory manner (Kuchařová, Reference Kuchařová2009).

The role of the European Union (EU). Declining fertility rates are only one of the notable societal consequences posited to follow from struggles with work–family management. Other consequences include gender inequality, suboptimal productivity, and population aging (Drobnič & Guillén Rodríguez, Reference Drobnič and Guillén Rodríguez2011). As such, policy makers have prioritized the facilitation of work–family management throughout the EU, of which many Western and Southern European countries are member states. In the early 1900s, the EU began introducing directives aimed at facilitating work–life management by providing paid maternal leave, including the Pregnant Workers Directive (CEC, 1992), which ensures fourteen weeks of maternity leave for working mothers. Since then, the EU has implemented the Working Time Directive to limit the number of hours an employee can spend working per day and per week (EU, 2003), and the Parental Leave Directive, which provides three months of maternal and paternal leave for births or adoptions (CEC, 1996). More recently, the European Commission (2015, 2016) has launched consultations with organizations across Europe to understand better the factors facilitating and hindering work–family management.

Although EU-level policies attempt to promote work–family management, the relationship between the enactment of these policies and the public’s experience of work–family issues can be complex. One issue is that these policies often inadvertently promote traditional gender roles, with their basis in normative assumptions about the appropriate duties for men and women (Kuchařová, Reference Kuchařová2009; Lewis, Reference Lewis2001). These policies can impact cultural norms about the ideal way to reconcile work and non-work demands, subsequently impeding working parents’ choices in regards to reconciliation efforts (Hobson, Reference Hobson2011; Lewis, Reference Lewis2001). Many family friendly policies were developed to facilitate women’s participation in paid work in a manner similar to men. As such, women are more likely than men to be targeted as beneficiaries of these policies, further reinforcing gendered divisions of paid and unpaid labor (Aybars, Reference Aybars2007). Policies intended to increase employment opportunities for women, such as state-funded childcare and work hour limits, do little to change societal norms about the division of unpaid labor (Ciccia & Bleijenbergh, Reference Ciccia and Bleijenbergh2014). As a result, many of these policies may inadvertently be perpetuating the gendered division of labor.

Additional issues with EU-level policies are that they may not invariably reduce work- family tension, and may have differential impacts on employees depending on the cultural and political characteristics of a given country (Haas, Reference Haas2003; Haas, Hwang, & Russell, Reference Haas, Hwang and Russell2000). For example, while the French government provides high levels of support for reconciling work and family, French working mothers reported higher levels of work–family conflict than mothers in Western European countries with lesser state-provided supports, such as Great Britain or Italy (Gallie & Russell, Reference Gallie and Russell2009). Thus, more state provisions may not equate to reduced work–family issues. Further, although the majority of working parents across surveyed countries in Western (i.e., Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands) and Southern (i.e., Greece, Portugal, Spain) Europe report the desire to reduce their working hours, the preferred amount of working hours varies widely across countries (Lewis, Campbell, & Huerta, Reference Lewis, Campbell and Huerta2008). This country-based variation suggests that EU-level provisions – like those limiting working hours – may not facilitate work–family management equally for employees across member states.

To supplement blanket policies enacted by the EU, organizations may implement their own practices to reduce work–family issues in ways that meet their employees’ needs. However, organization-based work–family initiatives remain marginalized, with most organizations merely complying with governmentally set minimum standards (Kossek, Lewis, & Hammer, Reference Kossek, Lewis and Hammer2010). The adequacy of existing legislation, such as that implemented by the EU, was frequently cited by organizations as a reason for a lack of supplementary work–family policies (BMFSF, 2010). Yet, a study showing that work characteristics play a larger role in work-home tension than home characteristics (Drobnič & Guillén Rodríguez, Reference Drobnič and Guillén Rodríguez2011) highlights the importance of organizational determinants of work–family issues and the organization’s responsibility to facilitate work–family management.

Institutional context. Determining which policies and practices will best promote work–family management can be challenging. There is considerable variation in the prevalence of work–family constructs as well as predictors of these constructs across countries (Dragano, Siegrist, & Wahrendorf, Reference Dragano, Siegrist and Wahrendorf2011; Niedhammer, Sultan-Taïeb, Chastang, Vermeylen, Parent-Thirion, Reference Niedhammer, Sultan-Taïeb, Chastang, Vermeylen and Parent-Thirion2012). To understand these variations across countries in Western and Southern Europe, one must understand the institutional context within which countries develop cultural norms and preferences impacting employee perceptions of work–family constructs. Two popular typologies used to classify countries based on institutional context are Esping-Anderesen’s (Reference 264Esping-Andersen1990, Reference Esping-Andersen1999) and Ferrera’s (Reference Ferrera1996) welfare state typologies. Countries in Western Europe are often classified as one of two types of welfare state – liberal (also referred to as Anglo-Saxon) or conservative (also referred to as continental, corporatist, or Bismarckian). Countries belonging to the liberal regime – including England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland – maintain that the state should have limited involvement in its citizens’ private lives. These countries provide little state support, leaving families to develop their own practices for reconciling paid and unpaid work (Lunau, Bambra, Eikemo, van der Wel, & Dragano, Reference Lunau, Bambra, Eikemo, van der Wel and Dragano2014). One way in which parents make their own arrangements in liberal welfare states is by coordinating schedules. For example, British mothers reported the highest levels of part-time work among working mothers across Europe (Crompton & Lyonette, Reference Crompton and Lyonette2006). European women in liberal welfare states reported more favorable work–life balance than women in conservative welfare states and those in Southern Europe, a finding potentially fueled by the availability of part-time work (Lunau et al., Reference Lunau, Bambra, Eikemo, van der Wel and Dragano2014). However, although parents in liberal welfare states like Britain often split unpaid labor in a more egalitarian way, long work hours and little state support are thought to be two primary obstacles to work–family management (Crompton & Lyonette, Reference Crompton and Lyonette2006).

Policies implemented in conservative countries – including France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands – are often rooted in the values espoused by the Catholic Church and are intended to maintain existing societal patterns, promoting the traditional family and division of domestic labor. Despite many of these countries providing high levels of public support for families, the structure of benefits and taxes further promotes the male breadwinner model (Harknett et al., Reference Harknett, Billari and Medalia2014). For example, although French women benefit indirectly from state-provided supports, these supports are intended to be pro-birth and are not connected to a pro-equality agenda (Jenson, Reference Jenson1989; Crompton & Lyonette, Reference Crompton and Lyonette2006). Consequently, despite extensive state-provided support, entrenched traditional views on the division of domestic labor leave women in France experiencing more work–family conflict than women in other European countries (Crompton & Lyonette, Reference Crompton and Lyonette2006).

In Southern Europe, the majority of countries – including Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, and Malta – are classified as familistic (also called Mediterranean) welfare states. Countries in the familistic welfare state regime believe in the centrality of family. The heavy emphasis on family discourages policy makers from implementing family-friendly policies, with family members typically providing care in lieu of state-provided aid. In these countries, women are viewed as caretakers and are often responsible for caring for dependent family members (Drobnič & Guillén Rodríguez, Reference Drobnič and Guillén Rodríguez2011). Employees in Portugal reported more traditional views on division of domestic labor than employees in countries in Western Europe (Crompton & Lyonette, Reference Crompton and Lyonette2006), reflecting deeply entrenched ideas about the women’s role. Minimal public provision is coupled with little opportunity to utilize part-time work to reconcile work and non-work demands (Lunau et al., Reference Lunau, Bambra, Eikemo, van der Wel and Dragano2014), making familistic welfare states inhospitable to women’s employment (Crompton & Lyonette, Reference Crompton and Lyonette2006), such that fewer mothers reported working in Spain and Italy compared to mothers in non-familistic countries (e.g., Finland and the UK, Drobnič & Guillén Rodríguez, Reference Drobnič and Guillén Rodríguez2011). Southern European employees also report less favorable work–life balance than employees in Western Europe (Lunau et al., Reference Lunau, Bambra, Eikemo, van der Wel and Dragano2014). These findings reflect the severity of work–family reconciliation issues in Southern Europe, especially for women and mothers.

Cultural values. The differing policies enacted across the region’s distinct welfare states reflect its diverse cultural values. Differences in values and practices among societies have been defined by the cultural dimensions established in the GLOBE program of research (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, Gupta, Reference House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta2004). Societal clustering based on these dimensions suggests that up to four cultural clusters exist in the region: Anglo (e.g., England, Ireland), Germanic Europe (e.g., Austria, Germany, the Netherlands), Latin Europe (e.g., France, Portugal, Spain, Italy), and Eastern Europe (e.g., Greece).

Anglo countries are often competitive and results-oriented, with little formal intrusion in terms of rules (Gupta, Hanges, & Dorfman, Reference Gupta, Hanges and Dorfman2002). In these countries, a strong performance-orientation, little uncertainty avoidance, and an emphasis on merit-based rewards fosters competition. High gender egalitarianism and low institutional collectivism align with the institutional context of these countries, where governments do little to intervene in familial affairs. While countries in the Germanic Europe cluster are also described as competitive (i.e., assertive, individualistic, and results-oriented), they differ from Anglo countries in that countries in the Germanic European cluster tend to value future-orientation and practice uncertainty avoidance (Szabo, Brodbeck, Den Hartog, Reber, Weibler, & Wunderer, Reference Szabo, Brodbeck, Den Hartog, Reber, Weibler and Wunderer2002). Germanic European countries also tend to be lower in gender egalitarianism, aligning with the policies enacted in these countries that support the traditional family.

In contrast to the aforementioned clusters, countries in the Latin European cluster value both in-group and institutional collectivism and only put moderate emphasis on performance. Practices in these countries are defined by high power distance and low gender egalitarianism, reflecting the presence of Catholicism in the region (Jesuino, Reference Jesuino2002). Jesuino (Reference Jesuino2002) notes that Italy, Portugal, and Spain form a sub-cluster separate from France, which may echo the differences in welfare state regimes (i.e., France being a conservative country and the others being familistic countries). While Greece shares this familistic welfare state, it has been included in the Eastern Europe cluster based on cultural values; a cluster defined by group support and gender equality. However, Greece’s reigning values seem to depart from the values of the other countries in this cluster. In fact, some interpretations of the values defining this cluster seem to adequately explain findings only when excluding Greece (Bakacsi, Sándor, András, & Viktor, Reference Bakacsi, Sandor, Andras and Viktor2002).

Overview of Work–Family Research in Western and Southern Europe

Key researchers and contributions. With the widespread decline of the male breadwinner model across Europe, work–family issues became a prominent focus for both policy makers and researchers in the 1990s. EU initiatives attracted scholarly attention, with resultant research focusing on the relationship between these policies and work-related outcomes. Specifically, a body of work developed examining how the enactment of policies developed to aid work–family reconciliation impacts parental employment (e.g., Bruning & Plantenga, Reference Bruning and Plantenga1999). Gornick, Meyers, and Ross (Reference Gornick, Meyers and Ross1997, Reference Gornick, Meyers and Ross1998) investigated international differences in policy and the impact of these differences on maternal employment in both Western and Southern Europe as well as North America and Australia. In the early 2000s, motivated by women’s increasing participation in paid labor and the changing nature of work (Geurts, Rutte, & Peeters, Reference Geurts, Rutte and Peeters1999), research programs in the Netherlands began investigating antecedents and consequences of incompatible work and non-work demands. This early research led by scholars from the Netherlands (e.g., Bakker & Geurts, Reference Bakker and Geurts2004; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli2001; Geurts, Taris, Kompier, Dikkers, Van Hooff, & Kinnunen, Reference Geurts, Taris, Kompier, Dikkers, Van Hooff and Kinnunen2005; Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, Reference Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, Jackson, Maslach, Jackson and Leiter1996) established models and measures that have influenced work–family research for over a decade.

Alongside others, Netherlands-based researchers continue to advance work–family scholarship today. More recently, researchers from the Netherlands have collaborated with Spanish scholars to further develop work–family research in Southern Europe (e.g., Del Líbano, Llorens, Salanova, & Schaufeli, Reference Del Líbano, Llorens, Salanova and Schaufeli2012; Moreno-Jiménez, Mayo, Sanz-Vergel, Guerts, Rodríguez-Muñoz, & Garrosa, Reference Moreno-Jiménez, Mayo, Sanz-Vergel, Geurts, Rodríguez-Muñoz and Garrosa2009). In Belgium, faculty from Ghent University are examining the relationship between work–family conflict and absenteeism (Clays, Kittel, Godin, De Bacquer, & De Backer, Reference Clays, Kittel, Godin, De Bacquer and De Backer2009), introducing new concepts like specific stress associated with the role of combining work and non-work demands (Vercruyssen & Van de Putte, Reference Vercruyssen and Van de Putte2013), conducting longitudinal studies on work-home incompatibility (Wille, De Fruyt, & Fey, Reference Wille, De Fruyt and Feys2013), and considering the role of work–family conflict in non-response bias (Vercruyssen, Roose, & Van de Putte, Reference Vercruyssen, Roose and Van de Putte2011). Beham, Drobnič, and Präg (Reference Vercruyssen, Roose and Van de Putte2011, Reference Beham, Präg and Drobnič2012, Reference Beham, Drobnič and Präg2014) have explored employee satisfaction with work–family balance and tested models of both work-home interference and work-home enrichment within Germany and across Western Europe. The aforementioned works are only a few examples of the continually evolving research programs addressing work–family issues in Western and Southern Europe.

Many substantive theoretical and methodological contributions originate from the area, particularly from the Netherlands. One such theoretical contribution is the job demands–resources (JD–R) model of burnout (Demerouti et al., Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli2001), which posits that job characteristics can be categorized as either demands (i.e., job aspects requiring physical or mental effort) or resources (i.e., job aspects that facilitate work goals, reduce physical/psychological costs of work, or promote personal growth). The model suggests that (1) high job demands lead to exhaustion, (2) a lack of job-related resources leads to withdrawal, and (3) the presence of these two unfavorable outcomes is an indication of burnout. Today, the JD-R model is a widely accepted and utilized framework for understanding job stress, often used to explore the relationship between job demands, job resources, and work–family constructs (e.g., Bakker, ten Brummelhuis, Prins, & van der Heijden, Reference Bakker, ten Brummelhuis, Prins and van der Heijden2011; Beham & Drobnič, Reference Beham and Drobnič2010) and continually being refined (Schaufeli & Bakker, Reference Schaufeli and Bakker2004; Demerouti & Bakker, Reference Demerouti and Bakker2011; Schaufeli & Taris, Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämming2014).

Authors involved in developing the JD–R model explored additional models related to the relationship between work and non-work demands, proposing a dual-process model of work-home interference (Bakker & Geurts, Reference Bakker and Geurts2004). Bakker and Geurts built upon the demands and resources aspects of the JD–R to propose that increased job demands lead to exhaustion, which leads to negative work-home interference. The presence of job resources, on the other hand, leads to increased motivation, resulting in a positive impact of work on home behavior. This dual-process model incorporated the Dutch developed effort–recovery (E–R) model (Meijman & Mulder, Reference Meijman and Mulder1998), suggesting a lack of recovery is the mechanism underlying the demands-exhaustion relationship. The continual development and integration of theories developed in the area demonstrates a dedication to improving understanding of evolving issues regarding work–family management.

The Netherlands also contributed a measure of both the direction and quality of work-home interaction known as the Survey Work-home Interaction – NijmeGen (SWING; Geurts et al., Reference Geurts, Taris, Kompier, Dikkers, Van Hooff and Kinnunen2005). Prior to the SWING, most research focused on the detrimental impact of work demands on non-work domains. However, Geurts and colleagues (Reference Geurts, Taris, Kompier, Dikkers, Van Hooff and Kinnunen2005) were interested in developing a measure to assess the potential energizing effects that work could have on non-work aspects of life and vice versa. Recognizing the potentially beneficial and detrimental impact of work-home interaction, as well as the bidirectional nature of this interaction, the SWING measures positive and negative work-home interference as well as positive and negative home-work interference. The SWING has been used by work–family researchers to study the different directions and quality of work-home interactions across Europe (e.g., Bekker, Willemse, & de Goeij, Reference Bekker, Willemse and De Goeij2010; Gracia, Silla, Pieró, Ferreira, Reference Gracia, Silla, Silla and Ferreira2007; Hetty van Emmerik & Peeters, Reference Hetty van Emmerik and Peeters2009).

Conceptualizing work–home interactions. The SWING measure defines work–home interaction as the influence (negative or positive) of load reactions in one domain on behavior in another domain (work or non-work). As such, the four subscales of the SWING measure the negative impact of work on behavior at home, the negative impact of home on behavior at work, the positive impact of work on home behavior, and the positive impact of home on work behavior. Items are worded to conceptualize “home” as a broad, non-work domain with no explicit connection to partnerships or children, making the measure appropriate for assessment of work–home interaction regardless of marital or parental status (Geurts et al., Reference Geurts, Taris, Kompier, Dikkers, Van Hooff and Kinnunen2005).

Although the SWING is a frequently used measure of work–home interaction in the region, Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian’s (Reference Netemeyer, Boles and McMurrian1996) American scales of work–family conflict and family–work conflict are often utilized by Western and Southern European researchers as well (e.g., Andres, Moelker, & Soeters, Reference Andres, Moelker and Soeters2012; Camerino, Sandri, Sartori, Conway, Campanini, & Costa, Reference Camerino, Sandri, Sartori, Conway, Campanini and Costa2010; Hornung, Glaser, Rousseau, Angerer, & Weigl, Reference Hornung, Glaser, Rouseau, Angerer and Weigl2011). However, the use of items measuring “family” as opposed to a broader conceptualization of the non-work domain prompts questions about the generalizability of findings yielded by these measures because the scales may fail to pick up load reactions related to non-work domains that employees do not perceive as family (e.g., friends, partners).

The distinct differences between the conceptualization of non-work domains in Geurts and colleagues’ (Reference Geurts, Taris, Kompier, Dikkers, Van Hooff and Kinnunen2005) SWING measures and Netemeyer et al.’s (Reference Netemeyer, Boles and McMurrian1996) two scales introduce a question of construct equivalence in work–family research. Additionally, many of the comparative studies conducted in Europe utilize large, cross-national, archival data sets such as the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), the European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS), and the European Social Survey (ESS). In many of these studies, researchers construct alternative indices of work–family from various survey items, which further calls into question construct equivalence. For example, Crompton and Lyonette (Reference Crompton and Lyonette2006) utilized data collected via the ISSP (2002), where four items are used to construct a “work–life conflict” scale. These items address different directions of the work–home interaction (e.g., two items address home–work interference, two items address work–home interference), and have different emphases on the non-work domain (e.g., two items address home, two items address family). Drobnič and Guillén Rodríguez (Reference Drobnič and Guillén Rodríguez2011) use a two-item measure derived from the EQLS and a four-item measure from the ESS2 (2004), both of which address only work–home interference. These examples illustrate a lack of construct equivalence, prompting concern over whether studies using data collected via the ISSP can be directly compared to those using data collected via the EQLS or the ESS, and what the indices derived from these surveys truly represent.

Methodological trends. Several methodological trends became apparent when reviewing research conducted in these regions. One such trend is the use of samples from a single country to examine work–family issues within a given country. Although many researchers discuss the generalizability of their findings to studies conducted with samples from other countries or cultures, the majority of studies do not actually empirically compare samples from different populations (e.g., Calvo-Salguero, Martínez-de-Lecea, & del Carmen Aguilar-Luzón, Reference Calvo-Salguero, Martínez-de-Lecea and del Carmen Aguilar-Luzón2012; Cortese et al., Reference Cortese, Colombo and Ghislieri2010). Furthermore, although cross-national comparative research is limited (McGinnity & Calvert, Reference McGinnity and Calvert2009), those studies that do compare across countries often use data collected via the aforementioned international surveys.

Supported by the EU, the European Commission developed several programs of research intended to address socio economic issues directly and indirectly related to work–family issues in Europe. The Fifth Framework Programme (FPS, 1998–2002) supported the Households, Work, and Flexibility Project aimed at examining the impact of evolving forms of flexibility on the reconciliation of work and family life. Research produced within this project includes studies on the influence of working hours on work–family conflict (Cousins & Tang, Reference Cousins and Tang2004), work–home conflict perceptions (Strandh & Nordenmark, Reference Strandh and Nordenmark2006), and gender differences in conflict experiences (Van der Lippe, Jager, & Kops, Reference Van der Lippe, Jager and Kops2006). A subsequent research program, the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6; 2002–2006) supported the Economic Change, Quality of Life, and Social Cohesion (EQUALSOC) Network of Excellence. Associated research investigated the impact of working conditions and household characteristics on work–family conflict (Gallie & Russell, Reference Gallie and Russell2009), the relationship between time- and strain-based conflict on work and family demands (Steiber, Reference Steiber2009), the influence of different kinds of support on satisfaction with work–life balance (Abendroth & Den Dulk, Reference Abendroth and Den Dulk2011), and the relationship between social class and work–family conflict across Europe (McGinnity & Calvert, Reference McGinnity and Calvert2009).

Although these surveys facilitate international comparison across and beyond Western and Southern Europe, they are somewhat limited by their cross-sectional nature. Reflecting a trend in the broader work–family literature, researchers in these countries tend to utilize survey-based, cross-sectional designs with self-report response formats. A notable exception is a study by Falco and colleagues (Reference Falco, Kravina, Girardi, Dal Corso, Di Sipio and De Carlo2012), who used both self and observer (i.e., spouse) responses to assess work–family conflict. In more recent work, researchers have begun to address the limitations of cross-sectional research by employing more complex designs, such as longitudinal and daily diary methodologies (see Andres et al., Reference Andres, Moelker and Soeters2012; Derks & Bakker, Reference Derks and Bakker2014; Derks, Duin, Tims, & Bakker, Reference Derks, Duin, Tims and Bakker2015; Wille et al., Reference Wille, De Fruyt and Feys2013). This recent work features methodological advancements that can provide valuable insight into work–family issues and work–family processes, particularly as they unfold over time.

Research Findings in Western and Southern Europe

As detailed above, the evolution of the work environment and the social, political, and legal changes that accompanied this evolution spurred a great deal of research in Western and Eastern Europe. In the following sections, we review extant research from several countries in this area and highlight research trends and notable findings.

Southern Europe. In Cyprus, the majority of work–family research has focused on both directions of conflict (i.e., work–family and family–work) in relation to work outcomes and attitudes (Karatepe & Kilic, Reference Karatepe and Kilic2007, Reference Karatepe and Kilic2009; Karatepe & Uludag, Reference Karatepe and Uludag2008), finding that work–family conflict negatively relates to job satisfaction (Karatepe & Kilic, Reference Karatepe and Kilic2007; Karatepe & Uludag, Reference Karatepe and Uludag2007) and job performance (Karatepe & Kilic, Reference Karatepe and Kilic2009), and positively relates to turnover intentions (Karatepe & Kilic, Reference Karatepe and Kilic2007). Researchers have also explored demographic (e.g., gender, education, marital status, tenure, number of children, and age) factors in relation to conflict, but have found mixed results (e.g., Karatepe & Uludag, Reference Karatepe and Uludag2007; Karatepe & Kilic, Reference Karatepe and Kilic2007). However, research suggests supervisor support is a useful resource for combating work–family conflict (Karatepe & Kilic, Reference Karatepe and Kilic2007). As published research in Cyprus has focused entirely on the hotel industry, future research should examine employees in other occupations to determine whether these findings generalize to other industries.

In Greece, researchers have largely focused on organizational and individual antecedents of employee perceptions of and reactions to work–family conflict. This focus is potentially fueled by the disconnect between the changing nature of the Greek work environment and the lack of family-friendly policies and attitudes at both the organizational and national levels, which is reflective of prevailing traditional views toward women. Glaveli, Karassavidou, and Zafiropoulos (Reference Glaveli, Karassavidou and Zafiropoulos2013) found that family-supportive organizational culture and family-supportive management were negatively related to work–family conflict perceptions and family supportive management was positively related to job satisfaction. Further, quantitative job demands (i.e., work overload and work pressure) and emotional demands were positively linked to emotional exhaustion and emotional demands were positively linked to depersonalization directly and indirectly through work–family conflict perceptions (Montgomery et al., Reference Montgomery, Panagopolou and Benos2006).

