APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.

qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 354

354 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2003 41(3)

Stakeholder perceptions of family-friendly workplaces:

An examination of six New Zealand organisations

Linda Liddicoat
Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, New Zealand

Balancing work and family responsibilities is a challenge for many employees.

Increasingly employers are recognising their role in this challenge by introducing
family friendly workplace initiatives such as flexible hours, flexible leave and
childcare programmes. This paper reports on stakeholder perceptions of family
friendly workplace initiatives in six large New Zealand organisations. In this
research, organisational stakeholders included CEOs, human resource managers,
employees, and union officials. Interviews were undertaken with CEOs, human
resource managers and union officials. A survey was administered to 809
employees. Responses from organisational stakeholders showed a degree of
commonality of perception. For example, stakeholders agreed about the
importance of both flexible working hours and flexible leave in enabling
employees to balance work and family responsibilities. However, there were
differing perceptions on some issues, such as the consultation process, the
dissemination of information on family friendly initiatives and the rating of the
organisation’s overall family friendliness.

Keywords: family-friendly workplace, flexibility, New Zealand, stakeholder perceptions, work–life

balance

Introduction

Family-friendly workplaces

The challenge of the interface between work and family has prompted many
organisations in New Zealand, as in many Western countries, to introduce

Correspondence to: Dr Linda Liddicoat, Senior Lecturer, School of Business and Computer
Technology, Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, Private Bag 19, Nelson, New
Zealand; e-mail: lliddicoat@nmit.ac.nz

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Published by Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and
New Delhi; www.sagepublications.com) on behalf of the Australian Human Resources Institute. Copyright ©
2003 Australian Human Resources Institute. Volume 41(3): 354–370. [1038-4111(200312)41:3;354–370;039471]
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 355

Perceptions of family-friendly workplaces 355

initiatives to assist employees to balance their work and family responsibilities.

In New Zealand the development of family-friendly workplace initiatives has
been stimulated by a number of workplace developments. The once predom-
inantly male New Zealand workforce is now composed of almost equal
numbers of men and women with an average of 977 800 males and 811 400
females employed in the year ended March 2001 (Statistics New Zealand
2002b). Increasing numbers of women with preschool and school-age children
are entering and remaining in the workforce with many women combining
part-time work with childcare (Statistics New Zealand 2002a); more men are
becoming sole parents or primary caregivers; and there is a rise in the number
of dual income parents. The structure of New Zealand families has also
changed: the number of single-parent families is rising, the overall population
is aging (Statistics New Zealand 2002c). These changes have increased the need
for employees to seek assistance to balance their work and family responsibil-
ities, and for employers to implement family-friendly initiatives to help create
this balance.
This request for work and family assistance by employees is not unique
to New Zealand. As early as the 1960s academics in the United States were
documenting that workers found balancing work and family roles stressful
(Rapoport and Bailyn 1996). Research conducted in Australia, the United
Kingdom, and Europe (see Carnoy 1999; Drew, Emerek, and Mahon 1998;
Goodstein 1994; Milliken, Dutton, and Beyer 1990; Wolcott 1991) also suggests
many employees struggle to balance their work and family responsibilities, and
many organisations are now providing initiatives in order to help their
employees manage this struggle. To encourage organisations to assist
employees with the work–family balance, some countries have awards for
organisations that provide family-friendly workplace initiatives, for example
both Australia and New Zealand have Work and Family Awards. There are
also organisations that undertake research or provide support for organisa-
tional efforts to assist employees balance their work and family responsibili-
ties such as the US-based Families and Work Institute, and the Australian
Institute of Family Studies. A number of publications identify family-friendly
employers and the initiatives they provide (for example, Europe: Hogg and
Harker 1992; New Zealand: Families at Work 1995). Recent legislation in
New Zealand, The Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental
Leave) Amendment Act, came into effect from 1 July 2002. It makes tax-funded
paid leave available to eligible employees. Although the mother is primarily
eligible for parental leave and payment, she may choose to transfer some or all
of her entitlement to her spouse (who may be a same sex partner).

