Marc C.
Marchese
Work-Family Conflict:
A Virtue Ethics Analysis
ABSTRACT. Work-family conflict has been
examined quite often in human resources manage-
ment and industrial/organizational psychology liter-
ature. Numerous statistics show that the magnitude of
this employment issue will continue to grow. As
employees attempt to balance work demands and
family responsibilities, organizations will have to
decide to what extent they will go to minimize this
conflict. Research has identified numerous negative
consequences of work-family stressors for organiza-
tions, for employees and for employees’ families.
There are however many options to reduce this strain,
each with advantages and disadvantages. An ethical
analysis, from a virtue ethics perspective, is applied
to this timely issue to present an alternative view in
addressing this critical business decision. In addition,
a strong connection between the virtue ethics analysis
and a well-known management theory is given to
Marc C. Marchese is an associate professor and chair of
the human resources management department at King’s
College. He received his Ph.D. in industrial/organiza-
tional psychology from Iowa State University. He has
published articles on various topics including: ethics of
downsizing, employment interviewing, job enrichment,
contingent workers, 360-degree feedback, and unem-
ployment.
Gregory Bassham is an associate professor of philosophy at
King’s College. He received his B.A. from the University
of Oklahoma in 1982 and his Ph.D. in philosophy from
the University of Notre Dame in 1991. He is the
author of Original Intent and the Constitution: A
Philosophical Study (Rowman and Littlefield, 1992)
and co-author of Critical Thinking: A Student’s
Introduction (Mayfield, 2002).
Jack Ryan is a Catholic priest in the Congregation of Holy
Cross and is currently an assistant professor of business
and management at King’s College. His research inter-
ests include business ethics, human resources management
and organizational behavior. In addition to academics,
he is involved in both parish and prison ministries.
Journal of Business Ethics 40: 145–154, 2002.
© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Gregory Bassham
Jack Ryan
provide a foundation for managerial implications for
resolving work-family conflict.
KEY WORDS: Covey, seven habits of highly effec-
tive people, virtue ethics, work-family conflict
Work-family conflict has been the object of
numerous research investigations in management.
It has been established in several studies that it is
a bi-directional construct representing two
distinct types of conflict: (1) work interfering
with family life (work → family conflict) and (2)
family life interfering with work responsibilities
(family → work conflict) (Gutek et al., 1991;
MacEwen and Barling, 1994; O’Driscoll et al.,
1992; Williams and Alliger, 1994). An example
of work interfering with family would be a
parent missing a child’s soccer game because of
a late meeting; whereas an example of family
interfering with work would be a parent calling
in sick because the babysitter failed to show up.
The magnitude of this employment issue can be
seen in numerous statistics.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(1998a) the number of dual-worker families
(families in which both husband and wife work)
grew by 352,000 between 1996 and 1997, while
the number of “traditional” families (couples in
which only the husband works) declined by
145,000. Furthermore, the labor force partici-
pation rate of mothers was 72% in 1997. In
addition, 75% of unmarried mothers worked in
1997. Even more striking was the fact that 58%
of mothers with children under a year old
worked in 1997, which is up from 54% in 1996.
Moreover, approximately 65% of mothers with
children under 6 worked in 1997. These figures
146 Marc C. Marchese et al.
clearly show a substantial need for satisfactory
child care assistance for today’s workers.
In terms of the population, Azarnoff (1988)
reported that there were 19 retired persons for
every 100 working age persons as of 1988. This
number will increase significantly to 22 retired
persons for every 100 working age persons by
2010. By 2050 there will be 38 retired persons
for every 100 working age persons. Not surpris-
ingly, the demand for eldercare will continue to
climb steadily during the next century.
As the need for employees to balance work
and family continues to grow, the business pro-
fessional as well as the organization is confronted
with accommodating child care and elder care
responsibilities of employees while at the same
time ensuring a productive and cost-efficient
workplace. Unfortunately, it appears that many
organizations are having a difficult time meeting
this challenge. For example, Wortman et al.
(1991) reported that over 75% of married female
professionals reported experiencing conflict
between work and family responsibilities every
day. Thomas and Ganster (1995) attribute this
level of dissatisfaction to traditional workplace
policies that were crafted based on an American
family in which the father works and the mother
stays home to care for the house and the children,
which corresponds only to a small percentage of
families today. Even if an organization has more
progressive policies this does not ensure success.
Several studies have shown that company policies
designed to help employees integrate work and
family roles do not necessarily reduce work-
family conflict (Goff et al., 1990; Solomon,
1994).
