Page 1 of 18
ANZAM 2009
Mutual Obligations and Organisations’ Family Friendly Work Practices: Do
They Support Attraction and Retention of Parents?
Simone Cliffe*
School of Management and information Systems, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Dr Beverley LloydWalker
School of Management and information Systems, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Mr Rob Sims
School of Accounting, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
Email: [email protected]
ANZAM 2009
MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND ORGANISATIONS’ FAMILY FRIENDLY WORK
PRACTICES: DO THEY SUPPORT ATTRACTION AND RETENTION OF PARENTS?
ABSTRACT
Since the introduction of the Welfare to Work Legislation in 2006, single parents have been required to
return to work or study when their youngest child turns six. Many of these parents will have work
experience or qualifications that make them attractive employees however they will face particular
challenges in balancing work and family life, often with less family support than dual career families can
access. At a time when experienced and reliable employees have been in demand, even during the
economic downturn, it is important that we understand the specific needs of this group. Commonly female,
sole parents confront difficulties in re-establishing their career while balancing family responsibilities,
especially as career breaks adversely impact career progress and therefore earnings.
Keywords: human resource management policies, work/life balance, work/family balance, part time
work, skills shortages
This paper reports the findings of literature and website searches which will form the basis for a larger
study of the extent to which organisations are implementing family friendly work practices (FFWPs)
which particularly address the needs of sole parents. Primary carers returning to work are faced with many
challenges. With the introduction of Welfare to Work (WTW) legislation, sole parents are required to
meet their “mutual obligation” with Centrelink, the government agency responsible for administering a
range of welfare services and payments including parenting payments, to receive government support.
Sole parents are legally required to be working or actively seeking work when their youngest child reaches
the age of six otherwise they run the risk of having their payments stopped (Walter 2001; Cohen & Single
2001). Hence increasing numbers of sole parents are returning to work (ABS 2007) as a result of the
legislation (Centrelink 2006), and will confront additional challenges as they strive to work and parent
alone (van Acker & Ferrier 2005; Papalexandris & Kramar 1997). Changes in the administration of the
legislation in 2009 have not altered the requirement that recipients of parenting payments return to work
when their youngest child turns six. This paper discusses the effect of the WTW legislation on single
parents and concentrates on its impact on sole parents as distinct from parents in general, single parents or
lone parents. A single parent may be ‘a woman or man who has no spouse or partner usually present in the
household but who forms a parent-child relationship with at least one dependent child usually resident in
the household’ (Probert & Murphy 2001: 26). In the context of this research, a lone parent is a single
Page 2 of 18
Page 3 of 18
ANZAM 2009
parent who chooses to return to fulltime work and thus no longer qualifies for any parenting payments
because the minimum adult fulltime wage in Australia would take them beyond eligibility. The WTW
legislation does not, therefore, relate to lone parents. A sole parent, the group on which this research
focuses, is a single parent who, like other welfare recipients, is required to meet mutual obligations in
order to receive their payments; in this instance, parenting payments. Unlike the lone parent, they have not
returned to work, or at least are not earning enough to no longer qualify for parenting payments.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Across societies, women are more commonly perceived to be responsible for child and dependent care and
domestic work, often involving the juggling of work and family that leads to limiting of career prospects
(Davies & Thomas 2002; Priola 2007). Men have been, and still to a large extent are, seen to be the
provider or “breadwinner” (Badgett & Folbre 1999). Single parents with carer responsibilities are more
commonly women, therefore those affected by the WTW legislation’s mutual obligations requirements are
more commonly women. It is suggested by feminist theorists, based on results of research, that despite
women’s increased involvement in the workforce within most households women are still primarily
responsible for the family and household in general (Roxburgh 2002; Austen & Birch 2000). It is because
of this continuing division of family responsibilities that women have more interruptions to their careers,
withdrawing from the labour market, at least temporarily, to perform their caring role. This, in turn,
adversely affects their career progress. This is the group of potential employees most likely to be seeking
work to meet their mutual obligations. They may have work experience, but their career will have been
interrupted (Reitman & Schneer 2005; Spivey 2005). They will not find working full time easy to manage,
as they will lack the support systems and sharing of responsibilities that exist in dual career families.