Family-friendly initiatives
An organisation can implement various initiatives which may assist employees
to better balance their work and family responsibilities. These may include:
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 356

356 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2003 41(3)

• flexible working hours – usually includes having employees work a

specified number of hours per day or per week; employees choose
working hours to best suit their needs and the needs of the organisation;
• job sharing – two or more employees share one position;
• part-time work – an employee works fewer hours or days than a full-time
position;
• compressed work weeks – employees work more hours each day to com-
plete the equivalent hours required and then have the rest of the week off;
• flexible leave – can include employees taking leave in smaller blocks of
time, for example, taking half a day’s leave to attend a meeting at their
child’s school;
• parental leave – leave taken when an employee becomes a parent;
• phase back for new mothers – allows new parents to return to work
gradually;
• telecommuting – sometimes referred to as ‘working from home’, but it
can also include temporary or ongoing work from a satellite branch closer
to the employee’s home, rather than working at the corporate office which
may be some distance from the employee’s home;
• part-office, part-elsewhere – this can be a permanent situation where an
employee may work part of the time in the office and part of the time
elsewhere; or it can be a temporary situation to help an employee with a
change in circumstances;
• on-site childcare facility;
• near-site childcare facility;
• referral service – a referral service is usually a database of currently
available childcare and/or eldercare facilities, which employers can
provide for employees;
• employer subsidy of childcare;
• after-school and school holiday programmes;
• eldercare – relates to the care of elderly persons and, as is the case with
childcare, eldercare has many options; these range from an on-site
eldercare facility through to subsidies, and emergency care;
• dependant-care car parks – car parks set aside for staff to use in family
emergency situations.

The variety of family-friendly workplace initiatives that employers can offer

is almost unlimited. Some initiatives may not be very costly to the employer,
such as the flexible annual leave policy developed and implemented by the
Manukau City Council (Families at Work and Top Drawer Consultants 1995).
Other initiatives may be more costly, such as the provision of an on-site
childcare or eldercare facility. It has been documented (see Aryee, Luk, and
Stone 1998; Dutton 1998; Rodgers 1992; Solomon 1994) that flexibility is the
family-friendly initiative most often requested by employees to help them
balance their work and family responsibilities.
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 357

Perceptions of family-friendly workplaces 357

Benefits

The potential benefits that can result from successfully implementing family-
friendly workplace initiatives include:
• reduced staff turnover (Top Drawer Consultants 1996; Russell and
Bourke 1999);
• increased return rate following parental leave (McBride and Wallace 1997;
State Services Commission 1994);
• reduced absenteeism (Gunderson, Rozell, and Kellogg 1995; Pitt-
Catsouphes and Bankert 1998; Top Drawer Consultants 1996);
• increased productivity (Callister 1996; Gundersen, Rozell, and Kellogg
1995; Solomon 1994; Top Drawer Consultants 1996; Tudhope 1994);
• improved employee morale (Gunderson, Rozell, and Kellogg 1995; Pitt-
Catsouphes and Bankert 1998; Solomon 1994);
• improved recruitment and retention of staff (Callister 1996; Pitt-
Catsouphes and Bankert 1998; Russell and Bourke 1999; Top Drawer
Consultants 1996).

The study
The study reported here was carried out during 1998 and 1999. It developed
as a consequence of the author’s personal experience as a working parent
encountering the need to balance work and family responsibilities and recog-
nising the importance of family-friendly initiatives in helping to balance these
responsibilities. Further, as EEO co-ordinator and change agent at a large New
Zealand educational institution, the author identified divergent stakeholder
perceptions of family-friendly workplace initiatives, for example, divergent
perceptions of which initiatives were available to employees. This stimulated
an interest in the need to examine these anomalies in greater depth. The author
also recognised the importance of developing practical guidelines or sugges-
tions for human resource practice in the area of work and family. Therefore,
this study examined family-friendly workplace policies, practices and initia-
tives from the viewpoint of the organisational stakeholders of six large New
Zealand organisations. Freeman suggests that if organisations want to be
effective they will pay attention to ‘any group or individual who can affect or
is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives’ (1984, 46).
There has been much discussion about how to define a stakeholder, for
example Jones and Wicks (1999) suggest that the concept is relatively vague;
Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) argue that who constitutes a stakeholders is
not clearly defined. However, Freeman (1999) suggests that an effective organ-
isation will manage relationships that are important to that organisation. In
this research project, the focus was on four main constituent groups: CEOs,
human resource managers, employees and union officials (where applicable).
These constituent groups are important to any organisation and they also
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 358

358 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2003 41(3)

possess one, two, or all three of the attributes Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997)
propose can be utilised to identify a stakeholder: the stakeholder’s power to
influence the organisation; the legitimacy of the stakeholder’s relationship with
the organisation; and the urgency of the stakeholder’s claim on the firm.