There have been numerous articles that have
identified the negative consequences of work-
family conflict. To begin with, several studies
have examined the physical impact of work-
family conflict. For example, poor physical health
has been shown to be linked to work-family
conflict (Frone et al., 1991). Additionally, Frone
et al. (1997) found that family-to-work conflict
was longitudinally related to higher levels of
depression and to the incidence of hypertension.
Moreover, Thomas and Ganster (1995) reported
that work interfering with family was positively
related to depression and health complaints
among health care workers. In addition, Haynes
et al. (1984) noted that the strain of balancing
work and family responsibilities may lead to
coronary heart disease. Finally, several studies
revealed that among married male executives the
frequency of physical ailments was positively
associated with work-family conflict (Burley,
1995; Kopelman et al., 1983; Small and Riley,
1990).
There has also been considerable research on
the behavioral consequences of work-family
conflict. Some studies have revealed a relation-
ship between work-family conflict and heavy
alcohol use (Frone et al., 1994; Frone et al.,
1993). Further, Cascio (1991) indicated that
work-family conflict is negatively related to work
productivity. Absenteeism has been linked to
work-family conflict as well (Goff et al., 1990;
Haynes et al., 1984).
Finally, research has identified numerous
negative attitudes that have been associated with
work-family conflict. To begin with, job dissat-
isfaction has been found to be related to work-
family conflict (Burke, 1988; Kossek and Ozeki,
1998; Thomas and Ganster, 1995). Moreover,
other studies have found relationships between
work-family conflict and anxiety (Matthews et
al., 1996), burnout (Burke, 1988), lower organi-
zational commitment (Wiley, 1987) and work
stress (Burley, 1995: Small and Riley, 1990).
Furthermore, many researchers have examined
spillover effects of work-family demands. They
have found that negative attitudes in either
domain have transferred to the other domain
(Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Matthews et al., 1996;
Williams and Alliger, 1994). For example, several
studies have found negative relationships between
work-family conflict and life satisfaction (Aryee,
1992; Bedeian et al., 1988; Parasuraman et al.,
1992; Rice et al., 1992). In addition, work-
family conflict has been linked to psychological
distress (Burke, 1993; Frone et al., 1994; Hughes
and Galinsky, 1994). Marital strain has also been
found to be associated with work-family conflict
(Burley, 1995; Higgins et al., 1992; Matthews et
al., 1996). It is quite clear, therefore, that work-
family conflict can have a multitude of adverse
consequences for employees, employees’ families,
and organizations.
 Work-Family Conflict
Organizations have numerous options to
reduce work-family conflict. Each of these
options, however, has some drawbacks. For
example, one popular resource is child care assis-
tance. This can come in many forms, from pro-
viding information on child care centers to
helping employees with child care expenses to
even building an on-site day care center. In a
1995 survey of 1050 major companies, 85%
provided some form of child care assistance
(French, 1998). Youngblood and Chambers-
Cook (1984) reported that absenteeism in one
organization that initiated an on-site day care
program dropped from 6.5 days per employee per
year to 5.8 days per employee per year. Williams
and Alliger (1994) point out that on-site day care
provides employees with greater control over
their work and nonwork schedules and may
make it easier for them to manage the daily
demands of work and family roles. Goff et al.
(1990), however, found that there may be very
little benefit to employers providing on-site day
care in areas where quality day care is readily
available. Helping employees with child care
expenses would be a sufficient benefit in such
areas.
Another strategy to reduce work-family
conflict is the compressed workweek, which is
typically 4/40 (4 10-hour days). It gives the
employee an open day in the week to take care
of personal matters, including family demands.
Research has shown that scheduling practices that
employees perceive as affording high levels of
flexibility have a significant positive effect on
somatic health complaints (e.g., headaches,
insomnia). Moreover, such practices have a
positive effect on increasing perceptions of
control and subsequently decreasing work-family
strain (Thomas and Ganster, 1995). However,
research has shown that compressed workweeks
can result in fatigue for employees as well as addi-
tional stress on supervisors due to the longer
workday (Sherman et al., 1998).
A third way to reduce work-family conflict is
flextime. As of May 1997, more than 27% of full-
time wage and salary workers had flexible work
schedules that allowed them to vary the time they
began or ended work (Golden, 2001). This is up
from 15.1% in May 1991 (Bureau of Labor
147
Statistics, 1998b). This benefit gives employees
greater flexibility in scheduling, and also reduces
the traditional sources of tardiness and absen-
teeism. It has also been shown to be associated
with greater job satisfaction and a lessening of
work-family pressures. On the downside, it is
not applicable to some jobs. It can also cause
communication problems, and it may force
managers to extend working hours to cover
various schedules (Sherman et al., 1998).
