Search results

The unprecedented exigencies of COVID-19 and the subsequent spotlight on systemic racial, social and economic disparities have brought workplace equity to the forefront of organizational dialogue. These discontinuities set the stage for discussions about possible limitations of traditional diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) approaches that may have overlooked disparities in specific organizational systems. In response, we conducted an exploratory study to examine a new framework that focuses attention on the equity of employment systems that contextualize employees’ experiences of equity at the workplace.

This paper introduces a framework that focuses on the equity of ten key employment systems (job structures, compensation and benefits, recruitment and hiring, orientation and onboarding, supervision and mentoring, training and career development, employee performance assessment and feedback, employee resources and supports, promotion and separation). Combining the indices that measured the equity of these ten employment systems, we created an Overall Equity of Employment Systems Index and examined antecedent variables and outcomes related to the index. Data were gathered from HR leaders of 1,062 workplaces in the US.

Utilizing multivariate analyses, this research found that lower scores on the Organizational Pressures Index were consistently linked to higher levels of equity across all of the employment systems. Furthermore, higher percentages of women and employees of color were positively associated with increased equity in most of the employment systems and in the Overall Equity of Employment System Index. There was a significant positive relationship between the Overall Equity of Employment Systems Index and organizational resilience, while a negative relationship was observed with employee stress.

This study extends the existing DEI literature by offering a new framework that employers can use to: (1) assess the equity of specific employment systems and (2) strengthen the equity components of the employment systems.

The framework used for this exploratory study offers an alternative approach to the study of systemic equity in the workplace.

We explore: (1) the effects of work unit pressure on employees’ satisfaction with work–family balance (S-WFB); (2) the effects of individual-level job and family pressures on S-WFB; and (3) the extent to which schedule control moderates the negative influences of work unit pressure and other demands on employee S-WFB – among employees in a large healthcare system.

The data come from employee responses to the baseline survey (n = 3,950) administered in September 2012, and from administrative unit-level data (445 units) showing the extent to which units were “on-budget” (within 5 percent), “over-budget,” or “under-budget.”

Practices associated with cost containment in a healthcare system of 10,000 employees in the United States appear to have a negative impact on employee S-WFB. Working in a unit that is “under-budget” is negatively associated with individual S-WFB. Employees with high job demands, longer hours, responsibilities for children and/or adults, also reported lower S-WFB than employees without these characteristics.

Research is limited by lack of measures specific to healthcare workers, the use of baseline data only, and sample size for some of the analyses.

Schedule control makes a difference even under high work pressure. The lack of interactions among variables that typically moderate relationships between work pressures and S-WFB suggests the need for more support for healthcare workers under the strain of cost containment.

We include an objective indicator of unit-level job pressures on individual employees, thus identifying specific ways that work stress affects S-WFB.

Increased access to flexible work arrangements has the prospect of enhancing work-family reconciliation. Under consideration is extent that managers assumed lead roles in initiating discussions, the overall volume of discussions that occurred, and the outcomes of these discussions.

A panel analysis of 950 managers over one and a half years examines factors predicting involvement in a change initiative designed to expand flexible work arrangement use in a company in the financial activities supersector.

The overall volume of discussions, and tendencies for managers to initiate discussions, is positively predicted by managers’ prior experiences with flexibility, training to promote flexibility, and supervisory responsibilities. Managers were more inclined to promote flexibility when they viewed it as a supervisory responsibility and when they believed that it offered career rewards. An experiment demonstrated that learning of professional standards demonstrated outside of one’s own unit increased promotion of flexible work options. Discussions of flexibility led to many more approvals than denials of use, and also increased the likelihood of subsequent discussions occurring, indicating that promoting discussions of flexible work arrangements can be a path toward expanding use.

The study identifies specific factors that can lead managers to support exploration of flexible work arrangement use.