Traditional conceptions of gender roles also pervade Italian society, and Italy has been slow to adopt and implement work–family reconciliation policies consistent with the EU’s gender equality directives (Donà, Reference Donà, Forest and Lombardo2012). Research in Italy has examined stereotypically female occupations, such as teachers (Guglielmi, Panara, & Simbula, Reference Guglielmi, Panari and Simbula2012; Simbula, Reference Simbula2010) and healthcare employees (Camerino et al., Reference Camerino, Sandri, Sartori, Conway, Campanini and Costa2010; Cortese et al., Reference Cortese, Colombo and Ghislieri2010; Russo & Buonocore, Reference Russo and Buonocore2012). Researchers have also linked work–family conflict to job satisfaction (Buonocore & Russo, Reference Buonocore and Russo2013; Cortese et al., Reference Cortese, Colombo and Ghislieri2010), mental fatigue (Guglielimi et al., Reference Guglielmi, Panari and Simbula2012), emotional exhaustion (Camerino et al., Reference Camerino, Sandri, Sartori, Conway, Campanini and Costa2010; Simbula, Reference Simbula2010), as well as sleep and presenteeism (Camerino et al., Reference Camerino, Sandri, Sartori, Conway, Campanini and Costa2010). Additionally, researchers have explored resources leading to work–family enrichment, such as various types of support (i.e., supervisor support, Molino, Ghislieri, & Cortese, Reference Molino, Ghislieri and Cortese2013; co worker support, Molino et al., Reference Molino, Ghislieri and Cortese2013; Simbula, Reference Simbula2010; and family support, Ghislieri, Martini, Gatti, & Colombo, Reference Ghislieri, Martini, Gatti and Colombo2011) and opportunities for professional development (Molino et al., Reference Molino, Ghislieri and Cortese2013). These trends suggest that work–family research is driven by the need to help employees find ways to compensate for the lack of institutional support.

As compared to work–family research in the aforementioned countries, research in Spain has examined more complex relationships and a wider variety of outcomes, antecedents, and moderators. For example, the two types of conflict (i.e., work–family, family–work) have been found to differentially predict life satisfaction (Moreno-Jiménez et al., Reference Moreno-Jiménez, Mayo, Sanz-Vergel, Geurts, Rodríguez-Muñoz and Garrosa2009), psychological strain (Moreno-Jiménez et al., Reference Moreno-Jiménez, Mayo, Sanz-Vergel, Geurts, Rodríguez-Muñoz and Garrosa2009; Sanz-Vergel, Demerouti, Mayo, & Moreno-Jiménez, Reference Sanz-Vergel, Demerouti, Moreno-Jiménez and Mayo2010), organizational citizenship behaviors (Beham, Reference Beham2011), and job satisfaction (Calvo-Salguero, Martínez-de-Lecea, & Carrasco-Gonzalez, Reference Calvo-Salguero, Martínez-de-Lecea and Carrasco-González2011). Researchers have also examined a variety of individual and organizational antecedents to work–family variables, such as neuroticism, work and non-work support (Blanch & Aluja, Reference Blanch and Aluja2009), work self-efficacy and workaholism (Del Líbano et al., Reference Del Líbano, Llorens, Salanova and Schaufeli2012), and day-specific recovery (Sanz-Vergel, Demerouti, Moreno-Jiménez, & Mayo, Reference Sanz-Vergel, Demerouti, Moreno-Jiménez and Mayo2010). Additionally, employee perceptions of culture regarding flexible work arrangements and coworker use of these arrangements relates to employees’ use of these arrangements (de Sivatte & Guadamillas, Reference De Sivatte and Guadamillas2013), suggesting merely offering family-friendly policies without making other organizational cultural adjustments may not be adequate.

The examination of gender as a moderator has provided a richer understanding of the complex nature of work–family interactions for Spanish employees. Notable findings include that women experience family-to-work conflict more than men (Calvo-Salguero et al., Reference Calvo-Salguero, Martínez-de-Lecea and del Carmen Aguilar-Luzón2012; Sánchez-Cabezudo & López Peláez, Reference Sánchez‐Cabezudo and López Peláez2014), whereas men experience more work-to-family conflict than women (Calvo-Salguero et al., Reference Calvo-Salguero, Martínez-de-Lecea and del Carmen Aguilar-Luzón2012; Sánchez-Cabezudo & López Peláez, Reference Sánchez‐Cabezudo and López Peláez2014). This is potentially due to the amount of time individuals of each gender spend in the work versus the family domain. Further, family-to-work conflict is more strongly negatively related to organizational citizenship behaviors for tasks and for individuals for women than men (Beham, Reference Beham2011). These findings highlight the trouble employees currently face in reconciling work and home demands, which may in part be due to Spanish governmental and organizational hesitance to adopt, implement, and promote work–family policies to help modern families cope with competing demands.

Western Europe. In Belgium, researchers have produced interesting and timely work on the nuances of work–family conflict. Van Veldhoven and Beijer (Reference Van Veldhoven and Beijer2012) found that single fathers experienced the most work–family conflict, the link between workload and work–family conflict is higher for dual-earner fathers than for dual-earner mothers, and work–family conflict was more strongly related to health complaints for dual-earner mothers than dual-earner fathers. These findings suggest that work–family issues are relevant to and problematic for men and non-traditional families. Vercruyssen, Roose, and Van de Putte (Reference Vercruyssen, Roose and Van de Putte2011) found evidence that those suffering the most from work–family issues tend to choose not to participate in work–family research, which may skew the results of this research and the subsequent inferences drawn from it.

In Germany, researchers have largely focused on examining individual and organizational level demands and resources that contribute to work–family conflict and enrichment, as well as subgroup differences in conflict perceptions. Findings from these studies suggest that a variety of demands relate to work-home interference, including perceived organizational time expectations (Beham & Drobnič, Reference Beham and Drobnič2010), psychological job demands, job insecurity (Beham & Drobnič, Reference Beham and Drobnič2010; Beham et al., Reference Beham, Drobnič and Präg2011), time pressure, cognitive and emotional irritation (Höge, Reference Höge2009), and hours worked (Steinmetz, Frese, & Schmidt, Reference Steinmetz, Frese and Schmidt2008). Research suggests that work–family conflict is higher for hospital physicians compared to the general German population (Fuß, Nubling, Hasselhorn, Schwappach, & Rieger, Reference Fuß, Nübling, Hasselhorn, Schwappach and Rieger2008). Additionally, supervisors, women (Beham et al., Reference Beham, Drobnič and Präg2011), and depressed individuals (Steinmetz et al., Reference Steinmetz, Frese and Schmidt2008), report experiencing more work–family conflict than men, employees without supervisory responsibilities, and individuals who are not depressed. A number of work and non-work resources have been found to be helpful in combating work–family conflict (e.g., job variety, supervisor support, coworker support, Beham & Drobnič, Reference Beham and Drobnič2010; Beham et al., Reference Beham, Drobnič and Präg2011; use of flexible work arrangements Beham et al., Reference Beham, Drobnič and Präg2011; Hornung & Glaser, Reference Hornung and Glaser2009). Further, job variety, use of flexible work arrangements, and work support are associated with higher work-home enrichment (Beham et al., Reference Beham, Drobnič and Präg2011), which suggests that organizational resources play a critical role in facilitating work–family management.

Research in the United Kingdom has focused primarily on individual difference predictors of work–family issues and differential outcomes of work–family issues for these various subgroups. Personality variables (e.g., neuroticism, Hughes & Parkes, Reference Hughes and Parkes2007; Noor, Reference Noor2003; extraversion, Noor, Reference Noor2003; trait emotional intelligence, Biggart, Corr, O’Brien, & Cooper, Reference Biggart, Corr, O’Brien and Cooper2010), gender (Noor, Reference Noor2003, Reference Noor2004; Swanson & Power, Reference Swanson and Power1999), marital status, and education (Noor, Reference Noor2003) differentially predicted work–family conflict. Consistent with research from Germany and Cyprus, research in the United Kingdom also suggests that individuals in certain fields, such as health care (e.g. Swanson & Powers, Reference Swanson and Power1999) and service occupations (e.g., Kinman, Reference Kinman2009), experience high levels of work-home conflict. Additionally, work–family conflict has been linked to several negative outcomes, such as job dissatisfaction (Noor, Reference Noor2003; Farquharson, Allan, Johnston, Choudhary, & Jones, Reference Farquharson, Allan, Johnston, Johnston, Choudhary and Jones2012), intention to leave and sickness absence (Farquharson et al., Reference Farquharson, Allan, Johnston, Johnston, Choudhary and Jones2012), and distress symptoms (Hughes & Parkes, Reference Hughes and Parkes2007; Noor, Reference Noor2003, Reference Noor2004).

Future Research Directions

The evolving body of research associated with work–family issues in Western and Southern Europe has contributed significantly to the broader body of literature addressing work–family issues. However, our review also highlights several areas ripe for future research. In this section, we elaborate on several potential future directions, including the examination of the importance of culture in explaining variation in work–family management across the region, and the consideration of new theories that address the effects of more macro-level factors on work–family issues. Given an influx in immigration in the area leading to a changing demographic landscape, examining the role of cultural values in on work–family management is of great contemporary relevance.

To better understand variation in work–family management across countries in the region, it is important to address the lack of consideration of cultural difference across the area. Studies comparing across multiple countries typically use widely available data sets (e.g., ISSP, ESS), which do not explicitly address cultural factors. One exception is Spector and colleagues’ (Reference Spector, Allen, Poelmans, Lapierre, Cooper, Michael and Brough2007) study, which showed that work demands differentially predicted work-to-family conflict for individualistic versus collectivistic country clusters, with this relationship being stronger for the individualistic clusters. Additionally, GLOBE country clusters moderated the relationships between work-to-family conflict and job satisfaction and turnover intentions. These results highlight the importance of examining potential sources of differences in work–family management at multiple levels of analysis. Though individual characteristics are frequently examined in an attempt to explain variation in work–family management, there is a dearth of research examining macro-level factors that can influence these issues, such as inter-organizational, inter-national, or inter-regional differences. Examining such factors may improve our understanding of when, where, and why work–family management varies.

Although work–family issues have been treated as universal across the region’s countries, future research might employ the societal approach (Maurice, Seller, & Silvestre, Reference Maurice, Sellier and Silvestre1986) to examine how differences in cultural values may influence a seemingly “universal” phenomenon. This approach involves demonstrating that regional or country-level differences in a construct of interest exist after accounting for factors known to impact that construct (see Gallie, Reference Gallie2003). For example, Crompton and Lyonette (Reference Crompton and Lyonette2006) used this approach to demonstrate that when accounting for sex, age, social class, working hours, and having a child in one’s household, having a more traditional division of domestic labor was related to increased work–life conflict only in France (as opposed to Britain, Finland, Norway, and Portugal). The results suggest that the traditional division of domestic labor itself does not lead to work–life conflict; it is the combination of this gendered division of household labor and other societal factors (in the case of France, valuing gender egalitarianism) that leads to conflict. Therefore, research demonstrating societal effects suggest that cultural values may influence quality of life and the experience of work–family conflict. Continued consideration of cultural values in work–family issues in these regions is critical for understanding international variation in work–family management that cannot be otherwise explained by policies and work conditions. Future research might attempt to identify the numerous values that indirectly impact the reconciliation of work and non-work demands, how these values are differentially endorsed, and variations in the centrality of these values across countries.

Finally, researchers should consider alternative theoretical models, such as those addressing cultural values and institutional context, to supplement the models currently used to understand the experience of work–family issues in the region. Although resource-demands models, like the JD-R model, provide a framework for understanding the direction and quality of work-home interactions, they do not explain why specific job characteristics are perceived by the employee as stressors or resources (Drobnič & Guillén Rodríguez, Reference Drobnič and Guillén Rodríguez2011). Hobson and Fahlén (Reference Hobson and Fahlén2009a, Reference Hobson and Fahlén2009b) have applied Sen’s (Reference Sen1992, 2006) capabilities framework to work–family balance, suggesting that balancing work and non-work demands is a form of functioning attained via an individual’s capability set (i.e., the resources an individual has to facilitate work–family balance), and that the capability sets that lead to successful work–family balance may vary across contexts. Perspectives like the capabilities framework may help explain variations in work–family balance across countries and welfare state regimes.

Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to summarize the findings of work–family research in Western and Southern Europe while considering socioeconomic trends and institutional contexts in the region. Although women’s participation in the workforce advances their equality in paid work, the absence of effective policies and resources at the societal and organizational levels coupled with the fact that women remain chiefly responsible for unpaid labor in the region remain obstacles for effective work–family management. While a dual-earner/dual-carer model – where paid and unpaid work are divided equally among men and women – is the somewhat utopian ideal for equality among partners, welfare states and the policies they enact often continue to promote the male breadwinner model (Ciccia & Bleijenbergh, Reference Ciccia and Bleijenbergh2014). From this social context emerges a variety of multi-faceted concerns about work–family issues in the area – to what extent do cultural, institutional, and individual factors impact the experience of work–family conflict? Determining whether these or other factors are responsible for the cross-national variation in employees’ experiences of work–family issues and management is a critical next step toward reducing work–family tension.

The Work Context in Central and Eastern Europe

Countries within the CEE region show several cultural, political, and economic differences, yet all share the background of a system which was aimed at erasing inequalities and providing social justice. Throughout the region in the pre-transition period after World War II, the government secured full-time employment for workers and guaranteed universal health care, free education at all levels, and subsidized housing (Berend, Reference Berend2009). On the downside, CEE countries had mostly one-party, non-parliamentary (hence non-democratic) regimes (Flere & Klanjšek, Reference Flere and Klanjšek2014; Schwartz & Bardi, Reference Schwartz and Bardi1997). Their economies were hampered by numerous inefficiencies, including bureaucratization, institutional unresponsiveness, and low productivity. Due to a non-competitive market and lack of foreign investments that both stifled innovations, the dominant industries mostly relied on outdated technology. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several CEE countries started their independence and transition processes (e.g., dissolution of the Soviet Union, breakup of Yugoslavia) which brought political (e.g., countries moved toward a democratic system), economic (e.g., privatization, liberalization, exposure to international competition), and social changes (e.g., increased unemployment, inequality, and poverty) (Berend, Reference Berend2009; Kuitto, Reference Kuitto2016). This included significant changes in labor markets. For example, unemployment rates between 1990 to 2000 increased from virtually zero to double-digit numbers, with most dramatic increases in Slovakia (18.8% in 2000), Lithuania (16.4% in 2000), Bulgaria (16.4% in 2000), and Poland (16.1% in 2000) (Berend, Reference Berend2009; Eurostat, 2012).

After a period of recovery, the economic crises of 2008 again obstructed employment possibilities in the CEE region (Eurofound, 2013), further influencing employees’ perceptions and attitudes. For instance, employees increasingly have high job insecurity perceptions. For example, in Slovenia and Latvia the percentage of those who reported fearing that they may lose their job in the near future, increased from 8.8% to 33.7%, and from 13.0% to 25.4% from 2007 to 2012, respectively (Eurofound, 2013). Another indication of demanding work conditions can be found in the latest European Working Conditions Survey (Holman, Reference Holman2013). Namely, data suggest that CEE countries exhibit a higher proportion of high-strain jobs compared to other country clusters (i.e., those with a social democratic welfare regime, including the Nordic countries; those with a continental/conservative welfare regime, such as Austria or Germany; those with a liberal welfare regime such as the United Kingdom; those with a Southern European/Mediterranean regime, such as Italy or Spain). Moreover, jobs in CEE countries lag behind in terms of pay with lowest mean gross annual earnings compared to other EU countries, with the biggest gaps in Romania and Bulgaria (Eurostat, 2012). The region is also characterized by very low shares of part-time employment (Eurostat, 2012), presumably due to economic strain, policy drawbacks, and limited recognition of the business case among employers (den Dulk, Peters, Poutsma, & Ligthart, Reference den Dulk, Peters, Poutsma and Ligthart2010; Kanjuo Mrčela & Černigoj Sadar, Reference Kanjuo Mrčela and Černigoj Sadar2011).

In the face of the economic transitions and downturns in CEE countries, some of the previously highly developed social polices gradually started to dissolve (den Dulk et al., Reference den Dulk, Peters, Poutsma and Ligthart2010). In the past three decades, CEE countries have developed a new welfare model grounded in their socialist roots and influenced by policy imitation and several austerity measures (Kuitto, Reference Kuitto2016). Several authors have argued that the institutional context of CEE countries is “hybrid” between the three traditional welfare regime contexts (i.e., liberal, continental/conservative, and social democratic) (Esping-Andersen, Reference Esping-Andersen1990). According to Esping-Andersen (Reference Esping-Andersen1990), the institutional context of countries can be defined by determining the sources of support or welfare (i.e., state, market, family). In liberal welfare states (e.g., the United Kingdom, the United States), support for employees is contingent on market forces and its ability to provide social benefits and services. State-provided benefits are modest and intended for those who are unable support themselves. In conservative states (e.g., Germany, Austria) welfare is grounded on contributions collected from employers and employees. Traditionally, policies in such states were aimed at strengthening the family as a main source of support (e.g., benefits for single-earner families, generous part-time employment opportunities for women). The social democratic welfare state model found in Nordic countries is universalistic and most generous in state-provided support for unemployment, sickness leave, and health care. Welfare is granted independently of labor market participation, whereas policies and benefits do not increase dependence on family support (e.g., through high quality public childcare). Mimicking the continental/conservative model, welfare benefits (e.g., sickness insurance) in CEE countries are based on moderate to relatively strong contributions from employees and employers (Kuitto, Reference Kuitto2016). However, several countries such as Slovenia, Czech Republic, Latvia, and Estonia exhibit universalistic elements (e.g., income replacement benefits in case of unemployment) and are thus more aligned with the social democratic welfare state model. It also appears that there is no general agreement in policies between specific CEE countries (e.g., Kuitto, Reference Kuitto2016).

Hofstede’s cultural comparison studies (Reference Hofstede2005) and related findings from the GLOBE project (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta, Reference House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta2004) may yield some insight into how the cultural context shapes work attitudes and job strains in CEE countries. In general, CEE countries have been identified as high power distance countries, meaning they exhibit high acceptance of hierarchical order, authority, and high dependence of subordinates on supervisors (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede2005). Most of the CEE countries are also considered collectivistic (e.g., Berend, Reference Berend2009). The large cross-cultural GLOBE dataset confirmed these propositions by showing that several CEE countries exhibit high institutional collectivism (e.g., practices which support collective action and collective distribution of resources), as well as in-group collectivism (i.e., individual expressions of pride and loyalty to families and organizations) (Bakacsi, Sándor, András, & Viktor, Reference Bakacsi, Sándor, András and Viktor2002). Another important cultural influence may derive from higher levels of uncertainty avoidance in CEE, which refers to low resilience to ambiguous situations and high need for laws, rules, and regulations (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede2005). When comparing values (i.e., desired state of affairs) and practices (i.e., actual states of affairs) reflected in the GLOBE survey, the desire for reducing uncertainty is more pronounced than the actual laws and regulations in these countries (Bakacsi et al., Reference Bakacsi, Sándor, András and Viktor2002).

In addition, CEE countries exhibit low to moderate performance orientation characterized by a lower sense of urgency, placing loyalty, belongingness, and harmony above competitiveness, as well as an avoidant attitude toward feedback at work. A recent report based on the European Values Survey may challenge these findings at a first glance, as “work centrality is substantially more dominant in Eastern Europe” (World Bank, 2016, p. 33). Yet, this importance of work in life may actually be extrinsically motivated due to economic strains in several CEE countries. It should be noted that cultural characteristics also vary significantly between countries, and the information stated above is simply overall trends. Altogether, CEE countries experienced a common past, which dramatically influenced the work context, yet developed in different directions and nowadays face specific challenges when “catching up” with Western countries (Berend, Reference Berend2009).

The Family Context in Central and Eastern Europe

Family life in CEE countries was also very much under the influence of the state-socialist history and political, economic, and social transitions. The past regime between World War II and late 1980s/early 1990s, for instance, aimed at diminishing inequalities also within the families. The male-breadwinner model was not characteristic for the CEE region, as full-time employment was a given fact and female labor force participation was systematically encouraged. However, traditional labor division was encouraged by state-sponsored benefits intended exclusively for mothers (e.g., parental leave) (Pascall & Kwak, Reference Pascall and Kwak2005). Nowadays, the CEE region also has several positive and negative outliers with respect to gender equality. In recent years, several countries have experienced relatively high gaps between male and female employment (e.g., Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia), smaller differences are present only in the Baltic countries and Slovenia (Eurostat, 2015). Slovenia, for instance, is among the few countries where female labor participation increases after parenthood and even after having two or more children (e.g., Michoń, Reference Michoń2015). Moreover, in Slovenia and Poland, the gender pay gap is very small, even compared with the EU average (2.3% and 4.5%, respectively, compared with the average of 16.1%; Eurostat, 2015). On the other hand, Estonia exhibits one of the highest gender pay gaps (27.3%).

In terms of family structure, pre-transition CEE countries were characterized by high rates of marriages, relatively young age at first marriage, and childbearing exclusively within marriage. After the 1990s, fertility rates have declined notably and family formation has been delayed (Thornton & Philipov, Reference Thornton and Philipov2009). Moreover, the general aging of the population has affected several CEE countries (Botev, Reference Botev2012). For instance, Slovenia and the Baltic states accounted for some of the highest increases in the shares of people aged 65 years or over between 1990 and 2010 in the EU (5.9% in Slovenia, 5.6% in Latvia, 5.5% in Estonia, and 5.3% in Lithuania; Eurostat, 2012). Given the trends of delayed childbearing and aging population, many working-age individuals may be “sandwiched” between child and elder care responsibilities (Neal & Hammer, Reference 286Neal and Hammer2007).

During the state-socialist period between the late 1940s and early 1990s, family formation was very much encouraged and facilitated by many policies, such as cash childcare allowances and paid parental leave (e.g., Ferrarini & Sjöberg, Reference Ferrarini and Sjöberg2010). Higher fertility rates in the pre-transition period can be also traced back to higher job security, low-cost housing, free education, and free health care. In the 1990s, several cuts were made in the overall generous family policies (Abendroth & den Dulk, Reference Abendroth and den Dulk2011; Ferrarini & Sjöberg, Reference Ferrarini and Sjöberg2010). For instance, in some countries, childcare allowances are now provided only for low-income families and for those with disabilities. Nevertheless, paid maternity, parental, and, in some cases, paternity leave remain among the pillars of social policy in CEE countries. In fact, CEE countries have a higher average length of maternity leave (approximately 27 weeks) than other EU countries (20.4 weeks) (Schulze & Gergoric, Reference Schulze and Gergoric2015). In several countries, the compensation rate during maternity leave is provided for the whole period and equals the income earned prior to childbirth (Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, and Slovenia). Paternity leave is present to a lesser extent. The Czech Republic and Slovakia do not provide any paternity leave, whereas Slovenia provides one of the longest paid paternity leaves, which is also fully compensated. Parental leave varies substantially, but in most countries can be taken by both parents. Due to high state involvement in providing family-friendly policies, employer involvement in terms of flexible work arrangements and benefits is lower (den Dulk et al., Reference den Dulk, Peters, Poutsma and Ligthart2010). For this reason, some managers in CEE countries may even hold negative attitudes toward organizational benefits (e.g., den Dulk et al., Reference den Dulk, Peper, Sadar, Lewis, Smithson and van Doorne-Huiskes2011).

