Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Ifrei Asia 2011

224 views

Published on

IFREI 1.5

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Ifrei Asia 2011

  1. 1. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 1 IESE Family-Responsible environment(FRe) Index for theWorld and Asia Prof. Nuria Chinchilla Prof. Mireia Las Heras
  2. 2. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 2©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 In collaboration with: Universityof Macau China Universityof Asiaandthe Pacific Philippines
  3. 3. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 3©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 The Corporate Sponsors of the International Center for Work and Family
  4. 4. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 4©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Principal Objetive To show the impact of family-responsible policies, practices and leadership on your health, your commitment to loyalty, your intention to leave to the company, and your satisfaction.
  5. 5. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 5©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Overall Model for the Study The Region Legislation Culture and values TheIndividual Individual characteristics Responsibility and role at home Policies Work Environment Supervisor Culture YourFREnvironment Organizational Individual Impact on Results
  6. 6. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 6©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 IFREI Study Framework A. FR Policies 1. Flexibilitywith Time andSpace 2. FamilySupport 3. Information 4. Maternity/PaternityLeave C. FR Culture B. FR Supervisor 1. EmotionalSupport 2. InstrumentalSupport 3. PolicyManagement 4. RoleModel Impact on Results 1. Intentionto Leave 2. Loyalty 3. Commitment 4. PerceivedOrganizational Support Organizational Individual FR Environment Individual Characteristics A. Coping Strategies B. Integration/ Segmentation Preferences C. Job Preferences D. Transition Styles 1. OverallHealth 2. Family↔ Work Enrichment 3. Satisfactionwith Work/FamilyBalance
  7. 7. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 7©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Model FRe (Family-Responsible environment) EnriquecedoraContaminante BC AD EnrichingContaminating BC AD DiscrecionalSystematic A. Environment that systematically facilitates work- family balance B. Environment that occasionally facilitates work- family balance C. Environment that occasionally hinders work- family balance D. Environment that systematically hinders work- family balance
  8. 8. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 8©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Worldwide IFREI Study: In progress in 22 countries Nueva Zelanda SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Peru Venezuela NORTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA Canada CostaRica El Salvador Guatemala Mexico AFRICA Kenya Nigeria ASIA China Philippines EUROPE Germany Italy Netherlands Portugal Spain AUSTRALIA New Zealand Methodology: quantitative Instrument: structured questionnaires Period: 2010-2011
  9. 9. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 9©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Worldwide IFREI Study Until Today (May 2011) SOUTH AMERICA 3637participants 58% NORTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA 386participants 6% AFRICA 402participants 7% ASIA 499participants 8% EUROPE 1275participants 21% Total Participants: 5449
  10. 10. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 10©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Participation in the Worldwide IFREI Study Women: 2161/ 40% Womenwith children: 54% Womenwithout children: 46% Men: 3288/ 60% Menwith children:66% Menwithout children: 34% Womenwithout management responsibility:48% Menwith managementresponsibility: 61% Menwithout managementresponsibility: 39% Womenwith managementresponsibility: 52% 60% 40% 49% 51% 71% 29% 60% 40% With children Without children With children Without children
  11. 11. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 11©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 IFREI study in Asia With children Without children With children Without children Women: 254/ 51% Womenwith children: 45% Womenwithout children: 55% Men: 242/ 49% Menwith children:60% Menwithout children: 40% Womenwithout management responsibility:50% Menwith managementresponsibility: 57% Menwithout managementresponsibility: 43% Womenwith managementresponsibility: 50% 50% 50% 38% 62% 61% 39% 58% 42%
  12. 12. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 12©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 EnriquecedoraContaminante BC AD EnrichingContaminating DiscrecionalSystematic Employees’ Perception of their Work Environment  10% perceive that their environment systematically facilitates work-family balance  29% perceive that their environment occasionally facilitates work-family balance  49% perceive that their environment occasionally hinders work-family balance  12% perceive that their environment systematically hinders work-family balance 10% 29%49% 12%
  13. 13. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 13©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 EnriquecedoraContaminante BC AD EnrichingContaminating DiscrecionalSystematic Employees’ Perception of their Work Environment  8% perceive that their environment systematically facilitates work-family balance  22% perceive that their environment occasionally facilitates work-family balance  43% perceive that their environment occasionally hinders work-family balance  27% perceive that their environment systematically hinders work-family balance 8% 22%43% 27%
  14. 14. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 14©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Family-Responsible Environment: Policies
  15. 15. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 15©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies A. FR Policies 1. Time and Location Flexibility 2. FamilySupport 3. Information 4. Maternity/Paternity Leave C. FR Culture B. FR Supervisor Impact on Results 1. Intention to leave 2. Loyalty 3. Commitment 4. Perceived Organizational Support Organizational Individual FR Environment 1. Overall Health 2. Family↔ Work Enrichment 3. Satisfaction with Work/Family Balance Individual Characteristics A. Coping Strategies B. Integration/ Segmentation Preferences C. Work Preferences D. Transition Styles 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Policy Management 4. Role Model
  16. 16. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 16©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies Family-responsible policies arethe practices formallyestablished within a company that support employee work-life balance by providing flexibility in time andspace. They alsoinclude those practices that provideprofessional support, services andfamily-friendly benefits that gobeyond financial remuneration.
  17. 17. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 17©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies Telecommuting:workingpartorfull-timefromhome orsomeplace outsidethecompany Workingpart-timeorjob-sharing Flexiblehours Time andLocation Flexibility  Professionalcounseling  Personalcounseling Professional andFamily Support Easyaccesstoinformationaboutthework-familybalance Seminars,workshopsandinformationsessionson work-familybalance Family-Friendly Services  Childcarecenterattheworkplace  Childcaresubsidy Family-Friendly Benefits
  18. 18. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 18©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies Positive Impact of Family-Responsible Policies Individuals Company Society
  19. 19. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 19©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies: Impact on Individuals FR policies have a positive impact on individuals since they allow aperson toorganize their workhours such that time spent working does not interfere orhamper their family responsibilities. In addition, FR policies tend toreduce commute time, andthus, improvethe employee’s performance.
  20. 20. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 20©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies: Impact on Companies FR policies have a positive impact on companies because they can facilitate longer customer service hours,reduce expenses due to absenteeism, andincrease the involvement ofindividuals at work. Furthermore, FR policies areessentially necessary andpositive for industries orsectors that experience constant andrapid product or service changes, where the added value of the employees is greater.
  21. 21. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 21©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies: Impact on Society FR policies have a direct impact on society by facilitating the reduction ofenvironmental pollution due toreduced employee commute time. They alsodecrease costs in health services since FR policies lessen stress andother related illnesses. In addition, FR policies havea positive impact on the country's educational level as parents can bemore involved in their child’s education, resulting in better academic performance, as well as reduced addiction andcrime rates.