Lack of success in a sole parent’s search for work will be supplemented by the government assisting in
locating a position for the sole parent. Such a position may not suit the family in relation to work hours,
geographic location, or the work available may be at a lower level and thus will not advance the sole
ANZAM 2009
parent’s career. At the same time, this position may limit the parent’s ability to access education to
upgrade their qualifications to improve their future career prospects. According to the legislation, a
position paying the minimum rate of $12.75 an hour is the only requirement. The lack of flexibility and/or
security that the low paid jobs those returning from a career break may be required to accept restrict not
only their ability to participate in further education but also their ability to manage work and family. It is
for this reason that ‘women make up the increasingly contingent, part-time workforce’ (Bierema 2001:
54). In managerial careers, determinants of career progress have been found to include family situation,
work hours and career interruptions (Kirchmeyer 2002), with women’s careers not progressing at the same
rate as those of males because family responsibilities restrict the hours they have available for work and
carer responsibilities lead to career interruptions. With career development being based on male-oriented
theories (Bierema 2001), women’s careers are further hindered as participation in workplace-based
learning is not always offered to part-time employees. Masculine work cultures do not consider the
learning and career development needs of those that do not fit the norm of full time employee that does
not take career breaks. This no doubt contributes to the continuing significant difference in the number
women who reach senior management positions in Australia compared to men (Sinclair 1994). For all
single parents, but especially sole parents, career opportunities are likely to be limited as a result of lack of
opportunity to pursue further education, part-time employment limiting their involvement in workplace
learning programs, and the view that part-time employees do not desire a career.
The philosophy of the WTW legislation works on the idea that sole parents requiring welfare payments
will be penalised if they do not meet their mutual obligations (van Acker & Ferrier 2005), this in turn
places pressure on sole parents to find employment that allows them to combine dependent children and
work. Under the Howard Government employment and incomes increased, not always spilling over to low
income earners (van Acker & Ferrier 2005) the category to which most sole parents belong. A rise in part
time positions has occurred in the service industries, mainly filled by women. Figures released as recently
as June 2009 confirm this trend toward reduced full time and increased part time jobs. The majority of
Page 4 of 18
Page 5 of 18
ANZAM 2009
these positions have been casual employment. The nature of casual positions is that employers have the
power to offer hours as required with staff members receiving lower rates of pay, irregular hours and
greater job insecurity (van Acker & Ferrier 2005).
The pressure of combining carer needs and work demands causes great stress as one impinges on the
other. The time and energy expended at home can affect performance at work. Also issues or pressures at
work may be brought back home impacting on family life. A more accommodating workplace can have
beneficial effects on single parents who are trying to juggle both work and family commitments (Burgess,
Henderson & Strachan 2007a; Carless & Wintle 2007; Burgess, Henderson & Strachan 2007b). Hence by
exploring ways of providing choices to balance work/life commitments with flexible work arrangements
organisations will better enable single parents to meet the needs of their dependent children (van Acker &
Ferrier 2005). With separation and divorce rates continuing to rise, more families are headed by a single
parent (Walter 2001) organisations aware of this change will be able to adjust job requirements to cater
for sole and lone parents (Carless & Wintle 2007; Gray & Stanton 2002).
Impact of the WTW Legislation
As a result of the WTW legislation more single parents are now looking to enter the workforce. It will be
necessary for organisations dealing with skills shortages to seek skilled sole and lone parents to fill these
vacant positions to bridge these skill gaps. This makes the adoption of formal FFWPs that incorporate
elements that sole and lone parents would value in order to reconcile work and caring for children an
important consideration for organisations. Single parents’ workforce participation rates tend to be lower
than that of married partners (ABS 2003). This difference is perceived as a negative reflection on sole
parents inferring that they do not wish to find employment. But in most cases single parents were once
married, the change in workforce participation is more likely due to a dramatic alteration in their home
lives as they now have responsibility for raising their children alone or with little assistance from their
former partner (Walter 2001; Borrill & Kidd 1994). This negative outlook is supported by the underlying
ANZAM 2009
message that comes through government policy. As a result of relationship breakdowns, parents who take
on the primary care of the children will now be required to balance work life and home life. For those lone
parents in full time employment this may mean reducing working hours. For part time workers, a sole
parent’s job may become more important to hold on to because as full time carers of their children they
are now required to find work (Walter 2001).