Research objectives
The research objectives developed for the study were:
• to outline the historical context of management which contributed to the
development of work and family programmes and family-friendly
workplace initiatives;
• to outline the development and current situation of the family-friendly
workplace both within New Zealand and overseas;
• to consider the future of family-friendly workplaces and family-friendly
workplace initiatives in New Zealand;
• to examine the impact of family-friendly initiatives on managers of people
within specific organisations, and to compare managerial views with those
of employees;
• to examine the impact of family-friendly initiatives on employees within
specific organisations, and to compare employee views with those of
managers.

Method

Sample

Six large (over 200 staff) New Zealand organisations participated in this
research project which sought to examine the impact of family-friendly initia-
tives on managers, employees, and organisational stakeholders within specific
organisations, to compare their views, and to consider the future of family-
friendly workplaces in New Zealand. Two organisations were based in Nelson
(population approx. 40 000), two in Christchurch (population approx. 310 000)
and two in Wellington (New Zealand’s capital city, population approx.
160 000). Three organisations were service-based organisations; three were
production-based. All six organisations featured family-friendly workplace
practices; three organisations were exemplars and had featured in recent New
Zealand work and family literature (see table 1).
The research strategy focused on four major organisational stakeholders:
human resource managers, CEOs, union officials and employees. Interviews
were conducted with the first three groups, and a questionnaire was distrib-
uted to employees. Interviews were conducted or information obtained from
other organisational stakeholders where possible.
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 359

Perceptions of family-friendly workplaces 359

Table 1 Summary of information by organisation – business type, union presence,

questionnaire distribution and response, family-friendly practices in place

Number of Family-friendly
Business Union questionnaires Response practices
Organisation type presence distributed rate in place

A Educational Yes 293 47.8% Flexible hours,

institute part time work
B Fishing Yes 60 43.3% School holiday
industry programme,
parental leave
C Apparel Yes 74 45.9% Compressed hours,
manufacturer parental leave
D Apparel No 175 57.1% Flexible leave, EAP
manufacturer
E Government Yes 87 48.2% Flexible hours, flexible
department leave
F Government No 120 40.0% Parental leave, flexible
department hours

Response rates

The response rate for the questionnaire was 48.2 percent. In total 809 ques-
tionnaires were distributed and 390 responses were received. Interviews with
the human resource managers had a 100 percent response rate. The six human
resource managers all agreed to the questionnaires being sent to employees
within their organisation. Two CEOs agreed to be interviewed. A third CEO
was also the human resource manager and was not interviewed again in his
role as CEO. Five union officials were interviewed, as one organisation had
two major site unions; three organisations each had one major site union; and
two organisations had no union presence.

Interviews
Interviews with the human resource managers of the six organisations were
conducted face-to-face. The twelve questions asked of human resource
managers covered the following issues: employer responsibility toward
employees with work and family responsibilities, existing family-friendly
initiatives, which initiatives were considered most important to employees, the
degree of consultation prior to introducing initiatives, how employees were
informed of the initiatives, the motivation for adopting family-friendly initia-
tives, and the resulting benefits.
The CEOs answered eight questions, including what motivated them to
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 360

360 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2003 41(3)

Table 2 Interviews, by organisation

Organisation Interviewees Method

A Human resource manager Face-to-face

CEO Face-to-face
Union officials of two different unions Face-to-face
B Human resource manager Face-to-face
CEO Telephone
Union official Face-to-face
C Human resource manager (who was also CEO) Face-to-face
Union official Telephone
D Human resource manager Face-to-face
E Human resource manager Face-to-face
Union official Telephone and email
F Human resource manager Face-to-face

introduce family-friendly initiatives, how employees found out about the

initiatives available, what role managers played in disseminating information
on initiatives, what benefits resulted, and how the CEOs viewed the future of
family-friendly initiatives.
In organisations that had a union presence, union officials were asked
seven questions about the union perspective of family-friendly workplaces, as
well as more specific questions about the family-friendly initiatives in the
organisation. External stakeholders were asked more general questions
including their attitude to family-friendly workplaces, whether they actively
encourage a family-friendly philosophy and their perceptions of the future of
family-friendly workplaces (see table 2).

