Family-friendly work practices in Britain: Availability and perceived accessibility

Budd, John W.; Mumford, Karen

doi:10.1002/hrm.20091

Cited by 116 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite some evidence that trade union membership can positively affect the availability of work-life balance programmes (Budd and Mumford, 2006) this study 25 showed that trade unions had no effect on work-life balance programmes. This may be due to the fact that only one third of hotels in the study were unionised (which reflects figures for the industry) and an interview with a trade union official reflected that more work needed to be done by unions to increase membership and to play a more active role in the workplace.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 74%

Work–home balance: A management perspective

Farrell¹

2012

Hospitality &Amp; Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Work–home balance issues have become a very important challenge for both management and employees in the twenty-first century. The purpose of this article is to examine work–home balance practices from a management perspective in the Irish hotel industry. There is a dearth of research in relation to work–home balance practices in the hotel sector. The study included a sample of all hotels in Ireland. It found that the needs of the organization are paramount with profitability considerations being the main driver of work–home practices and benefits. While the majority of managers agree that people work best when they can balance their work and home life there is evidently a gap between theory and practice. Work–home balance is now a critical issue for the hospitality industry and it is imperative it comes to terms with the long working hours culture and related issues, which impact negatively on work–home balance. The interdependent relationship between home and work needs urgent attention as this not only impacts on the quality of working life but on the individual and on the greater good of society. Management would do well by broadening their perspective, not just considering the needs of the organization but also the employee’s home life. Doing the latter will redound to the benefit of the organization, as happy employees result in greater productivity as shown by the literature. This study has also highlighted that trade unions can also be more proactive in relation to work–life balance practices. So far they have adopted a laissez-faire approach and they could provide leadership to both managers and employees on such a critical issue for both personal well-being and the well-being of the organization and society.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 74%

Work–home balance: A management perspective

Farrell¹

2012

Hospitality &Amp; Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…age and physical condition) (Geurs & Van Wee, 2004). Budd and Mumford (2006) found several flaws in the common generalization that high (area) accessibility equals high individual accessibility; meaning that objective generalizations do not take into consideration awareness of opportunities, ability to use, personal relevance or interest.…”

Section: Accessibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Up until now however, measuring accessibility has been limited to objective measures such as travel time or distance, not capturing the perceived accessibility of individuals or certain groups of people, limiting the usefulness of the link between accessibility and social inclusion since the measured accessibility may not capture the reality (Curl, Nelson, & Anable, 2011). This gap in measuring accessibility has been pointed out by researchers for years, urging for the inclusion of subjective accessibility (Budd & Mumford, 2006;Curl et al, 2011;Farrington, 2007;Handy & Niemeier, 1997;Stanley & VellaBrodrick, 2009;van Wee & Geurs, 2011), but up until now not much has been done. In 2015, we developed a quantifiable measurement for perceived accessibility in public transport, the Perceived Accessibility Scale (Lättman et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Accessibility of Public Transport as a Potential Indicator of Social Inclusion

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceived accessibility has been acknowledged as an important aspect of transport policy since the 70s. Nevertheless, very few empirical studies have been conducted in this field. When aiming to improve social inclusion, by making sustainable transport modes accessible to all, it is important to understand the factors driving perceived accessibility. Unlike conventional accessibility measures, perceived accessibility focuses on the perceived possibilities and ease of engaging in preferred activities using different transport modes. We define perceived accessibility in terms of how easy it is to live a satisfactory life with the help of the transport system, which is not necessarily the same thing as the objective standard of the system. According to previous research, perceived accessibility varies with the subjectively-rated quality of the mode of transport. Thus, improvements in quality (e.g. trip planning, comfort, or safety) increase the perceived accessibility and make life easier to live using the chosen mode of transport. This study (n=750) focuses on the perceived accessibility of public transport, captured using the Perceived Accessibility Scale PAC (Lättman, Olsson, & Friman, 2015). More specifically, this study aims to determine how level of quality affects the perceived accessibility in public transport. A Conditional Process Model shows that, in addition to quality, feeling safe and frequency of travel are important predictors of perceived accessibility. Furthermore, elderly and those in their thirties report a lower level of perceived accessibility to their day-to-day activities using public transport. The basic premise of this study is that subjective experiences may be as important as objective indicators when planning and designing for socially inclusive transport systems.

show abstract

“…Yet, with the notable exceptions of Evans (2001) and 4/36 den Dulk (2005), current knowledge on the adoption of organizational work-life practices is restrained to a single-country context, mostly the United States. A limited set of factors have been found to impact the level and nature of the practices adopted: (1) Company size (Bond, Galinsky, Kim & Brownfield, 2005;den Dulk, 2005;Evans, 2001;Goodstein, 1994;Ingram & Simons, 1995;Tremblay, 2004), (2) industry (Goodstein, 1994;Ingram & Simons, 1995;Tremblay, 2004;Wood, de Menezes & Lasaosa, 2003), (3) geographical region (Friedman, 2001; Morgan & Milliken, 1992) (4) proportion of women in executive, management and professional positions (Bond & Galinsky, 1998;Ingram & Simons, 1995), (5) proportion of qualified workers or knowledge workers (Bond & Galinsky, 1998;Evans, 2001;Konrad & Mangel, 2000;Guérin, Saint-Onge, Haines, Trottier & Simard, 1997;Osterman, 1995) and (6) need to foster a high level of commitment (Budd et Mumford, 2006;Evans, 2001;Osterman,1995). Other determinants that are found in some studies but not others are publicsector and unionization (Dex & Scheibl 1999;Evans, 2001;Guérin & al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational work–life initiatives: context matters

Ollier‐Malaterre¹

2009

Community, Work & Family

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why are organizational work-life initiatives endorsed in some countries such as the US or the UK, while they generate little interest in France and other non Anglo-Saxon environments? In a qualitative theory-building approach, this article assesses the gap in workplace practices adoption among the US, the UK and France and analyzes in-depth interviews with 44 HR officers, employee representatives, unions and work-life service providers in France. Five main factors explain the adoption of organizational work-life initiatives in France and potentially other countries: (1) Employers versus State's legitimacy in the nonwork sphere of life (2) industrial relations and unions' stance towards work-life practices (3) the complexity of the legal framework (4) the awareness of work-life issues within HR departments and (5) the framing of work-life as a business or a social issue. With reference to prior research, a model is built to account for the influence of the national context on employees' expectations and employers' leeway at the macro level, and for strategic choices made by employers at the meso level.

show abstract

Family-friendly work practices in Britain: Availability and perceived accessibility

Cited by 116 publications

References 27 publications

Work–home balance: A management perspective

Work–home balance: A management perspective

Perceived Accessibility of Public Transport as a Potential Indicator of Social Inclusion

Organizational work–life initiatives: context matters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About