  22. 22. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 22©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies: Time Flexibility The graph“FR Policies: Time Flexibility” refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Please indicate if you have access tothese policies (Yes /No):  Part-time work(reduced working hoursin exchange fora lower salary)  Compressed week hours (i.e. half dayfree in exchange forworking longer hours the rest ofthe week )  Job-sharing (i.e. when the duties ofa full-time position areshared by two ormoreemployees)
  23. 23. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 23©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 14% 25% 33% 17% 34% 39% 24% 25% 29% 17% 40% 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Trabajo atiempo parcial Semanacomprimida Trabajo compartido FR Policies: Time Flexibility Menregionallevel Menworldlevel Womenworldlevel Womenregionallevel Part-timework Compressedworkweek Job-sharing
  24. 24. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 24©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies: Time and Location Flexibility The graph“FR Policies: Time andLocation Flexibility” refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Please indicate if you have access tothese policies (Yes /No):  Flexible work schedule  Tele-commuting (i.e. allowing employees towork froman alternative location, such as a home office)
  25. 25. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 25©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 36% 60% 41% 67% 32% 58% 38% 64% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Teletrabajo Horario flexible FR Policies: Time and Location Flexibility Menregionallevel Menworldlevel Womenworldlevel Womenregionallevel Flexiblework hours Telecommuting
  26. 26. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 26©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies: Family Support The graph“FR Policies: Family Support”refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Please indicate if you have access tothese policies (Yes /No):  Childcare center at the workplace  Financial help for the care ofa child or adependent  Leave ofabsence to take care ofa family member
  27. 27. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 27©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 6% 20% 40% 8% 48% 70% 13% 22% 44% 13% 44% 74% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Guardería Subsidio para cuidado de niños Excedenciapara cuidar deunfamiliar FR Policies: Family Support Mennationallevel Menworld level Womenworld level Womennationallevel Childcare centerat work Subsidyforchildcare Permissiontoleavedue to emergency
  28. 28. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 28©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies: Maternity and Paternity Leave Beyond the Legal Minimum The graph“FR Policies: Maternity and Paternity Leave Beyond the Legal Minimum” refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Please indicate if you have access tothese policies (Yes /No):  Maternity leave beyond the legal minimum  Paternity leave beyond the legal minimum
  29. 29. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 29©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies: Maternity and Paternity Leave beyond the Legal Minimum Maternity Leave Beyond the Legal Minimum Paternity Leave Beyond the Legal Minimum Mennationallevel Menworld level Womenworld level Womennationallevel 25% 32% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Baja de maternidadMaternityleave 22% 32% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Baja de paternidadPaternityleave
  30. 30. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 30©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Policies: Information The graph“FR Policies: Information” refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Please indicate if you have access tothese policies (Yes /No):  Professional and personal counseling  Referrals for daycare and schools or elder care and services  Easy access toinformation about work-life balance benefits available toyou through yourcompany  Seminars, workshops or information sessions on work/life balance issues
  31. 31. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 31©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 50% 19% 37% 37% 60% 24% 44% 47%48% 21% 38% 35% 56% 15% 39% 45% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Asesoramiento profesional y/o personal Información sobre guarderías, escuelaso residenciasde ancianos Información sobre prestacionespara la conciliación trabajo-familia Seminarios& talleres sobre laconciliación trabajo-familia FR Policies: Information Menregionallevel Menworld level Womenworldlevel Womenregionallevel Professionalandpersonal counseling Referralsfor daycare,schools, andeldercare services Accessto informationabout work-life balance Seminarsandworkshopson work-life balance
  32. 32. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 32©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Family-Responsible Environment: Supervisor
  33. 33. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 33©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor Impact on Results 1. Intention to leave 2. Loyalty 3. Commitment 4. Perceived Organizational Support Organizational Individual 1. Overall Health 2. Family↔ Work Enrichment 3. Satisfaction with Work/Family Balance Individual Characteristics A. Coping Strategies B. Integration/ Segmentation Preferences C. Work Preferences D. Transition Styles B. FR Supervisor 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Policy Management 4. Role Model FR Environment C. FR Culture A. FR Policies 1. Time and Location Flexibility 2. FamilySupport 3. Information 4. Maternity/Paternity Leave
  34. 34. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 34©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor Afamily-responsible supervisor is one whoresponds tothe family needs ofhis/her employees. Furthermore, he/she supports and facilitates work-family balance, promotes the use offamily-responsible practices andis open andsensitive tothese issues, while respecting personal freedom.
  35. 35. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 35©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Emotional Support The graphs “FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Emotional Support”refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree / 7 = strongly agree)  Mysupervisor is willing tolisten tomy problems in juggling work and non-work life  Mysupervisor takes the time tolearn about my personal needs  Mysupervisor makes me feel comfortable talking tohim or her about my conflicts between work and non-work  Mysupervisor and Ican talk effectively tosolve conflicts between work and non-work issues
  36. 36. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 36©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Supervisors Showing Excellent Emotional Support Global Regional Women Men 31% 35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 31% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  37. 37. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 37©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Employee Perception of the Supervisor’s Excellent Emotional Support The graphicshows the percentage of employees whoreceive excellent emotional support from their supervisor. (score of6-7 on a scale of1-7, 7 being excellent) MaleManagerFemaleManager FemaleNon-ManagerMaleNon-Manager Global Regional FemaleNon-ManagerMaleNon-Manager 30% 41%36% 31% 36% 25%41% 28%
  38. 38. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 38©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Instrumental Support The graphs “FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Instrumental Support”refer tothe following question in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree / 7 = strongly agree)  Ican depend on mysupervisor to help me with scheduling conflicts between work and non-work issues
  39. 39. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 39©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Supervisors Showing Excellent Instrumental Support Global Regional Women Men 44% 44% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 44% 41% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  40. 40. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 40©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Employee Perception of the Supervisor’s Excellent Instrumental Support The chart shows the percentage ofemployees whoreceive excellent instrumental support fromtheir supervisor. (score of 6-7 on a scale of1-7, 7 being excellent) MaleManagerFemaleManager FemaleNon-ManagerMaleNon-Manager Global Regional FemaleNon-ManagerMaleNon-Manager 40% 50%45% 45% 42% 37%51% 41%
  41. 41. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 41©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Policy Management The graphs “FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Policy Management” refer tothe following question in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree / 7 = strongly agree)  Mysupervisor asks forsuggestions tomake it easier foremployees tobalance work and non-work demands
  42. 42. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 42©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Supervisors Showing Excellent Policy Management Global Regional Women Men 43% 44% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 49% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  43. 43. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 43©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Employee Perception of the Supervisor’s Excellent Policy Management The chart shows the percentage ofemployees whoreceive excellent policy management support from their supervisor. (score of6-7 on a scale of1-7, 7 being excellent) MaleManagerFemaleManager FemaleNon-ManagerMaleNon-Manager Global Regional FemaleNon-ManagerMaleNon-Manager 50% 43%52% 48%39% 51%46% 44%
  44. 44. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 44©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Supervisors as Role Models The graphs “FR Supervisor: Supervisors as Role Models” refer tothe following question in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statement? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Mysupervisor is a goodrole model forwork and non-work balance
  45. 45. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 45©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Supervisors Who are Perceived as Excellent Role Models Global Regional Women Men 38% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 45% 45% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  46. 46. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 46©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Supervisor: Employee Perception of the Supervisor as an Excellent Role Model The chart shows the percentage ofemployees whoperceive their supervisor as an excellent role model. (score of6-7 on a scale of1-7, 7 being excellent) MaleManagerFemaleManager FemaleNon-ManagerMaleNon-Manager Global Regional FemaleNon-ManagerMaleNon-Manager 37% 46%39% 37% 45% 42%49% 41%
  47. 47. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 47©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Family-Responsible Environment: Organizational Culture A. FRPolicies 1.Time andLocation Flexibility 2.Family Support 3.Information 4.Maternity/Paternity Leave B.FRSupervisor 1.Emotional Support 2.Instrumental Support 3.Policy Management 4.Role Model Individual Characteristics A. Coping Strategies B.Integration/ Segmentation Preferences C.Work Preferences D.Transition Styles C.FRCulture FREnvironment Impact on Results 1.Intention to Leave 2.Loyalty 3.Commitment 4.Perceived Organizational Support Organizational Individual 1.Overall Health 2.Family ↔ Work Enrichment 3.Satisfaction with Work/Family Balance
  48. 48. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 48©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Organizational Culture A. FR Policies 1. Time and Location Flexibility 2. FamilySupport 3. Information 4. Maternity/Paternity Leave B. FR Supervisor 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Policy Management 4. Role Model Individual Characteristics A. Coping Strategies B. Integration/ Segmentation Preferences C. Work Preferences D. Transition Styles C. FR Culture FR Environment Impact on Results 1. Intention to Leave 2. Loyalty 3. Commitment 4. Perceived Organizational Support Organizational Individual 1. Overall Health 2. Family↔ Work Enrichment 3. Satisfaction with Work/Family Balance
  49. 49. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 49©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Organizational Culture An FR organizational culture promotes work-life balance:  People whouse flexible policies arevaluedfor their contribution tothe company andnot penalized forthe use offlexible policies.  Aperson’s workload is respected andit is not expected that people constantly place their work before their family.