For many sole and lone parents, returning to work is not the issue. Sole parents require an income to
support and maintain family life as welfare payments are not always a sufficient; the concern is finding a
job that caters for their special needs. Sole and lone parents need to find organisations that have a
supportive culture, those that incorporate policies that include ‘work bundles,’ or a range of benefits that
are family friendly and from which they will benefit (Carless & Wintle 2007). Primary care givers value
shorter working hours and work schedule flexibility. The value and preference single parents place on
FFWPs depend on varying factors: age and number of children in the household, whether family support
systems are available to provide assistance with child care and other caring responsibilities, and the
availability and affordability of formal child care services (Gray & Tuddball 2003). With potentially less
family support, higher numbers of sole parents find themselves in casual employment, which offers
reduced job security and less access to FFWPs (Merkers 2003; Borrill & Kidd 1994; Hand & Hughes
2004; van Acker & Ferrier 2005; Burgess et al. 2007b; McInnes 2005; Holcomb 2007).
Family friendly work practices can be divided into three broad categories:
(a)
Access to special leave and absences while still remaining an employee.
(b)
Access to part time work.
(c)
Flexible work schedules. (Burgess et al. 2007b)
These arrangements do not automatically promote a positive interrelationship between work and family
demands, but do indicate a recognition that a conflict does exist and that a balance is necessary between
these two roles (Burgess et al. 2007a; Pocock 2005). When designing policies relating to FFWPs, Human
Page 6 of 18
Page 7 of 18
ANZAM 2009
Resource (HR) Managers that consider the interrelationships between work and family (Gray & Tuddball
2003) will ensure inflexible work design does not cause these quality employees to leave due to the
restrictions caring for children place on maintaining employment (Walter 2001; Borrill & Kidd 1994). The
aim of work/life balance (WLB) is to be able to coordinate and maintain a healthy equilibrium between
carer responsibilities and work commitments to ensure that primary carers are able to fulfil their roles as
parent and employee. Achieving this balance has been ranked by managers to be their number one people
management challenge (Darcy & McCarthy 2007). In a highly competitive employment conditions,
attracting (Rau & Hyland 2002) and retaining talented key employees is quite a challenge for
organisations. Companies therefore require a greater awareness of the concerns employees face when
balancing work and home life (Darcy & McCarthy 2007).Over the last twenty years, the importance of
recognising these issues has led to more organisations offering FFWPs and to an increasing number of
employees using the benefits they include (Gray & Tuddball 2003). Despite this increase, qualitative
research has shown that staff members can be reluctant to use FFWPs such as taking parental leave and/or
flexible work arrangements that include reduced hours of work if they fear it will limit their chances of
promotion or professional recognition in their careers (Gray & Tuddball 2003).
Formal programs such as Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) and reporting to the Equal Opportunity
for Women in the Workplace Agency, have had a limited effect on family friendly arrangements (Pocock
2005; Holcomb 2007). Most changes that occur in the workplace in an attempt to improve the life of
primary carer are informally negotiated and at the discretion of management (Burgess et al. 2007a;
Maxwell 2005;Thornthwaite 2004; Borrill & Kidd 1994; Gray & Stanton 2002; Burgess et al. 2007b; Tait
2007). Past formal mechanisms such as Australian Workplace Agreements did not always achieve a
balance between work and carer responsibilities for employees, this is because most programs establish
the minimum requirements and no more. Organisations that have more elaborate programs offer these on a
voluntary basis and are dependent on the primary carer being able to bargain for a better reconciliation
between work life and home life (Burgess et al. 2007b; Gray & Collins 2006; Thornthwaite 2004; Borrill
ANZAM 2009
& Kidd 1994; Charlesworth 2005; Holcomb 2007). Policies and practices relating to work/life balance are
not mandatory to construct and report under EEO but as juggling work and family life becomes more of
an issue for sole parents, organisations that consider this matter important enough to be included will
remain competitive (Burgess, et al. 2007b). Most companies have few policies but the tension that exists
for single parents to combine work and family life is clearly evident and if ignored will result in negative
consequences for the workplace (Burgess et al. 2007a).
Equal employment opportunity legislation helps protect staff in the workplace from direct discrimination
and managers in organisations understand and accept this. From this legislation managers are aware of the
consequences that arise out of acts of discrimination and unfair dismissal. EEO increases the awareness
that all employees should be treated with respect and fairness. But this does not guarantee for single
parents a balance between work and family life (van Acker & Ferrier 2005). Indeed, ‘Work and family
reconciliation is not generally or universally addressed in industrial agreements’ (Burgess et al. 2007b: 5).
