Work-Family Conflict in North America: A Comparison of the USA and Canada

Transcription

1 Work-Family Conflict in North America: A Comparison of the USA and Canada Karen Korabik,* Roya Ayman,** Donna Lero,* Amy Antani,** Allyson McElwain,* Sofiya Velgach,** and Nahren Ishaya** *University of Guelph, Canada ** Illinois Institute of Technology, USA

2 Background In both the USA and Canada, there are more women in the education, health care, and finance sectors than in manufacturing. Work-family conflict (WFC) is a major problem, with work interference with family (WIF) typically greatly exceeding family interference with work (FIW).

3 Recent US research in health care (Antani Ayman,, 2003) and finance (Hammer, Bauer, & Grandey,, 2003) indicates no gender differences in either WIF or FIW when men and women are matched on position and occupation. Antani & In Canada, a study of professionals in finance, accounting, telecommunications, and engineering (McElwain, Korabik indicated no sex differences on FIW. However, women reported significantly more WIF than men. Korabik & Rosin, 2005)

4 Purpose To compare the USA and Canada using preliminary data from a multinational study of WFC (Project 3535). The USA and Canada are similar in culture, the economic development of women, and the presence of workplace and institutional supports. Therefore, we expected few differences between the two countries on WFC or on its relationship to cultural variables, specifically gender-role role ideology (GRI) and individualism/collectivism (I/C).

5 Methods Survey either online or in paper and pencil format In Canada available in both English & French All measures had acceptable reliabilities (α)( ) >.72, except VC which was.53 in USA and.55 in Canada The participants were full-time workers with an employed spouse/partner and at least one child under 21 living at home USA: N = 62; 12 men & 50 women Canada: N = 276; 168 men & 108 women

6 Sample Descriptives Category USA Canada Mean Age Mean # Children Position Managerial 46% 49% Nonmanagerial 54% 51% Sector Education 5% 14% Manufacturing 0% 40% Health 89% 0% Finance 3% 5% Other 3% 41%

7 Results: Effects of Country & Managerial Status on Cultural Variables MANCOVA: Control variable = sector MANCOVA: IVs = country & managerial status DVs = GRI, VI, VC, work, home, work & home Sector was a significant covariate for: VI, F (3,327) = 13.98** Manufacturing & Health > Education & Finance

8 Results: Effects of Country & Managerial Status on Cultural Variables (con t( con t) Significant effect for Position on: work, F (3, 327) = 10.19** Managerial > Nonmanagerial Significant effects for Country on: home, F (3, 327) = 9.72** USA > Canada work, F (3,327) = 9.09** USA > Canada

9 Results: Effects of Country & GRI on WFC MANCOVA: Control variables = sector & position IVs = Country & GRI (traditional/egalitarian) MANCOVA: DVs = WIF & FIW Significant effects for Sector on: WIF, F (3, 321) = 5.18** Finance < Education, Health, & Manufacturing FIW, F (3, 321) = 11.7** Health < Education, Finance, & Manufacturing

10 Results: Effects of Country & GRI on WFC (con t( con t) Significant effect for GRI on WIF, F (3,321) = 11.7**, Traditionals > WIF than Egalitarians No significant effects for Country

11 Effects of Country & VI/VC on WFC 6 MANCOVAs: : control variables = sector & position IVs = median splits on VI, VC, HI@ work, home, work & home, respectively DVs = WIF and FIW Sector was a significant covariate for: WIF, F (3, 302) = 7.06** Finance < Education, Health, & Manufacturing FIW, F (3, 302) = 10.73** Health < Education, Finance, & Manufacturing

12 Effects of Country & VI on WFC Significant Country X VI interaction on WIF, F (3, 302) = 8.81** In Canada, positive correlation between VI & WIF ( (r =.23), but in USA, no significant relationship ( (r =.02)

13 Effects of Country & HI/HC on WFC Sector was a significant covariate on FIW for: HI@work, F (3, 304) = 9.99** HI@home, F (3, 293) = 12.03** HC@work, F (3, 296) = 9.6** HC@home, F (3, 268) = 11.21** Health < Education, Finance, & Manufacturing No significant effects for Country or HI/HC

14 Discussion As expected there were very few cross-country country differences Those in the USA were higher than those in Canada on home and work Horizontals have greater respect for equality Probably due to the fact that the USA sample was 81% female versus 40% female in the Canadian sample In Canada women > men in home & work (McKie,, 2006)

15 In Canada higher VI was associated with higher WIF, but in the USA there was no significant relationship Vertical individualists value autonomy & hierarchical relationship structures This result could also be due to the gender distribution of the two samples. In Canada men > women in VI (McKie McKie,, 2006)

16 Position & Sector Differences Most other differences were due to working in different sectors or in managerial versus non-managerial jobs Finance had lower WIF than other sectors and Health Care had lower FIW than other sectors Probably because the particular health care company sampled was extremely family friendly

17 Reliabilities of Scales (α)( USA Canada GRI VI VC home work home WIF FIW.80.78

18 Measures Cultural Variables Gender-role role ideology (James, Barnett, & Brennan,1996; Treas & Widmer,, 2000; Project 3535 team) and Individualism/Collectivism: vertical individualism (VI) and collectivism (VC) (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk,, & Gelfand,, 1995) and horizontal individualism (HI) & collectivism (HC) (Singelis et al., 1995) assessed separately for the work and home frames of reference (Shafiro,, 2004) WFC: WIF and FIW (Carlson, Kacmar & Williams, 2000)