Additionally, CEE families exhibit several distinct features in terms of cultural contexts. Despite the historical trends and generous policies fostering equality, the underlying reasons behind engagement of women in paid work may be economic necessity rather than egalitarian attitudes and values (Schwartz & Bardi, Reference Schwartz and Bardi1997). In general, the GLOBE project findings point to rather moderate gender egalitarian practices and values, which are reflected in average occupational gender segregation and involvement of women in decision-making roles (Bakacsi et al., Reference Bakacsi, Sándor, András and Viktor2002). A recent analysis of World Values Survey data (i.e., survey reflecting attitudes and values in forty-seven countries since 1981) in Poland and the Baltic states, for instance, has found that women’s life satisfaction is still closely linked to childbearing, and the fear of negative consequences for children’s well-being when mothers are employed has increased (Michoń, Reference Michoń, Klenner and Leiber2010). The prevailing attitude in some countries (e.g., Hungary) favors child care provision by the mother rather than in organized child care facilities (e.g., Michoń, Reference Michoń2015). Positive attitudes toward child care provision within the family may also be reflected in the high involvement of grandparents in raising children (Botev, Reference Botev2012), another characteristic of CEE countries. In general, the CEE countries that are more economically developed, that exhibit higher education levels of women, and that place less importance on religious institutions, are more supportive of dual-earner families and gender equality (Voicu, Reference Voicu, Hallman and Voicu2010).

Theoretical Issues in Work and Family Research in Central and Eastern Europe

Institutional and cultural characteristics have been found to determine work–family reconciliation at least to a certain extent (e.g., Allen, French, Dumani & Shockley, Reference Allen, French, Dumani and Shockley2015; Allen et al., Reference Allen, Lapierre, Spector, Poelmans, O’Driscoll, Sanchez and Woo2014). Interestingly, work–family research in the CEE region makes little reference to the specifics of the national context in theoretical conceptions and empirical studies. In general, samples from CEE countries have been examined as a part of cross-national comparison studies or in separate studies. Only a few studies published rather recently in international peer-reviewed journals are based solely on samples from CEE countries. Most of them focus on work–family conflict (WFC), work–family enrichment (WFE), or examine both concepts simultaneously. Many theoretical perspectives that have been used in work–family research developed in the West have been carried over to the CEE context. Examples include role theory (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, Reference Greenhaus and Beutell1985), the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989), job-demands resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007), and identity theory (Stryker & Burke, Reference Stryker and Burke2000).

On the other hand, the CEE region has been increasingly covered in cross-national comparisons which rely on theoretical frameworks elucidating the impact of institutional and cultural factors. Studies have either focused on cross-national differences in institutional factors (e.g., ‘family-friendly’ policies, availability of part-time work; Strandh & Nordenmark, Reference Strandh and Nordenmark2006), cultural factors (e.g., culture dimensions of the GLOBE model, Ollo-López & Goñi-Legaz, Reference Ollo-López and Goñi-Legaz2017), or considered both influences simultaneously (e.g., gender egalitarianism, ‘family-friendly’ policies, van der Lippe, Jager, & Kops, Reference van der Lippe, Jager and Kops2006). In some cases, researchers have used differences between countries as proxies for differences in policy contexts or welfare systems (e.g., Strandh & Nordenmark, Reference Strandh and Nordenmark2006). Others have directly focused on social policies, such as paid sick leave, parental leave, or annual vacation leave, and collapsed data across a wide range of countries (e.g., Allen et al., Reference Allen, Lapierre, Spector, Poelmans, O’Driscoll, Sanchez and Woo2014). This dichotomy aligns with what Powell et al. (Reference Powell, Francesco and Ling2009) termed culture-as-referent versus culture-as-dimension studies. Culture-as referent studies derive hypotheses from potential cultural attributes of specific countries, but use country itself as the grouping variable, whereas culture-as-dimension studies explicitly measure or impute cultural dimensions. A combined approach has also been utilized, where country differences were hypothesized based on distinct cultural values, but inferences about cultural values driving those differences were verified using the results of the GLOBE project (Ollo-López & Goñi-Legaz, Reference Ollo-López and Goñi-Legaz2017; Spector et al., Reference 287Spector, Allen, Poelmans, Lapierre, Cooper and Widerszal-Bazyl2007). In terms of specific cultural dimensions, gender egalitarianism, individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and humane orientation (i.e., high importance of values such as fairness, friendliness, and altruism; House et al., Reference House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta2004) have all been implicated, yet the precise role of these dimensions when predicting WFC is not straightforward (Ollo-López & Goñi-Legaz, Reference Ollo-López and Goñi-Legaz2017).

Generally, studies in the CEE countries have relied on theoretical models which are not unique to the region. Recently, Trefalt et al. (Reference Trefalt, Drnovšek, Svetina-Nabergoj and Adlešič2013) proposed a theoretical framework which may be specifically utilized in the context of CEE countries. The authors argue that transition countries are specifically faced with structural misalignment (i.e., lack of fit between higher level structures, such a legislation, and lower level structures, such as organizations and families), social, economic, and temporal comparisons (i.e., comparing one’s status pre- and post-transition and with the status of past generations), as well as choice overload (i.e., burden by the sudden occurrence of a multitude of choices). It is further proposed that sudden changes prevented a gradual alignment of higher and lower level structures (e.g., working schedules have changed, yet child care facilities have not adapted their opening hours), which in turn may be associated with higher levels of WFC and lower levels of WFE compared to traditional capitalist countries. Trefalt et al. (Reference Trefalt, Drnovšek, Svetina-Nabergoj and Adlešič2013) also propose that changes are accompanied by reflections on whether one is better or worse off in comparison with a previous point in time and with older family members. As countries in transition experience a decline in social security, they may experience worse outcomes due to comparison processes. On the other hand, as transition to a free-market economy brings about better incomes and more challenging jobs, positive outcomes for the intersection of work and family may be expected as well. Additionally, the authors pointed out that in past state-socialist systems, choices in terms of products, services, and life paths were notably restricted. The sudden multitude of choices after transition is further hypothesized to have negative effects on work–family reconciliation.

Methodological Issues in Work and Family Research in Central and Eastern Europe

Past studies involving the CEE region are either based on large international databases, focus on the comparison of a few different countries, or include CEE samples only. To date, the CEE region has been represented in the Collaborative International Study of Managerial Stress (CISMS, e.g., Spector et al., Reference 287Spector, Allen, Poelmans, Lapierre, Cooper and Widerszal-Bazyl2007), European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS, e.g., Ollo-López & Goñi-Legaz, Reference Ollo-López and Goñi-Legaz2017), European Social Survey (ESS, e.g., Steiber, Reference Steiber2009), ISSP – International Social Survey Programme (ISSP, e.g., Stier, Lewin-Epstein, & Braun, Reference Stier, Lewin-Epstein and Braun2012), and the Household, Work and Flexibility survey (HWF survey, e.g., van der Lippe et al., Reference van der Lippe, Jager and Kops2006).

Cross-national comparison studies as well as studies based on a single country sample generally follow the established approaches in construct measurement such as the use of validated WFC scales by Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (Reference Carlson, Kacmar and Williams2000) or Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (Reference Netemeyer, Boles and McMurrian1996). Most work–family research in the region has also recognized the bi-directional nature of WFC (i.e., work-to-family and family-to-work; Mihelič, Reference Mihelič2014a, Reference Mihelič2014b; Spector et al., Reference 287Spector, Allen, Poelmans, Lapierre, Cooper and Widerszal-Bazyl2007; Tement & Korunka, Reference Tement and Korunka2015). However, only a few studies examined WFC dimensions separately (time, strain, behavior; Spector et al., Reference 287Spector, Allen, Poelmans, Lapierre, Cooper and Widerszal-Bazyl2007; Tement & Korunka, Reference Tement and Korunka2013). Moreover, ways by which work and family may benefit the other domains has to date received attention only in single-sample studies (i.e., work-to-family and family-to-work enrichment; Mihelič, Reference Mihelič2014a, Reference Mihelič2014b; Tement & Korunka, Reference Tement and Korunka2013, Reference Tement and Korunka2015). It is also important to note that the domain of reference has mostly been the family and rarely other activities outside work (for an exception, see Šverko, Arambašić, & Galešić, Reference Šverko, Arambašić and Galešić2002).

In cross-national comparison studies, information about questionnaire development, reliability, validity, and measurement equivalence across countries is not provided in every study. However, most of these studies followed strict guidelines of questionnaire development and validation. The European Social Survey, for instance, employed a methodology involving stages of translation, review, adjudication, pretesting, and documentation which correspond to best practice recommendations (Schaffer & Riordan, Reference Schaffer and Riordan2003). In general, studies within the CEE region report psychometric properties of the translated questionnaires mostly by using reliability and (confirmatory) factor analyses (e.g., Mihelič, Reference Mihelič2014a, Reference Mihelič2014b; Tement & Korunka, Reference Tement and Korunka2013).

Some studies based on only one sample from a CEE country focused on heterogeneous datasets, yet other studies examine specific occupational groups, such as managers (Mihelič, Reference Mihelič2014b), nurses (Rantanen, Kinnunen, Mauno & Tement, Reference Rantanen, Kinnunen, Mauno and Tement2013), employees in the hospitality industry (Karatepe & Karadas, Reference Karatepe and Karadas2014), and retail salespeople (Netemeyer, Brashear-Alejandro, & Boles, Reference Netemeyer, Brashear-Alejandro and Boles2004). These studies predominantly relied on convenience sampling and the snowball method of data collection. Of the studies reviewed for this chapter, none used a daily diary design, only one used a longitudinal design (two weeks in-between three measurement waves, Karatepe & Karadas, Reference Karatepe and Karadas2014), and only one study was identified that used a dyadic study design (dual-earner couples, Obradović & Čudina-Obradović, Reference Obradović and Čudina-Obradović2009).

Generally, studies from CEE countries strongly draw from established work–family research in terms of content, but they seem to pay less attention to advancements in terms methodological approaches (e.g., Lapierre & McMullan, Reference Lapierre, McMullan, Allen and Eby2016). Presumably, specific expectations regarding social factors may discourage researchers from this region to use probability sampling and advanced research methods. As distrust in organizations, institutions, and politics is particularly high in CEE countries (e.g., Eurostat, 2015), researchers may fear low study motivation and low response rates. In less populous countries, such as Slovenia (total population: 2.06 m) and the Baltic countries (total population – Estonia: 1.31 m; Latvia: 1.99 m; Lithuania: 2.92 m; Eurostat, 2016), researchers may additionally be concerned about “over-surveying”, which may not only contribute to low study motivation but may also threaten the validity of the results.

Key Findings in Work and Family Research in Central and Eastern Europe

The Future of Work and Family Research in Central and Eastern Europe

Work–family research in the CEE region is still in its infancy. The present review suggests that research in the CEE region has an overemphasis on WFC, mimicking the broader work–family literature (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, Reference Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux and Brinley2005). Additionally, studies exploring the interplay between institutional, cultural, and individual factors when predicting consequences of WFC and WFE are limited. Interestingly, work–family research in the CEE region also makes little reference to the specifics of the national context in theoretical conceptions and empirical studies. Based on the review, three possible additions to the literature could be identified. First, future research should closely examine antecedents of WFE and boundary management, as they are becoming increasingly important constructs in work–family literature. Second, more research is needed on a full range of outcomes of work–family reconciliation with the focus on how the national context shapes these interrelations. Third, scholars should further explore the specifics of the CEE region, which can, in turn, expand established theoretical perspectives.

As previously noted, WFE represents a distinct aspect of the work–family interface (Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, Reference Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne and Grzywacz2006). Following the distinction between hygiene (i.e., factors which need to be maintained to prevent dissatisfaction) and motivation factors (i.e., factor which are needed to promote growth and motivation) (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, Reference Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman1959), it may be assumed that some institutional factors are indispensable for preventing WFC, while others may contribute to WFE. The above proposition also opens the possibility for further cross-national research, as countries largely differ in the foundations of support (i.e., state, market or family) and additional support systems. Both the absence of WFC and the presence of WFE are crucial in order to secure a happy, healthy, and productive workforce, and thus need to be considered when mapping cross-national similarities and differences. As WFC and WFE may be experienced simultaneously (e.g., Rantanen et al., Reference Rantanen, Kinnunen, Mauno and Tement2013), future work should be directed at further exploring whether different profiles of positive and negative work–family experiences differ based institutional and cultural influences.

Moreover, notably absent from the literature is research on work–family boundary management. As work is often placed above family life in CEE countries, work intrusions in the family domain and the motivation behind them should deserve closer attention. Arguably, in CEE countries such a behavior may be motivated by economic needs or job insecurity perceptions (e.g., World Bank, 2016). Previous research found that work-related activities during off-job time which are extrinsically motivated are associated with more negative consequences in terms of well-being than are intrinsically motivated work-related off-job activities (ten Brummelhuis & Trougakos, Reference ten Brummelhuis and Trougakos2014). As high work intrusions in the family life may be extrinsically motivated in CEE countries, it may be assumed that employees in these countries may face more negative consequences compared to other countries where high work investment may be intrinsically motivated to a greater extent. This reasoning also opens up a more general discussion on the motivational underpinnings and consequences of boundary management, which should be explored in future studies.

As dual-earner couples have always been the norm in CEE countries, both men and women have repeatedly experienced tensions between work and family at least to a certain extent. Surprisingly, the literature in this region still focuses more closely on why WFC occurs rather than on its relationship with outcomes. A thorough examination of outcomes related to work performance and health has not been adequately covered in CEE research. A greater focus on these outcomes opens the possibility of relying on data other than self-reports, such as manager-rated job performance or objective physical health measures, which have been used in previous work–family studies in other national contexts (Lapierre & McMullan, Reference Lapierre, McMullan, Allen and Eby2016). Different institutional and cultural factors are also likely to determine the relations between different aspects of the work–family interface (i.e., WFC, WFE) and their outcomes (Spector et al., Reference 287Spector, Allen, Poelmans, Lapierre, Cooper and Widerszal-Bazyl2007). For instance, the possibility of care arrangements within the extended family, which are common in the CEE region, are likely to dampen the positive link between WFC and psychological strain (Grönlund & Javornik, Reference Grönlund and Javornik2014). This specific characteristic of the CEE region may again point to an important implication for work–family research outside the region. Drawing on the notion of homeostasis in the stress literature (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989), a person may strive to minimize the tension between work and family by all possible means of support and may choose from either state-level support, organizational-level support, or from support within the family. If one form of support is not available, presumably other forms will be utilized. As the mobilization of different systems of support and compensation of a potential breakdown in one system by another may take place on episodic or day-to-day basis or also across a longer period of time, this reasoning can also be incorporated in more advanced research designs (longitudinal or daily-diary research). For instance, on days when a care arrangement within the family is not available, an employee may experience greater WFC and greater negative consequences. Arguably, these assumptions have neither been tested nor acknowledged when explaining the role of the national context.

Recently, specific characteristics of the CEE region have been considered in a new theoretical framework (Trefalt et al., Reference Trefalt, Drnovšek, Svetina-Nabergoj and Adlešič2013). However, no study to date explicitly tested the proposed mechanisms. In addition, research should pay attention to unique tensions between institutional and cultural factors in CEE countries, which may become visible in individuals’ behaviors related to work and family (e.g., Hofstede, Reference Hofstede2005; Schooler, Reference Schooler1996). Unfairness perceptions due to provision of family-friendly workplace policies for parents (Parker & Allen, Reference Parker and Allen2001), for instance, may escalate to a greater extent in CEE countries because of deeply rooted ideas of equal opportunities for everyone. Consequently, employees and employers may accept organizational benefits with reservations. Another overlooked theoretical issue when focusing on cultural factors affecting the work–family interface is the strength of norms. Cultural tightness and looseness reflect tolerance to deviant behavior, as well as the clarity and number of social norms within different life contexts (Gelfand et al., Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim and Yamaguchi2011). It may be argued that transition countries are “loose” cultures in terms of weak norms and a high tolerance for deviant behavior, as cultural, political, and economic stabilizations are still taking place. The few available studies, in fact, support these claims (Gelfand et al., Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim and Yamaguchi2011; Mandel & Realo, Reference Mandel and Realo2015). It may be of particular importance to study this relatively new notion or dimension of culture in CEE as well as other countries, as it may interact with other cultural and institutional characteristics. For instance, there is sometimes a fine line between use and abuse of work–family benefits in organizations (Kirby & Krone, Reference Kirby and Krone2002), which is more likely to be crossed in loose cultures where the collective pressure against such behavior is not as strong.

To conclude, CEE research has the potential to evolve in many fruitful directions. However, researchers may have to overcome several barriers to be able to align their research with that of other countries. Although CEE countries can hardly be considered as a uniform cluster and have developed in different directions in the past decades, research focusing on this region may have implications for the work–family literature in general. In this vein, Hagestad and Herlofson (Reference Hagestad and Herlofson2007) pointed out that CEE countries may “constitute compelling ‘laboratories’ for studying the complex interplay of culture, demographic structures and social policy” (p. 353).

Women’s Participation in the Labor Market and the Welfare State

Key Academic Findings

In this section we describe some of the work–family research that has been conducted in the Nordic countries. Although work–family research is relatively nascent in the Nordic countries, the literature is rather extensive and we only touch upon some key findings while trying to give a broad picture of what has been studied to date. First, we concentrate on research that has investigated the potential work and family have to enhance and enrich each other (i.e., work–family enrichment) and the importance of organizational culture. After that, we review research investigating possible health outcomes of work–family conflict.

Comparative Findings

The Nordic countries are often considered to be frontrunners with regard to gender equality, and it has been suggested that women and men in Nordic countries should experience less conflict and more balance between work and family demands than elsewhere. Indeed, a cluster analysis conducted by Öun (Reference Öun2012) revealed that most women and men (61%) in the Nordic region (inclusive of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland) fit best in a cluster labeled “work and family balance,” while about one third (36%) fit into a cluster indicating “occupational work overload” (i.e., experiencing work spilling into family life). Only around 3% fell into a cluster labeled “dual work overload,” indicating high levels of both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. Moreover, this study also reported some differences between the Nordic countries. Women in Finland reported significantly less work–family conflict than women in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Öun (Reference Öun2012) explained this finding as due to women having to make a more distinct choice between work and family in Finland, as there are fewer possibilities for part-time work on the one hand, but cash-for-care benefits are available on the other hand.

However, when comparing the Nordic countries to other country clusters, results are not clear. In contrast to what might be expected, several studies found that parents in Nordic countries report higher levels of work–family conflict than those in other European countries (Boye, Reference Boye2011; Strandh & Nordenmark, Reference Strandh and Nordenmark2006; van der Lippe, Jager, & Kops, Reference Van der Lippe, Jager and Kops2006). For example, one study comparing single and cohabiting mothers in Southern Europe (Greek, Spain, and Portugal) to those living in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) found that coupled mothers living in the Nordic countries experienced more work–family conflict than those in Southern Europe. At the same time, mothers in the Nordic countries (both single and coupled) were more satisfied with life, experienced their job as more enriching, and reported less financial problems than mothers from South European countries (Bull, Reference Bull2009). This finding is in line with the idea of the beneficial effect of dual roles. Differences in experienced work–family conflict are possibly due to the relatively longer working hours and the higher proportion of women and mothers in paid work in Nordic countries. Indeed, this hypothesis is partly supported in a study comparing work-household conflict in five European countries (Strandh & Nordenmark, Reference Strandh and Nordenmark2006). In this study, the relatively higher levels in work-household conflict reported by women in Sweden compared to women in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands were explained by a higher education level and longer working hours among women in Sweden (i.e., when education and working hours were accounted for statistically, the differences disappeared).

However, the difference between Sweden and Hungary/the Czech Republic could not be explained by those variables (i.e., education and work hours). The relatively higher levels of work–home conflict in Sweden in comparison to the Eastern European countries might instead be explained by the gender culture hypothesis (van der Lippe et al., Reference Van der Lippe, Jager and Kops2006). This hypothesis states that as combining work and family life is an issue in the Nordic countries, feeling stressed and hurried has become part of the culture. It has also been suggested that the generous social provisions to support work–life balance in the Nordic countries put social demand on women (and men) to “perform well in all spheres of life” (i.e., they must be a good employee, a good parent, and a good partner) (Guest, Reference Guest2002). This in turn generates feelings of incompetence and conflict. In a similar vein, Elvin-Nowak (Reference Elvin-Nowak1999) suggested that mothers were exposed to two conflicting norm systems, the norm of equality between women and men (sharing equally on work and parenting) and the norm of the “good mother” – that children’s access to the mother is of special importance for the development of the child. This data was gathered some time ago and as social norms develop, it is hard to say to what extent these two norms systems still collide and to what extent they also affect fathers.

In contrast to the previously mentioned studies, other studies found less work–family conflict in the Nordic countries in comparison to others. One study investigated the relationship between work–family and family-work conflict and family-friendly policies in 10 countries and found that fathers and mothers in countries with more expansive family leave (i.e., Nordic countries) reported less family-work conflict (Ruppanner, Reference Ruppanner2013). Another study found that publically available childcare facilities alleviated the adverse effect of children on work–family conflict for mothers (Crompton & Lyonette, Reference Crompton and Lyonette2006). Also, in the OECD better life index, the Nordic countries are among those with best work–life balance. Taken together the results indicate that national policies and institutional arrangements make a difference and enhance gender equality as well as work–life balance for women and men (Stier, Lewin-Epstein, & Braun, Reference Stier, Lewin-Epstein and Braun2012). Still, the presence of a family-friendly policies is not a guarantee for a better compatibility of paid and unpaid work, as organizational and national culture also play a critical role.

Future Research Directions

As noted previously, most of the research in the Nordic countries has concentrated on the negative effects of combining work and family. Although there is an increasing interest regarding possible positive work–family effects, much remains to be done. Further research about longitudinal relationships between antecedents of work–family enrichment and its effects on health and well-being as well as work-related outcomes is warranted.

As we discussed in the Comparative Findings section, it remains unclear how well people in the Nordic countries perform in terms of work–family management given the mixed research findings. One important aspect in better understanding these conflicting findings might be found in the individual expectations that people hold about being able to balance work and family demands. Both women and men have often place high expectations on themselves regarding success in working life and in terms of being an engaged and attentive parent. This together with highly individualized societies where everyone is responsible for her/himself might be one underlying reason for the still relatively high number of women and men experiencing work family conflict in the Nordic countries. The importance of expectations is worthy of future investigation.

In regard to the negative effects of work–family conflict on health, the health registries available in the Nordic countries provide a unique and still underutilized methodological contribution. Those registries cover a diversity of health outcomes (e.g., dates of sickness absence and hospitalization with medical diagnosis, cause of death, and prescribed drugs) and cover the entire population. Those data can be linked to questionnaire data on, for example, work–family conflict by the unique personal identification number given to every resident. Until recently, few studies have used the unique information available from registries to link work-family conflict to objective measures of health outcomes and further research is warranted.

Modern working life is rapidly changing, as is family life, and the proportion of home-based teleworkers (measured as the percentage of total labor force that telecommutes) among European countries is highest in the Nordic Countries (i.e., Finland, Sweden, and Denmark) (Rapp & Jackson, Reference Rapp and Jackson2013). The introduction of new technologies and telework increases flexibility in working life, but also allow for constant availability. Possible drawbacks, such as an increased risk of employees being constantly involved in work – even during their free time – may impair both family life and recovery (Demerouti, Derks, ten Brummelhuis, & Bakker, Reference Demerouti, Derks, ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Korunka and Hoonakker2014) and are worthy of further investigation. Additionally, certain groups might be affected differently by the introduction of new technologies and the accompanying flexibility. For example, some research suggested that women benefit more from increased control over their working time than men, but it has also been proposed that work-time flexibility may have adverse consequences for women’s work–home balance, as women may end up engaging in more non-work responsibilities (Hammer, Neal, Newsom, Brockwood, & Colton, Reference Hammer, Neal, Newsom, Brockwood and Colton2005). Future research might shed light about the positive and negative sides of increased telework and the resulting flexibility on work time and place given the high prevalence of flexibility use in Nordic countries.