Changes in the work environment over the last decade include globalisation of competition and the
advancement of technological innovation and changes in the nature of work, all of which place more time
pressures on employees. Together with these organisational and work changes there has been an increase
in the workforce participation rates of women; alterations in the structure of the family; longer travel times
to and from work, and a difference in employees’ expectations. This has created greater time demands on
individuals to meet social, family and work needs, forcing businesses and policy makers to reassess ways
of creating and balancing all these roles. Human resource professionals are encouraged to recognise that
by assisting employees, especially sole parents, to reconcile family and work demands they will reduce the
likelihood of increased employee turnover and stress, and at the same time raise job satisfaction and
productivity (Darcy & McCarthy 2007; Carless & Wintle 2007; McCracken 2000; Burgess et al. 2007a;
Broers & Saunders 2002; Lewis 2001; Papalexandris & Kramar 1997). The introduction of FFWPs is still
voluntary but successful employers will look upon this change in work practices as being in the best
interests of the company and staff in terms of benefits and costs that these considerations can bring (Gray
Page 8 of 18
Page 9 of 18
ANZAM 2009
& Tuddball 2003). Creating a good work/life balance for organisations will assist with the recruitment of
talented staff (Rau & Hanley 2002), increase retention and productivity and hence profitability. Work/life
reconciliation allows companies to recoup a return on the investment placed into their employees (Pocock
2005). Employees who feel that their workplace improves their work/life balance will feel more satisfied
within themselves becoming ‘happier social citizens, parents, carers and more productive workers’
(Pocock 2005: 202). This will encourage employees to work longer and more productively thus increasing
their contribution to the community along with better health as the stress to reconcile home and work life
is reduced (Pocock 2005). By contrast, poor work/life balance can result in negative physical and mental
health, lower productively and profitability, less commitment to the organisation and increased turnover
and leads to additional pressure being placed on family life and deterioration in family relationships
(Pocock 2005). A labour shortage can influence HR managers to provide flexible programs in the
workplace. Sole and lone parents are looking for organisations that will cater for their needs to have a
better balance and less stress combining work and carer responsibilities (Burgess et al. 2007a; Tait 2007).
When leave, work arrangements and funded childcare are incorporated in the formal EEO policies of an
organisation work and home life can be better reconciled (Burgess et al. 2007a; Gray & Stanton 2002).
The need to find the right type of child care is an important factor influencing the work decisions of sole
parents as good child care helps to reduce work/ family conflict (Hand & Hughes 2004). Organisations
with more satisfied employees understand the need to support and assist single parents with FFWP, by
increasing employee retention (Tait 2007).
In their study of organisational policies and practices, Burgess et al. (2007b) found effective HR managers
saw work/family balance programs to include: part time work, gradual return from maternity leave (job
share), flexible start and finishing times and the ability to take short periods of leave with little notice
(Burgess et al. 2007b; Papalexandris & Kramar 1997). Organisations had formal policies that include
carer’s leave, part time work, job sharing, pregnancy and breast feeding programs written into HR
manuals, staff handbooks and on their company’s intranet (Lewis 2001). Flexible work arrangements to
ANZAM 2009
ease tension and create a better work/life balance were informally worked out between managers and the
sole or lone parent concerned (Burgess et al. 2007b; Cohorts 2004; Broers & Saunders 2002).
From this, strategic HR managers will consider that a “one size fits all” approach to FFWPs will not
achieve the desired end result of retaining high quality staff (Darcy & McCarthy 2007; Borrill & Kidd
1994). The negotiation of flexible work arrangements is commonly the role of line managers as they ‘play
a pivotal role in translating WLB policies into practice and in ensuring there are appropriate checks and
balances in the management of such practices’ (Maxwell 2005: 179). For negotiation of reduced working
hours, for instance, MacDermid, Lee, Williams, Buck and Leiba-O’Sullivan (2002) found that most
involved one-on-one negotiation between the employee and their manager. As with the devolution to line
of a range of HR tasks (Kulik & Bainbridge 2006; Purcell & Hutchison 2007) this brings with it the need
for HR professionals to provide managers with the support and advice they require to establish and
maintain an equitable work environment thus supporting successful implementation of HR policy.
