Claudia Peus and Eva Traut‐Mattausch
This paper aims to investigate the effects that a larger societal context (i.e. values, norms) and the legal framework have on an individual's ability to combine work and family.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to investigate the effects that a larger societal context (i.e. values, norms) and the legal framework have on an individual's ability to combine work and family.
Design/methodology/approach
Qualitative interviews were used to examine the perceptions female middle managers have of balancing work and family. A total of 25 female managers from the USA and 23 female managers from Germany were interviewed, representing diverse industries.
Findings
The results show that the dominant values in a particular society have a stronger influence on individuals' ability to balance work and family than the legal framework. Most importantly, the study provides empirical evidence for the fact that extensive laws originally designed to make it easier for women to combine work and family can actually have negative consequences for women and thus result in hurting the very persons they were designed to help.
Research limitations/implications
The sample consisted of only a small number of female managers. Thus, it cannot be regarded as fully representative of women in the USA and Germany.
Practical implications
When introducing measures designed at increasing opportunities for employees to balance work and family, it is necessary to examine their completeness, relation to societal norms, and anticipated organizational implementation.
Originality/value
This work is one of the rare studies to have used a cross‐cultural comparison in research on the work‐family interface. It provides evidence for the importance of societal values and for the fact that seemingly supportive laws can have negative consequences for women's ability to combine work and family.
Details
Keywords
Noreen Heraty, Michael J. Morley and Jeanette N. Cleveland
The purpose of this paper is to introduce a selection of papers within the issue that discuss the work‐family interface.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to introduce a selection of papers within the issue that discuss the work‐family interface.
Design/methodology/approach
The themes of the papers in the issue are outlined
Findings
The papers address the following: conflict, facilitation and individual coping styles across the work and family domains; generational differences in work‐family conflict and work‐family synergy for Generation X, baby boomers and matures; the development and transmission of work‐related attitudes; a cross cultural comparison of female managers attitudes, experiences and career choices; the impact of individual and organisational characteristics on work‐family conflict and career outcomes, and the variation of work life integration experiences of mid‐career professional women.
Originality/value
The paper introduces the special issue which provides a varied mix of theoretical approaches and multi‐level perspectives to scope out and explain the links between work and family life.
Details
Keywords
Sandra Julia Diller, Christina Muehlberger, Isabell Braumandl and Eva Jonas
This study aims to investigate how university students' basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness) determine whether coaching or training is more supportive…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to investigate how university students' basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness) determine whether coaching or training is more supportive for them.
Design/methodology/approach
Real-life coaching (N1 = 110) and training (N2 = 176) processes with students as clients were examined, measuring the students' needs before the coaching/training, their need fulfilment after the coaching/training and their satisfaction and goal attainment/intrinsic motivation after the coaching/training.
Findings
The results show that university students with a higher autonomy need had this need fulfilled to a greater extent through coaching, while university students with a higher competence need had this need fulfilled to a greater extent through training.
Research limitations/implications
The research focused on university students and was conducted at German-speaking universities, so it is unclear to what extent the findings are transferable to other contexts. In addition, future research is needed to further compare other personal development tools, such as mentoring or consulting.
Practical implications
The results depict the relevance of the most appropriate personal development tool (coaching or training) depending on students' needs. Furthermore, coaches should be autonomy-supportive, while trainers should be competence-supportive.
Originality/value
Supporting students with the most appropriate personal development tool is essential for the effectiveness of this tool. Thus, the personal development tool used should reflect students' needs: students with a high autonomy need should receive coaching, while students with a high competence need should receive training.