Job sharing is another possible way to reduce
work-family conflict. It has many of the same
benefits as flextime. It does, however, have
numerous disadvantages. It requires organizations
to hire and train two people for one job.
Moreover, greater benefit and salary costs are
often associated with job sharing (Sherman et al.,
1998).
A final major option to ease conflicting work-
family demands is telecommuting. Allowing
employees to work from home can greatly ease
child and elder care responsibilities. According to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (1998c), more than
21 million persons did some work at home as
part of their primary job in May 1997. Higher
productivity and job satisfaction have been
reported with telecommuting. However, addi-
tional technology/equipment costs, limited com-
munication, and less control over employees are
often cited as disadvantages (Sherman et al.,
1998).
Another key factor in reducing work-family
stress is organizational culture. As noted earlier,
company policies designed to help employees
integrate work and family roles do not necessarily
reduce work-family conflict (Goff et al., 1990;
Solomon, 1994). A supportive culture has been
found in many studies to be very important.
Supervisory support of nonwork demands has
shown consistent positive effects on job satisfac-
tion and health outcomes (Thomas and Ganster,
1995). As Goff et al. (1990) indicate, “the
more supportive the supervisor, the less work/
family conflict is experienced by the employee”
(p. 805). Examples of a supportive culture would
be one that allows employees to bring their child
to work on a snow day, or one that is willing to
alter an employee’s schedule as school demands
change, or one that allows an employee to take
148 Marc C. Marchese et al.
off early one afternoon to investigate elder care
centers.
It is quite clear there are substantial employee
needs to balance work and family in today’s
society. Organizations have to decide to what
extent they will go to accommodate these needs.
There are numerous negative consequences of
ignoring work-family constraints for organiza-
tions. Further, there are many options to reduce
this strain, each with advantages and disadvan-
tages. Many business professionals are familiar
with the above information. In the traditional
business model of decision-making, the pros and
cons of any issue are identified and discussed.
Eventually, a decision is reached based upon the
collected information. To offer companies an
alternative perspective on this critical workplace
issue, a virtue ethics perspective is given.
Ethical analysis
We begin our ethical analysis with two assump-
tions.
First, the myth of amoral business is false. The
notion that business is somehow exempt from the
ordinary rules of morality – that the sole “social
responsibility of business,” in Milton Friedman’s
notorious phrase, “is to increase its profits”
(Friedman, 1970) – has aptly been characterized
as the “most refuted” view in the field of business
ethics (Solomon, 1992). Business ethicists no
longer seriously debate whether ethical concerns
apply to business. They debate how those
concerns can most effectively be addressed.
Second, there is no pre-established harmony
between what’s good for employees and what’s
good for the bottom line. We all wish we lived
in a world in which corporate sensitivity to
work-family conflicts automatically translated
into greater productivity and increased profits.
But, as every business professional knows, that’s
not the reality. Work and family need to be
balanced. And that means that hard choices have
to be made.
It follows from these two assumptions that
work-family conflicts create serious ethical
dilemmas for business decision-makers. They
cannot be avoided by pretending that ethical
norms don’t apply to business or that corporate
and employee interests serendipitously coincide.
If work-family conflicts do create real ethical
conflicts, how should business decision-makers
seek to resolve them? What’s the most helpful
ethical framework for thinking about such issues?
Traditional approaches to business ethics have
favored “principle-based” theories such as utili-
tarianism or deontological ethics (DesJardins,
1990). According to these theories, the primary
task of normative ethics is the identification and
application of a set of fundamental general moral
principles (the principle of utility, the categorical
imperative, etc.). There are two major reasons
why such theories are ill-suited to business ethics.
First, there are notorious difficulties in justifying
any of the leading principle-based theories
(Solomon, 1992; DesJardins, 1990). Both utili-
tarianism and Kantianism, for example, are
subject to familiar and (in our view) devastating
objections (Rachels, 1999). Second, quite apart
from these general justificatory difficulties, prin-
ciple-based theories “simply are not the right
kind of theory to provide the day-to-day under-
standing of business required by business ethics”
(Solomon, 1992, p. 114). The types of general
moral principles identified by principle-based
theories tend to be too abstract to be of much
practical use in business decision-making. As
Joseph DesJardins notes, “[a] seemingly endless
series of problems arises when one attempts to
derive from such principles as the categorical
imperative or the principle of utility, solutions
to ethical problems faced by businesspeople.