Work/family conflict amongst sole primary carers changes over time according to the age of the child and
number of children and as they move through particular stages of dependency so what sole parents require
for work/life balance will alter accordingly. The main area of concern for sole primary carers is work
flexibility. Unforeseen problems, such as sickness, occur more often when children are youngest. All
parents, but in particular lone and sole parents, will value flexible work arrangements that enable them to
care for sick children. Work/family conflict for primary carers of children aged between 6 and 13 years of
age increased as their desire to become more involved in their job rose, however as children become more
independent single parents have more useable time and energy (Darcy & McCarthy 2007; Thornthwaite
2004). Bearing this in mind, organisations need adaptable FFWPs that cater for sole parents’ changing
needs. Having one set program for all can cost the company valuable resources and money with policies
not being taken up. It can lead to increased in absenteeism and turnover, as well as reduced loyalty and
commitment, loss of knowledge, and lowered productivity for the organisation (Darcy & McCarthy 2007;
Page 10 of 18
Page 11 of 18
ANZAM 2009
Haar 2007; Gray & Collins 2006; Gray & Stanton 2002; Cohen & Single 2001). If WLB initiatives that
reflect the changing trends of modern day life are developed HR managers will contribute to bringing
about a positive contribution to easing work family conflict. Introducing appropriate work/family
initiatives along with training of and clear communication with managers and colleagues can create a
supportive culture, leading to acceptance of WLB initiatives. In this environment colleagues properly
understand that shorter working hours mean a reduced rate of pay (Lewis 2001). The added support and
understanding of surrounding employees helps reduce workplace stress for sole parents (Darcy &
McCarthy 2007; Hand & Hughes 2004). This can also encourage sole and lone parents to use existing
FFWPs that are available to them leading to more productive employees and satisfying work
environments (Darcy & McCarthy 2007; Carless & Wintle 2007). Organisations also benefit by retaining
quality staff, of particular importance in areas of skills shortage (Thornthwaite 2004; McCracken 2000;
Lewis 2001). Anecdotally, what has emerged from the current skills shortages is that school leavers and
graduates are lacking the necessary workforce requirements (Johnston & Tomazin 2008; Boyle 2008)
whilst it is possible that sole parents may be more suitable, having the experience, knowledge and
appropriate attitude to fill these roles. Sole and lone parents may also have the skills that organisations are
seeking in order to gain a competitive advantage (Slattery 2008).
For organisations there is a strategic advantage to effectively responding by changing offerings to address
work/family issues because if taken into consideration organisations can avoid costly failure of their
FFWPs. Those variables that need addressing are job involvement, job stress and managerial and collegial
support (McCracken 2000; Gray & Stanton 2002, Thornthwaite 2004, Darcy & McCarthy 2007). As
Darcy & McCarthy (2007) highlight, research has shown that high job involvement employees experience
higher levels of conflict and stress, resulting in role overload as primary carers try to devote their time to
being an effective worker and parent. Job involvement is likely to rise as the individual advances in their
position. When time demands of a job increase this often leads to an increase in work/family conflict at all
parenting stages, but especially when children are very young (Darcy & McCarthy 2007). The same can
ANZAM 2009
be said about job stress. A moderator for both these areas of conflict is managerial and collegial support
which in turn can assist in higher job satisfaction and lower absenteeism (Darcy & McCarthy 2007;
Thornthwaite 2004).
As more organisations offer FFWPs, with an increasing range of options within them, the uptake of
employees using these practices will be aided by managers who act as role models to create support and
acceptance by colleagues thereby promoting encouragement of the use of these programs. Manager and
colleague support has an influence on work family conflict for sole and lone parents (Darcy & McCarthy
2007; Haar 2007; Thornthwaite 2004; McCracken 2000; Borrill & Kidd 1994; Burgess et al. 2007a;
Cohen & Single 2001). The more fellow workers support the use of these programs the greater the
likelihood of less work family conflict felt amongst sole and lone parents. As children grow their demands
and needs change and this has a direct relationship with changes in sole parents working life experiences.
That is, work family conflict is not static and the pressures of reconciling work and family life alter over
time (Darcy & McCarthy 2007; Haar 2007; Thornthwaite 2004).
WEBSITE SEARCH
As the preliminary stage of a larger research project a search was conducted of the FFWPs
offered by all Business Council of Australia (BCA) member organisations.
Insert Table 1 here
As Table 1 shows, stated HR management policies of major Australian corporations now include FFWPs.
The search revealed that most organisations provided information on their policy in relation to, and some
detail of, FFWPs offered, with part time work, job sharing and flexi time being the most commonly
offered elements, followed by telecommuting and childcare which were also often offered. The level of
detail now provided on websites in relation to FFWPs indicates the value that employers perceive
Page 12 of 18
Page 13 of 18
ANZAM 2009
potential and current employees place on the components of these programs. However, what is meant by
one of the common elements – ‘flexi time’ – is not explained and requires further investigation.