Questionnaire
The majority of questions were tick-the-box or rating-scale style, with space
provided for respondents to incorporate written comments. The rating scale
utilised was a five-point scale with ‘1’ primarily being a negative answer, for
example ‘no prospects for promotion’, ‘no consultation’, ‘initiatives not
available equally to all staff’; and ‘5’ being primarily an affirmative answer, for
example ‘excellent prospects for promotion’, ‘full consultation’, ‘initiatives are
available equally to all staff’.
The first three questions focused on the respondents’ situation: their level
of responsibility, whom they were responsible to, and what dependant care
options they utilised. The next three questions examined issues relating to the
workplace: potential work–home conflict, prospects for promotion, percep-
tions of individual work–home demands. Nine questions related primarily to
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 361

Perceptions of family-friendly workplaces 361

the family-friendly initiatives available within the organisation, and the impact
the initiatives had on employees’ ability to balance work and family responsi-
bilities. The final set of questions were demographic: sex, ethnicity, age, length
of service, level in the organisation, education level, and salary scale.

Results

Questionnaire results
Dependants and dependant care
Forty-nine percent of respondents (73 males and 102 females) had family
responsibilities that were regular and ongoing; 10 percent (18 males and 17
females) reported their family responsibilities as periodic and occasional; and
41 percent of respondents (38 males and 107 females) rated their family respon-
sibilities as unpredictable and emergency related. Male respondents tended to
indicate the highest level of family responsibility, reinforcing the belief that
family-friendly initiatives should be available to all employees and not
primarily women.
Lack of available childcare or eldercare has been postulated as a constraint
for many people who wish to enter or remain in the workforce (Friedman
1986; Shilton 1993; Tudhope 1994). However, with the wider availability and
acceptance of flexibility, the informal care of children and the elderly has
increased. Informal care arrangements, such as having relatives as carers, was
reported by respondents in this research as the most utilised means of care for
dependants (see table 3). This finding was similar to the results of a New
Zealand survey on childcare that was run as a supplement to the household
labour force survey, between June and September 1998 (Department of Labour
and NACEW 1999).

Table 3 Dependant-care facilities used by employees

Dependant-care facility n

Childcare centre 33
Eldercare facility 4
Nanny or home care 20
Relatives/friends as carers 82
After-school care 18
School holiday programme 18
Other 9

n= 184
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 362

362 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2003 41(3)

Work–family conflict

Overall, the most common work–family conflict concerned workloads that

interfered with ‘family time’ (141 respondents). Work finishing times that
conflicted with family arrangements was the second most common (98 respon-
dents) (see table 4). Respondent comments included ‘I have an unsympathetic
manager’ and ‘my workmates complain if I take any leave’. However,
work–family conflicts were organisation specific. For example, respondents
from the three production-based organisations reported lack of available sick
leave as their major work–family conflict, whereas respondents from the three
service-based organisations mentioned workload as their major one.

Family-friendly workplace initiatives

The most common initiative provided by organisations was flexible hours (236
respondents), followed by parental leave (208 respondents), flexible leave (193
respondents), part-time work (188 respondents), job sharing (106 respondents),
and teleworking/work from home (62 respondents). Employees were asked
which of the initiatives available to them were the most important in assisting
them to balance their work and family responsibilities. A total of 156 respon-
dents (86 females and 69 males) rated flexible working hours as the most
important initiative, followed by flexible leave (85 respondents) and tele-
working/work from home (21 respondents).

Table 4 Work–family conflict situations perceived by employees

Work–family conflict situation Male (n) Female (n)

Workloads that make it hard to make time for the family 63 78

Work finishing times that make family arrangements difficult 47 51
Expectations of overtime or weekend work that are hard to
fit around home commitments 43 53
Work starting times that make family arrangements difficult 29 46
Meeting times that clash with family commitments 40 35
Being unable to attend training because of family commitments 14 33
Not having enough sick leave to look after family members 9 32
Difficulty in getting time off for a family emergency 8 20

* Note respondents could indicate more than one conflict situation.

APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 363

Perceptions of family-friendly workplaces 363

Table 5 Family friendly initiatives – information sources

Method of finding out about initiatives N

Manager 118
Colleague 101
Job interview 53
Employment contract 29
General knowledge 42

Consultation process
Respondents were asked about the prior and ongoing consultation processes
surrounding the introduction of family-friendly workplace initiatives. There
were more respondents unaware of the consultation process than there were
respondents who had some knowledge of the process and were able to
comment on it. Respondents who did not know of the extent of the prior
consultation process (223) outnumbered those who did (113). Similarly, for the
ongoing consultation process, respondents who did not know about the extent
of the ongoing consultation process (176) outnumbered those who did (162).

Awareness and helpfulness of initiatives

The respondent’s manager was the most common source of information about
family-friendly workplace initiatives available within the organisation;
colleagues were the second most common source (see table 5).
Overall, respondents felt that the family-friendly initiatives available
within their organisation helped them to balance their work and family
responsibilities. Commenting on the benefits, some respondents reported that
family-friendly initiatives helped them to give their best to both work and
family and enabled them to cope with emergencies and unexpected events.

Interview results

Responsibility

The question of who should take responsibility for the development, imple-
mentation and maintenance of family-friendly initiatives is part of an ongoing
debate (Callister 1996; Mason 1993; Milliken, Dutton, and Beyer 1990; Wolcott
1991). Five of the six human resource managers interviewed agreed that
employers bore a responsibility to help employees balance their work and
family responsibilities.
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 364

364 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2003 41(3)

Benefits of family-friendly initiatives

Research shows that organisations can benefit in a number of ways when they
offer family-friendly initiatives, for example, reduced staff turnover, reduced
absenteeism, increased productivity and improved employee morale. In this
study, the human resource managers reported several benefits from having
family-friendly initiatives in their organisation, including enhanced public
relations, reduced turnover, reduced absenteeism, and a ‘significant impact’ on
the return rate of employees who took parental leave. Although no one benefit
appeared to have more importance than others, two organisations were
impressed with the enhanced public relations as a result of implementing
family-friendly initiatives. Another organisation was particularly pleased with
the increased return rate of employees following parental leave.

Family-friendly rating
Human resource managers, CEOs, union officials and employees were asked
to rank their organisation’s family friendliness from ‘not at all family friendly’,
to ‘very family friendly’. Most employees rated their organisation about mid-
scale showing that although their organisation was quite family friendly, there
was scope for improvement. The human resource managers tended to rank
their organisation’s family friendliness slightly higher than did their employees.
One CEO said the organisation was ‘quite family friendly’ and that managers
accommodated employee needs. Another CEO reported that, as the organisa-
tion was constantly evolving, they were always seeking more ways to support
employees. He felt that all organisations should be actively involved in
examining ways to support their staff. The union officials were also asked how
family friendly they thought the relevant organisations were. Two of the five
union officials replied ‘good’, two said it varied depending on the manager or
area involved, and one did not know how family friendly the organisation was.

Managerial motivation to adopt family-friendly initiatives

Organisations have varying reasons for wanting to implement family-friendly
workplace initiatives. External issues may steer an organisation toward family-
friendly initiatives, such as the increasing number of women workers and the
need to improve public relations, or to keep up with competitors. Internal
issues may exist, such as the need to retain staff, to increase productivity or to
address absenteeism. Personal issues may arise, where a manager might be
about to lose a key staff member because of that person’s family responsibilities.
Human resource managers and CEOs offered three main reasons for their
organisations developing family-friendly workplace policies and initiatives.
The first motivator related to addressing an issue (or issues) such as high staff
turnover which might result in the organisation losing experienced staff it
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 365

