NZJHRM 2009 Third Special Issue Volume 9(3): Work-Family & Gender Editorial

Welcome to the third issue in our set of Special Editions of the New Zealand Journal of Human Resource Management (NZJHRM). As mentioned previously (Issues 1 and 2), the current set of Special Issue’s seeks to promote emerging research and researchers from New Zealand and Australasia undertaking research of interest to Human Resource Management professionals, academics, and researchers. As with the two previous issues, a number of these papers were presented at the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference in Auckland 2008.

Let me reiterate my thanks to those reviewers for their initial work with the conference. This Special Issue focuses on work-family and gender, and I have combined these due to their complimentary nature, rather than suggesting they are inexorably linked together. As a work-family researcher myself, I believe work-family issues are important and relevant to all employees, not just females. However, I combined papers into this stream because clearly there are issues and theoretical underpinnings that make these streams of HRM research sufficiently close to relate.

The first paper by Shelagh Mooney examines why female managers are so underrepresented in the New Zealand and Australian hotel industry. Using survey and interviews, the author found both visible and invisible barriers to progression, including a culture of long working hours, and the pervasiveness of the ‘Old Boy Network’. Further, the author found that those females who did make it to the top of their organization were perceived as superwomen who did so by remaining childless and exhibiting characteristics as a male manager would.

The second paper by Kerry Tilbrook compares the experiences of 24 females from Australia and America in top level positions at universities. The author notes that leadership is not a gender neutral term and is historically dominated by males. While the female respondents provided some credence to a specific female leadership style, they were careful to define what they considered as good managerial styles rather than specifically gendered ones. However, respondents who were parents suggested that raising children had further enhanced their managerial skills through on-going practice in interpersonal and negotiating skills, as well as multi-tasking.

The third paper by Barbara Haddon, Andrew Hede and John Whiteoak is a theoretical paper that focuses on how personal and environmental characteristics collectively contribute to work-life balance. Identifying gaps in the literature and drawing on ecological systems theory, positive psychology and resources-and-demands theory, their conceptual model encorporates a wide number of factors including demands and resources, conflict and facilitation, and equilibrium, control and synchrony towards a number of outcomes including well-being, and job and life outcomes. Importantly, the paper encourages the taking of an integrated approach to understanding the work-family interface.

The next paper by Jeremy Hayman uses structural equation modeling to explore work schedule control as an antecedent of a three-dimensional construct of work-life balance (conflict and enrichment) and its subsequent influence on job satisfaction. Importantly, this study highlights the importance of studying work schedule control due to its consistent influence on work-life balance by reducing conflict and enhancing enrichment.

Further, there is consistent influence on job satisfaction by conflict (reducing) and enrichment (enhancing), further highlighting the importance of work control enabling employees to better balance their lives and enhance their job experience.

The last paper by Jarrod Haar, Chester Spell, and Michael O’Driscoll is an exploratory paper that tests the way that employees manage their work-family conflict, through both organizational options (e.g. work-family practices) and individual options (e.g. hired help). Using a sample of 203 New Zealand government workers, the authors found individual options were more powerful for accounting for conflict than work initiatives.

However, a number of each factors were positively related to conflict, indicating some initiatives maybe used as a response to conflict, rather than a successful mechanism for conflict management. The strongest predictor for reducing conflict from both the work and family domains was time spent on self, suggesting that employees who take some time out of their working week to focus on just themselves, were better able to manage their conflicts. It is suggested this is due to them being able to recharge and revitalise themselves. Similarly, taking leave from work benefits both work-family and family-work conflict, again indicating that employees who take charge of their work and family maybe best able to manage the ensuing conflicts. This paper has clear implications for HRM professionals and employees regarding the ‘elusive’ work-family balance.

I hope you enjoy this third Special Issue for 2009, its national and international breadth, and the focus particularly on work-family issues.
Clearly, the role that managing and balancing work-family commitments has on the workplace are continually gaining prominence and focus and it seems unlikely these issues will be readily fixed in the near future.

Indeed, given the changing demographics, these issues may continue to be on concern for HRM professionals for many years to come!

I hope this Special Issue will provide some insights and directions about how to deal with issues relating to work and family, and how these may ultimately benefit employer and employee alike.
As always, my thanks to those who reviewed for this set of Special Issues and the editorial team at NZJHRM.

Associate Professor Jarrod Haar, University of Waikato

September 2009

Back to Main Page