Those sole parents now required to return to work are likely to lack the support systems that dual career
families benefit from, that of having a partner to pick up or drop off children at school or care for children
over school holidays. Moreover, this group of parents may be less likely to have two sets of grandparents
to assist with after school or school holiday care. For this reason, the small number of organisations stating
on their websites that the 48/52 option is available is of concern. The 48/52 option enables employees to
take four additional weeks to that normally available and despite this being ‘unpaid leave,’ for those with
no others to turn to for child care during school holidays it can be very attractive.
CONCLUSION
Increased female workforce participation, with 58% of women aged between 15 and 65 and with almost
‘71 per cent of women with children aged 5–9 years and 77 per cent of mothers with children 10–14 years
old’ (Baird & Williamson 2009: 334) now working according to Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008
figures, indicates dual career families are now a major component of the 21st century workplace, a
situation that is not likely to change. The needs of parents, especially single parents, warrant the
introduction of FFWPs if organisations are to attract and retain quality employees. Single parents, and sole
parents in particular because they are unlikely to have others to assist with childcare, have an increased
need for FFWPs that provide flexibility that will enable them to balance their carer needs with their
obligation to return to the workforce. Increased FFWPs offerings by major corporations in Australia are
encouraging however further research is required to identify which elements of current FFWPs are of
greatest importance to sole parents and whether additional elements would enable this group of potential
employees to become committed and productive employees. For this reason, it is planned to extend this
research to explore with sole parents what it is that they need to balance their demanding parenting role
with the need to meet the mutual obligations requirements under the WTW legislation.
ANZAM 2009
Page 14 of 18
REFERENCES
Austen SE & Birch ER (2000) Family Responsibilities and Women’s Working Lives Discussion Paper
Series 00/3 Women’s Economic Policy Analysis Unit, Curtin University of Technology, Perth: 114.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007) Australian social trends: One parent families Cat No. 4102.0,
Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003) Family functioning: Balancing family and work, Cat No. 4102.0,
Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra.
Badgett ML & Folbre N (1999) Assigning care: Gender norms and economic outcomes International
Labour Review 138: 311–326.
Baird M & Williamson S (2009) Women, work and industrial relations in 2008, Journal of Industrial
Relations, 51(3): 331-346.
Bierema LL (2001) Women, work, and learning, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 92:
53-62.
Borrill C & Kidd J (1994) New parents at work: Jobs, families and the psychological contract British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling 22(2): 6-19.
Boyle D (2008) Graduates (& Employers) - A market focused discussion Australian Council of Professors
and Heads of Information Systems PowerPoint slide presentation.
Broers M & Saunders M (2002) Work-life balance: Is having policies enough? Work Life Balance
Seminar: 1-13.
Burgess J, Henderson L & Strachan G (2007a) ‘I Just Juggle’: Work and family balance in Australian
organisations, Hectate 33(1): 94-111.
Burgess J Henderson L & Strachan (2007b) Work and family balance through equal employment
opportunity programmes and agreement making in Australia, Employee Relations, 29(4): 415-430.
Page 15 of 18
ANZAM 2009
Carless S & Wintle J (2007) Applicant attraction: The role of recruiter function, work-life balance policies
and career salience, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(4): 394-404.
Centrelink. (2006) [Online. Internet.]
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/filestores/lw45_0607/$file/lw45_0607en.rtf
Accessed 05 Sept 2008.
Charlesworth S (2005) Managing work and Family in the ‘Shadow’ of Anti-Discrimination Law Law in
Context 23(1): 88-126.
Cohen JR & Single LE (2001) An examination of the perceived Impact of flexible work arrangements on
professional opportunities in public accounting Journal of Business Ethics 32: 317-328.
Cohorts G (2004) Background Paper: A Focus on women Dept of Education and Children’s Services,
South Australia: 1-8.
Darcy C & McCarthy A (2007) Work-family conflict: An exploration of the differential effects of a
dependent child’s age on working parents Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 31, no. 7:.
530-549.
Davies A & Thomas R (2002) Managerialism and accountability in higher education: the gendered nature
of restructuring and the costs to academic service, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12: 179193.