  50. 50. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 50©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Organizational Culture: Co-Workers Respect For Extended Maternity or Paternity Leave The graph“FR OrganizationalCulture: Co-Workers Who Respect Extended Maternity orPaternity Leave” refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Do you agree with the following statements? (1 = strongly disagree /7 = strongly agree)  Manyemployees areresentful when men in this organization take extended leaves tocarefor newborn or adopted children  Manyemployees areresentful when women in this organization take extended leaves tocarefor newborn oradopted children In this dimension, the lower the score between 1 and 7, the morefamily-responsible the culture.
  51. 51. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 51©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Organizational Culture: Co-Workers Who Respect Extended Maternity or Paternity Leave Global Regional The 1-2 signifies that co-workers arenot bothered by extended leaves. Therefore, it is an FR culture. Women Men 42% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-71-2 32% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-71-2
  52. 52. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 52©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Organizational Culture: Negative Consequences for the Career The graph“FR OrganizationalCulture: Negative Consequences for the Careerdue toFR Behavior”refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Do you agree with the following statements? (1 = strongly disagree / 7 = strongly agree)  In this organizationemployees whoparticipate in availablework-family programs areviewed as less serious about their careers than those who donotparticipate in these programs  To turn down apromotion ortransfer forfamily-related reasons will seriously hurtone’s career progress in this organization  In this organizationemployees on aflexible schedule areless likely toadvance their careers than those whodonot use flextime In this dimension, the lower the score between 1 and 7, the morefamily-responsible the culture.
  53. 53. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 53©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Organizational Culture: Negative Consequences for the Career due to FR Behavior Global Regional The 1-2 signifies that there areno negative consequences. Therefore, it is an FR culture. Women Men 18% 24% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-71-2 16% 24% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 1-2
  54. 54. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 54©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Organizational Culture: Expectations regarding Workload and Working Hours El The graph“FR OrganizationalCulture: FR Expectations regarding Workload andWorking Hours” refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Do you agree with the following statements? (1 = strongly disagree /7 = strongly agree)  To get ahead at this organization,employees areexpected towork morethan 50 hours a week, whether at the workplace or at home  Employees areoften expected to take work home in the evenings and/or on weekends  Employees areregularly expected toput their jobs before their families  To be viewed favorably bytop management, employees in this organization must constantly put their jobs ahead oftheir families or personal lives In this dimension, the lower the score between 1 and 7, the morefamily-responsible the culture.
  55. 55. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 55©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 FR Organizational Culture: FR Expectations regarding Workload and Working Hours Global Regional The1-2signifiesthattherearenoexpectationsregardingworkloadandhours.Therefore,itisanFRculture. Women Men 49% 51% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-71-2 29% 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-71-2
  56. 56. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 56©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Individual Characteristics: Coping Strategies
  57. 57. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 57©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Coping Strategies Individual Characteristics A. Coping Strategies Impact on Results 1. Intention to Leave 2. Loyalty 3. Commitment 4. Perceived Organizational Support Organizational Individual 1. Overall Health 2. Family↔ Work Enrichment 3. Satisfaction with Work/Family Balance A. FR Policies 1. Time and Location Flexibility 2. FamilySupport 3. Information 4. Maternity/Paternity Leave C. FR Culture B. FR Supervisor 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Policy Management 4. Role Model FR Environment B. Integration/ Segmentation Preferences C. Work Preferences D. Transition Styles
  58. 58. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 58©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Coping Strategies Copingstrategies arethe methods people use toovercome challenges andaccomplish allthey have committed toat home andat work. Copingstrategies consist in:  Planning daily work andprioritizingdifferent tasks  Seeking emotional and material support among family and friends
  59. 59. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 59©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Coping Strategies: Planning & Prioritizing The graph“CopingStrategies: Planning & Prioritizing”refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Iplan and organize mytime at work  Iset priorities and do the most important thing first  Iwork more efficiently so Ican finish things quickly  Iplan and organize mytasks
  60. 60. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 60©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Coping Strategies: Planning & Prioritizing Do not plan my workload Plan myworkload Womenworld level Menworld level 1% 43% 55% 1% 36% 63% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2 3-5 6-7
  61. 61. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 61©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Coping Strategies: Planning & Prioritizing Do not plan my workload Plan myworkload 1% 38% 61% 3% 38% 59% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2 3-5 6-7 Womenregionallevel Menregionallevel
  62. 62. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 62©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Coping Strategies: Seeking Social Support The graph“CopingStrategies: Seeking Social Support” refers to the following questions in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Italk about my feelings with someone who is notdirectly involved  Ihave several friends Ican readily talk toabout what matters most tome  Iseek understanding from someone  Iask my relatives for help when Ineed it  Myfamily helps me if Ihave a problem
  63. 63. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 63©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Coping Strategies: Seeking Social Support WithoutChildren WithChildren FemaleManagers FemaleNon-Managers MaleManagers Male Non-Managers 39%39% 37% 40% 25% 31% 19% 27% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
  64. 64. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 64©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Individual Characteristics: Preferencesfor Integrationor Segmentation
  65. 65. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 65©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Preferences for Integration or Segmentation Individual Characteristics B. Integration/ Segmentation Preferences Impact on Results 1. Intention to Leave 2. Loyalty 3. Commitment 4. Perceived Organizational Support Organizational Individual 1. Overall Health 2. Family↔ Work Enrichment 3. Satisfaction with Work/Family Balance A. FR Policies 1. Time and Location Flexibility 2. FamilySupport 3. Information 4. Maternity/Paternity Leave C. FR Culture B. FR Supervisor 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Policy Management 4. Role Model FR Environment A. Coping Strategies C. Work Preferences D. Transition Styles
  66. 66. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 66©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Preference for Integration or Segmentation Some individuals prefer toestablish barrierssuch that work and family domains donotoverlapandarecompletely separate (segmentation). Others prefer tounify the different domains (integration). Segmentation andintegration aretwo extremes of acontinuum. At one end, work andnon-work life donot overlap at all; on the other end, they fully share the same time andspace. In and of itself, one preference is not better than the other. However, a company’s way of working toaccommodate the preferences ofan individual, whether it beintegration or segmentation, is significant.
  67. 67. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 67©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Preference for Integration or Segmentation: Working at Home The graphs “Preference forIntegration orSegmentation: Working at Home” refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire: How acceptable arethe following situations for you? (1 = Not at all/ 7 = Very much)  Being required towork while at home  Being required tothink about work while at home  Being required tothink about work once Ileave the workplace  Being expected to take work home
  68. 68. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 68©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Preference for Integration or Segmentation: It is acceptable to work at home Global Regional Women Men 4% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 5% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  69. 69. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 69©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Preference for Integration or Segmentation: It is unacceptable to work at home Global Regional Women Men 60% 63% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2 43% 51% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2
  70. 70. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 70©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Preference for Integration or Segmentation: Bringing Family Issues to Work The graph“Preference for Integration or Segmentation: Bringing Family Issues toWork” refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire: How acceptable arethe following situations for you? (1 = Not at all/ 7 = Very much)  Having to solve family issues while atwork  Thinking about family issues while at work  Running family errands during standard working hours
  71. 71. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 71©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Preference for Integration or Segmentation: It is acceptable to bring family issues to work Global Regional Women Men 6% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 8% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  72. 72. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 72©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Preference for Integration or Segmentation: It is unacceptable to bring family issues to work Global Regional Women Men 50% 57% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2 38% 54% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2
  73. 73. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 73©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Individual Characteristics: Work Preferences Individual Characteristics C.Work Preferences Impact on Results 1.Intention to Leave 2.Loyalty 3.Commitment 4.Perceived Organizational Support Organizational Individual 1.Overall Health 2.Family ↔ Work Enrichment 3.Satisfaction with Work/Family Balance A. FRPolicies 1.Time andLocation Flexibility 2.Family Support 3.Information 4.Maternity/Paternity Leave C.FRCulture B.FRSupervisor 1.Emotional Support 2.Instrumental Support 3.Policy Management 4.Role Model FREnvironment A. Coping Strategies B.Integration/ Segmentation Preferences D.Transition Styles
  74. 74. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 74©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Work Preferences Individual Characteristics C. Work Preferences Impact on Results 1. Intention to Leave 2. Loyalty 3. Commitment 4. Perceived Organizational Support Organizational Individual 1. Overall Health 2. Family↔ Work Enrichment 3. Satisfaction with Work/Family Balance A. FR Policies 1. Time and Location Flexibility 2. FamilySupport 3. Information 4. Maternity/Paternity Leave C. FR Culture B. FR Supervisor 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Policy Management 4. Role Model FR Environment A. Coping Strategies B. Integration/ Segmentation Preferences D. Transition Styles
  75. 75. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 75©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Work Preferences It is defined as the reason orreasons why an individual decides towork on a particular task orin a particular job. There arethree types: preference for extrinsic, intrinsic andtranscendent motivations.  Extrinsic motivation: the individual searches for separable and tangible satisfaction generated by interactions. In other words, the individual searches for hisor her own satisfaction without considering the consequences for others.  Intrinsic motivation orpreference for growth opportunities: it is what causes a person tosearch for his or her own learning.  Transcendent motivation orpreference for opportunities to contribute: it is what causes aperson toconsider positive andrelevant learning. Persons that act on transcendent motivations grantimportance tothe effects oftheir actions on others.