Hopeless ambiguity in application, apparent
counterexamples, ad hoc rebuttals, counterintu-
itive conclusions, and apparently contradictory
prescriptions create an overwhelming morass in
the discussion of particular moral situations”
(DesJardins, 1990, p. 55). What is needed, there-
fore, is an approach that grounds business ethics
in the concrete traditions, roles, and practices that
provide the real-world context in which business
decisions are made.
We believe that virtue ethics provides the most
helpful approach to ethical decision-making in
business. Developed most fully in the ethical
theories of Aristotle and Aquinas, virtue ethics is
an agent-centered approach to ethics that places
 Work-Family Conflict
primary emphasis on moral or virtuous character,
rather than on individual acts, the consequences
of those acts, or intentional conformity to moral
rules. The leading approach to ethics for nearly
two millennia, virtue ethics fell into decline with
the rise of modern philosophy. Only in the last
20 years has it seen a major revival (MacIntyre,
1984; Kruschwitz and Roberts, 1987; Taylor,
1991; Slote, 1992; Crisp and Slote, 1997;
Hursthouse, 1999).
Recognizing that ethics is too complicated to
be reduced to any short list of moral rules or
principles, virtue ethics offers no simple calculus
or decision procedure for making moral deci-
sions. Instead, it offers a broad framework for
thinking about ethical issues and responsibilities.
It urges us to focus, first, on the ultimate goal of
human striving: to flourish as happy, fulfilled
human beings (Morris, 1997). It then asks what
virtues or admirable traits of character we need
to achieve that human flourishing or fulfillment.
Roughly speaking, for virtue ethicists, an act is
morally right to the extent to which it con-
tributes to integral human flourishing, and
morally wrong to the extent it doesn’t.
What general implications does virtue ethics
have for business ethics? Among the most impor-
tant implications are these:
First, the goal of business in general is not “to
make money” or “to increase profits;” these are
means, not ends. The ultimate telos or purpose
of business, rather, is “to serve society’s demands
and the common good and be rewarded for
doing so” (Solomon, 1992, p. 110). “The bottom
line of [a virtue ethics] approach to business
ethics is that we have to get away from ‘bottom
line’ thinking and conceive of business as an
essential part of the good life, living well, getting
along with others, having a sense of self-respect,
and being part of something one can be proud
of ” (Solomon, 1992, p. 104).
Second, virtue ethics places renewed emphasis
on the notion of community in business. Virtue
ethics “begins with the idea that we are, first of
all, members of organized groups, with shared
histories and established practices governing
everything from eating and working to wor-
shiping” (Solomon, 1992, p. 146). On this view,
corporations should not be seen as mere collec-
149
tions of self-interested individuals. Corporations,
instead, are communities bound together by
shared interests and common goals and (in
healthy corporations) by mutual respect, affec-
tion and concern as well. These communities,
in turn, are parts of larger communities, which
include company “stakeholders” and ultimately
one’s fellow citizens as a whole.1
Third, virtue ethics places a strong emphasis
on the pursuit of excellence in business. According
to the virtue ethics tradition, life is not funda-
mentally about achieving fame, power, wealth,
or pleasure. It’s about living happy, fulfilled lives
in which we make the most of our talents and
abilities. It follows from this that each of us has
“an obligation to be the best that we personally
can be at each and every thing that we do, across
a broad range of interests and activities, given the
legitimate constraints of our most basic natural
endowments, the opportunities we’ve developed,
and the other commitments it is equally good
to have” (Morris, 1994, p. 225). This “ethical
obligation of excellence” (Morris, 1997, p. 225),
applies to business as well as other spheres of
human endeavor.2
Finally, the most distinctive feature of virtue
ethics is its focus on character and virtue. Virtues
are good habits – habits that perfect our powers
of action and help us achieve our goal of leading
happy, successful lives of overall excellence
(Morris, 1997). According to virtue ethicists, no
humanly successful life is possible without good
character.
Having a good character means having virtues
such as honesty, integrity, courage, generosity,
caring, compassion, and self-discipline. Among
the most important virtues in business are traits
such as justice, fairness, honesty, trustworthiness,
cooperativeness, helpfulness, loyalty, integrity,
reasonableness, resourcefulness, toughness, dili-
gence, persistence, sensitivity, dependability,
civility, congeniality, cheerfulness and decency
(Solomon, 1992; Morris, 1997).
Virtue ethicists see good character as the foun-
dation of good business in two important senses.