As described previously, the labor market is strongly gender segregated in the Nordic countries with women overrepresented in the public sector and men overrepresented in the private sector. How work is organized in these sectors influence the ability to combine work and family not only for the individual, but also for their spouse, as family members work and family behaviors are interdependent upon each other’s’ working conditions. More research is needed regarding which factors hinder or facilitate the successful combination of work and home demands at the couple level, and the Nordic setting seems apt for such research given the high degree of participation in the labor market among both women and men and the high prevalence of gender occupational segregation.

Conclusion

The Nordic countries have long been focused on developing and sustaining dual-earner/dual-carer societies and, as such, experience high gender equality comparatively across the globe (World Economic Forum, 2014). Even so, the gender differences in caring are still large in the Nordic countries and the labor market is highly gender segregated. On the one hand, when both women and men are fully engaged in work and care, the risk of work–family conflict may be increased. On the other hand, the positive aspect of being deeply involved in these two valued spheres of life might counterbalance some of the potential negative consequences. Taken together, there is a large amount of work–family research in the Nordic region, especially regarding possible health consequences following work–family conflict. Still, further research making use of more advanced study designs and registry data is warranted.

Defining the Region

It is important to identify what countries comprise Latin America. For the purposes of this chapter, we are limiting our investigation to those regions of the American continent that, because of language, religion, colonization, as well as international affairs history, share some social and sociopolitical similarities (Quijada, Reference Quijada1998). In particular, we define Latin America as comprising select countries from North America (i.e., Mexico), Central America (i.e., Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama), and South America (i.e., Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay Paraguay, Argentina, and Chile).

We note the exclusion of Belize, an English-speaking country from Central America, French Guyana, and Suriname in South America, as well as the Caribbean islands as part of Latin America. The reasons for these exclusions lie in the fact that they have some distinct cultural aspects from the aforementioned countries (Quijada, Reference Quijada1998). A detailed explanation of such differences beyond the scope of this chapter. Rather than elucidate them, we simply focus our investigation on the countries that fall within our defined region, and invite readers to interpret and reflect on our findings accordingly.

Latin American Context

In order to fully understand the driving force behind the types of work–family research being conducted and the findings that may be unique to Latin America, it is important to understand the general context of the region. In terms of issues that have clear relevance to work–family dynamics, we focus our discussion on (a) historical events that have led to economic turmoil and work insecurity, (b) the machismo mindset, gender roles, and gender inequality that exists within the population, (c) the degree of collectivism and focus on the family that are traditional hallmarks of the region, and (d) the contemporary challenges to traditional views that are occurring in Latin America. Each of these issues, both separately and in combination with one another, contributes to the need for work–family research in the area and serves as an explanation for differences that emerge in comparative studies of the region with others.

Work–Family Research in Latin America

Work–family research in Latin America has been conducted by a variety of scholars. Some notable studies have been conducted by the United Nations Regional Commissions in Latin America, the Economic Commission for Latin America, and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and the International Labour Organizational (ILO).These studies have primarily focused on the economic and social context of the work–family interface, the influx of women in the labor market, and the economic and social effects as well as the inequalities in the distribution of jobs and the required changes, particularly in terms of public policies and labor laws, to improve work–family balance. Most of these studies used data gathered by the national statistic units of each country and merged by the United Nations Commissions Statistic Units.

Other noteworthy Latin American studies have not been conducted from state-sponsored datasets and have tended to focus on understanding antecedents and consequences of the work–family interface to improve people’s quality of life and organizational outcomes. Many of these studies are quantitative and have built on previously identified constructs and previously developed models, usually from other regions. The researchers of these studies usually use surveys, translated and adapted from research in other regions, and sometimes validated in previous local studies. Much of this research is published only in Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking journals with low visibility, and much of the results are only reported in graduate theses or presented at conferences. However, the increasing use of measures with reported empirical evidence of validity and reliability, as well as the high scientific interest on cultural comparisons, should increase the visibility of this research performed in Latin America.

Research in this area has largely mirrored research conducted in other regions. Namely, there has been a focus on antecedents and consequences of work–family conflict and facilitation as well as on strategies to cope with work–family conflict. In addition, comparative studies have examined how work–family issues in Latin America compare to other regions of the globe. We detail some of the findings from these studies below.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we identified the ways in which the Latin American context has implications for work–family research. We identified several aspects of Latin America that have helped inform scholarship in the area, including economic turmoil and insecurity, gender roles and inequality, collectivism and the importance of family, and challenges to traditional views. We then described some of the findings from the extant research, both as standalone studies and as comparative works. We hope this chapter provides a better understanding of the dynamics that exist within Latin America and the influences that each has on the work and the family lives of the individuals within the region. The opportunities for future research are great, and the need continues to swell. Through continued research in the area, improvements can be made for individuals, organizations, and Latin America as a whole.

Context

Given historical, social, and cultural fluidity and diversity, caution should be exercised in making generalizations or assumptions that family systems in developing societies such as Africa are the same across ethnic, religious, national, regional or linguistic groupings (Joseph, Reference Joseph1994). What is undisputed, however, is that the family lays at the core of society in traditional Africa. For example, it has been argued that “each person in African traditional life lives in or as a part of the family” (Mbiti, Reference Mbiti1975, p. 175) and that “the family community was the fundamental element of the African, the basic sphere of action, through which he became integrated with the larger, human community … he always acted from within the sphere of the family” (Kisembo et al. Reference Kisembo, Magesa and Shorter1998, p. 202). Historically, as the unit of production, consumption, reproduction, and accumulation, the traditional African extended family – which was comprised of generations of close relatives living at home and away and within which cooperation, reciprocation, and an intense sense of solidary (Bigombe & Khadiagala, Reference Bigombe and Khadiagala2003; Ntozi & Zirimenya, Reference Ntozi, Zirimenya, Oruboloye, Caldwell and Ntozi1999; Mokomane, Reference Mokomane2013) – provided for the socioeconomic, emotional, psychological, and caregiving needs of family members through specific and well-defined gender and generational roles.

From a work–family interface perspective, the division of labor that was brought about by these roles lessened the work burden of individuals by spreading it across family members. Overall, with African societies being largely patriarchal, men were traditionally seen as the heads and breadwinners of their families and were responsible for the economic well-being of the family. Women, on the other hand, were responsible for the execution of domestic tasks, the provision of care for all family members (particularly children, the aged, the infirm, and the disabled), and for overall household management. Children contributed to the family by running age-appropriate errands and doing household and farm work, while grandparents were important providers of child care and socialization (Ntozi & Zirimenya, Reference Ntozi, Zirimenya, Oruboloye, Caldwell and Ntozi1999; Mokomane, Reference Mokomane2013). Other extended family members also had specific roles to play in ensuring the sustenance of the family. For example, female members of the family such as sisters, sisters-in-law, aunts, mothers, mothers–in-law were traditionally expected to offer their assistance in caring for newly born babies and nursing mothers. This, among other things, lessened the new mother’s emotional and physical burden, which typically characterizes this early period of childrearing (Mokomane, Reference Mokomane2011; Wusu & Isiugo-Abanihe, Reference Wusu and Isiugo-Abanihe2006).

Although the extended family in Africa has, to a large extent, maintained its place as the source of socio economic support and security for its members (Ntozi & Zirimenya, Reference Ntozi, Zirimenya, Oruboloye, Caldwell and Ntozi1999), the multifaceted and ongoing social, economic, and demographic transformations in contemporary Africa have led to notable changes in the structure and function of extended families. This has had important implications for the work burden of family members. Key among these changes include increasing female labor force participation, changes in nuptiality patterns, increased migration, and high prevalence of HIV/AIDS. Unlike in the past when wage employment was the domain of men and women’s roles revolved around the performance of domestic duties and agricultural work, one of the most striking labor market trends of recent times has been the growing proportion of African women in the labor force. Specifically, female labor force participation rates in the region increased over the last two decades from 59% in 1990 to 64% in 2014 (World Bank, 2016).

It is noteworthy, however, that the majority (74%) of these women work in the informal sector, such as in subsistence farming, crafts making, small scale manufacturing (e.g., bread-making, tailoring, food catering), informal services (e.g., gardening and domestic work), and informal trade (e.g., tuckshops). This sector is characterized by low-productivity, low and highly volatile earnings, and inadequate social protection coverage (ISSA, 2013; ILO, 2016). It has been found that family responsibilities both steered many African women toward informal employment and constrained their income earning activities as informal economy workers. Overall, although the flexible work hours that are typical of informal sector employment enhance the fulfillment of household and childcare responsibilities, family responsibilities often limit the types of activities and amount of time women can spend on their paid activities, thus aggravating women’s poverty levels and other vulnerabilities that come with being informal sector workers (Cassirer & Addati, Reference Cassirer and Addati2007).

Family structure and composition in traditional Africa hinged, to a large extent, on early dominant models of marriage which stressed several key components that included, inter alia, early marriage, especially for women, and almost universal marriage for both sexes (van de Walle, Reference Van de Walle, Foote, Hill and Martin1993). Since the 1970s, however, a large part of the continent began to experience significant transformations in nuptiality patterns, reflected mainly in the increase in age at first marriage, overall decline in marriage prevalence, and increased marital dissolution through divorce and separation (van de Walle, Reference Van de Walle, Foote, Hill and Martin1993; Hertrich, Reference Hertrich2002). As a result of these nuptiality patterns, female-headed households have become a common phenomenon in contemporary sub-Saharan Africa with recent figures showing that these type of households account for more than 20% of all households in many countries in the region (Mokomane, Reference Mokomane2013). These female-headed households are typically smaller than those headed by males, with an average of 3.9 and 5.1 members, respectively (Milazzo & van de Walle, Reference Milazzo and van de Walle2015). Female heads of households in Africa are twenty-seven times more likely to live in households in which they are the only adult living with one or more children and, often, with older persons (Milazzo & van de Walle, Reference Milazzo and van de Walle2015; Statistics South Africa, 2010). Among other things, these demographics suggest that female heads in the region have higher dependency ratios and care burdens than their male counterparts.

In the past, the caregiving responsibilities of female heads of households could have been addressed, to large extent, by the traditional kinship mode of residential settlement which availed family support for care roles and domestic tasks. While still existent, this type of support is becoming less available due to increased migration which has, among others things, led to the physical separation of family members and the reduced household sizes discussed above (Mokomane, Reference Mokomane2013). In a different vein and similar to what Sorj (Reference Sorj2004) found in Brazil, the availability of grandparents to allocate a good part of their time to helping their adult children in housework and child care seems to be creating a new generation of grandmothers that is very different from previous generations. This new generation is better educated, more socialized in the world of work, and more active in terms of social life.

Against the background of reduced kin support and assistance for child care, the provision of public childcare services has been identified as the most effective policy option for enhancing work–family balance and increasing women’s access to employment in developing countries (Alfers, Reference Alfers2015; Esplen, Reference Esplen2009). However, with few affordable, organized, and comprehensive public childcare services in many African countries, a common strategy for working mothers is to acquire the services of domestic workers or “house helps” (Mapedzahama, Reference Mapedzahama and Mokomane2014; Muasya, Reference Muasya and Mokomane2014). Although this is an important coping mechanism, available evidence suggests that from a child development and health perspective, it is not necessarily ideal. For example, an overwhelming majority of household helpers have no training, whatsoever, in childcare and often do not have any previous relationship with the child’s family. In essence, therefore, many working mothers trust and put the care, health and, literally, the life of their minor children in the hands of complete strangers. As Muasya (Reference Muasya and Mokomane2014) noted in Kenya, often when the employment relationship between the working mother and the helper sours it is common for the latter to harm the child or collude with criminals to rob the employers of valuable belongings. Additionally, as Reddock and Bobb-Smith (Reference Reddock and Bobb-Smith2008) noted in Trinidad and Tobago, household helpers are often mothers themselves with their own work–life challenges.

The HIV and AIDS epidemic has also puts great strain on the care-related activities of families in many parts of Africa. According to UNAIDS figures, 25.8 million people living with HIV are in sub-Saharan Africa, accounting for 70% of the global total (UNAIDS, 2015). Thus, as the primary caregivers for sick family members, working women in many African countries have the extra burden of providing care and support for family and household members with HIV and AIDS. For example, in a study of extended family caring for children orphaned by AIDS in Botswana, Heymann et al. (Reference Heymann, Earle, Rajaraman, Miller and Bogen2007) found that nearly half (47%) of orphan caregivers said that their work sometimes got in the way of their meeting children’s needs compared to less than one-third (30%) of those not caring for orphans. Furthermore, orphan caregivers were more likely to state that working overtime, irregular hours, or being far from their family caused difficulty meeting their caregiving responsibilities at home. Among those reporting difficulties, 67% reported being unable to find reliable childcare and 24% reported being unable to help children with school work while working overtime. HIV/AIDS-related care work has also been found to reduce working women’s time to do other potentially life-enhancing activities, such as engaging in income generation and skills building projects or further education (ILO, 2004) and to attend to other social relationships. For example, Heymann and colleagues noted that in Botswana, caring for children orphaned by AIDS impacted the time caregivers could care for other family members, including their parents and in-laws: such caregivers spent 34.7 hours per month caring for parents and in-laws compared with 43.7 hours for those without orphan care-giving responsibilities (Heymann et al., Reference Heymann, Earle, Rajaraman, Miller and Bogen2007).

History of the Study of Work–Family in This Region

The foregoing transformations suggest that support mechanisms that were traditionally offered by the extended family for domestic tasks and caregiving responsibilities in Africa are being stretched and in some cases have been exhausted. The consequence is that families are finding it increasingly difficult to continue caring for their young, old, sick, and disabled members, to reconcile work and family responsibilities, and to maintain intergenerational bonds that sustained them in the past. Taken together, these factors have contributed to the emergence of work–family management as an issue of grave concern at multiple levels – for individuals, societies, organizations, and governments (Dancaster & Baird, Reference Dancaster and Baird2008). Despite this, work–family issues have not been given high priority in academic circles in the region; political, economic, and labor market issues seem to be deemed more important topics of academic debate and research than the family in general and work–family interface in particular (Mokomane, Reference Mokomane and Mokomane2014b; Ziehl, Reference Ziehl2003). Indeed, there are essentially only two main institutions in the whole of Africa that have a focused interest in work–family research: the Nigerian-based Institute for Work and Family Integration (IWFI) and the Kenyan-based Center for Research on Organizations, Work, and Family (CROWF).

IWFI is a policy research, advocacy, and training center for the integration of work and family with the stated aim of “highlighting the impact of demographic shifts and rapidly changing technology on the family and the need for corporations to create enabling policies for work and family balance, resulting in Better Family, Better Business, Better Society.” The institute has close collaboration with the Lagos Business School, where one of Africa’s most prolific scholars on the subject, Chantal Ipie (who is also the chair of IWFI’s Board of Trustees), is based. To date the institute has hosted three conferences (2014, 2015, and 2016) and has an active events program (see www.iwfionline.org/category/programmes).

CROWF is a research institution within the Strathmore Business School in Nairobi, Kenya. Established in 2002, the vision of CROWF is to assist companies to manage people and their organizations through sound and well researched corporate policies. One way it does this is through the delivery of a course on work–life balance in the different management programs at the Strathmore Business School. Over the past ten years, the Center hosted a series of annual colloquia on work and family for researchers coming mainly from West, East, and Central Africa. However, the frequency of these colloquia have, over the year, declined due to funding constraints. Current work–family activities of the Center include conducting, in collaboration with the Families & Work Institute in Boston, the annual Employer and Employees General Survey in Kenya. The Center is also one of the only two institutions (the other being the Lagos Business school) that have to date implemented the International Family-Responsible Employer Index (IFREI) in Africa. IFREI is a diagnostic instrument aimed at analyzing the level of implementation of flexibility and work–family reconciliation policies in companies, their effect on the employees, and on the organizations themselves. Spearheaded by the Spain-based International Center for Work and Life at the IESE Business School, IFREI has been implemented globally since 1999 and, as of February 2014, a total of 16,000 people from twenty-one countries on five continents had participated in this cross-cultural international study.

Key Academic Findings

Although IWFI and CROWF are certainly laudable initiatives, their impacts are to a large extent “localized.” IWFI’s work, for example, is not well-known outside of Nigeria. Similarly, the outputs of CROWF’s colloquia were poorly disseminated to the African work–family community. These initiatives have, therefore, had little impact on the continental work–family discourse. This, and the overall paucity of research, means that there is “a disparate and fractured understanding of the dynamic interplay between work and family for those who live and work in [African countries]” (Shaffer et al., Reference Shaffer, Joplin and Hsu2011, p. 221). One of the first systematic efforts to bridge this research gap was an edited volume entitled Work–family interface in sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and responses (Mokomane, Reference Mokomane2014a). With contributions from Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, the book highlighted “various aspects or work–family interface in sub-Saharan Africa, including the antecedents and consequences of work–family conflict; its impact on workers and their families; workers’ current coping strategies and the limitations, and plausible future support and coping strategies” (Mokomane, Reference Mokomane and Mokomane2014b, p. 11).

The overall picture that emerged from the book was that not only is work–family research in Africa still rudimentary, but it also relies largely on a “predominant western permeation of conceptualizations, methods and operationalizations,” which implies that the results are likely to be inappropriate and not contexualized for African cultures (Shaffer et al., Reference Shaffer, Joplin and Hsu2011, p. 252). This was particularly evident in a chapter by Mokomane and Chilwane (Reference Mokomane, Chilwane and Mokomane2014) who conducted a broad review of African work–family literature using “work–life,” “work–life balance,” “work–family,” and “work–family conflict” as keywords to search the following databases: African Journals Online, EBSCOhost, ISI Web of Science, Proquest, SABINET, and the Sloan Work and Family Research Network. Studies. Their criteria for the search were that the study was published between January 2000 and mid-August 2011; published in a peer-reviewed journal; and based on research conducted in an English-speaking sub-Saharan African country. This search retrieved 303 articles, and after eliminating those that did not clearly address the nexus between work–family or work–life issues, only forty-four articles were reviewed. Notwithstanding its limitations (for example, the exclusion of non-English speaking African countries) the review provided cursory insight and a portrait of work–family research in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of the following:

Geographical focus: Much of the work–family research in the region emanates from South Africa and Nigeria, which is hardly surprising given that these are the two major economies in the region, with relatively higher proportion of workers in wage employment.

Content focus: A recent overview of the focus of work–family literature in the United States found that between 2000 and 2010 much of the scholarship focused on the key topics of gender, time, and the division of labor with a notable expansion of the field to consider the work–family issues of low-income populations and greater focus on men and fathers (Bianchi & Milkie, Reference Bianchi and Milkie2010). In a review of work–family and work–life research in Australia and New Zealand, Bardoel et al. (Reference Bardoel, De Cieri and Santos2008) noted that, the top three researched topics between 2004 and 2007 were organizations (i.e., policies, programs, strategies and support provided by organizations to alleviate employees’ work–life or work–family conflict and to promote work–life and work–family balance); work (i.e., working hours and the incidence of alternative work arrangements such as part-time, temporary and causal work as well as flexible work arrangements); and occupations/industries (i.e., specific occupations and industries). Mokomane and Chilwane’s review revealed that in sub-Saharan Africa much of the literature related to occupations or industries and gender, with the rest spread across different themes as shown in Table 17.1.

Conceptualization and measurement: Mokomane and Chilwane’s (Reference Mokomane, Chilwane and Mokomane2014) review also found that five of the 44 sub-Saharan African articles were conceptual in nature and explored government policy and legislation. The majority (i.e., the other thirty-nine articles) were empirical, exclusively cross-sectional in design, and largely applied quantitative methodology using primary data from surveys. Relatively few articles were based on studies that used qualitative data and secondary data analysis.

Publication and dissemination of research outputs: In line with the geographic focus of the research discussed earlier, most of the publications appeared in local South African journals, specifically the South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences Labour, the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology as well as the Nigerian journal, IFE PsychologIA. Table 17.2 shows the full list of other journals that published the African research. It is noteworthy that only two of the journals (i.e., Community Work & Family and Personnel Psychology) appear in the list of core academic journals that have been shown to demonstrate a commitment to work–family issues, and through which authors are likely to reach both researchers and policy-makers in the field, thus “proving useful to researchers and [facilitating] further development of the field of work/family research” (Drago & Kashian, Reference Drago and Kashian2003, p. 510). This therefore suggests that not only is work–family research in Africa limited, but the little that takes place does not reach the “right people.” This may partly explain why workplaces and conditions in the regions continue to be structured around an assumption that all workers have a source of unpaid labor to care for their families or that workers are somehow managing to reconcile their work and family responsibilities.

The limited dissemination of African work–family research is also evident in other fora. For example, at the 2010 inaugural conference of the Work and Family Researchers Network in 2010, only six out of more than 200 papers presented were based on studies conducted in African countries. In the same vein, at the 2012 conference, only thirteen out of more than 200 papers on Africa were presented. At the 2016 conference, only ten out of more than 400 papers and two posters out of more than sixty were presented on African countries (Mokomane et al., Reference Mokomane, van der Merwe, Seedat Khan, Jaga and Dancaster2017).

Future Research Ideas

Against the background of the key findings of their literature review, Mokomane and Chilwane (Reference Mokomane, Chilwane and Mokomane2014) concluded that work–family issues in sub-Saharan Africa require further and broader consideration and that it is “imperative for governments in the sub-region to elevate the issues surrounding work–family interface in their policy agendas” (p. 202). To ensure this, a call was made to ensure that African research on the subject is easily accessible to other work–family researchers and policymakers and to facilitate the development of a work–family research community in the continent and the participation of sub-Saharan African researchers in the global work–family research community (Mokomane & Chilwane, Reference Mokomane, Chilwane and Mokomane2014). In response to this call, I convened – with seed funding from the South African National Research Foundation (NRF) – an inaugural workshop aimed at establishing a network of African work–family researchers. The workshop took place at the University of Pretoria in South Africa in September 2015 and was attended by academics and policymakers based in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia, Kenya, and Nigeria. Consistent with the argument advanced by Njuguna and Itegi (Reference Njuguna and Itegi2013), a session dedicated to discussing challenges of undertaking work–family research in Africa identified the limited funding for institutions of higher education and research in Africa and the resultant financial constraints as a key challenge. These challenges not only play a major role in the paucity of work–family research, but they also affect the integrity and quality of activities and outputs on the subject. The paucity and/or incompleteness of appropriate data was identified as another impediment to rigorous and comparative work–family research in Africa.

It was thus agreed that one of the key medium- to long-term aims of the African Research Network on Work and Family (ARNWF) is the development of joint funding proposals for collaborative research projects both within and across countries by members. Among other things, it is envisaged that with some research funding, the answering some of the most urgent and pertinent questions that remain around the subject will become feasible. Mokomane et al. (Reference Mokomane, van der Merwe, Seedat Khan, Jaga and Dancaster2017) provide a detailed account of this proposed research agenda which includes calls to explore: the care needs of older people; the extent to which HIV and AIDS continues to contribute to the crisis of care in Africa; the work–family needs and challenges of workers in the informal sector; and the role of employers in the provision of work–family balance arrangements. Additionally, a systematic literature review is being conducted to rigorously assess the state of African work–family research, to identify gaps, and to complement or refocus the proposed research agenda. It is envisaged that the review will be published in a high impact journal for the network of African stakeholders and the global work–family community.