  76. 76. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 76©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Work Preferences: Preference for Growth Opportunities The graph“Work Preferences: Preference forGrowth Opportunities” refers tothe following questions in thequestionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Ilike challenging jobs  Idonotlike repetitive jobs, without a lot ofdecision making ormajorchallenges (reverse)  Iprefer assignments that contribute tomy professional experience
  77. 77. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 77©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Work Preferences: Strong Preference for Growth Opportunities Global Regional Women Men 73% 71% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 57% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  78. 78. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 78©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Work Preferences: Preference for Opportunities to Contribute The graph“Work Preferences: Preference forOpportunities toContribute” refers tothe following questions in thequestionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Ifeel really fulfilled when Ican be useful toothers  Iam deeply thankful tothose who help me  All things being equal, Iprefer a job where Ican be more useful toothers  What Ilike the most in my job is that Ican contribute tothe good of others
  79. 79. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 79©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Work Preferences: Strong Preference for Opportunities to Contribute Global Regional Women Men 69% 75% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 68% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  80. 80. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 80©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Individual Characteristics: TransitionStyles
  81. 81. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 81©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Transition Styles Individual Characteristics D. Transition Styles Impact on Results 1. Intention to Leave 2. Loyalty 3. Commitment 4. Perceived Organizational Support Organizational Individual 1. Overall Health 2. Family↔ Work Enrichment 3. Satisfaction with Work/Family Balance A. FR Policies 1. Time and Location Flexibility 2. FamilySupport 3. Information 4. Maternity/Paternity Leave C. FR Culture B. FR Supervisor 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Policy Management 4. Role Model FR Environment A. Coping Strategies B. Integration/ Segmentation Preferences C. Work Preferences
  82. 82. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 82©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Transition Styles Transition styles describe the way in which individuals make the mental switch from one environment tothe next (“being at home” to “being at work” and vice versa). They cross physical andpsychological boundaries. There arethree basic styles:  Anticipatory: the concern with the domain of destination begins before the person physically leaves their current domain.  Discrete: the concern with the domain ofdestination startsupon arrivalthere.  Lagged:the concern with the newly entered domain does not start until the individual has been physically present there for aperiod oftime.
  83. 83. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 83©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Transition Styles The graphs “Transition Styles” refer exclusively tothe anticipatory style andaremeasured through the following questions in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Itend tostart thinking about work issues when Igo to my workplace  When Iget towork, Ihave already been thinking about work-related issues that arewaiting forme
  84. 84. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 84©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Transition Styles: I think of work before arriving there Global Regional Women Men 56% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 34% 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  85. 85. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 85©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Transition Styles: I do not think of work before arriving there Global Regional Women Men 7% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2 3% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2
  86. 86. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 86©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results
  87. 87. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 87©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results A. FR Policies 1. Time and Location Flexibility 2. FamilySupport 3. Information 4. Maternity/Paternity Leave C. FR Culture B. FR Supervisor 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Policy Management 4. Role Model FR Environment Individual Characteristics A. Coping Strategies B. Integration/ Segmentation Preferences C. Work Preferences D. Transition Styles Impact on Results 1. Intention to Leave 2. Loyalty 3. Commitment 4. Perception of Organizational Support Organizational Individual 1. Overall Health 2. Family↔ Work Enrichment 3. Satisfaction with Work/Family Balance
  88. 88. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 88©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Intention to Leave the Company Undesired turnover has negative consequences that affect the morale ofthe other employees as well as the outcomes forthe company:  Lower productivity  Loss ofexpertise  Deteriorated work environment and lack ofmotivation among the remaining staff In addition, there aresignificant direct costs:  Costsof recruitment fora replacement  Costsof traininga new employee  Costsof substitution while the vacant position is covered
  89. 89. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 89©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Intention to Leave the Company The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Intention toLeave the Company”refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Iwould prefer another more ideal job than the one Ihave now  If it was up to me, in three years Iwould notbe in this organization  Ifrequently think ofquitting my job
  90. 90. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 90©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Intention to Leave the Company Intention toleave No intention toleave The moreFR the environment is, less is the intention ofthe employee toleave. AD C B 10%12% 49% 29% 2,2 2,8 3,6 4,6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  91. 91. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 91©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Intention to Leave the Company Intention toleave No intention toleave AD C B 8%27% 43% 22% 2,0 3,0 3,5 3,9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  92. 92. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 92©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Loyalty The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Loyalty” refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Iam loyaltothis organization  Ifrequently suggest new ideas toimprove my department  Iam expected todo only the job that Iam paid to do  Even when it is notrequired, Itrytohelp other colleagues with their work
  93. 93. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 93©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Participants who demonstrate loyalty Global Regional Women Men 19% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 22% 19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  94. 94. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 94©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Participants who do not demonstrate loyalty Global Regional Women Men 0,5% 0,4% 0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0% 100,0% 1-2 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2
  95. 95. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 95©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Perceived Organizational Support The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Perceived OrganizationalSupport” refer tothe following questions in thequestionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  When Ihave a problem, the organization tries tohelp me  The organizationis sincerely concerned about my well-being  The organizationtakes my opinion seriously  The organizationis concerned about my overall satisfaction at work
  96. 96. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 96©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Perceived Organizational Support Depending on the Environment Manager Non-Manager 5,9 5,3 4,4 3,4 6,0 5,4 4,5 3,5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCD AD C B 10%12% 49% 29%
  97. 97. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 97©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Perceived Organizational Support Depending on the Environment Manager Non-Manager 6,0 5,6 5,0 4,6 6,1 5,4 5,2 4,7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCD AD C B 8%27% 43% 22%
  98. 98. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 98©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Commitment Commitment refers tothe natureof the relationship that an individual has with his/her organization. It can present as:  Commitment dueto a lackof alternatives: the commitment ofan individual is related tothe high costs ofleaving the company orto a lack ofalternatives. It is the mostfragile commitment: the person is willing toleave as soon as he/she finds other options. The higher the commitment due toa lack ofalternatives, the worse the quality is ofthe individual’s relationship with his/her company.  Commitment dueto professional development: the commitment is due tothe individual’s perception ofexistent opportunities that will satisfy his/her professional andpersonal growth.It implies astronger commitment than the previous one since the person is willing tocollaborate while there exists possibilities forlearning anddevelopment.  Emotional commitment: the commitment manifests itself as a sentiment ofpersonal duty and obligation towardsthe company. It is the strongest attachment since it is the one in which a person wishes tocontribute tothe company as aresult of personal convincing and moralduty.