First, many business virtues are essential to
long-term financial success. Few businesses could
long survive unless its managers and workers
were, and were known to be, honest, trustworthy,
150 Marc C. Marchese et al.
diligent, and fair. This is the core of truth in such
commonplace maxims as “Honesty is the best
policy” and “Cheaters never prosper.” To all such
maxims, however, may be opposed counter-
maxims such as “Nice guys finish last,” which
also contain an element of truth. This brings us
to the second sense in which good character is
the foundation of good business.
If business success were measured solely in
terms of the bottom line, then good character
would be useful in many business contexts but
by no means in all. Having a sterling character
will probably never help anyone win “Used Car
Salesman of the Year.” But why think of business
success so narrowly? If, as virtue ethicists claim,
the goal of business in general is not “to make
money,” but rather to contribute to much more
fundamental human needs, then it’s clear that
business “success” needs to be defined much
more broadly. It is this broader sense of success
that virtue ethicists mainly have in mind when
they speak of good character as the foundation
of good business (Morris, 1994; Morris, 1997).
Finally, what implications does virtue ethics
have for human resource professionals looking
to shape company policy with regard to work-
family conflicts? Not surprisingly, few clear-cut
answers emerge.
As we’ve seen, virtue ethics offers no algo-
rithm for making ethical decisions. It offers a
general framework – a set of general goals and
values – that can help guide our ethical thinking
but rarely dictates clear, uniquely correct solu-
tions. What specific policies a human resource
manager should recommend or adopt to deal
with work-family conflicts will depend upon a
host of issues that can only be decided contex-
tually. Among the key questions that must be
asked are these:
• Is this a case where the company can “do
well” by “doing good”? In other words, is
this one of the fairly frequent cases where
adopting family-friendly policies for
employees is also what’s best for the
company’s bottom line? If so, the ethical call
is an easy one: the policies should be
adopted.
• Can the company afford to adopt generous
family-friendly policies? Would the
company’s long-term financial health be
seriously threatened if it implemented such
policies? If so, again the ethical call is an
easy one: the policies should not be
adopted. No one benefits if the company
goes bankrupt.
• Would adoption of family-friendly policies
cut into company profits, but not to the
point that it seriously threatens the long-
term financial health of the company? This
is where tough ethical decisions arise. If the
financial outlay is fairly minimal, virtue
ethics would clearly counsel adoption of the
policies. From a virtue ethics perspective,
the “bottom line” must include human
profits and losses, not merely financial ones.
If, on the other hand, the financial costs are
significant, no easy answer emerges. Clearly,
much will depend on the individual prior-
ities and values of the company’s stock-
holders, CEO, managers, and employees.
They must ask: What would an ethical
company – a company properly concerned
with the values of community, character,
excellence, and integral human fulfillment
– do in such a case?
Such decisions are never easy. They require a
good deal of hard thinking and practical wisdom.
But that’s precisely what virtue ethicists have
been arguing for more than two thousand years.
Managerial application
Stephen Covey (1989) offers a widely acclaimed
model of leadership that embodies many of the
characteristics discussed in a virtue ethics analysis.
This popular model of leadership has been on the
New York Times best-seller list for more than 4
years and translated into dozens of foreign lan-
guages. Covey outlines seven habits (The 7 Habits
of Highly Effective People, 1989) that enable
managers and employees to be highly effective.
Consistent with virtue ethics’ movement towards
wisdom and character, the seven habits are
arranged along a maturity continuum from
dependence (e.g., you take care of me) to inde-
 Work-Family Conflict 151

pendence (e.g., I am responsible and self-reliant)
to interdependence (e.g., we can do it). Table I
illustrates Covey’s model.
The dependence dimension of the model
represents an attitude of entitlement. A depen-
dent person expects powerful others to take care
of his or her needs. Responsibility for the
personal choices made are not assumed by the
dependent person. Responsibility, and the some-
times resulting blame, is directed towards others.
In the work-family conflict, people operating
out the dependence mode would not accept
responsibility for the conflict issue. They would
view others (employers, spouse, extended family
or society) as being primarily responsible for
resolving the work-family conflict. Attitudes of
helplessness or entitlement would abrogate
responsibility in solving the work-family conflict.
The independence dimension represents indi-
viduals who accept responsibility. A more secure
sense of self-mastery has been worked out and
people develop the habit of personal initiative.
People are responsible for their own lives.
Circumstances and powerful others are not seen
as the primary forces in determining their
personal fate. The habit of “begin with an end
in mind” involves visioning the kind of person
one wants to become. It is not only a mental
image of specific plans and goals but also guiding
values and principles. The related habit of
“putting first things first” prioritizes values and
goals. This habit helps the individual achieve
some sense of control over time and events by
allocating one’s energies among those competing
demands most in line with guiding goals and
values. In the work-family conflict, family values
and work values are identified and prioritized.