Beyond these efforts, the inaugural ARNWF workshop proposed a few other issues that are worthy of study and further exploration using quantitative and qualitative techniques in a complementarily rather than in a mutually exclusive manner, as is currently the case in African studies on the subject. First, it was agreed that there is a need to conceptualize the meaning of family in Africa. Although the changes taking place within the African family structure are well-documented, the specific dimension of this transformation is not clearly understood. To provide the context within which the challenges of work–family reconciliation can be evaluated, there is a need to first document the systems of family and family traditions in the various countries and societies in the region. This will include assessing the types and patterns of families, their cultural and legal contexts, as well as the trends and factors affecting family development. For example, how do family rituals and routines interact with workplace demands? The composition of families (such as size, headship, organization), as well as the role, socio economic, and demographic characteristics of family members (for example, age, sex, marital status, employment, number, and age of children) are also worthy of study against the background of previous studies that have shown that these variables can have important implications for work–family conflict (see, for example, Blin, Reference Blin2008).

A second issue is additional examination of the extent and dimensions of work–family conflict in Africa. There is currently little evidence regarding what determines care burdens and work–family conflict in developing countries, or on whether workers of diverse social and cultural backgrounds are affected differently by their care burden (Blin, Reference Blin2008). In-depth qualitative studies should be used to explore how family and work circumstances influence African workers’ work burdens, the types and sources of work–family conflicts experienced by different types of workers, and their capacity to cope with conflict. Specific questions include: Which sources have the most influence on the different types of work–family conflict? Which of types of work–family conflict has the most influence on the well-being of workers and their families? How do workers define and perceive their work burden, and how do the definitions and perceptions differ between different types of workers? What choices and alternatives did the workers have regarding entry into the labor market? Do workers with caring responsibilities feel that these responsibilities have been affected by their entry into the labor force? If so, how?

Another issue is the exploration of the work–family challenges and needs of fathers. Although the tendency for domestic tasks and responsibilities to become the prerogative of women in families still pervades many societies, there is increased willingness and appreciation among some men towards the sharing domestic responsibilities (Reddock & Bobb-Smith, Reference Reddock and Bobb-Smith2008; ILO, 2004). There is, therefore, a need to address the gap in work–family research in which working men and fathers are underrepresented. The following questions are particularly worth addressing in Africa: How do working men and fathers compare with their female counterparts on key measures of work and family characteristics and work–family conflict? What work–family adaptive strategies do working men currently use, and how do these compare with those of working women? What are the work and family characteristics that significantly predict work–family conflict and balance for working men? How do measures of work–family conflict and responsibility for childcare differ among working fathers and working mothers?

To the extent that national culture can influence the kinds of policies adopted by governments and organizations (Epie et al., Reference Epie, Mwangi, Masuda, Chinchilla, Las Heras and Masuda2010) the role of labor legislation and collective labor agreements is an area relevant to Africa and worthy of additional research attention. Prevalent African cultures and social norms such as familism (which prioritizes family welfare over the individual’s) and patriarchy and its defined gender roles, for example, require African scholars to study the extent to which available mechanisms and provisions made by the public and private sectors actually facilitate the reconciliation of work–family responsibilities in the region.

Support can also occur at the national level, and different countries have various mechanisms available to facilitate the reconciliation between work and family responsibilities. These can range from the services of domestic workers or house helps to formal labor market policies and programs such as parental leave, flexible working arrangements, childcare facilities (Sorj, Reference Sorj2004). What is the range of formal and informal support mechanisms that are available for workers in the different African countries? What gaps exist between the needs for work–family reconciliation and the existing support measures? It would also be important to examine the views of employers (in both the private and public sectors) and trade unions on the broad issue of work–family.

Lastly, it will be worthwhile to explore the extent to which undeveloped infrastructure in most of Africa – for example, bad roads and the resultant chaotic traffic, poor public transport systems, unreliable electricity supplies, and chronic water shortages (Epie et al., Reference Epie, Mwangi, Masuda, Chinchilla, Las Heras and Masuda2010) – is exacerbating work–family conflict for workers in the region. Mechanisms to improve or effectively use the available infrastructure with the view of enhancing work–family management through, for example, telecommuting are also worthy of study.

The Middle Eastern Context

Defining the Middle East. Prior to delving into the overall cultural dimensions of this region, it is important to make explicit the specific countries from which this review pulls. Delineating the precise boundaries of the Middle East is not straightforward. For instance, Turkey is often considered to be straddling the border between Europe and Asia. Additionally, some conceptualizations include parts of North Africa with the Middle East, owing to similar historical and religious traditions, whereas others do not. Several conceptualizations include countries to the east of Iran, such as Tajikistan and Pakistan, whereas others consider these to be more appropriately clustered into their own category or clustered with Southeast Asia. Drawing from consensus among a number of past sources (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, Reference House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta2004; Omran & Roudi, Reference Omran and Roudi1993; Ronen & Shenkar, Reference Ronen and Shenkar1985), for the present discussion we conceptualize the Middle East as consisting of the following countries: Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Yemen.

Economic and sociopolitical context. For purposes of economic classification, Middle Eastern countries can largely be divided into those on the Persian Gulf that are oil-producing (i.e., Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE) and all other countries. Although the economy is on the rise, most Middle Eastern countries possess relatively low per capita gross national incomes around USD 5,000–15,000 (United Nations Development Programme, 2010). Thus, poverty remains an issue for many countries, with Iraq and Yemen demonstrating significantly higher poverty levels than the rest of the region. Oil-producing Persian Gulf countries are an exception, with Qatar boasting a nearly USD 80,000 per capita gross national income. Even within wealthy nations of this region, however, large income inequalities exist. Additionally, the unemployment rate in the Middle East has remained relatively stable since 1999, hovering right above 9%, which is higher than all other world regions except North Africa (United Nations Development Programme, 2010). In total, these statistics demonstrate that the region is economically diverse, both within and between countries.

The region as a whole is marked by political and economic change as it grapples with globalization, leading to the juxtaposition of Westernized business practices with traditional belief systems (Metcalfe, Reference Metcalfe2008; Sidani & Thornberry, Reference Sidani and Thornberry2009). Numerous Middle Eastern countries have struggled to identify skilled labor to compete with the global economy, holding on to vestiges of the bazaar system of trade (Sharda & Miller, Reference Sharda and Miller2001). Nonetheless, change is occurring at different rates throughout the region, and countries such as Turkey represent the opportunity to identify the changing nature of the WF interface as the region shifts to a more Westernized culture (Ergeneli, Ilsev, & Karapınar, Reference Ergeneli, Ilsev and Karapınar2010).

Government types across countries in the Middle East are a combination of democracies, monarchies, and theocracies (Mortazavi, Pedhiwala, Shafiro, & Hammer, Reference Mortazavi, Pedhiwala, Shafiro and Hammer2009). Governmental policies have important implications for the WF interface. Regarding worker protections, no Middle Eastern country guarantees equal pay for equal work by gender, although all guarantee from fourteen to thirty days of paid leave annually and all guarantee at least some paid maternal leave, with Iran being the most generous at six months. Four countries offer a few weeks of paid paternal leave, and all but three countries guarantee breastfeeding breaks at work for new mothers (World Policy Analysis Center, 2017). In total, these policies are on par with many Westernized countries (and superior to the United States in multiple respects).

Despite what is transpiring at the governmental level, many Middle Eastern countries lag behind leading Western organizations in terms of supportive WF practices (Forster, Al Ali Ebrahim, & Ibrahim, Reference Forster, Al Ali Ebrahim and Ibrahim2013). In fact, legal mandates protecting employee rights are not always strictly enforced (Aycan, Reference Aycan2001). This is potentially problematic because, as countries such as Turkey and the UAE become more Westernized, extended kin networks are progressively replaced by the nuclear family. As a result, employees may become significantly more reliant on organizational and legal policies to assist with work–family conflict (WFC; Forster et al., Reference Forster, Al Ali Ebrahim and Ibrahim2013).

Cultural values. Although individual countries within the region may display significant differences across various cultural dimensions, the GLOBE project (House et al., Reference House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta2004) and other research has identified the following cultural hallmarks within Middle Eastern countries: a culture of honor (Glick, Sakallı-Uğurlu, Akbaş, Orta, & Ceylan, Reference Glick, Sakallı-Uğurlu, Akbaş, Orta and Ceylan2015), low gender egalitarianism, high in-group collectivism and focus on family, and high power distance (Aycan & Eskin, Reference Aycan and Eskin2005).

Many Middle Eastern societies espouse a “culture of honor,” which emphasizes the need to maintain a family’s honor within society (Nisbett & Cohen, Reference Nisbett and Cohen1996). Whereas men maintain honor by actively commanding respect and dignity, women maintain honor by avoiding bringing shame upon the family (Glick et al., Reference Glick, Sakallı-Uğurlu, Akbaş, Orta and Ceylan2015; Vandello & Cohen, Reference Vandello and Cohen2003). In Middle Eastern cultures, women largely accomplish this goal by maintaining their modesty. In turn, men are compelled to maintain the family’s honor by harshly punishing a wife’s intentional or unintentional shaming of the family (Vandello & Cohen, Reference Vandello and Cohen2003). The notable lack of legal protections for female victims of domestic violence serves as a societal marker of this belief system (Metcalfe, Reference Metcalfe2008).

Intricately related to the culture of honor is gender egalitarianism, which encompasses a society’s norms regarding the allocation of roles based upon biological sex. Countries espousing low gender egalitarianism value discrete role behavior for men and women (House et al., Reference House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta2004). Historical (mis)interpretations of Islamic teachings in the region have led to low gender egalitarianism, valuing the role of men as leaders of society and women in family supportive roles (Syed, Reference Syed2008). Although it is important to note that Islam has many forms, the associated patriarchal beliefs often extend into the culture and practices of many organizations (Aycan, Reference Aycan2001). Indeed, Islam-based Shar’ia law indirectly promotes sex discrimination in the workplace rather than forbidding it. For instance, offices may physically segregate male and female workers or may limit the positions or specific tasks in which women are allowed to participate (Metcalfe, Reference Metcalfe2008). Gender egalitarianism norms also have critical implications for the amount of support organizations provide for work–life balance and the subsequent work–life balance actually experienced by employees (Lyness & Kropf, Reference Lyness and Kropf2005). Thus, both a culture of honor and low gender egalitarianism may signal challenges for women who violate traditional gender norms by working outside the home.

In-group collectivism signifies the degree to which individuals view themselves as highly interdependent rather than independent of the social groups to which they belong (House et al., Reference House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta2004). Middle Eastern societies generally exhibit high in-group collectivism, and this manifests as loyalty both to families and to work groups (Sidani & Thornberry, Reference Sidani and Thornberry2009). In Iran, as with other Middle Eastern countries, an individual’s identity is largely tied to the extended family. The typical Middle Eastern employee also places a high value on relationships at work and exhibits strong loyalty to other members of the work group (Sidani & Thornberry, Reference Sidani and Thornberry2009). The impact of in-group collectivism on WFC specifically has been tested via meta-analysis (Allen, French, Dumani, & Shockley, Reference Allen, French, Dumani and Shockley2015); people residing in countries high in in-group collectivism experience greater conflict in the family-to-work direction, but there are no significant differences in the work-to-family direction.

Power distance is a cultural value surrounding the perceived legitimacy and desirability of power and status differentiation among members of society (House et al., Reference House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta2004). Middle Eastern children are socialized to value conformity and obedience to authority from a young age. In particular, the role of the father as leader is emphasized. These attitudes extend first from the family to educational settings and eventually to the workplace (Sidani & Thornberry, Reference Sidani and Thornberry2009). Combined with high uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede1984), high power distance beliefs suggest that a leader will and should wield a great deal of power and should make important decisions for their subordinates. This, in turn, might have important implications for the degree to which workers take initiative in managing their own WF conflict and/or balance.

In sum, the cultural values generally espoused by Middle Easterners may have important implications not only for the frequency of conflict between work and family but also for the qualitative “lived” experience of managing the WF interface. Women may face particular challenges, a point discussed further in the following section.

Women in the workforce. In most Middle Eastern countries, there is a sharp gender divide in workforce participation. Across all countries in the region, women constitute approximately 21% of the workforce, which is roughly half the global average. More specifically, women constitute less than 20% of the workforce in Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and UAE; they constitute between 20% and 40% of the workforce in Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, Turkey, and Yemen; and they constitute 46.8% of the workforce in Israel (World Bank, 2014). Female participation in the workforce is positively correlated with a country’s general economic success. Although the relationship between economic success and women’s participation in the workforce is likely bidirectional and complex, recently scholars have noted the importance of empowering women for increasing the economic performance of Middle Eastern countries (Torabi & Abbasi-Shavazi, Reference Torabi and Abbasi-Shavazi2015).

As is true across the globe, women earn less than men, although the Middle East appears to fare especially poorly. Israel is ranked 65th in the world in income equality, with a female to male earnings ratio of .70, representing the highest ratio in the Middle East. Kuwait is the next highest in equality for the region, representing 113th in the world with a ratio of.65. Yemen fares lowest in the world (i.e., 142nd) with a ratio of .51, with the rankings of all other Middle Eastern countries falling between Yemen and Kuwait (World Economic Forum, 2014).

Aside from earnings levels, occupational sex segregation is very common in Middle Eastern countries. Indeed, women are typically found in traditionally “feminine” sectors such as service, healthcare, and education. In addition, women are severely underrepresented in upper management and executive positions (Metcalfe, Reference Metcalfe2008). It is important to note that despite historical trends in the region women are making strides in some areas. Today, there are a significant number of Turkish women in professional positions, including pharmacy, medicine, dentistry, law, and academia (Aycan & Eskin, Reference Aycan and Eskin2005). And in the UAE, initial qualitative research suggests that female entrepreneurs derive a great deal of satisfaction and meaningfulness from their work, despite the ongoing struggle against traditional gender norms (Itani, Sidani, & Baalbaki, Reference Itani, Sidani and Baalbaki2011).

Countries with large Muslim populations subscribe to gender complementarian values that men are predominantly responsible for earning a living and women are predominantly responsible for tending to household duties, such as caring for children and other dependent household members, preparing meals, and doing other housework (Groth & Sousa-Poza, Reference Groth and Sousa-Poza2012). As such, employed women bear significant pressure from both home and work responsibilities. These pressures may be substantial considering that families in Middle Eastern cultures are relatively large, with an average fertility rate of 2.9 births per woman (United Nations, 2015). Despite a recent shift in values within a subset of Middle Eastern countries, it appears that experiences of men and women in the workplace may be quite different.

Review of Work–Family Research in the Middle East

Next, we review empirical findings on WF constructs in the Middle East. Note that essentially all research has maintained a focus on work–family conflict (WFC) as the construct of interest (cf. Forster et al., Reference Forster, Al Ali Ebrahim and Ibrahim2013; Karimi & Nouri, Reference Karimi and Nouri2009); hence, this review reflects this trend. Where appropriate, we specify the directionality of WFC under study: work interfering with family (WIF) and family interfering with work (FIW). As with other regions, the WF literature in the Middle East yields a variety of contradictory findings (Burke & El-Kot, Reference Burke and El-Kot2010). As will be seen, this makes drawing firm conclusions about this construct and region a challenge.

Predictors of WFC. Empirically examined predictors of WFC in the Middle East can be separated into organizational characteristics, individual differences, and family characteristics. Regarding organizational characteristics, work overload is associated with increased WFC in Turkish frontline hotel employees (Karatepe, Sokmen, Yavas, & Babakus, Reference Karatepe, Sokmen, Yavas and Babakus2010), nurses (Yildirim & Aycan, Reference Yildirim and Aycan2008), and physicians (Tayfur & Arslan, Reference Tayfur and Arslan2013). In addition to quantity of work, intensity of the work role (i.e., role overload, role ambiguity) is associated with WFC among Egyptian managers (Burke & El-Kot, Reference Burke and El-Kot2010), Iranian employees (Karimi & Nouri, Reference Karimi and Nouri2009), and Turkish employees (Koyuncu, Burke, & Fiksenbaum, Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum2009). Regarding protective factors, perceived organizational support is negatively associated with WFC (Ibrahim & Al Marri, Reference Ibrahim and Al Marri2015), although this relationship may be stronger for men than for women (Aycan & Eskin, Reference Aycan and Eskin2005). Supervisor support is also negatively associated with WFC across different nationalities and occupations (Karatepe & Uludag, Reference Karatepe and Uludag2008b; Karimi & Nouri, Reference Karimi and Nouri2009), although its role may be stronger in reducing FIW than WIF (Farhadi, Sharifian, Feili, & Shokrpour, Reference Farhadi, Sharifian, Feili and Shokrpour2013).

Examining personality and behavioral correlates, positive affectivity is negatively associated with both WIF and FIW in Turkish frontline hotel employees, whereas negative affectivity is positively associated with WIF but unrelated to FIW (Karatepe & Uludag, Reference Karatepe and Uludag2008a). Both need for achievement and workaholism behaviors are positively related to WIF in Egyptian managers (Burke & El-Kot, Reference Burke and El-Kot2010), but need for achievement has been found to be significantly associated with less WFC in Turkish employees (Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum2009). The reason for this discrepancy is unclear. Finally, psychological detachment is negatively associated with WFC among Egyptian managers (Burke & El-Kot, Reference Burke and El-Kot2010).

Men and women experience comparable levels of WFC in Egyptian managerial roles (Burke & El-Kot, Reference Burke and El-Kot2010). However, in a study of Iranian nurses, male employees experienced higher levels of FIW than did female employees (Farhadi et al., Reference Farhadi, Sharifian, Feili and Shokrpour2013). In a study of Jordanian frontline hotel workers, female employees experienced higher levels of FIW than did male employees (Karatepe & Baddar, Reference Karatepe and Baddar2006). And in a study of accountants in the UAE, female employees experienced higher levels of WIF and FIW than male employees (Ibrahim & Al Marri, Reference Ibrahim and Al Marri2015). These data would seem to suggest that there remain unidentified moderators of gender differences in WFC. More concrete is the relationship between age and WFC. Age has been found to be negatively associated with WFC for male Iranian professionals (Karimi & Nouri, Reference Karimi and Nouri2009) and for Iranian nurses (Farhadi et al., Reference Farhadi, Sharifian, Feili and Shokrpour2013).

Minimal research has examined predictors of WFC on the family side. However, spousal support appears to be negatively associated with WFC. One study on a sample of Turkish white-collar mothers and fathers found that spousal support – both emotional and instrumental – was negatively associated with FIW, but this relationship was stronger for women than men (Aycan & Eskin, Reference Aycan and Eskin2005). These results may be partially understood by considering that individuals may experience particularly high reductions in stress when receiving support from the domain in which they are traditionally expected to perform (i.e., in the home for women and in the workplace for men).

Outcomes of WFC. Outcomes of WFC in the Middle East can be generally categorized into work outcomes and family outcomes. Although doing so risks creating an artificial dichotomy, this structure is used to guide the present discussion.

Cross-Regional Comparisons

Prior to considering substantive differences between the Middle East and other regions, it is essential to establish that the same construct is tapped when examining WFC cross-culturally (Vandenberg & Lance, Reference Vandenberg and Lance2000). Measurement invariance of WFC across Western and Middle Eastern cultures has been largely supported. For example, a six-dimensional model of WFC has been previously developed and widely used within American samples by crossing three types of conflict (i.e., time, strain, and behavior) with two directions (i.e., WIF and FIW; Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, Reference Carlson, Kacmar and Williams2000). This factor structure is valid within Iranian (Karimi et al., Reference Karimi, Karimi and Nouri2011), Turkish (Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum2009), and Egyptian (Burke & El-Kot, Reference Burke and El-Kot2010) samples. Additionally, FIW and WIF are positively related, with the correlation ranging from r =.51 to.74 (Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Wolpin2012; Mortazavi et al., Reference Mortazavi, Pedhiwala, Shafiro and Hammer2009), which is generally in accordance with previous studies (Shockley, Reference Shockley, Anderson, Ones, Sinangil and Viswesvaranin press).

Empirical findings represented in our review above have largely replicated results in the United States and other Western nations. On the predictor side, for instance, previous meta-analytic evidence across cultures supports a contributing role of work overload and negativity affectivity on WFC and an inhibitory role of perceived organizational, supervisor, and spousal support (Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes, Reference Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark and Baltes2011). Regarding outcomes, findings that WFC is associated with lower work satisfaction, greater turnover intentions, lower psychological well-being, and lower family satisfaction have all been found in Western samples (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, Reference Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux and Brinley2005). Additionally, research in the Middle East provides support for the asymmetric boundary permeability theory (Pleck, Reference Pleck1977): men and women allow work to interfere with family more than they allow family to interfere with work (Aycan & Eskin, Reference Aycan and Eskin2005; Karimi, Reference Karimi2008b), which is similar to findings in Western cultures (e.g., Burke & Greenglass, Reference Burke and Greenglass1999; Kinnunen & Mauno, Reference Kinnunen and Mauno1998).

However, several findings illustrate differences between the Middle East and other regions. Overall, there is evidence suggesting that Turkish and Egyptian workers experience higher levels of WFC than do American workers (Burke & El-Kot, Reference Burke and El-Kot2010). Additionally, these mean differences extend to each of three forms of WFC, including time-, strain-, and behavior-based (Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum2009). These findings may be partially due to low gender equality of these countries (Lyness & Kropf, Reference Lyness and Kropf2005) or lack of organizational support for work–family issues (Mortazavi et al., Reference Mortazavi, Pedhiwala, Shafiro and Hammer2009). Yet country is a multiply confounded construct (Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Wolpin2012). Therefore, the degree to which other factors may be driving these differences remains unclear. It is also important to note that not all research has uncovered a difference in WFC between the Middle East and the United States (e.g., Mortazavi et al., Reference Mortazavi, Pedhiwala, Shafiro and Hammer2009). Further, cultural differences in WFC may be moderated by gender, as evidence suggests that Turkish male and female employees do not show as large of a difference in WFC as do American male and female employees (Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum2009).

Future Research Directions

The study of the WF interface in the Middle East is still in its infancy, and the majority of research has transpired only within the last decade. Thus, there are many possible directions for future research. In this final section, we provide recommendations for researchers in the region going forward, noting similarities among existing studies where appropriate and k contributions.

1. Engage in additional cross-regional and cross-cultural research. The fact that many variable correlations in this region are similar to research from other regions does not negate the possibility that significant cultural differences exist. What is lacking is research that explicitly models country or culture as a moderator. Such research would allow researchers to identify the degree to which this region’s high levels of in-group collectivism and power distance and low levels of gender egalitarianism have an impact on WFC and associated outcomes. Meta-analytic evidence by Allen et al. (Reference Allen, French, Dumani and Shockley2015) serves as a notable exception, as this study examined the association between in-group collectivism and WFC.

2. Examine a greater diversity of samples. Most research has focused on a limited number of white-collar occupations, such as accounting (Ibrahim & Al Marri, Reference Ibrahim and Al Marri2015), banking (Aycan & Eskin, Reference Aycan and Eskin2005), medicine (Benligiray & Sönmez, Reference Benligiray and Sönmez2012; Tayfur & Arslan, Reference Tayfur and Arslan2013), and information technology (Calisir et al., Reference Calisir, Gumussoy and Iskin2011), although a subset of studies have considered blue-collar occupations, frontline hotel workers in particular (e.g., Karatepe et al., Reference Karatepe, Sokmen, Yavas and Babakus2010; Karatepe & Uludag, Reference Karatepe and Uludag2008a, Reference Karatepe and Uludag2008b). Additionally, much research has focused on Turkish citizens, particularly those in urban areas (Aycan & Eskin, Reference Aycan and Eskin2005; Benligiray & Sönmez, Reference Benligiray and Sönmez2012; Calisir et al., Reference Calisir, Gumussoy and Iskin2011; Ergeneli et al., Reference Ergeneli, Ilsev and Karapınar2010; Karatepe et al., Reference Karatepe, Sokmen, Yavas and Babakus2010; Karatepe & Uludag, Reference Karatepe and Uludag2008a, Reference Karatepe and Uludag2008b; Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum2009; Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Wolpin2012; Tayfur & Arslan, Reference Tayfur and Arslan2013; Yavas et al., Reference Yavas, Babakus and Karatepe2008; Yildirim & Aycan, Reference Yildirim and Aycan2008). Because Turkey serves as a “bridge” between Eastern and Western cultures, it is possible that the large amount of research done in this country is not truly representative of the region as a whole, particularly as this country has demonstrated a steady increase in gender egalitarianism (Aycan & Eskin, Reference Aycan and Eskin2005). Another country boasting a disproportionate share of research in the region is Iran (Farhadi et al., Reference Farhadi, Sharifian, Feili and Shokrpour2013; Karimi, Reference Karimi2008a; Karimi, Reference Karimi2008b; Karimi et al., Reference Karimi, Karimi and Nouri2011; Karimi & Nouri, Reference Karimi and Nouri2009). To the authors’ knowledge, there has been no published WF research consisting of participants from eight out of sixteen of the countries in this region (i.e., Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen). To the extent that these countries differ culturally from countries previously examined, valuable theoretical contributions could be gleaned by examining drivers of differences in WF constructs and WF constructs-correlate relationships across countries both within and between regions.