Gray, A & Collins, P (2006) How welfare to work and work choices will change women’s lives, Women’s
Services Inc (QWWS) National Conference on Women, 82-100.
Gray M & Stanton, D (2002) Work and family life: Our workplaces, families and futures, Australian
Institute of Family Studies:. 1-9.
Gray M & Tuddball J (2003) Family friendly work practices differences within and between workplaces
Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(3): 269-291.
Haar JM (2007) Exploring the benefits and use of flexi time: similarities and difference,’ Qualitative
Research in Accounting & Management, (4)1: 69-82.
Hand K & Hughes J (2004) Mother’s reflections about work and family life’, Family Matters, 69
Spring/Summer: 44-49.
ANZAM 2009
Holocomb B (2007) Friendly for Whose Family?’ Ms Magazine: 1-2.
Johnston C & Tomazin (2008), The death of literacy’ The Age:.1-4.
Kirchmeyer C (2002) Gender differences in managerial careers: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow Journal
of Business Ethics 37: 5-24.
Kulik, CT & Bainbridge HTJ (2006) HR and the line: The distribution of HR activities in Australian
organisations, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44(2): 240-256.
Lewis S (2001) Restructuring workplace cultures: the ultimate work-family challenge? Women in
Management Review, 16(1): 21-29.
MacDermid SM, Lee MD, Buck M & Williams ML (2001) Alternative work arrangements among
professionals and managers Journal of Management Development, 20:41, 305-317.
McCracken DM (2000) Winning the talent war for women, Harvard Business Review, 159-167.
McInnes E (2005) Single mothers managing work, self and family, On Line opinion: 1.
Maxwell GA (2005) Checks and balances: the role of managers in work-life balance policies and
practices, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12: 179–189.
Merkes M (2003) Women’s working futures – views, policies and choices, Foresight 5(6): 53-60.
Papalexandris N & Kramar R (1997) Flexible working patterns: towards reconciliation of family and
work, Employee Relations, 19(6): 581-595.
Pocock B (2005) Work-Life ‘balance’ in Australia: Limited progress, dim prospects, Asia Pacific Journal
of Human Resources, 43(2): 198-209.
Priola V (2007) Being female doing gender. Narratives of women in education management, Gender and
Education, 19(1): 21-40.
Probert B & Murphy J (2001) Majority Opinion or Divided Selves? Researching Work and
Family Experience People and Place, 9(4): 24-32.
Page 16 of 18
Page 17 of 18
ANZAM 2009
Purcell J & Hutchison S (2007) Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain:
theory, analysis and evidence Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1): 3-20.
Rau BL & Hyland MM (2002) Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: the effects on applicant
attraction Personnel Psychology, 55: 111-136.
Reitman F & Schneer JA (2005) The long-term negative impacts of managerial career interruptions: A
longitudinal study of men and women MBAs Group Organization Management 30: 243-62.
Roxburgh S (2002) Racing through life: The distribution of time pressures by roles and role resources
among full-time workers Women in Management Review, 2:.121–145.
Sinclair A (1994) The Australian executive culture: Heroes and women. In Carrol P. (ed.) Feminine
Forces: Redefining the workplace, Women and Leadership 1994 National Conference
Proceedings, Edith Cowan University, Perth: 180-193.
Slattery L (2008) Uni plan to teach basics of English, The Australian: 23.
Spivey C (2005) Time off at what price? The effect of career Interruptions on earnings Industrial & Labor
Relations Review 59(1): 119-140.
Tait A (2007) Returning to work: the mother of all decisions, Managing money:. 1-2.
Thornthwaite L (2004) Working time and work-family balance: A review of employees’ preferences, Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(2): 166-184.
van Acker EH & Ferrier C (2005) The Howard government’s budgets: Stay-at-home mothers good –
single mothers bad Hectate, 31(2): 90-102.
Walter M (2001) Labour market participation and the married to sole mother transition, Competing
Visions: 1-13.
ANZAM 2009
Page 18 of 18
Table 1 - FFWPs offered by BCA listed organisations, 2009
FFWPs –
no details
provided
FFWPs broken down
Physical Arrangements
Leaves
6
Component
No.
Component
No.
Component
No.
Part time work
30
Child care
20
Family
19
Job sharing
26
Breast feeding
4
Carer
7
Flexi-time
20
Telecommuting
29
48/52 or other
reduced
weeks/year
1
Location
(suburbs, etc)
2
Maternity
11
Paternity
9
Compressed work 4
week
Telecommuting