Competing goods (e.g., professional advancement
vs. family investments of time) are evaluated for
their contribution to the achievement of personal
happiness and fulfillment. However, operating
from this dimension alone does not lead to a
work-family resolution since the perspective is
solely from the individual point of view.
The interdependence dimension involves open
communication, effective team building and
caring for others. Acting from this dimension,
individuals seek out ways to work cooperatively
with each other so common goals are achieved.
The interdependence dimension, like virtue
ethics, places emphasis on the common goals of
the community through mutual respect and
concern. The 3 habits (virtues) associated with
the interdependence dimension are: (1) “think
win-win”, (2) “seek first to understand” and (3)
“synergize”. The habit of “think win-win”
recognizes that success requires the cooperation
of all parties. Shared goals and values lead to
decisions that are mutually satisfying to everyone.
The habit “seek first to understand” is similar to
empathy. This habit improves communication by
listening with the intent to understand from the
others’ perspective; not listening solely with the
intent to reply. The habit of synergy occurs when
people create new alternatives and solutions.
Differences become opportunities to develop
new solutions as individuals come to understand
and value these differences. In the work-family
conflict situation, each party seeks to understand
the others’ position and comes to see potential

TABLE I
The seven habits cycle

Private Victories Public Victories

Dependence Independence Interdependence

1. be proactive 4. think win-win

2. begin with an end in mind 5. seek first to understand
3. put first things first 6. synergize
7. Sharpen the saw

Source: Adapted from Covey, S.R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989.
152 Marc C. Marchese et al.
advantages when cooperation is pursued. For
example, when child care assistance, compressed
workweek, flextime, job sharing, and telecom-
muting programs are discussed, benefits that
accrue to both employer and employee are
recognized and appreciated. New win-win strate-
gies can be pursued through understanding and
appreciating the complementary differences
within the work-family conflict.
Covey’s model is not rule based but develop-
mental. Habits, formed over repeated practice,
form the basis of this trait-based theory of lead-
ership. Covey’s 7th habit, sharpening the saw,
concerns itself with the repeated renewal and
practice of the habits. The current popularity of
this model arises more from its intuitive appeal
than from empirical evidence. Yet, the wide
application of this model might prove to be
fertile ground for exploring the virtue ethics
approach to resolving employment issues such as
the work-family conflict.
In conclusion, companies and managers are
confronted with work and family issues every
day. Failure to resolve these conflicts has negative
consequences for employees, their families, and
organizations. The advantages and disadvantages
of the various approaches to reducing work/
family conflict should be carefully scrutinized. In
addition, the virtues, “habits”, and ethics of those
in authority will also play a significant role in
how business responds to this meaningful work-
place issue.
Future research could explore correlates of
work/family satisfaction. It may be valuable to
examine if family owned and operated businesses
are more likely to accommodate employees’
families’ demands as compared to publicly traded
corporations. Similarly, does the size of the orga-
nization relate to work/family conflict? On one
hand, large organizations often have greater
resources to devote to options such as on-site day
care. On the other hand, large organizations can
also be more impersonal and thus may be less
likely to offer accommodations for work/family
conflict. Moreover, are there industry differences
in addressing work/family issues? For example, is
the retail industry, which has a large percentage
of women employees, more likely to accommo-
date family demands than the manufacturing
industry? Do industries that employ more part-
time or seasonal workers feel less of an ethical
obligation to accommodate family demands?
There are many areas yet to be explored
regarding this important and growing critical
workplace decision.
Notes
1
The emphasis virtue ethicists place on “commu-
nity” should not be interpreted as implying any
authoritarian or relativistic conclusions. In particular,
virtue ethicists are not committed to the view that
corporations are communities in which certain values
prevail and the “elders” (otherwise known as top
management) know best what these values are and
how they apply to problems that arise in the com-
munity. Virtue theory emphasizes the importance of
community in character-formation and providing the
context in which ethical decisions are made; it doesn’t
claim that what is good or virtuous is whatever the
community says is good or virtuous.
2
In speaking of an ethical obligation to excellence, is
Morris – a leading exponent of a virtue ethics
approach to business – guilty of slipping back to a
principle-based moral theory? By no means. Virtue
ethicists don’t deny the existence of moral obligations.