3. Leverage additional methodologies. There exists a great opportunity to utilize advanced methodological and statistical techniques to further research on WF constructs in the Middle East. For instance, all presently examined studies utilized a cross-sectional, self-report only design (e.g., Burke & El-Kot, Reference Burke and El-Kot2010; Forster et al., Reference Forster, Al Ali Ebrahim and Ibrahim2013; Karimi et al., Reference Karimi, Karimi and Nouri2011; Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum2009; Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Wolpin2012; Yavas et al., Reference Yavas, Babakus and Karatepe2008). Longitudinal research would allow for removal of methodological artefacts and provide for a more sophisticated understanding of the impact of temporal dynamics on variables of interest. Additionally, using a dyadic level of analysis provides for examining the interaction of spousal attitudes. Such an approach might be beneficial for understanding how husbands’ attitudes regarding traditional gender roles interact with wives’ decisions to work outside the home, for instance. With the exception of one study (Karatepe et al., Reference Karatepe, Sokmen, Yavas and Babakus2010), studies in this region have examined direct effects only, not testing for mediation. Additionally, much work has been the replication of variable relationships in slightly different samples (e.g., Burke & El-Kot, Reference Burke and El-Kot2010; Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum2009). These points are raised here not to disparage the pioneering work of researchers in the region, but rather to highlight the many opportunities for adding significant contributions to the burgeoning literature.

4. Test interventions. Although numerous researchers have noted the need for Middle Eastern organizations to engage in interventions to improve the WF interface (Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum2009; Koyuncu et al., Reference Koyuncu, Burke and Wolpin2012; Yavas et al., Reference Yavas, Babakus and Karatepe2008), no known study has identified the efficacy of such a program for this region. Thus, there exists a gap in elucidating which interventions are effective for reducing WFC and how these interventions may differ from successful programs in Western cultures. Although some strategies may be universally successful, Middle Eastern employees are especially high on power distance (House et al., Reference House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta2004). Therefore, organizational policies that directly reduce WFC though job design may be more useful than policies emphasizing that employees initiate action on their own. Furthermore, the high in-group collectivism of the region suggests that interventions emphasizing balance as a means to better group and societal outcomes, as opposed to better individual outcomes, may experience a higher success rate. Ultimately these remain empirical questions to be tested.

5. Accentuate the positive. As noted by Karatepe and Uludag (Reference Karatepe and Uludag2008a), virtually no research has examined the positive interface between work and family in this region (e.g., work–family enhancement, facilitation, or positive spillover). An initial research aim might be to establish the measurement invariance of these constructs in the Middle East compared with other regions. Due to Middle Eastern cultural values emphasizing a strong work ethic, the integral connection between work and life, and perception of work as a means for social connection (Ali & Al‐Owaihan, Reference Ali and Al‐Owaihan2008), it would be interesting to establish if positive spillover occurs differently for individuals in the Middle East compared with countries in which work is viewed more instrumentally. As another substantive research area, to the degree that Middle Eastern countries progress toward greater gender egalitarianism, understanding the psychological benefits of work roles to women in these countries represents an area of potentially fruitful research.

6. Focus on the family domain. Compared with other regions, very little research in the Middle East has identified family domain antecedents of WFC (cf. Aycan & Eskin, Reference Aycan and Eskin2005). Rather, family characteristics such as marital status and number of children have been utilized primarily as inclusionary criteria for study (Forster et al., Reference Forster, Al Ali Ebrahim and Ibrahim2013; Karatepe & Baddar, Reference Karatepe and Baddar2006) or as control variables (Ibrahim & Al Marri, Reference Ibrahim and Al Marri2015; Yavas et al., Reference Yavas, Babakus and Karatepe2008). This seems an especially significant gap. Considering the central role that family plays in this region (Sharda & Miller, Reference Sharda and Miller2001), family may represent a strong resource upon which to draw or may represent a stressful obligation, particularly for women held to traditional gender role norms. Thus, future research should examine family values as an antecedent of family-to-work outcomes and as a moderator of work-to-family outcomes.

Conclusion

Research on the WF interface in the Middle East is still in early development. Evidence suggests that this region shares many of the same antecedents and consequences of WFC with other regions in the world. However, the unique religious traditions, economic status, and cultural values of the region hold promise for exciting future research.

Labor Market and Contextual Aspects Influencing Work–Family Issues in South East Asia

Historical, political, economic, social, and cultural aspects of countries and regions influence assumptions regarding division of labor and role expectations at work and within the family (Komarraju, Reference Komarraju2006). Therefore, it is important to consider these contextual factors when trying to understand work–family issues in a particular region. Although there are quite a few cultural and institutional factors of relevance (see Brough, Driscoll, & Kalliath, Reference Brough., O’Driscoll and Kalliath2005; Hegewisch & Gornick, Reference Hegewisch and Gornick2011), we choose to focus on a few key factors and highlight the differences between countries in the South East Asian region based on them. We chose to focus on labor force composition, government mandated access to parental leave and childcare, and access to different kinds of work for women and men, because these factors seemed to have the most potential impact on work–family issues. Table 19.1 helps illustrate some of the major ways in which these countries approach work–life issues in terms of the labor force considerations described below.

The first key factor relates to labor force composition. An Asian Development Bank (2015) report states that women in Asia as a whole are on average 70% less likely than men to be in the labor force, with the country-to-country percentage varying from 3% to 80%. This gap persists in spite of economic growth, decreasing fertility rates, and increasing education. Reviewing the 2016 Gender Gap Report of the World Economic Forum (a report that includes 144 economies and ranks country gender gaps based on economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment, and health and survival), it is clear that there is a very pronounced disparity between South East Asia and the other regions of the world.

A second critical regulatory consideration related to work–life issues is paid and unpaid leave, specifically, access to parental leave. The ability to take paid and unpaid family leave enables employees to better meet their work and family responsibilities (Baird & Whitehouse, Reference Baird and Whitehouse2012). When there is mandated access to parental leave, most countries in South East Asia provide this leave to mothers more so than to fathers, as illustrated in Table 1. Yet, research suggests that in places where new fathers take parental leave, mothers are more likely to return to the labor market, female employment is higher, and the earnings gap between men and women is smaller (Women, Business and the Law, 2015). Thus, whether and how much parental leave is provided by law can be an important consideration impacting work–family issues in the country or region in question.

A third area of interest is the nature of work and access to it, including length of working hours and whether women and men are permitted to work in the same jobs. Most research suggests a direct relationship between work–family conflict and long working hours or pressure to work long hours (e.g., Michel et al., Reference Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark and Baltes2011). Most countries in South East Asia’s standard work week is between forty and forty-eight hours (with most falling closer to forty-eight). Additionally, there are prevailing restrictions on women’s work, including what hours (e.g., night) they cannot work, work deemed hazardous or arduous for women but not men (e.g., mining), and specific tasks (e.g., heavy lifting) or workplaces (e.g., factories) women are not allowed to work in. These are all captured under the broad heading of “Do women face significant barriers to equal employment?” in Table 19.1.

A fourth regulatory consideration is access to childcare. Just like with paid parental leave, having access to high quality childcare is considered essential for parents’ participation in the workforce. As Bianchi and Milkie (Reference Bianchi and Milkie2010) note: “childcare … forms the nucleus of what much ‘work–family’ conflict is about—how to care for children adequately when parents need or want to work outside the home.” (p. 710). Not only does providing help with or access to quality childcare outside the home enable primary caregivers (mostly women) to more quickly return to the workforce, but it also could encourage a more equitable distribution of domestic responsibilities between women and men (Asian Development Bank, 2015), thus further easing potential conflict arising from competing work and family priorities. For example, In India because of the heavy burden of domestic labor, many women (about 45%) leave the workforce mid-career (compared with the overall Asian average of 28%; McKinsey Report). This is the “leaky pipeline” in India that many have described (e.g., Jhangiani, Reference Jhangiani2016), where organizations lose many talented employees due to work–family conflict and lack of support in a male-oriented workplace.

Although there is variability across countries within the regions, there are some shared characteristics of South East Asian countries worth noting. First, people in South East Asian countries tend to share certain cultural values. The GLOBE project, a study of thousands of managers in sixty-two countries aimed at understanding variation in cultural values (see Chapter 3 in this Handbook (Olliere-Malaterre & Foucreault) for additional details) provides important insight about cultural values that are common to many countries in South East Asia (although note that the GLOBE project uses Southern Asia as the regional classification and not South East Asia, which includes India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand, but there is sufficient overlap for us to consider its conclusions here). South East Asian countries in general score highly on the cultural values of in-group collectivism (i.e., the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their families), power distance (i.e., degree that cultures expect power to be unequally distributed), and humane orientation (i.e., degree that cultures value and reward helping others) (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, Reference House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta2004). Researchers have suggested that all of these values have potential implications for work–family relations. Specifically, numerous researchers have proposed that work–family conflict may be construed differently in collectivistic versus individualistic cultures, as collectivists tend to consider work as a means to enhancing family (e.g., Galovan, Fackrell, Buswell, Jones, Hill, & Carroll, Reference Galovan, Fackrell, Buswell, Jones, Hill and Carroll2010; Hassan, Dollard, & Winefield, Reference Hassan, Dollard and Winefield2010; Yang, Reference Yang and Poelmans2005). Power distance and humane orientation have been considered less often in the context of global work–family relations, but Powell, Francesco, and Ling (Reference Powell, Francesco and Ling2009) included humane orientation in their theoretical model of the impact of culture on work–family conflict, arguing that people in cultures high in humane orientation tend to receive high levels of social support, which should lead to lower levels of work–family conflict compared to those in low humane-oriented cultures.

Additionally, although South East Asia does not stand out as particularly low on gender egalitarianism, defined as the degree that cultures minimize gender inequality, based on GLOBE project data, other metrics suggest that gender roles are quite distinct in this region. Specifically, according to the Global Gender Gap Index (2016), which uses the gap between men and women on several variables such as economic participation and opportunity, health and survival, and political empowerment, to create an overall index of equality, “Asia and the Pacific” is the region with the second lowest levels of gender equality, being surpassed only by the “Middle East and North Africa.” The index does not separately report on South East Asia as a region, but we conducted our own calculations based on values reported for individual countries, which included the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Maldives, Nepal, Thailand, and Timore-Leste. The average gender gap of only these countries is almost identical to that of the broader region.

Beyond cultural values, economic considerations of the South East Asian region are important. Since many countries in South East Asia are considered “developing” countries with weaker economies, work is critical for family survival – and as such, family members may be more accepting of work being conducted in the home environment or otherwise interfering with family life, which would impact mean levels of reported work–family conflict.

There are also major differences between these countries to keep in mind when examining the research. For example, Thailand has had a long history of military rule, but was never colonized by European powers. On the other hand, India is one of the largest democracies whose society bears the remnants of the British Colonial Rule while still retaining its regional social, political, cultural, and economic diversity in that there is no single prevailing commonwealth identity (Banerji & Yik, Reference Banerji and Yik2012). The Philippines, on the other hand, is a South East Asian country with a history of colonization most recently by the United States (Rothausen, Gonzalez, & Griffin, Reference Rothausen, Gonzalez and Griffin2009). This has resulted in the Philippines having a large English-speaking population that espouses many Western values.

Research on Work–Family Issues in South East Asia: Themes and Challenges

Research on work–life issues in South East Asia is relatively recent and has not appeared much in rigorous, peer-reviewed journals. A vast majority of the research focuses on work–family issues rather than work–life issues, with an emphasis on the participation of women in the workforce and the burdens of managing childcare along with a career. India, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka have received the most research attention; we were unable to find any work–family research focused on the Maldives, Nepal, or Timor-Leste, while the other countries were featured in some, limited research. For example, the Philippines was represented in the IBM Global work and life issues survey, but data was not presented for individual countries (Erickson, Martinengo, & Hill, Reference Erickson, Martinengo and Hill2010; Yang & Hawkins, Reference Yang and Hawkins2004).

Much of the empirical literature focused on South East Asian has relied on collectivism as an explanation for expected cultural differences in comparative studies. As noted previously, different ways of thinking about work and family as separate versus integrated can impact how frequently work–family conflict is experienced. A few studies have examined this idea, although results are a bit mixed. Pal and Saksvik (Reference Pal and Saksvik2006) found that Indians had higher work–family conflict than Norwegians. Agarwala, Arizkuren-Eleta, Del Castillo, Muñiz-Ferrer, and Gartzia (Reference Agarwala, Arizkuren-Eleta, Del Castillo, Muñiz Ferrer and Gartzia2014) measured work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict, and work–life conflict in India, Peru, and Spain. They cite no differences in work-to-family conflict, but family-to-work conflict and work–life conflict was higher in India than in Peru or Spain. Taken together, there is somewhat of a trend of greater work–family conflict in South East Asian countries compared those in other areas of the world. Interestingly, this is counter to what many researchers have proposed, arguing that because collectivism leads people to view work and family as more integrated, people in collectivistic countries are less likely to view work and family as in conflict compared to those in individualistic countries. Thus, it may be other cultural variables along with collectivism that produce these effects.

Collectivism has also been theorized to impact the strength of association of work variables with work–family conflict. In an empirical test of this idea using samples from fifteen countries, Spector et al. (Reference Spector, Cooper, Poelman, Allen, O’Driscoll, Sanchez and Lu2004) found that working hours have a stronger relationship with work–family conflict in individualistic countries compared to collectivistic countries. Thus, in South East Asia, work may not be perceived as an individual milestone of success, but as a way to improve family welfare, and working long hours may be seen as helping the family rather than as an interference (Annavarjula & Das, Reference Annavarjula and Das2013; De Cieri & Bardoel, Reference De Cieri and Bardoel2009). On the other hand, the same behaviors in individualistic cultures may be viewed as self-centered (Yang, Chen, Choi, & Zou, Reference Yang, Chen, Choi and Zou2000).

Relatedly, Aycan (Reference Aycan, Korabik and Lero2008) posits that Asian cultures perceive work and family as compatible but different facets of life and, therefore, when work–family conflict occurs it is simply something that needs to be managed and potentially even learn and grow from. In contrast, Western, individualistic cultures view work–family conflict as problematic and damaging. Several studies support this idea, either directly or indirectly. Aryee, Srinivas, and Tan (Reference Aryee, Srinivas and Tan2005) found that in India, the more an employee was involved in his/her job, the less family-to-work conflict the person experienced. Although this may seem counterintuitive within an individualistic society, it is more easily understood in collectivistic societies, such as India, because job involvement is considered critical to ensure the material well-being of the family. However, it important to note that other studies conducted in South East Asia have found that work demands contribute to work–family conflict, and are more predictive of conflict than are family demands (e.g., Fang, Nastiti, & Chen, Reference Fang, Nastiti and Chen2011 in a sample of Indonesian lecturers).

Other research on predictors of work–family constructs focuses on support and individual differences. In a study examining work–life balance in mostly male Indian bank managers located in Madhya Pradesh, a central Indian state, Jain and Jain (Reference Jain and Jain2015) found moderate levels of work–life balance among this sample and that supportive HR policies, supervisor and organizational support, teamwork, trust, and openness in communication related positively to work–life balance. In terms of personality, Kappagoda (Reference Kappagoda2014) examined emotional intelligence as a predictor of work–family conflict among school teachers in North-Central Sri Lanka. He found that teachers with high emotional intelligence reported less work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. Noor (Reference Noor2006), in a sample of Malaysian employees, highlighted the importance of locus of control and suggested further investigation of personality variables in understanding the experience of work–family conflict. Lastly, Bhargava and Baral (Reference Bhargava and Baral2009) focused on core self-evaluations, a stable individual difference composed of locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem, which encompasses individuals’ evaluations about themselves, their control, and their abilities (Judge, Locke & Durham, Reference Judge, Locke and Durham1997). Bhargava and Baral (Reference Bhargava and Baral2009) found a positive relationship between core self-evaluations and work–family effectiveness in a sample of Indian manufacturing and IT managers.

Other studies have examined work–family constructs in relation to outcomes, rather than focusing on antecedents. In a series of studies comparing Indian and Norwegian medical professionals, Pal and Saksvik (Reference Pal and Saksvik2006, Reference Pal and Saksvik2008) found differential predictors of job stress according to country and occupation. For Norwegian nurses, work–family conflict, job demands, and lack of flexibility were predictors of job stress, but for Indian nurses, family-to-work conflict and social support were predictors of job stress. None of the variables were predictors of job stress among Norwegian doctors, whereas job control predicted job stress for Indian doctors. Findings were explained in terms of national and cultural differences that may impact gender and family policies. The authors discussed cultural differences in the perceptions of demands and social support in these two cultures with the Nordic culture having an employment culture that encourages mothers to work by providing child-care and other family friendly policies. Such support is missing in many Indian organizations.

Other research on work–family conflict and outcomes was conducted only in South East Asia with no explicit comparison to other cultures. Mimicking that which has been found in meta-analytic summaries of the literature in general (e.g., Amstad et al., Reference Amstad, Laurenz, Fasel, Elfering and Summer2011), Srivasta and Srivasta (Reference Srivastava and Srivastava2012) found that both work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict negatively related to job performance, mental health, and marital satisfaction for a sample of IT professionals. Namasivayan and Zhao (Reference Namasivayam and Zhao2007) found that family-to-work conflict, but not work-to-family conflict, predicted job satisfaction in a sample of Indian hospitality workers, which aligns with the domain specificity perspective (i.e., satisfaction in the interfered with domain is affected more so than satisfaction in the interfering domain; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, Reference Frone, Russell and Cooper1992), although this pattern is contrary to what has been found in meta-analytic research (Shockley & Singla, Reference Shockley and Singla2011). Although most of the studies examining outcomes typically demonstrate similar trends to that found in Western cultures, Pal and Saksvik (Reference Pal and Saksvik2006, Reference Pal and Saksvik2008) did find differences when comparing Indian and Norwegian health professionals. More research is needed that specifically compares South East Asia countries to their Western counterparts.

There is also evidence of differences in identity in South East Asian cultures compared to other cultures. Annavarjula and Das (Reference Annavarjula and Das2013) compared American and Indian middle managers and found that American workers placed more emphasis on their family identity whereas Indian workers placed more emphasis on work identity. Although this may seem contradictory to ideas previously discussed (i.e., that family is highly important in collectivistic societies), it can be explained by the fact that because work is considered critical to ensure the material well-being of the family in these cultures (Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan, Reference Aryee, Srinivas and Tan2005), they may identify strongly with their work identity. Relatedly, Pawitra (as cited in Fang, Nastiti, & Chen, Reference Fang, Nastiti and Chen2011) suggested that in the Indonesian context, working is an important way to facilitate the communalism inherent in that culture; fulfilling one’s work responsibility helps maintain in-group cohesion, which is critical for people who live with collectivistic values. In a developing economy like Indonesia, Indonesians spend more time and energy working as working will allow them to sustain the well-being of the next generation. Said otherwise, workers in collective societies like India, Malaysia, and Indonesia are expected to have high work identity because work is seen as a means to a collective good. Lastly, there is some evidence that these values are changing with generations, at least in India. Singh (Reference Singh2013) found that employees from pre-liberalization India (ages 47–58) saw work as a duty performed for family, but for post-liberalization Indians (ages 24–34), work was seen as a challenge, an opportunity for advancing one’s career, and as a means to earn money for leisure.

Additionally, several researchers have made use of qualitative approaches to try to more fully understand the meaning attached to work, family, and work–family conflict in South East Asian contexts. One example is a study conducted in India based on semi-structured interviews with twenty-one dual-earner couples (Kalliath et al., Reference Kalliath, Kalliath and Singh2011). All of the couples in the study reported experiencing work–family conflict, especially time- and strain-based forms. Time-based conflict was reflected by comments on the hours spent, the need to take work home, and lack of time to spend with their children. Strain-based conflicts were reflected in comments on how the competing demands of work and family roles caused mental stress. Men reported more work-to-family conflict and women reported more family-to-work conflict. Coping strategies included a belief in God, having positive attitudes towards life, getting strength from helping others, and support from family and colleagues. More men reported obtaining support from a spouse than did women. Another example of a qualitative study using in-depth qualitative, semi-structured interviews and observations with mothers was conducted by Kodagoda (Reference Kodagoda2010) who studied a small, purposive sample of five female bank managers and their partners in Sri Lanka. They also interviewed two top level banking sector managers. High levels of work–family stress was reported when there were children in the household, particularly younger children. Both mothers and husbands perceived mothers as being the primary caregivers, and mothers experienced more stress than their husbands. Spousal and family support were also reported as important in reducing work stress, and the need for organizations and society to provide family friendly policies was emphasized. These findings are not substantially different from those found in Western-based work–family research, but help support the idea that there may be some similarities across regions in work–family concerns.

Gender plays an important role in work–family relations in South East Asia, as it does in many cultural contexts. In terms of specific gender-related work–family research in the region, some results have been surprising in light of the fact that there is still a great deal of gender inequity in many South East Asian countries, with women still taking on the bulk of family labor (e.g., Rajadhyaksha, Reference Rajadhyaksha2012). Specifically, given women’s additional family demands, one might expect that work–life balance would be more difficult for women (Noor, Reference 369Noor2002a). However, a study of Indian bank managers found that about 67.7% of the women reported that they were able to balance their work and life in contrast to 50.7% of the men (Kakkar & Bhandari, Reference Kakkar and Bhandari2016). Because the sample was all people in the same occupation, differences in job characteristics are an unlikely explanation; women did report slightly higher levels of family support than men, which could be a contributing factor. Other research supports this idea regarding support. Noor (Reference Noor1999) suggests that Malay women might be protected from work–family conflict because of the large amount of kinship and religious support that they often receive, although this trend did not hold for urban women who may be more likely to live in isolated nuclear families (Din & Noor, Reference Din and Noor2009). Additionally, Noor (Reference Noor2002b) found that spousal support moderated the relationship between the number of hours worked and job autonomy and work–family conflict in that Malaysian women with high spousal support experienced less work–family conflict even when working long hours and the lowest level of conflict was reported when spousal support was high and job autonomy was high.

Much of the extant research has taken a conflict perspective, with little attention to positive experiences, such as work–family facilitation or enrichment. Two exceptions to this include Bhargava and Baral (Reference Bhargava and Baral2009) and Pattusamy and Jacob (Reference Pattusamy and Jacob2015). Bhargava and Baral (Reference Bhargava and Baral2009) studied job characteristics (i.e., autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance, feedback from job, feedback from others and dealing with others) and work–life balance programs as predictors of work–family enrichment in a sample of Indian managers. There was evidence for gender effects, such that the relationship between work–life balance programs (e.g., flexible working hours, flexibility in start and end times) and work–family enrichment was stronger for women than men, whereas the relationship between job characteristics and work–family enrichment was stronger for men than women. Women also reported higher mean levels of family-to-work enrichment than men. Pattusamy and Jacob (Reference Pattusamy and Jacob2015) examined teaching faculty in the United States and India. Both work–family conflict and work–family facilitation predicted job and family satisfaction. Job and family satisfaction in turn predicted work–family balance, which predicted life satisfaction. Despite the relationships differing in magnitude between the two samples to some extent, the proposed theoretical model was similarly predictive for both samples. In general, we argue that more research is needed examining the positive effects of the relationship between work and life.