  99. 99. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 99©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Lack of Alternatives Commitment The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Lack ofAlternatives Commitment” refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Right now, staying with this organizationis anecessity for me  It would notbe difficult forme tofind aninteresting job in other organization  Switching toa different organizationwould be highly inconvenient rightnow
  100. 100. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 100©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Lack of Alternatives Commitment High Commitment Low Commitment The higher the commitment due to alack ofalternatives, the worsethe quality of the relationship ofthe individual with the company. AD C B 10%12% 49% 29% 3,73,9 4,1 4,3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  101. 101. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 101©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Lack of Alternatives Commitment High Commitment Low Commitment AD C B 8%27% 43% 22% 4,1 4,54,34,4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  102. 102. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 102©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Professional Development Commitment The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Professional Development Commitment” refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Working in this organizationoffers me opportunities tolearn and grown professionally  Ireallylike working for this organization  Mywork in this organizationis notespecially attractive
  103. 103. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 103©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Professional Development Commitment The moreFR the professional environment is, the morepositively the person views the possibilities ofprofessional growth andbetter values the organizationitself. High Commitment Low Commitment AD C B 10%12% 49% 29% 6,2 5,8 5,2 4,6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  104. 104. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 104©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Professional Development Commitment High Commitment Low Commitment AD C B 8%27% 43% 22% 6,3 5,6 5,4 5,2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  105. 105. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 105©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Emotional Commitment The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Emotional Commitment” refer tothe following questions in thequestionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Right now Iwould not abandon this organizationbecause ofasense of obligation towardthe people Iwork with  Ifeel an obligation tocontinue working forthis organization(reverse)  Iwould feel guilty if Iwere to quit this organizationnow
  106. 106. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 106©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Emotional Commitment The moreFR the professional environment, the higher the emotional commitment. High Commitment Low Commitment AD C B 10%12% 49% 29% 4,6 4,4 4,1 3,8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  107. 107. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 107©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Organizational Results: Emotional Commitment High Commitment Low Commitment AD C B 8%27% 43% 22% 5,2 5,0 4,84,7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  108. 108. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 108©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results
  109. 109. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 109©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results Impact on Results 1. Intention to Leave 2. Loyalty 3. Commitment 4. Perception of Organizational Support Organizational Individual 1. Overall Health 2. Family↔ Work Enrichment 3. Satisfaction with Work/Family Balance A. FR Policies 1. Time and Location Flexibility 2. FamilySupport 3. Information 4. Maternity/Paternity Leave C. FR Culture B. FR Supervisor 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Policy Management 4. Role Model FR Environment Individual Characteristics A. Coping Strategies B. Integration/ Segmentation Preferences C. Work Preferences D. Transition Styles
  110. 110. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 110©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Overall Health Overall health refers tothe wellbeing of anindividual, which can have consequences in a company since if the health ofan individual is precarious there is:  Greater absenteeism  Less productivity  Increased leave due toillness  Decreased motivation
  111. 111. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 111©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Overall Health The graphs “Impact on Individual Results: Overall Heath” refer tothe following question in the questionnaire: Please rate the following aspects ofyourhealth over the past4 weeks (1 =very poor /7 =Excellent)  Overall,how would you rateyourhealth duringthe past 4 weeks?
  112. 112. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 112©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Overall Health: Excellent Overall Health Global Regional Women Men 56% 51% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 48% 43% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  113. 113. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 113©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Overall Health: Poor Overall Health Global Regional Women Men 2% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2 2% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2
  114. 114. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 114©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Enrichment between Work and Family Environments Work-family enrichment occurs when experiences in the workenvironment improvethe quality of life in the family environment and vice versa. Thisoccurs when abilities and competencies that develop in the professional domain aretransferred tothe familial domain, andvice versa: the learning andexperiences acquired in the family environment aretransferred tothe professional domain.
  115. 115. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 115©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Family → Work Enrichment The graphs “Impact on Individual Results: Family → Work Enrichment” refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Fulfilling my family responsibilities has enriched the interpersonal skills Ineed tosucceed at work  Overcoming obstacles at home has given me more confidence in my abilities at work  Juggling multiple tasks at home has improved my ability tomulti-task at work  Being involved at home has enabled me tobetter understand people at work
  116. 116. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 116©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Family → Work Enrichment FemaleManager FemaleNon-Manager MaleManager MaleNon-Manager Low Commitment High Commitment 5,85,7 5,5 5,3 6,1 5,6 5,3 5,1 5,95,9 5,5 5,3 6,0 5,75,6 5,3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCD
  117. 117. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 117©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Family → Work Enrichment Low Commitment High Commitment FemaleManager FemaleNon-Manager MaleManager MaleNon-Manager 6,1 5,75,5 5,7 6,5 6,05,85,9 6,6 5,9 5,45,5 6,3 6,16,0 5,5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCD
  118. 118. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 118©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Perception of Family → Work Enrichment Global Regional Women Men 47% 53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 56% 53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  119. 119. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 119©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: No Perception of Family → Work Enrichment Global Regional Women Men 4% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2 1% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2
  120. 120. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 120©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Work → Family Enrichment The graphs “Impact on Individual Results: Work → Family Enrichment” refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Doyou agree with the following statements? (1 =strongly disagree /7 =strongly agree)  Fulfilling my work responsibilities has enriched the interpersonal skills Ineed tosucceed at home  Overcoming obstacles at work has given me more confidence in my abilities at home  Juggling multiple tasks at work has improved myability to multi-task at home  Being involved at work has enabled me to better understand people at home
  121. 121. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 121©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Work → Family Enrichment FemaleManager FemaleNon-Manager MaleManager MaleNon-Manager Low Commitment High Commitment 5,55,4 5,3 4,7 5,8 5,3 5,0 4,8 5,65,5 5,1 4,9 5,7 5,45,2 4,6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCD
  122. 122. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 122©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Work → Family Enrichment Low Commitment High Commitment FemaleManager FemaleNon-Manager MaleManager MaleNon-Manager 5,0 5,4 5,15,3 6,3 5,95,85,7 6,4 5,8 5,35,4 6,4 5,95,8 5,2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCD
  123. 123. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 123©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Perception of Work → Family Enrichment Global Regional Women Men 37% 41% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 50% 51% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  124. 124. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 124©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: No Perception of Work → Family Enrichment Global Regional Women Men 6% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2 3% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2
  125. 125. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 125©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance The person is satisfied with how he orshe is managing work andfamily responsibilities. This variable refers tothe level of satisfaction that the person has with how he or she divides his orher attention between workand family. Itis also the satisfaction with how both domains, the familial andprofessional, fit toform a balanced framework that the person likes. This satisfaction is facilitated, in large part,by the resources that the company provides a person todotheir job in an independent and flexible manner. In this way, he orshe can contribute professionally withoutit negatively affecting his orher family life.