(Aquinas’s virtue ethics, for example, is full of talk of
ethical rules, principles, commandments, duties and
obligations.) Rather, virtue ethicists insist that talk of
rules, principles, and obligations is secondary to talk
about character and virtue (MacIntyre, 1990, p. 344).
References
Aryee, S.: 1992, ‘Antecedents and Outcomes of
Work-family Conflict Among Married Professional
Women: Evidence from Singapore’, Human
Relations 45, 813–837.
Azarnoff, R. S.: 1988, ‘Can Employees Carry the
Eldercare Burden?’, Personnel Journal 67, 60–62.
Barnard, C. I.: 1938, The Functions of the Executive
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
Bedeian, A. G., B. G. Burke and R. G. Moffett:
1988, ‘Outcomes of Work-family Conflict Among
Married Male and Female Professionals’, Journal of
Management 14, 475–491.
Burley, K. A.: 1995, ‘Family Variables as Mediators of
the Relationship between Work-family Conflict
and Marital Adjustment Among Dual-career Men
 Work-Family Conflict
and Women’, Journal of Social Psychology 135,
483–497.
Bureau of Labor Statistics: 1998a, Employment
Characteristics of Families in 1997. [Online]
Available: http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/famee.
nws.htm [1998, May 21].
Bureau of Labor Statistics: 1998b, Workers on Flexible
& Shift Schedules in 1997. [Online] Available:
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/flex.nws.htm
[1998, March 26].
Bureau of Labor Statistics: 1998c, Work at Home in
1997. [Online] Available: http://stats.bls.gov/
news.release/homey.nws.htm [1998, March 11].
Burke, R. J.: 1988, ‘Some Antecedents and
Consequences of Work-family Conflict’, Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality 3, 287–302.
Burke, R. J.: 1993, ‘Work-family Stress, Conflict,
Coping and Burnout in Police Officers’, Stress
Medicine 9, 171–180.
Cascio, W.: 1991, Costing Human Resource: The
Financial Impact of Behavioral Organizations (Wiley,
New York).
Covey, S. R.: 1989, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective
People (Simon & Shuster, New York).
Crisp, R. and M. Slote (eds.): 1997, Virtue Ethics
(Clarendon Press, Oxford).
DesJardins, J. R.: 1984, ‘Virtues and Business Ethics’,
in J. R. DesJardins and J. J. McCall (eds.),
Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics (2nd ed.)
(Wadsworth, Belmont, CA).
French, W. L.: 1998, Human Resources Management
(Houghton Mifflin, Boston).
Friedman, M.: 1970, September 13, ‘The Social
Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’,
New York Times Magazine 33, 126.
Frone, M. R., G. M. Barnes and M. P. Farrell:
1994, ‘Relationship of Work-family Conflict to
Substance Use Among Employed Mothers: The
Role of Negative Affect’, Journal of Marriage and the
Family 56, 1019–1030.
Frone, M. R., M. Russell and M. L. Cooper:
1991, ‘Relationship of Work and Family Stressors
to Psychological Distress: The Independent
Moderating Influence of Social Support, Mastery,
Active Coping and Self-focused Attention’, Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality 6, 227–250.
Frone, M. R., M. Russell and M. L. Cooper: 1993,
‘Relationship of Work-family Conflict, Gender
and Alcohol Expectancies to Alcohol Use/Abuse’,
Journal of Organizational Behavior 13, 723–729.
Frone, M. R., M. Russell and M. L. Cooper: 1997,
‘Relation of Work-family Conflict to Health
Outcomes: A Four-year Longitudinal Study of
153
Employed Parents’, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 70, 325–335.
Goff, S. J., K. Mount and R. L. Jamison: 1990,
‘Employer Supported Child Care, Work/Family
Conflict, and Absenteeism: A Field Study’,
Personnel Psychology 43, 793–809.
Gutek, B. A., S. Searle and L. Klepa: 1991, ‘Rational
Versus Gender Role Explanations for Work-family
Conflict’, Journal of Applied Psychology 76, 560–568.
Haynes, S. G., E. D. Eaker and M. Feinlieb: 1984,
‘The Effects of Employment, Family, and Job Stress
on Coronary Heart Disease Patterns in Women’,
in J. M. Ivancevich and D. C. Ganster (eds.), Job
Stress: From Theory to Suggestion (Haworth, New
York), pp. 37–60.
Higgins, C. A., L. E. Duxbury and R. H. Irving:
1992, ‘Work-family Conflict in the Dual-career
Family’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 51, 51–75.
Hughes, D. L. and E. Galinsky: 1994, ‘Gender,
Job and Family Conditions, and Psychological
Symptoms’, Psychology of Women Quarterly 18,
251–270.