Perceptions of family-friendly workplaces 365

could not afford to lose; the second concerned complying with requests from
staff; and the third originated in a desire to be proactive in the area of work
and family and to ‘do the right thing’.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to examine stakeholder perceptions of family-

friendly workplaces. The study utilised interviews and a questionnaire to
gather data in an effort to explore convergence and divergence of stakeholder
perceptions.
Responses from stakeholders showed some commonality of perception.
All stakeholders agreed that family-friendly workplace initiatives are benefi-
cial in helping employees to balance work and family responsibilities, which
may explain why increasing numbers of organisations are seeking to
implement family-friendly initiatives. In particular, stakeholders recognised
flexibility as an important family-friendly initiative – a common finding in the
work–family research area. Stakeholders also agreed that everyone benefits
when an organisation implements family-friendly initiatives: employees, their
families, and employers. Stakeholders reported that overall the family-friendly
initiatives available were offered equally, although some individuals did not
agree. Some employees reported work areas where initiatives were not offered
equally and suggested that area managers or job positions were the reasons.
One human resource manager also acknowledged that family-friendly initia-
tives were not always applied consistently. When an organisation implements
family-friendly initiatives, training of supervisors and managers may be bene-
ficial to ensure consistency and transparency are maintained and to ensure
supervisors or managers are ‘family sensitive’.
Divergence of perception was also evident in this study. Whereas human
resource managers and CEOs reported a consultation process in place within
the organisation, this view was not reflected in responses from employees.
Employees reported little or no consultation, or a lack of awareness of any
consultation. Communication about the availability of family-friendly initia-
tives within the organisations was another area of difference. Employees
reported their main source of information pertaining to family-friendly initia-
tives was informal, often oral discussions with their manager or with
colleagues. Colleagues were also seen as a source of information in the research
undertaken by Tudhope (1994). By contrast, human resource managers
mentioned more formal, written means of information dissemination: organ-
isation policies, staff handbooks and company newsletters.
The results of this research identify a number of issues that organisations
may take into account when developing a family-friendly philosophy.
One is flexibility. Flexibility can be an effective, low-cost means of
assisting employees to balance work and family responsibilities. Flexible hours
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 366

366 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2003 41(3)

and flexible leave were rated by employees as the two most important initia-
tives in helping them to balance their work and family responsibilities.
A well-communicated and transparent work and family consultation
process plays an important role in developing a family-friendly philosophy.
Consultation between managers and employees ensures family-friendly initia-
tives continually meet the needs of the diverse and changing workforce.
Frequent use of both written and oral dissemination of information about
the family-friendly initiatives available within the organisation ensure super-
visor and employee awareness. Management training, and the importance of
family-sensitive managers or supervisors also have a role in ensuring the
communication of initiatives to employees and consistent application of those
initiatives. In one organisation studied a ‘Work and family responsibilities’
brochure was developed and given to all staff. It is important that all employees
are given information pertaining to family-friendly initiatives: male respon-
dents as well as female respondents indicated that they were caregivers of
dependants and needed access to, and information about, family-friendly
initiatives.
Finally, an organisational culture which supports employees with family
responsibilities is another important issue. One CEO recognised the impor-
tance of senior management in the development of a family-friendly philos-
ophy. He said that if the CEO and senior management believed in being
family-friendly, then this ‘shared meaning’ became infectious and was estab-
lished as the culture of the organisation. An organisation with a good track
record in human resource management and valuing of employees also plays a
role in predicting its ability to assist workers balance work and family respon-
sibilities (Goodstein 1994; Bardoel, Tharenou, and Moss 1998).

The future
Researchers and writers in the area of work and family agree that family-
friendly workplaces have a big future (Bruce and Reed 1994; Mason 1992;
Rapoport and Bailyn 1996; Rodgers 1992; Top Drawer Consultants 1996) and
that developing family-friendly workplace policies and practices can enhance
an organisation’s success. ‘As corporations continue to restructure and reinvent
themselves ... linking change efforts to work–family concerns greatly enhances
their chances for success’ (Rapoport and Bailyn 1996, 37). There is also recog-
nition that the future of work and family is linked to empowerment of
employees (Rodgers 1992). In this research project, the stakeholders who were
interviewed were asked about their expectations of the future of family-
friendly workplaces. They suggested that family-friendly workplaces will have
an important function. They often linked this to the benefits the organisation
received from having a family-friendly philosophy, such as reduced turnover
and reduced absenteeism, and wanted to ensure the benefits continued.
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 367

Perceptions of family-friendly workplaces 367

Emergent trends

The researcher identified three major trends emerging in the area of work and
family or work and life: changing terminology, trust and empowerment issues,
and increased use of technology.