To summarize, the existing research has focused on work–family conflict rather than work–life conflict and has largely focused on conflict rather than facilitation. Much of the emphasis has been on examining gender differences in the experience of work and family. South East Asia represents a wide range of countries and the research has been uneven across the countries with a great deal of research conducted in India and little research in other countries. A consistent theme in the research reviewed above suggests that the experience of work–family conflict is influenced largely by the central role of work in one’s role in the family and society in South East Asian countries, and that even beyond individual differences, external factors (such as family support and organizational support such as work–life balance programs) are quite relevant in South East Asian countries when it comes to mitigating the experience of work–family conflict.

Country Level Initiatives with Potential to Facilitate Work–Family Management

Although research specific to the South East Asia region is somewhat sparse and lacking in systematic focus, there are emergent ideas of how societies as a whole can enact change to better integrate work and life priorities for their workforces. The following section touches upon efforts undertaken by countries in the region to enhance work–life effectiveness.

As illustrated in Table 19.1, there are great disparities between countries in South East Asia in terms of four critical regulatory considerations – women’s workforce participation, parental leave provisions by law, equal access to work for all, and publicly available childcare support. In terms of women’s workforce participation, a 2015 Asian Development Bank report “Women in the workforce: An unmet potential in Asia and the Pacific” outlined three critical factors determining women’s labor force participation: (1) The education and health gap between women and men. (2) Time allocation differences: On average, women spend twice as much time as men on household work, and four times as much on childcare, thus contributing less to the labor market and GDP. Women also have less discretionary time, face more short-term disruptions (such as family member ill health), and suffer negative consequences of societal gender role expectations regarding earning-versus-housework. (3) The nuanced weighing of opportunity costs and social costs against potential wages and available opportunities for work.

Paralleling some of these observations, the report outlined the following major policy options and initiatives to increase female labor force participation: (1) Competition through greater international trade and openness, (2) Skills and vocational training, (3) Employment quotas for women, (4) Information on available employment resources and job matching, (5) Enhancing transport/mobility options, ensuring safety and security for women, at the workplace and on the commute to work, (6) Parental leave, childcare, and flexible work arrangement (FWA) options. We highlight two of these in particular: employment quotas and providing parental leave, childcare, and FWAs. This recommendation is based on the idea that employment quotas may be necessary and effective, especially in countries where low female workforce participation is perpetuated by social norms or discrimination.

Many South East Asian countries (e.g., India, Thailand, Indonesia, and Timor-Leste) have altered their constitutions or party laws to adopt some form of gender quotas in politics. Employment quota policies, if tied to governmental policies regarding loans and multilateral assistance, might increase the pool of available jobs while also raising aspirations among women and girls. Currently an experiment is underway in India, which mandated at least one member of the boards of publicly listed companies to be a woman. Moreover, there seems to be increasing support for quotas, with 55% of businesses in South East Asia supporting the idea (Grant Thornton, 2014).

With regard to parental leave, childcare, and FWAs, the role of the government in regulating this cannot be overlooked. Constraints on women’s time are reduced and children’s health outcomes are improved, when female employees are provided childcare, maternity leave, and FWAs (e.g., Abu-Ghaida & Klasen, Reference Abu-Ghaida and Klasen2004; Heymann, Raub, & Earle, Reference Heymann, Raub and Earle2011), and these aspects are indirectly improved when incentives are created for men to commit to share domestic responsibilities (Bettio & Villa, Reference Bettio and Villa1996). Moreover, women seem to stay longer in the workforce and within specific jobs when parental leave is mandatory (Kim, Lee, & Shin, Reference Kim, Lee and Shin2015). Thus, these policies can benefit not only women, but also families and society at large.

India has also made some progress with extending mandatory maternity leave from twelve to twenty-six weeks (over six months) and mandating that organizations with more than fifty female employees must provide a crèche or daycare facilities for children. Sri Lanka offers maternity leave and other forms of paid leave (Kodagoda, Reference Kodagoda2010). Similarly, Bangladesh has also implemented a six-month maternity leave policy although there is inconsistency in its usage and few provisions for childcare (Akter, Reference Akter2016). In Malaysia, organizations are likely to implement family-friendly policies mostly comprising of paid time off, medical coverage, and some childcare facilities (Noor, Reference Noor2006).

The World Bank’s Women, Business and Law report notes that 155 of the 173 countries in their report have at least one law impeding women’s economic opportunities. Moreover, in 100 economies, women face gender-based job restrictions. An example of these restrictions is the Factories Act in India, which prohibits women from working the night shift, thus impacting the representation of women in the manufacturing sector, perpetuating a vicious cycle of lack of access and development. Until such restrictions are lifted, or at least questioned in light of present day realities, individuals and organizations will continue to face barriers while trying to impact work–life integration and better, fairer workforce representation.

Future Research

Research on work–family issues in this region is relatively nascent and, for the most part, less rigorous by academic standards. Some of the countries in South East Asia (e.g., Maldives, Nepal, or Timor-Leste) have not been studied in published academic research to our knowledge. It would be very useful if research was conducted in these regions, particularly as part of large comparative studies, which often focus on European countries or China to the neglect of South East Asia (see Chapter 2 of this Handbook (Shockley, French, & Yu) for an overview of global work–family research). Such studies would not only add to our existing knowledge about the region, but would also allow for explicit comparisons between regions, which can be difficult when studies use different survey questions, methodologies, and samples. In addition to simply conducting more research in South East Asia, we also propose some specific avenues for future research.

Given ideas in existing theoretical work about how work is seen as a means to provide for the family in more collectivistic cultures, the very notion of work–family conflict needs to be reexamined. Said otherwise, do people in South East Asia view work–family conflict (or other work–family constructs such as balance or facilitation) in the same way as those in individualistic cultures where the common measurement instruments (e.g., Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, Reference Carlson, Kacmar and Williams2000; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, Reference Netermeyer, Boles and McMurrian1996) were developed? Measurement equivalence studies as well as additional qualitative research would help address this question.

Related to this is the need to further understand work–family boundary research with an emphasis on how South East Asian countries’ cultures impact these ideas. A key idea in work–family boundary management is integration/segmentation, terms used to describe the ways in which people prefer to manage their home and work domains (Kreiner, Reference Kreiner2006; Nippert-Eng, Reference Nippert-Eng1996). Segmentation/integration exists on a continuum, whereas some people prefer to keep work and family totally separate (e.g., will physically separate work and family and minimize inter-role transitions) while others prefer to keep them integrated (e.g., will work at home and answer personal calls during work time). Studies on such boundary dynamics have mostly focused on Western contexts, but Ashforth et al. (Reference Ashforth, Kreiner and Fugate2000) suggested that the culture in which an individual is embedded likely affects these processes. Specifically, it is likely that individuals from collectivistic, feminine, low uncertainty-avoidance, and/or low power-distance cultures would be more likely to integrate than segment roles. Additionally, Powell et al. (Reference Powell, Francesco and Ling2009) suggested that people in cultures high on diffusion and collectivism (versus specificity and individualism, respectively) are more likely to integrate (versus segment) their work and home roles in order to maintain those role boundaries that are compatible with their cultures. Diffusion versus specificity focusses on the level of wholeness a culture uses to define a construct. People from a diffuse culture prefer to focus on wholeness or integration of different aspects of one’s life.

The impact of region/culture on segmentation/integration has only been tested in one study to our knowledge (Ollo-López & Goñi-Legaz, Reference Ollo-Lopez and Goni-Legaz2015) within a European context; thus, information about segmentation/integration in South East Asian societies remains largely untested. Allen, Cho, and Meier (Reference Allen, Cho and Meier2014) suggests that it may make sense to consider the integration/segmentation dimension as a separate value altogether, at the cultural level, distinct from existing values. Integration/segmentation values within a culture may also have implications for the efficacy of organizational support. In cultures where people prefer to keep work and non-work separated, organizational support may be interpreted as infringing on this separation and create additional stress. Further research on segmentation/integration preferences and how those fit with organizational policies would be useful to help shape work design and organizational supports in a way that maximizes work–family management in various regions of the world, including South East Asia.

In South East Asia specifically, given the importance of the family in people’s lives, we also recommend that future research focuses more on the family side as a means to enhance work–family outcomes. This suggestion is grounded in the fact that participants in many of the studies reviewed report using informal social support to deal with work–family conflict (e.g., Kalliath et al., Reference Kalliath, Kalliath and Singh2011; Noor, Reference Noor1999, Reference Noor2002b). As a starting place, Erickson et al. (Reference Erickson, Martinengo and Hill2010) discuss how the workplace can better offer support for employees in different family life stages. Support helpful for a family with infants may be different than support needed for a family with elderly parents to care for. This may be particularly relevant in South East Asia, where there are often expectations to care for aging parents – South East Asia’s elderly population is projected to increase by 430% between 2000 and 2050 (Retherford, Westley, Choe, Brown, Mason, & Mishra, Reference Retherford, Westley, Minja, Brown, Mason and Mishra2002).

Conclusion

We have outlined and focused on what is known along with identifying missing gaps in the literature on work–family topics within the region of South East Asia. We would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that we are encouraged by the continued and growing attention to these topics in this region. As work–life balance continues to grow in importance, we anticipate further refinement both in the measurement tools as well the understanding of the complexity of these relationships in South East Asia. Ultimately, we hope that researchers and practitioners will be able to assist workers in South East Asia to meet their work, family, and life needs and goals.

Study of Work–Family in Confucian Asia

Key Findings

In this section, we first summarize academic findings reported in the work–family literature based on samples drawn from Confucian Asia. Then, we discuss the work–family literature in Confucian Asia in relation to the general work–family literature. Finally, we review findings from multi-country studies.

Limitation and Future Research Ideas

In this section, we discuss limitations of the current work–family literature in Confucian Asia and highlight fruitful avenues for future research. Commonly criticized limitations of the general work–family literature was also found in the work–family literature in Confucian Asia. Studies of WFC have been dominant, despite the growing body of research on the positive work–family interface. Work–family researchers have paid more attention to factors in the workplace, with less focus on factors in the family domain. Methodologically, most previous research relied on cross-sectional designs, which limits our ability to draw causal conclusion. Data were collected from a single-source, typically in convenience samples.

Some limitations concern the transfer of theories and measurements developed in the general work–family literature to Confucian Asia. Most studies used measures developed in English for the non-English speaking local population, but many of them did not provide information regarding the translation process and evidence of measurement equivalence. This is a critical limitation in that equivalent measurements for key constructs are essential for meaningful cross-cultural comparison of work–family experiences. Next, most studies utilized existing theoretical frameworks developed from a Western perspective, while unique characteristics of Confucian Asia were not taken into consideration in the theory development and study design. A small number of studies based their argument on a cultural value of ‘individualism-collectivism’ in explaining work–family experiences in Confucian Asia (e.g., Jin et al., Reference Jin, Ford and Chen2013; Spector et al., Reference Spector, Allen, Poelmans, Lapierre, Cooper, O’Driscoll and Brough2007), but other characteristics that are potentially important for the nexus of work and family (e.g., gender equality, power distance, strong familial ties) have rarely been studied.

Previous work–family research tended to overlook the uniqueness of each country in Confucian Asia while emphasizing their similarities. Although countries in Confucian Asia share many similarities, notable differences exist across the countries that are relevant to work–family experiences. For example, paid domestic help is much more common in Hong Kong and Singapore than in Korea (Tsujimoto, Reference Tsujimoto and Yang2014). As the work–family literature in Confucian Asia becomes more mature, researchers may want to delve into these differences across the countries in the region to better understand diverse work–family experiences within Confucian Asia.

There are several promising avenues for future work–family research in Confucian Asia. The first is to explore the unique characteristics of the workplace and aspects of family relationships in Confucian Asia. In the work domain, values that employees in Confucian Asia adhere to might be worth further investigation. Confucian work values refer to work-specific values that are tied to Confucianism and include authoritarianism, endurance, hardworking, collectivism, credentialism, functionalism, interpersonal connections, and long-term orientation (Huang, Eveleth, & Huo, Reference Huang, Eveleth, Huo, Lau, Law, Tse and Wong2000). Although benefits of Confucian work values for various organizational outcomes such as organizational commitment, job performance, and transformational leadership have been recognized (Chao, Reference Chao1990; Lin, Ho, & Lin, Reference Lin, Ho and Lin2013; Siu, Reference Siu2003), scholars have only recently begun to examine the role of Confucian work values in the work–family interface (e.g., Lu, Xu, & Caughlin, Reference Lu, Xu, Caughlin, Lu and Cooper2015; Wong & O’Driscoll, Reference Wong and O’Driscoll2016). Given that Confucian work values are still prevalent in modern organizations in Confucian Asia (Chao, Reference Chao1990; Lu, Kao, Siu, & Lu, 2011), more research is warranted to understand the role these values play in employees’ work–family experiences.

In the family domain, individuals in Confucian Asia tend to have high expectations for family obligations and responsibility to care for elderly family members because they perceive themselves as an interdependent part of a family unit (Zhan & Montgomery, Reference Zhan and Montgomery2003). Parents are emotionally involved with their children, such that they take pride in their children’s success or blame themselves for their children’s failure (Park & Chesla, Reference Park and Chesla2007). Although these strong familial ties can be a source of demands as well as support for employees, how they shape the work–family interface among individuals in Confucian Asia is not well understood. Relatedly, as it is not uncommon for employees in Confucian Asia to seek help from their extended family members, especially from their elderly parents, to take care of their family demands, implications of such practices warrant greater research. Expanding prior research reporting that employees who live with extended family members experienced less family-to-work conflict (Lu et al., Reference Lu, Siu, Spector and Shi2009), future research may inquire into the impact on well-being of elderly parents or children.

Next, future research might want to explore the work–family interface among employees in family businesses. Because most companies are family businesses in East Asia (Ahlstrom, Young, Chan, & Bruton, Reference Ahlstrom, Young, Chan and Bruton2004) and family business exemplifies a case in which work and family are extremely integrated, this could provide an interesting context to investigate work–family experiences in Confucian Asia. Previous research found that the impact of family-to-work conflict on job satisfaction was weaker among family business owners’ than owners of non-family business due to support from family members and coping strategies (Kwan, Lau, & Au, Reference Kwan, Lau and Au2012). Aspects of family business that are conducive to positive and negative work–family experiences, conditions in which the family business creates more demands than resources (or vice versa), and strategies that people who work in family businesses employ to manage boundaries between work and family are topics worthy of future research.

Finally, Confucian Asia consists of societies that are rapidly changing. Several changes are deemed particularly relevant for future work–family research. The first concerns the changing perspectives toward gender roles. With the cultural change to embrace gender equality (Inglehart & Norris, Reference Inglehart and Norris2003), younger generations worldwide are known to be more gender egalitarian, and those in Confucian Asia are no exception. However, due to the close familial ties and interdependencies among family members, more traditional gender ideologies held by older generations may still influence younger workers’ work–family experiences. Generational differences in the endorsement of prevailing gender role ideologies, its impact on younger workers’ work–family experiences, and how individuals reconcile these potential discrepancies deserve further attention.

Second, individualism is becoming popular in Confucian Asia, especially among the younger generations (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Lawler, Walumbwa and Shi2004). Accordingly, proposed cultural differences between Western and Confucian Asian countries (e.g., individualism-collectivism) may be less salient in the current and future workforce. With this in mind, perhaps assessing cultural values at the individual-level may provide us with insights into the role of this value in work–family experiences. Previous research showed that individualism-collectivism at the individual-level (i.e., idiocentrism-allocentrism) moderates the relation between work–family conflict and turnover intention, such that the link was stronger among individuals scoring high on idiocentrism (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Lawler, Walumbwa and Shi2004), which resembles findings at the national-level.

Lastly, career attitudes and family structures are diversifying in Confucian Asia. Younger generations are proactive in making career-related changes (e.g., seeking a new employer), value a balance between their work and non-work lives, and capitalize on entrepreneurial opportunities (Wong, Reference Wong2007; Yi, Ribbens, & Morgan, Reference Yi, Ribbens and Morgan2010). Many young people choose to live alone, to not have children (Jones, Reference Jones2007), and to live apart from their extended family for various reasons (e.g., a better job, better education for children; Goulbourne, Reynolds, Solomos, & Zontini, Reference Goulbourne, Reynolds, Solomos and Zontini2010). As the diversity in the work and family domain becomes the new normal, further research is needed to better understand work–family experiences among individuals who make these “atypical” choices.

Conclusion

In this chapter we reviewed work–family research in Confucian Asia. The study of work and family in Confucian Asia has continued to grow at an exponential rate, moving from the replication of existing work–family studies to the examination of the unique conceptual and theoretical issues in the region. Our review revealed that the work–family literature in Confucian Asia is similar to the general work–family literature in terms of research questions and methodology. Theoretical frameworks and measurements for key constructs developed in the general work–family literature appeared applicable in this region. Intriguing differences have been detected in the relationships among antecedents, work–family experiences, and outcomes, but more research is needed to illuminate underlying mechanisms.

General Context

In terms of Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture, both Australia and New Zealand have similar profiles (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede2001, 2010). They are both low on power distance, indicating managers and employees expect to be consulted and information to be shared frequently. Australia is one of the highest ranking countries on the individualism dimension, and New Zealand’s score is also relatively high, which translates into societies that are loose-knit and the general expectation is that people look after themselves and their immediate families. The study by Lu et al. (2006) found that people from individualistic cultures tend to perceive work and family demands as competing for limited personal resources, such as time and energy, and are thus highly likely to experience work–family conflict. Both societies are considered “masculine” societies where conflicts are resolved at the individual level and the goal is to win. New Zealand and Australia also score high on the indulgence dimension and overall exhibit a willingness to realize their impulses and desires regarding enjoying life and having fun (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede2001, 2010).

Perhaps the single most important key to understanding research and policy around the work–family interface in Australia or New Zealand is understanding gender inequality issues that are unique to this cultural context (Pocock, Reference Pocock2003). Although gender inequality is hardly unique to these two nations, it is crucial for understanding the historical development of labor market and social welfare policies, the division of labor in the home and workplace, and the framing of relevant policy debates.

Part of the reason gender inequality is taken seriously in both nations is that New Zealand and Australia have long established histories of support of women’s rights. New Zealand was the first country to grant women the right to vote in 1893, and in 1902, Australia was the first country to give women both the right to vote in federal elections and also the right to be elected to parliament on a national basis (Australian Government, 2015). However, a woman was not actually elected to federal parliamentary positions until 1943 in Australia (Australian Government, 2011). In New Zealand, women could first stand for parliament in 1919, with the first woman holding national office in 1933 (Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 2014). New Zealand gave women the vote nine years earlier than Australia and New Zealand voted women into parliament twenty-four years earlier than Australia.

As is true elsewhere, interest in the work–family interface in Australia was driven in part by increases in women’s labor force participation. In Australia, the rate of labor force participation rose steadily from 43.4% in 1978 to 59.3% in 2016 (ABS, 2016). In New Zealand, women’s participation rate rose from 54.6% in 1986 to 64.4% in 2016 (Statistics New Zealand, 2016). Increases in the labor force participation rates of mothers had an even greater impact, and partnered mothers’ rates in New Zealand rose from 61.7% in 1994 to 69.6% in 2014 (Flynn and Harris, Reference Flynn and Harris2015). In Australia, labor force participation for mothers with a youngest child two years of age climbed from 43% in 1991 to 56% by 2011 (Baxter, Reference Baxter2013).

Gender inequality in work hours, often to accommodate mothers’ care for children, is very pronounced among couple families with children. In Australia, the percentage of couples with dependent children with both parents working full-time declined slightly, from 21.4% in 1991 to 21.0% in 2011, while couples with the father employed full-time and the mother employed part-time expanded from 27.0% to 34.0% over the same period (Baxter, Reference Baxter2013). In total, 62% of coupled, employed mothers are part-time workers in Australia. Part-time employment among mothers is less prevalent in New Zealand, with more than half of employed coupled or single mothers working full-time, even with a youngest child aged 0–4 years (Flynn & Harris, Reference Flynn and Harris2015). However, a solid majority of part-time employees in both nations are women, who comprised 70.4% of part-timers by 2013 in New Zealand (Statistics New Zealand, 2015) and 68.0% in Australia (ABS, 2016).

Both Australia and New Zealand historically had wages, benefits, and working conditions set through complex arbitration or “awards” systems involving trade unions and employers or employer organizations. Under those systems, many part-time employees were also “casual employees” (Campbell & Brosnan, Reference Campbell and Brosnan2005). As the words suggest, casual employees have few rights (although this is changing) and generally do not accrue any leave entitlements and are entitled to a higher rate of pay to compensate for this difference. “Casual loadings” are approximately 20–25% of pay and are in lieu of vacation, sick days, and retirement benefits (ibid.). This extra pay (or loading) made casual and part-time work attractive to many women, and particularly mothers. However, “casual” jobs are usually temporary, have irregular hours, and are not guaranteed to be ongoing (ACTU, 2017). As Campbell and Brosnan (Reference Campbell and Brosnan2005) explain, since the New Zealand labor market was decentralized in 1991 under the Employment Contracts Act, casual employment has expanded minimally there, while it grew to encompass over a quarter of Australian employees by 2002. However, within New Zealand, that legislation saw the undermining of the “casual loading” or extra pay, which is far more uncommon now in New Zealand.

An additional reason for part-time employment being relatively more common among Australian mothers than New Zealand mothers lies in differences in the health care insurance systems. Single-payer health care has existed in Australia since 1975 (Biggs, Reference Biggs2004), while New Zealand had a system of public subsidies to health providers, with deregulation in the 1990s increasingly tying access to health care to ability to pay (Barnett & Barnett, Reference Barnett and Barnett2004). The latter system provides a greater incentive to work full-time. Indeed, within New Zealand, using private health insurance is in the minority, at 31.8% (Health Funds Association, 2010), and is most likely tied to those in full-time employment and not part-time employment, due to the associated costs.

Although the effective promotion of part-time work among Australian mothers might be seen as ameliorating conflicts between work and family, that is not accurate. On the one hand, part-time employment may support high levels of inequality in the division of household labor, with Baxter (Reference Baxter2001) finding that Australian married mothers typically perform around two-thirds of all childcare and housework. The division of household labor is similar in New Zealand, with women performing more than twice as much work as men in terms of cleaning/laundry and food preparation, and women under the age of forty-five spending around twice as much time on childcare (Statistics New Zealand, 2001).

Although part-time employment might sometimes be chosen freely, it seems likely that many young Australian women view it as a constrained choice. Although there are different labor market choices available and women might choose to work part-time, for many Australian women with family responsibilities, the only option is to work-part-time because they cannot access sufficient parental leave, flexibility in work hours, and because of the cost and/or difficulty of accessing childcare (Pocock, Reference Pocock2003). In New Zealand, the government recently started collecting data on “under-employment,” which is defined as working fewer hours than desired and able to work (Statistics New Zealand, 2013). The government notes that ILO data found New Zealand ranked twenty-first (around 4% under-employment) and Australia twenty-sixth (8% under-employment). The United States ranked tenth with well under 2% under-employment. It also noted that within New Zealand, women make up twice the part-time workforce, but were twice as likely as men to report under-employment. This likely reflects either that women are not able to find a job that allows them to also fulfill household responsibilities, so they work part-time, or women would prefer not to work, perhaps in order to care for children, but must work for financial reasons, and thus engage in part-time labor.

More generally, difficulties women faced in balancing employment and childrearing may have resulted in low fertility. For New Zealand, fertility fell from the necessary replacement rate of 2.1 in 1993, but only to 2.0, and it hovered between 1.9 and 2.0 until 2007, when it rose to 2.2 for several years, before falling back to the prior pattern in 2013–2015 (Statistics New Zealand, n.d.). In Australia, fertility fell below the replacement level of 2.1 in 1977, was stable at 1.8 or 1.9 from 1978 to 2006, before rising to 2.0 from 2007 to 2010, and falling back to 1.9 in 2011 through 2013 (ABS, 2013).