Hursthouse, R.: 1999, On Virtue Ethics (Clarendon
Press, Oxford).
Kopelman, R. E., J. H. Greenhaus and T. F.
Connolly: 1983, ‘A Model of Work, Family, and
Interrole Conflict: A Construct Validation Study’,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 32,
198–215.
Kossek, E. E. and C. Ozeki: 1998, ‘Work-family
Conflict, Policies, and the Job-life Satisfaction
Relationship: A Review and Directions for
Organizational Behavior-human Resources
Research’, Journal of Applied Psychology 83,
139–149.
Kruschwitz, R. B. and R. C. Roberts (eds.): 1987,
The Virtues: Contemporary Essays on Moral Character
(Wadsworth, Belmont, CA).
MacEwen, K. E. and J. Barling: 1994, ‘Daily
Consequences of Work Interference with Family
and Family Interference with Work’, Work and
Stress 8, 244–254.
MacIntyre, A.: 1984, After Virtue, 2nd ed. (University
of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN).
MacIntyre, A.: 1990, ‘The Privatization of Good’,
Review of Politics 52, 344–377.
Matthews, L. S., R. D. Conger and K. Wickrama:
1996, ‘Work-family Conflict and Marital Quality:
Mediating Processes’, Social Psychology Quarterly 59,
62–79.
Morris, T.: 1994, True Success: A New Philosophy of
Excellence (Berkley Books, New York).
154 Marc C. Marchese et al.

Morris, T.: 1997, If Aristotle Ran General Motors: The Outcomes: Some Unanticipated Findings’, Journal
New Soul of Business (Henry Holt and Company, of Management 13, 467–472.
New York). Williams, K. J. and G. M. Alliger: 1994, ‘Role
O’Driscoll, M. P., D. R. Ilgen and K. Hildreth: 1992, Stressors, Mood Spillover and Perceptions of
‘Time Devoted to Job and Off-job Activities, Work-family Conflict in Employed Parents’,
Interrole Conflict, and Affective Experiences’, Academy of Management Journal 37, 837–868.
Journal of Applied Psychology 77, 272–279. Wortman, C., M. Biernat and E. Lang: 1991, ‘Coping
Parasuraman, S., J. H. Greenhaus and C. S. Granrose: with Role Overload’, in M. Frankenhaeuser, U.
1992, ‘Role Stressors, Social Support and Well- Lundberg and M. Chesney (eds.), Women, Work and
being Among Two Career Couples’, Journal of Health: Stress and Opportunities (Plenum, New
Organizational Behavior 13, 339–356. York), pp. 85–110.
Rachels, J.: 1999, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Youngblood, S. A. and K. Chambers-Cook: 1984,
3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill College, Boston). ‘Child Care Assistance Can Improve Attitudes
Rice, R. W., M. R. Frone and D. B. McFarlin: and Behavior’, Personnel Administrator 29, 45–46,
1992, ‘Work-nonwork Conflict and the Perceived 93–95.
Quality of Life’, Journal of Organizational Behavior
13, 155–168.
Sherman, A., G. Bohlander and S. Snell: 1998, Marc C. Marchese
Managing Human Resources (South-Western, Department of Human Resources Management,
Cincinnati).
King’s College,
Slote, M.: 1992, From Morality to Virtue (Oxford
University Press, New York). 133 N. River Street,
Small, S. and D. Riley: 1990, ‘Toward a Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711,
Multidimensional Assessment of Work Spillover USA
into Family Life’, Journal of Marriage and the Family E-mail: mcmarche@kings.edu
52, 51–61.
Solomon, C.: 1994, ‘Work/Family’s Failing Grade: Gregory Bassham
Why Today’s Initiatives Aren’t Enough’, Personnel Department of Philosophy,
Journal 73, 72–87. King’s College,
Solomon, R. C.: 1992, Ethics and Excellence: 133 N. River Street,
Cooperation and Integrity in Business (Oxford Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711,
University Press, New York). USA
Taylor, R.: 1991, Virtue Ethics: An Introduction (Linden
Books, New York).
Thomas, L. T. and D. C. Ganster: 1995, ‘Impact of Jack Ryan
Family-supportive Work Variables on Work-family Department of Business & Management,
Conflict and Strain: A Control Perspective’, Journal King’s College,
of Applied Psychology 80, 6–15. 133 N. River Street,
Wiley, D. L.: 1987, ‘The Relationship between Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711,
Work/nonwork Role Conflict and Job-related USA