Terminology
The future of ‘family friendly’ is evolving – as more initiatives become
available to a wider range of employees the term ‘family friendly’ may develop
into ‘work–life’. Work–life, which recognises that all employees may need to
balance work and an array of non-work commitments, is being used more
frequently to reflect the more inclusive nature of the initiatives offered. An
example from this study is the organisation that utilised the family-friendly
infrastructure in place to enable employees to undertake a variety of non-work
activities such as leave to undertake missionary work. The organisation
worked with a particular employee to ensure that person was able to complete
their missionary work; in doing so the organisation ensured it was able to
retain the individual as a committed and valued staff member.

Trust and empowerment

The issues of trusting and empowering employees are appearing in the work
and family literature and also surfaced in employees’ responses to the ques-
tionnaire. Dutton (1998) suggests the way to build a loyal and dynamic
workforce is through giving employees greater autonomy and encouraging an
entrepreneurial spirit. Autonomy and entrepreneurship can be developed
utilising family-friendly workplace initiatives or the family-friendly workplace
infrastructure within the organisation. This situation also fits well with the
concept of the knowledge worker, since ‘managers of knowledge workers have
to learn to allow [workers] more freedom and flexibility’ (Rudman 1999, 56).
Freedom and flexibility align well with the family-friendly workplace infra-
structure present in some organisations.

Technology
The increasing use of computers allowing faster communication and access to
more information, and the concepts of ‘global village’ and ‘virtual office’ may
involve a greater number of people working from home, the car, or other non-
office sites. Increasing use of technology has facilitated the development of
knowledge work, greater employee autonomy, empowerment and the entre-
preneurial spirit alluded to above. The development and implementation of
family-friendly initiatives, such as flexibility, encourage technology and the
accompanying mobility it provides to be utilised to its fullest extent.
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 368

368 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2003 41(3)

Conclusion

This study provides some empirical evidence and support for a number of
anecdotal propositions concerning the impact of family-friendly workplace
initiatives on organisational stakeholders. The evidence suggests that organi-
sational stakeholders, in this case CEOs, human resource managers, employees
and union officials, perceive that family-friendly workplaces are beneficial and
that flexibility is important for employees. However, potential hindrances
include lack of consultation, inconsistencies in the offering of initiatives, lack
of awareness of the initiatives available, and differing perceptions of managers
and employees. As the workplace and the workforce change, organisations
need to change their management of human resources. Part of this change lies
in the need to have an holistic view of employees and to recognise that
employees have a variety of work and non-work responsibilities. Employees
can better manage their responsibilities with assistance and support from the
organisation in the form of flexible working hours, flexible leave, part-time
work, and job sharing.

Linda Liddicoat (PhD, Massey) is a senior lecturer in the School of Business and Computer Technology
at Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT), Nelson, New Zealand. Her areas of teaching and
research interests are management, human resource management and business ethics.

References
Ayree, S., V. Luk and R. Stone. 1998. Family-responsive variable and retention-relevant
outcomes among employed parents. Human Relations 51(1): 73–87.
Bardoel, E.A., P. Tharenou and S.A. Moss. 1998. Organizational predictors of work–family
practices. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 36(3): 31–49.
Bruce, W. and C. Reed. 1994. Preparing supervisors for the future workforce: The dual-
income couple and the work–family dichotomy. Public Administration Review 54(1):
36–43.
Callister, P. 1996. ‘Family friendly’ workplaces: Why do we need them and who potentially
benefits? New Zealand Sociology 11(2): 183–222.
Carnoy, M. 1999. The family, flexible work and social cohesion at risk. International Labour
Review 138(4): 411–29.
Department of Labour and NACEW. 1999. Childcare, families and work: Key findings.
Wellington, NZ: Department of Labour and NACEW.
Drew, E., R. Emerek and E. Mahon. eds. 1998. Women, work and the family in Europe.
London: Routledge.
Dutton, G. 1998. The re-enchantment of work. Management Review 87(2): 51–4.
Families at Work and Top Drawer Consultants. 1995. Work and family directions: What New
Zealand champions are doing. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Women’s Affairs, New
Zealand Employers’ Federation and Equal Employment Opportunities Trust.
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 369