Various government policies to promote the integration of work and family have been considered over the years. In Australia, unpaid, job-protected leave for new biological mothers was provided through the arbitration system in 1979, expanded to include adoptive mothers in 1985, extended to fathers in 1990, and extended to casual employees in 2001 (Goward et al., Reference Goward, Mihailuk, Moyle, O’Connell, de Silva, Squire and Tilly2005). The gendered focus of initial parental leave provisions was echoed in the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984, which explicitly prohibited discrimination based on pregnancy or potential pregnancy, and was interpreted as protecting only employees with caregiving responsibilities who were also women (Sex Discrimination Act 1984). Conservative governments (under the Liberal Party of Australia) responded to the pressure to provide policies facilitating balance by (1) including provisions to enhance flexible work arrangements in the Workplace Relations Act of 1996, and (2) in 2004 introducing a “baby bonus,” which provided payments to new mothers regardless of employment status (Risse, Reference Risse2010). After the Australian Labor Party returned to power, the legal right to request flexibility for caregivers was included in the Fair Work Act of 2009, and a paid parental leave scheme for was introduced in 2011 (ABS, 2011). The parental leave provisions were limited to “primary carers,” so effectively excluded most men, although a two-week “use it or lose it” provision for fathers was added in 2013 (Buckmaster, Reference Buckmastern.d.). The Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 (Act) replaced the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. The legislation aims to improve and promote equality for both women and men in the workplace and includes a specific aim to “promote, amongst employers, the elimination of discrimination on the basis of gender in relation to employment matters (including in relation to family and caring responsibilities)” (Workplace Gender Equity Agency (WGEA), n.d.).

Within New Zealand, the major legislative additions promoting parenting were the Taxation (Parental Tax Credit) Act 1999, which was then expanded into the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave) Amendment Act 2002, which at the time provided a maximum pay rate of $325/week for twelve weeks. Haar and Spell (Reference Haar and Spell2003) found media attention on work and family issues, which steadily increased from 1985 to 1998, may have played a role in passage of the legislation. New Zealand has subsequently raised the threshold and benefits on paid parental leave, with current leave being up to eighteen weeks and paying a maximum of almost $530/week (Ministry of Business, Innovations & Employment, 2016). The new legislation has also been extended to include workers on non-standard working arrangements, and New Zealand still offers up to fifty-two weeks of unpaid parental leave. In summary, in 1998 only the United States, Australia, and New Zealand were countries without paid parental leave legislation in the developed world. In 1999, New Zealand and then in 2011, Australia left the list, with only the United States remaining.

Turning Points in the History of Work–Family Research in Australia and New Zealand

The same focus on gender inequality that pushed much public policy development similarly affected two tracks of work–family research in Australia which emerged by the end of the 1990s. First, a focus on gender inequality in the division of household and paid labor yielded an early interest in measuring and valuing time devoted to family care and housework (Ironmonger, Reference Ironmonger1989; Russell, James, & Watson, Reference Russell, James and Watson1988). Ultimately, that interest led to the development and subsequent analysis of national time use surveys in 1992, 1997, and 2006 (e.g., Bittman, Reference Bittman1999; Craig & Bittman, Reference Craig and Bittman2008; Craig, Mullan, & Blaxland, Reference Craig, Mullan and Blaxland2010), although the survey for 2013 was cancelled (Sawer, Bittman, & Smith, Reference Sawer, Bittman and Smith2013). Second, increasing public discussion of work–family balance and the flexible work arrangements provisions of the Workplace Relations Act of 1996 led other researchers to focus on workplace policies and organizational behavior (e.g., Bardoel, Moss, Smyrnios, & Tharenou, Reference Bardoel, Moss, Smyrnios and Tharenou1999; Russell & Bourke, Reference Russell and Bourke1999). This also spurred the inclusion and subsequent analysis of work–family policy items in the government-sponsored Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (AWIRS) of 1995 (e.g., Gray & Tudball, Reference Gray and Tudball2003). Additionally, the Australian Work and Life Index (AWALI), first administered in 2007, is a national survey of work–life outcomes of working Australians undertaken by the Centre for Work and Life (Skinner & Pocock, Reference Skinner and Pocock2014). AWALI was repeated annually until 2010 and then biennially in 2012 and 2014 and has served as an important dataset to examine factors related to work–life conflict and associated social, community, and health outcomes.

Most of the New Zealand research on work–life issues focuses on alternative work arrangements with far less research on wellness, care-giving support, and crisis assistance (Morrison & Thurnell, Reference Morrison and Thurnell2012). Government organizations – the New Zealand Department of Labour, New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, and Diversity Works NZ – have all conducted significant research studies on alternative work arrangements. In New Zealand, practical government support came in two forms. First, public sector employees tended to be underpaid historically, which led the government to promote flexible work arrangements for those employees (Haar, Reference Haar2008). Second, through the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, which later became Diversity Works NZ, the government pressed work–life balance policies and practices as one component of a gender equity strategy (see www.diversityworksnz.org.nz).

Research in work–life in Australia and New Zealand has some of the same characteristics of work–life research elsewhere in the developed world. Nonetheless, it has its own flavor. Australia can arguably claim a major theoretical contribution and major contributions in terms of empirical resources, along with several minor but nonetheless unique contributions from both Australia and New Zealand. Among the major contributions is Peter McDonald’s (Reference McDonald2000) theory linking work–family policies and fertility. As he explains, the theory argues:

McDonald has since applied and developed the theory both in general and nation-specific contexts (McDonald, Reference McDonald2006, Reference McDonald, Jones, Staughan and Chan2009, Reference McDonald2013; McDonald & Moyle, Reference McDonald and Moyle2010). The theory has influenced both fertility scholars and the understanding of work–family policies around the world (e.g., Gornick & Meyers, Reference Gornick and Meyers2003) and has resulted in over 700 citations at the writing of this chapter.

The Australian government was a major driver of work–family research in that nation, as indicated by government funding for time use surveys and its inclusion of relevant items in the 1995 AWIRS. Those efforts culminated in a major empirical resource produced in Australia: the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey (Wooden, Freidin, & Watson, Reference Wooden, Freidin and Watson2002). First administered in 2001, the HILDA is an annual, nationally representative, panel survey of households designed to capture income dynamics, labor market dynamics, and family dynamics, making it relevant to the study of work–family issues.

Due in part to the leadership of Mark Wooden at the University of Melbourne, the HILDA data were explicitly designed to promote research on the work–family interface. The data provide longitudinal evidence on perceived work–life balance (Craig & Sawrikar, Reference Craig and Sawrikar2008), as well as validated measures of happiness, job and life satisfaction, physical and mental health, and disabilities (Siahpush, Spittal, & Singh, Reference Siahpush, Spittal and Singh2008). It is one of the few large, panel surveys to include dynamic information on usual and preferred work hours (Drago, Wooden, & Black, Reference Drago, Wooden and Black2009a), and these have been utilized to understand work–family conflict (Reynolds & Aletraris, Reference Reynolds and Aletraris2007) and how usual and preferred work hours are altered by changing family circumstances (Drago, Wooden, & Black, Reference Drago, Wooden and Black2009b). The data also allow the linking of work–family conflict not only with work and family circumstances, but also with community resources (Skinner & Ichii, Reference Skinner and Ichii2015). Given the close connection between motherhood and part-time employment in Australia, the HILDA has been invaluable in terms of understanding how childcare costs influence mother choices of part-time employment (Rammohan & Whelan, Reference Rammohan and Whelan2007), whether women (Cai, Law & Bathgate, Reference Cai, Law and Bathgate2014) or single mothers (Fok, Jeon & Wilkins, Reference Fok, Jeon and Wilkins2013) become trapped in part-time employment, linkages between happiness and women’s and men’s part-time employment (Booth & Van Ours, Reference Booth and Van Ours2009), and levels of work–family conflict associated with part- or full-time employment for mothers (Hosking & Western, Reference Hosking and Western2008). McDonald’s theory of fertility and work–family policies has been tested in articles on the effects of the baby bonus on fertility intentions (Risse, Reference Risse2010) and on fertility rates (Drago et al., Reference Drago, Sawyer, Shreffler, Warren and Wooden2011), and the effects of childcare subsidies on the labor supply (Guest & Parr, Reference Guest and Parr2013). In response to the introduction of paid maternity leave in 2011, the HILDA data were tested for any long-term adverse wage effects on women who use maternity leave (Baker, Reference Baker2011). The survey of work–family research in Australia and New Zealand, covering 2004 through 2007, revealed that only six of sixty-three empirical studies utilized longitudinal data (Bardoel, De Cieri, & Santos, Reference Bardoel, De Cieri and Santos2008); a more recent replication of that survey would probably tilt more heavily towards longitudinal data because of the HILDA survey.

Other contributions include the simultaneous exploration of work–life balance both cross-nationally and cross-culturally (i.e., within nations) in New Zealand (Haar et al., Reference Haar, Russo, Sune and Ollier-Malaterre2014), discussed further below. Theoretically, the possibility of using role balance as a theoretical approach to understand work–life balance was developed in New Zealand (Haar, Reference Haar2013), and the potential utilization of the construct of employee resilience theory to understand HRM and work–life balance originated in Australia (Bardoel et al., Reference Bardoel, Pettit, De Cieri and McMillan2014).

Cross-National Perspective on Work–Family Research in Australia and New Zealand

Work–family research in Australia and New Zealand is heavily influenced by research in the United Kingdom and particularly the United States, perhaps in part because of pressures on researchers in Australia and New Zealand to publish in journals based in the United Kingdom and the United States and the prevalence of research produced in those nations. That linkage shows up both in cross-national and national research.

Research in the late 1990s suggested that, relative to corporations in the United States, Australian corporations were less likely to provide work–family policies, including flexible working time, paid paternity leave, on-site or near-site childcare, nursing rooms, employee assistance programs, or child or elder care resource and referral services, but more likely to offer part-time employment (Russell & Bowman, Reference Russell and Bowman2000). American corporations were even more likely to take a strategic approach to work–life than Australian corporations (ibid., p. 34). More broadly, Drago, Pirretti, and Scutella (Reference Drago, Pirretti and Scutella2007) concluded that governmental financial supports for families were more generous in Australia than in the United States, that work–family corporate policies are more common in the United States, and that Australia exhibits higher rates of part-time work for mothers in tandem with a more unequal division of labor in the home. Craig and Mullan (Reference Craig and Mullan2010) in a study of parenting and paid and unpaid work across Australia, Denmark, France, Italy, and the United States, confirm that the adverse impact of motherhood on the household division of labor is more severe in Australia than in the United States, which they trace in part to high rates of part-time employment among Australian mothers. Of equal importance, they attribute greater equality in Denmark, France, and Italy to the greater availability and use of formal childcare, which reduces demands on fathers and especially mothers.

More directly, some research asks whether behavioral models that fit the United States or the United Kingdom also fit the Australian and New Zealand populations. Using a mixture of scales developed in the United States (e.g., Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992) and some developed by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Smyrnios et al. (Reference Smyrnios, Romano, Tanewski, Karofsky and Yilmaz2003) found behavioral similarities between Australian and American small business owners for a strain-based model of work–family conflict. Using instruments developed in the United States, Bardoel, Drago, Cooper, and Colbeck (Reference Bardoel, Drago, Cooper and Colbeck2009) found that academics engaged in behaviors to avoid biases against caregiving, such as minimizing or hiding family commitments; in both nations, women were more likely to engage in the behavior, with the Australian women slightly more likely to do so, which they attribute to cultural differences. In a relatively large study, Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Spector, Allen, Poelmans, Cooper, O’Driscoll, Sanchez, Brough and Kinnunen2008) used instruments developed in the United States to measure time-, strain-, and behavior-based family interference with work and work interference with family, family-supportive organization perceptions, as well as job, family, and life satisfaction, with samples of managers in Australia, Canada, Finland, New Zealand, and the United States. They found relatively standard results (e.g., family-supportive organization perceptions reduced all forms of interference), and with no significant differences across the five samples, suggesting similar circumstances engender similar responses, albeit this study only includes nations typically classified as individualistic.

Other studies address cultural divergence across individualistic and collectivist cultures. Billing et al. (2013) studied levels of work–family conflict for a sample of managers in Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the United States, positing that individuals in the United States tend to be vertical individualists, striving to succeed to demonstrate their superiority, while those in Australia tend to be horizontal individualists, who perceive that they are not superior to others, with the remaining countries tending towards collectivism. They found that vertical individualism is related to work–family conflict in all four nations, while horizontal individualism is not, suggesting an important cultural difference between Australia and the United States. Relatedly, Haar et al. (Reference Haar, Russo, Sune and Ollier-Malaterre2014) found the relationship between work–life balance and job and life satisfaction was positive for Chinese, French, Italian, New Zealand European, New Zealand Māori, and Spanish samples, but was moderated by levels of individualism/collectivism and gender egalitarian attitudes. Most broadly, Spector and colleagues (Reference Spector, Cooper, Poelmans and Allen2004, Reference Spector, Allen, Poelmans, Lapierre, Cooper, O’Driscoll and Widerszal-Bazyl2007) treated Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the United States as a single country group, compared to China and Latin American nations (with the latter treated as a single group), and found work hours most strongly related to perceived work–family stressors in the Anglo (individualistic) nations. In their 2007 work, Spector et al. found that working hours were related to work–family conflict. However, they found moderating effects, such that this relationship was exacerbated for Anglo countries (including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand) compared to Asian countries. The inference is that, in Asian countries, employees who work more hours have less work–family conflict because there is a cultural norm (around collectivism) where working hard is a benefit for the family unit, and thus less likely to lead to conflict.

A notable effort to simultaneously promote cross-national research and practice while recognizing cultural differences is found in Bardoel and De Cieri’s (Reference Bardoel and De Cieri2014) effort to develop a framework for cross-nationally applicable work–life instruments. Cast at the level of the corporation, the framework calls for standardized measures of the effects of work–life initiatives on both financial and social or moral outcomes, with other measures capturing the extent to which those initiatives respond to local culture and patterns of diversity.

In terms of measures used per se, these are typically drawn from studies conducted in the United States (e.g., Carlson, Kacmar & Williams, Reference Carlson, Kacmar and Williams2000; Carlson et al., Reference Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne and Grzywacz2006). The HILDA data include the SF-36 instrument to measure mental and physical health (Ware, Snow, Kosinski, & Gandek, Reference Ware, Snow, Kosinski and Gandek2000) and the Kessler-10 measure of psychological distress (Kessler et al., Reference Kessler, Andrews, Colpe, Hiripi, Mroczek, Normand, Walters and Zaslavsky2002), and both were developed in the United States. Further, several Australian studies apply US-derived models to Australian data under the implicit assumption that results found in one nation will also hold in the other (e.g., Thanacoody, Bartram & Casimir, Reference Thanacoody, Bartram and Casimir2009). Perhaps more common are applications of Unites States-derived models in relatively novel ways, such as time- and strain-based interference from or to work and family affecting work–family balance, but with an application to different sectors and types of employees within Australian higher education (Pillay, Kluvers, Abhayawansa & Vranic, Reference Pillay, Kluvers, Abhayawansa and Vranic2013) or the Australian construction industry (Lingard & Francis, Reference Lingard and Francis2004, Reference Lingard and Francis2006, Reference Lingard and Francis2007).

These effects are similar in studies that include New Zealand data (e.g., Haar, Reference Haar2013; Haar et al., Reference Haar, Russo, Sune and Ollier-Malaterre2014). While New Zealand has an indigenous population larger than Australia, with Māori making up approximately 14% of the population and 12% of the workforce (Haar & Brougham, Reference Haar and Brougham2013), studies exploring work–life balance, – which included samples from New Zealand Europeans and separately New Zealand Māori (Haar et al., Reference Haar, Russo, Sune and Ollier-Malaterre2014), used the same constructs – work–family conflict (Carlson et al., Reference Carlson, Kacmar and Williams2000) and work–family enrichment (Carlson et al., Reference Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne and Grzywacz2006) – that were previously used on American samples. Haar and colleagues’ (Reference Haar, Russo, Sune and Ollier-Malaterre2014) study also included a measure of work–life balance established in New Zealand (Haar, Reference Haar2013) that had not been tested on an indigenous population before. Haar, Roche, and Taylor’s (Reference Haar, Roche and Taylor2012) study found effects which differed from much of the Western-literature (e.g., family-to-work conflict dimension was more strongly related to turnover intentions than was the work-to-family conflict dimension), highlighting potential issues with these Western constructs in different populations. However, that is somewhat countered by the work–life balance study conducted by Haar et al. (Reference Haar, Russo, Sune and Ollier-Malaterre2014), which found metric measurement invariance across all samples including New Zealand European and New Zealand Māori – including for the constructs of work–family conflict and work–life balance – indicating empirical support for the generalizability of these constructs.

Some research findings are relatively unique to the region. For example, Haar et al. (Reference Haar, Russo, Sune and Ollier-Malaterre2014) found work–life balance was positively related to job satisfaction and life satisfaction, and negatively related to anxiety and depression across the whole sample (seven populations from six countries). However, when these effects were broken down into specific countries, they found that work–life balance accounts for much greater variance for some outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction) in some countries (New Zealand Europeans, Italy, Malaysia, and China) than others (France and New Zealand Māori). In New Zealand, the differences in variance explained were 13% for New Zealand Māori, but 42% for New Zealand Europeans. Thus, it was significant predictor for both groups of employees, but clearly a much more powerful predictor for one group than another. There is a tendency among work–life researchers to make broad assumptions about the influence of constructs such as work–family conflict and work–life balance whereas in reality the effects for individual populations may diverge substantially. When considered in relation to the above findings, there is a strong case to conduct further testing within large population groups and include, for example, indigenous populations (e.g., Pacific Peoples in New Zealand) who are often neglected by researchers.

In light of the passage of the Australian right-to-request flexibility legislation in 2009, researchers asked whether requests for flexibility improved work–life balance. The AWALI data from 2009 to 2014 found that most requests were from women, and especially mothers of young children; most requests were approved and work–life outcomes were significantly improved among those whose requests were approved (Skinner & Pocock, Reference Skinner and Pocock2011, Reference Skinner and Pocock2014). On a different note, self-employment is sometimes considered a route for women, particularly mothers, to achieve work–life balance (Boden Jr., Reference Boden1999), but Australian studies find that many of the self-employed work involuntary long hours (Drago, Wooden, & Black, Reference Drago, Wooden and Black2009a), and that self-employment does not facilitate work–life balance for mothers (Pocock, Skinner, & Williams, Reference Pocock, Skinner and Williams2007). Together, these unique findings regarding the sources of work–life balance, effects of mother self-employment, and effects of right-to-request flexibility legislation suggest further research on the topics elsewhere in the world might be valuable.

Limitations of Existing Research

Perhaps the greatest weakness of work–family research in Australia and New Zealand, is the limited coverage of gender. Given that studies of work–family conflict were largely motivated by the entry of women into the labor force in the last half-century, this lacuna is notable. Bardoel, De Cieri, and Santos (Reference Bardoel, De Cieri and Santos2008) found only eight of eighty-six articles addressing work–life in either Australia or New Zealand (or both) between 2004 and 2007 included gender as a theme, and this was after allowing for multiple themes. Further, they note that gender was often treated as one of many binary control variables.

In addition, there appears to be a significant neglect of ethnic diversity. Apart from a few studies in New Zealand (Haar et al., Reference Haar, Roche and Taylor2012, Reference Haar, Russo, Sune and Ollier-Malaterre2014) that focus on Māori employees, there is little attention given to indigenous populations – especially within Australia. Some cities within the region have large ethnic populations, which have not been explored specifically. For example, Pacific peoples account for 14.6% of the Auckland population, making it the world’s largest Polynesian city (Mudd, Whitfield, & Harper, Reference Mudd, Whitfield and Harper2006). Despite this, no specific work–family research has been explored within this ethnic group. Similarly, the Aborigines of Australia provide potential streams of research to better understand the influences of work–family issues across population groups within the region.

One occupational group seldom researched in the work–family field – not just in Australia and New Zealand, but generally across the world – are blue-collar occupations. We understand little about the work–family issues for this occupational group. One barrier to this may be illiteracy rates. Although New Zealand and Australia both have overall high literacy rates, some pockets have poor levels of literacy. Within New Zealand, Walker et al. (Reference Walker, Udy, Pole, May, Chamberlain and Sturrock1997) state, “[t]he majority of Māori, Pacific Islands people and those from other ethnic minority groups are functioning below the level of competence in literacy required to effectively meet the demands of everyday life” (p. 1). As such, there may be fundamental issues around data collection using survey instruments requiring a solid level of literacy. This provides a challenge for work–family researchers going forward, and these effects appear to be similar within the Australian aborigine population (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2015). A related factor is that Australia is highly urbanized, with 68% of the population concentrated in major cities (ABS, 2008), and many aborigines live in rural areas for which few studies are available.

Summary and Directions for Future Research

It is somewhat surprising that the strong linkage between concerns with gender equity and developing work–family private sector policies and government legislation, which is explicit in both nations, is only weakly echoed in academic research in the region (Bardoel, De Cieri, & Santos, Reference Bardoel, De Cieri and Santos2008). However, this deficiency may have been remedied in part in recent years, particularly due to the HILDA, AWALI, WGEA, and Diversity Works NZ surveys. Specifically, articles using the HILDA data discussed above explicitly address gender in a solid majority of cases (i.e., Baker, Reference Baker2011; Booth & Van Ours, Reference Booth and Van Ours2009; Cai, Law, & Bathgate, Reference Cai, Law and Bathgate2014; Craig & Sawrikar, Reference Craig and Bittman2008; Drago, Wooden, & Black, Reference Drago, Wooden and Black2009a, Reference Drago, Wooden and Black2009b; Drago et al., Reference Drago, Sawyer, Shreffler, Warren and Wooden2011; Fok, Jeon, & Wilkins, Reference Fok, Jeon and Wilkins2013; Guest & Parr, Reference Guest and Parr2013; Hosking & Western, Reference Hosking and Western2008; Rammohan & Whelan, Reference Rammohan and Whelan2007; Reynolds & Aletraris, Reference Reynolds and Aletraris2007; Risse, Reference Risse2010), as do analyses of the AWALI data (e.g., Skinner & Pocock, 2007, Reference Skinner and Pocock2014). That list bodes well for bringing research into line with the gender equity and diversity concerns driving public discussion and policies in the region.

Existing research could be usefully expanded in many directions. From an Australian and New Zealand public policy perspective, research regarding the relatively recent introduction of paid parental leave could ascertain how these policies have altered women’s labor supply, fertility, and the division of household labor. Similarly, for Australia, while the AWALI data suggest that right-to-request flexibility legislation has had a minimal impact (Skinner & Pocock, Reference Skinner and Pocock2014), a longitudinal analysis using the HILDA data might yield different results in both practice and gender equity.

Research addressing cross-cultural work and family issues would also be valuable. Although some research has explored differences between New Zealand Europeans and Māoris (Haar et al., Reference Haar, Russo, Sune and Ollier-Malaterre2014), little is known about Pacific Islanders in that nation, Aborigines in Australia, or individuals of Asian heritage in both nations. Such research could not only help us to understand how model parameters vary with culture, but also improve the ability of institutions in the two nations to successfully address diversity, including in the workplace.

In general, it is reasonable to conclude that the overall state of work and family research in Australia and New Zealand is healthy. The research has developed substantially in recent decades, and it is likely that the 86 articles on work–life for the 2004–2007 period identified by Bardoel, De Cieri, and Santos (2008) has continued to grow. Further, the disciplinary diversity of scholars in the region suggests that a valuable mix of disciplines and approaches is involved in the research.