  126. 126. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 126©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance The graphs of “Impact on Individual Results: Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance” refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire: Please tell us how satisfied you arewith the following aspects ofyourlife (1 =Very dissatisfied /7 =Very satisfied)  The wayIdivide my time between work and personal orfamily life  The wayIdivide my attention between work and home  The waymy personal and family life fit together  Myability tobalance the needs of yourjob with those ofmy personal orfamily life  The opportunity tobalance my job and look after my duties at home
  127. 127. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 127©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance FemaleManager FemaleNon-Manager MaleManager MaleNon-Manager Low Commitment High Commitment 5,7 5,2 4,7 4,3 5,6 5,1 4,7 4,1 5,5 5,3 4,6 3,9 5,5 5,1 4,6 3,9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCD
  128. 128. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 128©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance Low Commitment High Commitment FemaleManager FemaleNon-Manager MaleManager MaleNon-Manager 5,9 5,6 5,2 5,0 6,0 5,35,5 5,1 6,1 5,6 4,9 4,6 5,8 5,45,4 4,3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCD
  129. 129. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 129©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: High Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance Global Regional Women Men 27% 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7 36% 37% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6-7
  130. 130. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 130©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Impact on Individual Results: Low Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance Global Regional Women Men 10% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2 6% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1-2
  131. 131. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 131 Summary (I/VIII) * The scale is from 1 to 10. ** The sample of Guatemala is based on two companies. Number of Participants Flexible hours Part-time schedule Compressed work week Maternity leave beyond the legal limit Paternity leave beyond the legal limit Leave of absence to care for relative Flexible vacation Permission to leave work place for family emergency Mexico 189 64% 25% 27% 28% 18% 46% 71% 89% Costa Rica 93 73% 14% 15% 8% 6% 16% 51% 82% Guatemala 64 32% 3% 3% 9% 9% 19% 51% 57% North & Central America 346 56% 14% 15% 15% 11% 27% 57% 76% Argentina 674 45% 12% 24% 23% 21% 30% 49% 58% Brazil 269 60% 4% 22% 10% 13% 36% 73% 93% Colombia 307 58% 12% 24% 19% 19% 31% 67% 92% Chile 362 44% 15% 22% 21% 20% 31% 76% 95% Ecuador 463 46% 20% 17% 20% 21% 27% 58% 88% Peru 298 66% 16% 30% 22% 23% 38% 84% 96% Venezuela 305 61% 13% 19% 17% 14% 36% 61% 93% South America 2678 54% 13% 23% 19% 19% 33% 67% 88% Italy 569 53% 14% 20% 10% 9% 29% 59% 77% Portugal 36 67% 14% 39% 28% 31% 42% 86% 89% Spain 618 42% 27% 24% 14% 8% 24% 42% 78% Europe 1202 48% 26% 27% 16% 13% 30% 58% 83% China 63 38% 14% 27% 32% 29% 41% 48% 48% Philippines 424 69% 18% 39% 28% 26% 76% 76% 92% Asia 487 54% 16% 33% 30% 27% 58% 62% 70% Nigeria 302 36% 9% 14% 13% 6% 47% 57% 76% Kenya 97 33% 5% 15% 14% 12% 44% 47% 88% Africa 399 35% 7% 14% 14% 9% 45% 52% 82% Global 5449 49% 15% 22% 19% 16% 39% 59% 80% Policies Family Responsible Environment
  132. 132. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 132 Summary (II/VIII) * The scale is from 1 to 10. ** The sample of Guatemala is based on two companies. Professional and personal counseling Information about daycare, schools and elderly care Job-sharing Telecommuting Daycare at work Subsidy for child/dependent Access to information on conciliation benefits Seminars, workshops on conciliation Mexico 48% 28% 36% 35% 24% 12% 41% 32% Costa Rica 40% 11% 56% 14% 11% 15% 30% 18% Guatemala 25% 2% 18% 10% 1% 2% 26% 12% North & Central America 38% 14% 36% 20% 12% 10% 32% 21% Argentina 30% 14% 16% 20% 5% 13% 37% 24% Brazil 39% 32% 36% 33% 6% 36% 24% 32% Colombia 59% 13% 27% 43% 6% 12% 30% 35% Chile 50% 32% 19% 25% 7% 29% 50% 30% Ecuador 53% 7% 45% 30% 5% 5% 33% 69% Peru 54% 12% 34% 31% 2% 5% 29% 28% Venezuela 57% 28% 40% 32% 11% 30% 45% 28% South America 49% 20% 31% 30% 6% 19% 35% 35% Italy 20% 17% 11% 52% 9% 11% 14% 11% Portugal 49% 17% 28% 50% 17% 22% 34% 46% Spain 37% 13% 21% 18% 13% 6% 28% 18% Europe 38% 17% 19% 31% 13% 9% 29% 24% China 30% 13% 29% 19% 10% 19% 17% 21% Philippines 60% 22% 40% 43% 11% 53% 47% 53% Asia 45% 17% 34% 31% 10% 36% 32% 37% Nigeria 42% 11% 20% 20% 8% 23% 31% 45% Kenya 39% 12% 31% 22% 6% 10% 23% 56% Africa 41% 11% 25% 21% 7% 16% 27% 51% Global 42% 16% 29% 27% 10% 18% 31% 33% Policies Family Responsible Environment
  133. 133. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 133 Summary (III/VIII) * The scale is from 1 to 10. ** The sample of Guatemala is based on two companies. Percent of male supervisors Percent of female supervisors Male supervisor's emotional support Female supervisor's emotional support Male supervisor's instrumental support Female supervisor's instrumental support Male supervisor's policy management Female supervisor's policy management Male supervisor as a role model Female supervisor as a role model Mexico 56% 44% 6,54 7,72 6,80 7,59 6,44 7,45 6,21 7,38 Costa Rica 67% 33% 6,77 7,27 6,55 7,24 6,67 7,64 6,45 7,44 Guatemala 67% 33% 7,06 8,99 7,42 9,33 7,23 9,48 7,40 8,14 North & Central America 63% 37% 6,79 7,99 6,92 8,05 6,78 8,19 6,69 7,65 Argentina 64% 36% 7,57 7,93 7,49 7,65 7,26 7,27 7,02 6,98 Brazil 86% 14% 6,62 7,03 7,22 6,99 7,00 6,29 6,66 6,64 Colombia 80% 20% 6,93 6,90 7,21 6,92 7,07 6,56 6,81 6,22 Chile 88% 12% 7,03 7,20 7,19 7,60 6,68 7,28 6,41 6,97 Ecuador 73% 27% 7,43 7,50 7,73 7,50 8,36 8,54 7,82 7,72 Peru 75% 25% 6,79 7,36 6,64 7,36 6,50 7,03 6,35 6,83 Venezuela 43% 57% 6,70 7,04 6,96 7,01 6,91 6,86 6,82 6,75 South America 73% 27% 7,01 7,28 7,21 7,29 7,11 7,12 6,84 6,87 Italy 84% 16% 5,89 5,87 5,31 5,59 5,54 5,13 5,03 4,65 Portugal 74% 26% 6,03 5,91 5,54 5,56 5,49 4,60 5,60 5,24 Spain 61% 39% 5,87 7,95 5,71 7,94 5,54 8,15 4,49 7,32 Europe 62% 38% 6,18 7,10 5,96 6,92 5,79 6,74 5,08 6,08 China 46% 54% 6,11 5,51 5,71 5,34 5,76 5,55 6,01 5,59 Philippines 65% 35% 7,26 7,60 7,20 7,37 7,64 7,58 7,29 7,26 Asia 55% 45% 6,68 6,56 6,46 6,35 6,70 6,56 6,65 6,42 Nigeria 70% 30% 6,52 6,45 5,88 6,17 6,82 6,95 5,89 6,41 Kenya 77% 23% 5,78 7,11 5,16 6,89 4,46 5,78 5,18 5,84 Africa 73% 27% 6,15 6,78 5,52 6,53 5,64 6,37 5,54 6,13 Global 65% 35% 6,56 7,14 6,41 7,03 6,40 7,00 6,16 6,63 Supervisor Family Responsible Environment