Perceptions of family-friendly workplaces 369

Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.
Freeman, R.E. 1999. Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 233–6.
Friedman, D.E. and E. Galinsky. 1992. Work and family issues: A legitimate business
concern. In Work, families and organizations, ed. S. Zedeck, 168–207. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Friedman, D.E. 1986. Eldercare: The employee benefit of the 1990s? Across the Board June:
44–51.
Goodstein, G. 1994. Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer
involvement in work–family issues. Academy of Management Journal 37(2): 350–82.
Gundersen, D.E., E.J. Rozell and C.E. Kellogg. 1995. Family supportive organizational
benefits as influences on entry level job preferences: An empirical analysis using a policy
capturing methodology. Benefits Quarterly 11(1): 58–68.
Hogg, C. and L. Harker. 1992. The family friendly employer: Examples from Europe. New
York: Daycare Trust in association with Families and Work Institute.
Johnson, A. 1993. Work–family issues in the United States. In Ministry of Women’s Affairs,
3–22, Make Your Workplace ‘Family Friendly’: Seminar Proceedings. Wellington, NZ:
Ministry of Women’s Affairs.
Johnson, A.A. 1995. The business case for work–family programs. Journal of Accountancy
180(2): 53–8.
Jones, T.M. and A.C. Wicks. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management
Review 24(2): 206–21.
Mason, J.C. 1992. Flexing more than muscle: Employees want time on their side. Management
Review 81(3): 6–9.
Mason, J. C. 1993. Workplace 2000: The death of 9 to 5? Management Review 82(1): 14–18.
Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle and D.J. Wood. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification
and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of
Management Review 22(4): 853–87.
Milliken, F.J., J.E. Dutton and J.M. Beyer. 1990. Understanding organizational adaptation to
change: The case of work–family issues. Human Resource Planning 13(2): 91–107.
McBride, J. and K. Wallace. 1997, October. On promoting and retaining women. In Case
studies on the benefits of particular EEO initiatives to organisations. State Services
Commission EEO Conference, EEO – the principles and the payoffs, Wellington, NZ.
Pitt-Catsouphes, M. and E. Bankert. 1998. Conducting a work/life workplace assessment.
Compensation and Benefits Management 14(3): 11–18.
Rapoport, R. and L. Bailyn. 1996. Relinking life and work: Toward a better future. New York:
Ford Foundation.
Rodgers, C.S. 1992. The flexible workplace: What have we learned? Human Resource
Management 31(3): 183–99.
Rose, R. 1993. Make your workplace family friendly. Management 40(10): 45–8.
Rudman, R. 1999. Human resources management in New Zealand, 3rd edn. Auckland, NZ:
Addison Wesley Longman.
Russell, G. and J. Bourke. 1999. Where does Australia fit in internationally with work and
family issues. Australian Bulletin of Labour 25(3). Available http://ProQuest.umi.com
Shilton, J. 1993. ‘Women-friendly’ organisations – Supporting career development. (Working
Paper Series 93/3). Palmerston North, NZ: Massey University, Human Resource
Management Department.
Solomon, C.M. 1994. Work/family’s failing grade: Why today’s initiatives aren’t enough.
Personnel Journal 73(5): 72–87.
State Services Commission. 1994. Work and family: A guide for managers. Wellington, NZ:
State Services Commission.
Statistics New Zealand. 2002a. Paid employment lower for women with young children.
Available http://www.stats.govt.nz/domain
APJHR41_3_Liddicoat.qxd 15/10/03 6:20 PM Page 370

370 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2003 41(3)

Statistics New Zealand. 2002b. Patterns of work. Available http://www.stats.govt.nz/domain

Statistics New Zealand. 2002c. Future population – summary of latest trends. Available
http://www.stats.govt.nz/domain
Top Drawer Consultants and Families At Work. 1996. Work and family: Steps to success.
Wellington, NZ: EEO Trust, Telecom New Zealand.
Tudhope, J.L. 1994. ‘Family friendly’ policies: An alleged panacea. Unpublished Masters
thesis, University of Auckland. Auckland, NZ.
Wolcott, I. 1991. Work and family: Employer’s views. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute
of Family Studies.