Einde inhoudsopgave
Female representation at the corporate top (IVOR nr. 126) 2022/2.4.5
2.4.5 Work-family balance/work-family conflict
dr. mr. R.A. van ’t Foort-Diepeveen, datum 13-05-2022
- Datum
13-05-2022
- Auteur
dr. mr. R.A. van ’t Foort-Diepeveen
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS659168:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Ondernemingsrecht / Corporate governance
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Acker, Sociologie du travail, 2009, 51(2); Broadbridge, The Service Industries Journal, 2008, 28(9); Cross & Linehan, Women in Management Review, 2006, 21(1); Kossek et al., Journal of Management, 2017, 43(1); Straub, Women in Management Review, 2007, 22(4).
A. Baerts et al., ‘The role of the partner in promotions to top positions in Belgium’, European Sociological Review, 2011, 27(5), p. 654-668; Broadbridge, The Service Industries Journal, 2008, 28(9); Kirton & Robertson, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2018, 27(2); Linehan & Walsh, British Journal of Management, 2000, 11; Linehan, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2002, 13(5); Nagy, Women in Management Review, 2005, 20(5); Socratous et al., Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 2016, 35(5/6).
Kossek et al., Journal of Management, 2017, 43(1).
Broadbridge, The Service Industries Journal, 2008, 28(9); Castaño et al., International Labour Review, 2010, 149(3); Cross & Linehan, Women in Management Review, 2006, 21(1); Gabaldon et al., Corporate Governance: An International Review, 2016, 24(3); Nagy, Women in Management Review, 2005, 20(5); Noback et al., British Journal of Industrial Relations, 2016, 54(1); P. Wynarczyk & C. Renner, ‘The “gender gap” in the scientific labour market’, Equal Opportunities International, 2007, 25(8), p. 660-673.
Ciavolino et al., Quality and Quantity, 2016, 50(4); Gabaldon et al., Corporate Governance: An International Review, 2016, 24(3).
Cross & Linehan, Women in Management Review, 2006, 21(1).
Broadbridge, The Service Industries Journal, 2008, 28(9).
Broadbridge, Gender in Management: An International Journal, 2010, 25(3), p. 256.
Broadbridge, Gender in Management: An International Journal, 2010, 25(3); Ciavolino et al., Quality and Quantity, 2016, 50(4); Linehan, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2002, 13(5); Socratous et al., Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 2016, 35(5/6).
Socratous et al., Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 2016, 35(5/6).
Broadbridge, The Service Industries Journal, 2008, 28(9).
Michailidis et al., The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2012, 23(20).
Broadbridge, The Service Industries Journal, 2008, 28(9).
Terjesen & Singh, Journal of Business Ethics, 2008, 83.
Kossek et al., Journal of Management, 2017, 43(1).
Ahuja, European Journal of Information Systems, 2002, 11(1); Michailidis et al., The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2012, 23(20); Socratous et al., Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 2016, 35(5/6).
Ahuja, European Journal of Information Systems, 2002, 11(1).
It is still the case today that women are expected to be responsible for raising children and taking care of household duties more than men and they spend more time on these tasks.1 Due to this expectation, women are often forced to make a choice between either having a family or a career2 as it is considered incompatible for women to have both.3
Work-family conflict is a major barrier.4 Women are more likely than men to resign from their jobs because of work-family conflict.5 This implies that it is women’s own choice not to be promoted.6 However, when women choose to refrain from leadership or promotion opportunities,7 it may be questioned whether that is a ‘genuine choice’.8 Women’s choices in the context of work-family conflicts are constrained by the organizational culture such as the long-hours culture9 and may also be motivated by stereotypical norms that urge women to choose family over their career.10 The above findings indicate that the barrier work-family balance/conflict influences women’s career preferences (barrier 3). However, these preferences are often constrained by the organizational culture (barrier 4). This relationship is shown in Figure 2.3, arrows 7 and 8.
Another aspect is that women may not be considered for leadership positions if they have responsibilities at home.11 They are often perceived as not committed to their career once they become mothers or manifestly plan to start a family.12 Commitment to the organization is often translated as working long hours and women may not be able to meet this obligation due to other caring and domestic responsibilities. As a result, women who do not show commitment to the organization could be excluded from promotion opportunities.13 The (perceived) lack of commitment might, therefore, be a barrier14 because employers are more inclined to promote committed employees.15 Furthermore, the societal perception that women will resign from their job once they become mothers, influences women’s promotion opportunities.16 To rebut the perception that women are less committed, women may put more effort into their career to climb the ladder, which may result in more work-family conflict.17 The above findings show a reciprocal effect between the barriers gender stereotypes and work-family balance/conflict. Due to perceptions based on stereotypes, women are regarded as less committed. However, women’s profound commitment has an effect on work-family balance/conflict, and therefore women might refrain from leadership positions. This relationship between the barriers ‘gender stereotypes’ and ‘work-family balance/conflict’ is shown in Figure 2.3, arrow 9.