  134. 134. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 134 Summary (IV/VIII) * The scale is from 1 to 10. ** The sample of Guatemala is based on two companies. Coworkers respect extended paternity leave Coworkers respect extended maternity leave FR behavior does not have negative career consequences There is no expectation to work long hours There is no expectation to place work before the family Hours worked last week from the office Hours worked last week at home Mexico 4,18 4,12 6,39 6,36 7,03 38,29 5,78 Costa Rica 4,40 4,56 6,27 6,40 7,83 49,49 2,68 Guatemala 4,50 4,51 6,26 7,74 7,19 45,21 5,13 North & Central America 4,36 4,40 6,31 6,84 7,35 44,33 4,53 Argentina 4,26 4,28 6,63 7,60 7,84 43,03 3,54 Brazil 4,81 4,66 6,17 6,97 7,66 47,14 5,30 Colombia 4,11 3,84 6,54 6,54 7,35 48,75 6,38 Chile 5,19 5,05 6,06 7,24 7,97 44,13 3,73 Ecuador 5,69 5,53 5,91 6,97 7,62 43,60 2,00 Peru 4,31 4,03 6,75 7,12 7,64 44,15 3,49 Venezuela 4,49 4,27 6,72 7,09 7,66 40,06 3,01 South America 4,70 4,52 6,40 7,08 7,68 44,41 3,92 Italy 4,74 4,65 4,88 5,92 6,29 41,60 6,17 Portugal 4,98 4,94 5,99 5,82 5,86 45,74 8,76 Spain 4,16 3,93 6,04 6,37 6,67 40,59 4,20 Europe 4,47 4,28 5,89 6,49 6,80 41,30 4,49 China 5,80 5,44 5,73 5,24 5,37 40,94 7,90 Philippines 4,45 3,78 6,65 6,88 6,91 38,39 7,33 Asia 5,13 4,61 6,19 6,06 6,14 39,67 7,61 Nigeria 4,67 3,99 6,09 6,27 6,50 45,88 5,67 Kenya 3,90 4,48 5,82 7,72 6,53 36,23 3,20 Africa 4,28 4,23 5,96 6,99 6,52 41,05 4,43 Global 4,59 4,41 6,15 6,69 6,90 42,15 5,00 Organizational Culture (the higher the score, the more FR the culture is) Workload Family Responsible Environment
  135. 135. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 135 Summary (V/VIII) Style * The scale is from 1 to 10. ** The sample of Guatemala is based on two companies. Religion Planning and prioritizing Seeking social support Avoidance (high score is worse) Bringing work issues home Taking family issues to work Preference for growth opportunities Preference for opportunities to contribute Preference for external compensation Anticipatory transition style Mexico 6,66 8,34 7,94 3,99 4,27 3,99 9,34 9,19 4,90 7,88 Costa Rica 8,88 8,77 7,35 4,42 2,83 2,34 8,33 9,07 8,28 6,89 Guatemala 7,37 8,99 7,37 4,24 3,24 3,24 9,24 9,18 5,66 6,75 North & Central America 7,64 8,70 7,55 4,22 3,44 3,19 8,97 9,15 6,28 7,17 Argentina 5,12 8,59 7,91 4,04 2,89 4,07 9,09 8,77 6,04 7,29 Brazil 5,41 7,77 7,54 4,83 4,41 4,50 8,94 8,94 5,56 8,46 Colombia 6,47 8,34 7,55 4,16 3,89 4,50 9,34 8,96 4,57 8,20 Chile 6,88 8,34 7,44 4,25 3,67 5,16 9,35 9,01 4,91 8,17 Ecuador 6,91 9,32 7,93 4,25 2,85 2,78 8,87 9,37 8,28 7,93 Peru 6,01 8,25 7,57 4,25 3,30 4,19 9,05 8,96 5,00 7,75 Venezuela 6,40 8,47 7,61 4,38 3,22 3,35 8,79 8,64 5,57 7,35 South America 6,17 8,44 7,65 4,31 3,46 4,08 9,06 8,95 5,70 7,88 Italy 5,22 8,09 6,83 4,00 4,56 4,19 8,30 8,00 6,02 8,27 Portugal 5,81 7,91 6,81 4,95 5,38 5,58 8,73 8,95 4,76 7,64 Spain 4,87 8,04 7,64 4,20 3,82 3,62 8,57 8,55 5,84 7,63 Europe 5,09 8,24 7,56 4,41 4,29 4,14 8,60 8,67 5,44 7,87 China 5,20 6,75 6,46 5,87 5,29 5,57 6,80 7,67 6,76 6,49 Philippines 8,24 8,72 7,40 4,24 4,54 4,23 8,38 9,02 5,01 7,33 Asia 6,72 7,74 6,93 5,05 4,91 4,90 7,59 8,35 5,88 6,91 Nigeria 8,66 8,62 6,46 4,40 4,51 3,85 8,74 9,02 4,64 7,29 Kenya 7,42 7,78 6,27 4,69 3,29 4,94 8,87 9,10 4,83 6,48 Africa 8,04 8,20 6,37 4,54 3,90 4,40 8,80 9,06 4,73 6,88 Global 6,73 8,26 7,21 4,51 4,00 4,14 8,60 8,84 5,61 7,34 Segmentation/Integration Work PreferencesCoping Strategies Individual Characteristics
  136. 136. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 136 Summary (VI/VIII) * The scale is from 1 to 10. ** The sample of Guatemala is based on two companies. Intention to leave the company Loyalty Lack of alternatives commitment Professional development commitment Emotional commitment Perceived organizational support Overall health Family-work enrichment Work-family enrichment Satisfaction with work/life balance Mexico 4,35 7,54 5,19 8,18 5,81 7,17 7,97 8,12 7,91 7,00 Costa Rica 5,56 7,78 6,28 6,75 5,80 5,22 8,25 8,65 8,15 7,74 Guatemala 4,03 7,76 5,67 8,31 5,41 7,78 7,02 8,63 8,04 6,87 North & Central America 4,65 7,69 5,71 7,75 5,67 6,72 7,75 8,47 8,03 7,20 Argentina 4,59 7,64 5,68 7,57 5,86 6,90 7,64 7,84 7,16 6,81 Brazil 3,56 7,33 4,76 8,42 6,33 7,02 7,52 7,92 7,75 6,42 Colombia 3,99 7,41 4,75 8,46 5,63 7,25 7,83 7,83 7,33 6,78 Chile 4,49 7,62 5,02 8,04 5,94 7,34 8,38 8,03 7,45 7,14 Ecuador 5,11 8,32 7,41 7,69 6,55 7,84 8,07 8,99 8,70 7,57 Peru 5,21 7,16 4,74 7,65 5,93 6,98 7,60 7,89 7,39 6,72 Venezuela 4,76 7,42 5,20 7,57 5,31 6,60 8,07 7,71 7,26 6,90 South America 4,53 7,56 5,36 7,91 5,93 7,13 7,87 8,03 7,58 6,91 Italy 5,16 7,54 6,08 7,32 5,49 5,59 7,57 7,35 6,80 5,97 Portugal 5,89 7,14 6,51 6,96 6,07 6,92 7,26 7,32 7,22 6,44 Spain 4,74 7,17 5,78 7,36 5,99 6,00 7,66 6,95 6,36 6,37 Europe 4,75 7,28 5,82 7,52 6,06 6,37 7,61 7,25 6,81 6,40 China 6,76 6,45 6,12 6,00 5,62 5,58 5,37 6,95 6,76 5,91 Philippines 4,46 7,66 6,25 8,12 7,16 7,63 7,71 8,49 8,19 7,67 Asia 5,61 7,06 6,19 7,06 6,39 6,60 6,54 7,72 7,48 6,79 Nigeria 5,68 7,13 5,55 7,48 5,99 6,25 7,60 8,17 7,81 6,77 Kenya 5,84 6,84 6,26 6,95 5,68 5,70 7,02 7,74 7,24 6,07 Africa 5,76 6,99 5,90 7,21 5,83 5,97 7,31 7,96 7,52 6,42 Global 5,06 7,32 5,80 7,49 5,98 6,56 7,42 7,88 7,48 6,74 Organizational Individual Impact on Results
  137. 137. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 137 Summary (VII/VIII) * The scale is from 1 to 10. ** The sample of Guatemala is based on two companies. Male Female Age Participants with management responsibility Number of children Number of dinners with children last week Mexico 27% 73% 40 65% 1,36 4,77 Costa Rica 38% 62% 33 85% 1,49 3,60 Guatemala 41% 59% 33 54% 1,00 5,30 North & Central America 35% 65% 35 68% 1,28 4,56 Argentina 48% 52% 35 47% 1,17 5,65 Brazil 68% 32% 40 38% 1,24 2,98 Colombia 70% 30% 37 85% 1,10 3,63 Chile 82% 18% 42 86% 2,77 3,64 Ecuador 73% 27% 32 33% 1,49 2,81 Peru 66% 34% 34 34% 0,65 2,69 Venezuela 34% 66% 33 63% 0,80 4,05 South America 63% 37% 36 55% 1,32 3,64 Italy 76% 24% 43 57% 1,25 5,15 Portugal 67% 33% 37 64% 1,14 1,96 Spain 54% 46% 39 41% 90% 461% Europe 53% 47% 38 53% 0,97 4,43 China 30% 70% 28 44% 0,24 4,89 Philippines 52% 48% 39 55% 1,40 4,53 Asia 41% 59% 34 49% 0,82 4,71 Nigeria 51% 49% 37 62% 1,69 3,14 Kenya 61% 39% 35 37% 1,54 1,58 Africa 56% 44% 36 49% 1,61 2,36 Global 50% 50% 36 55% 1,20 3,94 Participant Demography
  138. 138. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 138 Summary (VIII/VIII) * The scale is from 1 to 10. ** The sample of Guatemala is based on two companies. Monthly salary: level 1 Monthly salary: level 2 Monthly salary: level 3 Monthly salary: level 4 No monthly salary Monthly salary: level 1 Monthly salary: level 2 Monthly salary: level 3 Monthly salary: level 4 Mexico 22% 19% 20% 39% 25% 27% 14% 31% 4% Costa Rica 68% 26% 3% 2% 25% 50% 14% 9% 2% Guatemala 45% 9% 13% 33% 21% 58% 4% 9% 8% North & Central America 45% 18% 12% 25% 24% 45% 11% 16% 5% Argentina 10% 26% 23% 42% 25% 21% 17% 17% 21% Brazil 4% 21% 29% 47% 43% 20% 11% 13% 13% Colombia 15% 17% 15% 53% 22% 33% 22% 11% 12% Chile 1% 5% 7% 87% 40% 19% 13% 16% 12% Ecuador 73% 9% 6% 12% 79% 6% 6% 5% 5% Peru 21% 32% 27% 20% 37% 26% 14% 21% 2% Venezuela 53% 24% 13% 10% 45% 29% 12% 7% 6% South America 25% 19% 17% 39% 42% 22% 13% 13% 10% Italy 15% 48% 27% 9% 23% 36% 30% 10% 2% Portugal 9% 26% 49% 17% 12% 16% 32% 32% 8% Spain 34% 41% 17% 8% 22% 27% 28% 18% 5% Europe 25% 38% 26% 11% 16% 27% 30% 21% 5% China 8% 56% 29% 8% 8% 38% 27% 23% 4% Philippines 25% 39% 22% 14% 38% 20% 22% 15% 4% Asia 17% 47% 25% 11% 23% 29% 25% 19% 4% Nigeria 68% 19% 5% 8% 14% 59% 12% 9% 6% Kenya 42% 28% 22% 8% 22% 47% 20% 8% 3% Africa 55% 23% 14% 8% 18% 53% 16% 8% 5% Global 33% 29% 19% 19% 24% 35% 19% 15% 6% Participant Demography Spouse
  139. 139. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 139 Currency scale used for the salaries No monthly salary Monthly salary: level 1 Monthly salary: level 2 Monthly salary: level 3 Monthly salary: level 4 Mexico 0 Mex$ Less than 12.500 Mex$ Between 12.500 and 25.000 Mex$ Between 25.000 and 37.500 Mex$ More than 37.500 Mex$ Costa Rica 0 CRC Less than 1.000 CRC Between 1.000 and 1.500 CRC Between 1.500 and 2.000 CRC More than 2.000 CRC Guatemala 0 QUE Less than 5.000 QUE Between 5.000 and 10.000 QUE Between 10.000 and 20.000 QUE More than 20.000 QUE North & Central America Argentina 0 ARS Less than 3.000 ARS Between 3.000 and 4.000 ARS Between 4.000 and 5.000 ARS More than 5.000 ARS Brazil 0 BRL Less than 4.000 BRL Betwenn 4.000 and 6.000 BRL Between 6.000 and 9.000 BRL More than 9.000 BRL Colombia 0 COP Less than 1.000 COP Between 1.000 and 1.500 COP Between 1.500 and 2.000 COP More than 2.000 COP Chile 0 US$ Less than 1.000 US$ Between 1.000 and 1.500 US$ Between 1.500 and 2.000 US$ More than 2.000 US$ Ecuador 0 US$ Less than 800 US$ Between 800 and 1.500 US$ Between 1.500 and 2.500 US$ More than 2.500 US$ Peru 0 US$ Less than 800 US$ Between 800 and 1.500 US$ Between 1.500 and 2.500 US$ More than 2.500 US$ Venezuela 0 BsF Less than 8.600 BsF Between 8.600 and 15.000 BsF Between 15.000 and 23.000 BsF More than 23.000 BsF South America Italy 0 EUR Less than 1.500 EUR Between 1.500 and 2.500 EUR Between 2.500 and 4.000 EUR More than 4.000 EUR Portugal 0 EUR Less than 1.500 EUR Between 1.500 and 2.500 EUR Between 2.500 and 4.000 EUR More than 4.000 EUR Spain 0 EUR Less than 1.500 EUR Between 1.500 and 2.500 EUR Between 2.500 and 4.000 EUR More than 4.000 EUR Europe China 0 HK$ Less than 10.000 HK$ Between 10.000 and 20.000 HK$ Between 20.000 and 35.000 HK$ More than 35.000 HK$ Philippines 0 PHP Less than 90.000 PHP Between 90.000 and 150.000 PHP Between 150.000 and 240.000 PHP More than 240.000 PHP Asia Nigeria 0 US$ Less than 2.000 US$ Between 2.000 and 3.000 US$ Between 3.000 and 4.000 US$ More than 4.000 US$ Kenya 0 US$ Less than 2.000 US$ Between 2.000 and 3.000 US$ Between 3.000 and 4.000 US$ More than 4.000 US$ Africa Global
  140. 140. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 140©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Partners (I/II) IAE UniversidadAustral Argentina Work& FamilyFoundation Canada Universidadde la Sabana Colombia Universidadde losAndes Chile InstitutoSuperiorde Empresa Brazil La Empresa y laFamilia CostaRica InstitutodeDesarrollo Empresarial Ecuador ELIS Italy Universidad delIstmo Guatemala FundaciónEmprepas El Salvador Universityof Macau China PolitecnicoMilan Italy
  141. 141. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 141©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Partners (II/II) Strathmore BusinessSchool Kenya Eramus University Rotterdam Netherlands Lagos BusinessSchool Nigeria TheUniversityof Waikato New Zealand Universidad Pan-Americana Mexico EscueladeDirección Universidadde Piura Peru Escolade Direcçãoe Negócios Portugal Edenred Spain UniversidadMonteávila Venezuela Universityof Asiaand the Pacific Philippines
  142. 142. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 142 Contributing Researchers (I/II) Country Name of Researcher Title Company Patricia Debeljuh Executive Director Angeles Destefano Associate Researcher Cesar Furtado de Carvalho Bullara Professor in People Management Érica Rolim Executive Education Eloise Cataudella Co-Founder Salvador Rego Co-Founder and CEO Álvaro Pezoa Bissières Professor, Department of Fernando Larraín Vial Business Ethics and Responsibility María Paz Riumalló Herl Assistant Researcher China Zenon Arthur Siloran Udani Assistant Professor Department of Management & Marketing, University of Macau Sandra Idrovo Carlier Director of Research and Professor Pámela Leyva Townsend Assistant Researcher Costa Rica Ana Marcela Villalobos Chaves President Business and Family (La Empresa y la Familia Ltda ) Wilson Jácome Director of the Programs of Perfectioning Management and Managing Founder of IDE Mónica Torresano Professor in Business Responsibility and Business in Society Guido González Academic Researcher Kalena de Velado President of the Foundation Belinda Llort de Ruiz Research Director Emma de Santos Project Coordinator Guatemala Hugo D. Cruz Rivas Executive Director of the Center of Research in Humanism and Business Istmo University Honduras Carmen Y. Cruz Rivas Executive Director of the Foundation Museum of the Honduras Man (Museo del Hombre Hondureño) El Salvador Emprepas Foundation Chile Business School, Universidad de los Andes Colombia Department of People Management in Business, INALDE Business School, Universidad de La Sabana Ecuador Business Development Institute (Instituto de Desarrollo Empresarial- IDE) Argentina Center of Family and Business Conciliation (Centro Conciliación Familia y Empresa), IAE Business School, Universidad Austral Brazil Higher Institute of Business (Instituto Superior de Empresa- ISE) Canada Work & Family Foundation Canada
  143. 143. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 143 Contributing Researchers (II/II) Country Name of Researcher Title Company Bruno Picker Vice President Ugo Papagni Responsible of ELIS Management Department Maria Tringali HR Senior Consultant Roberto Sorrenti Chief of Marketing and Public Relations of the Consortium Stefania Palmaccio Didactic Coordinator, ELIS Management Academy Andrea Rangone Professor, Department of Strategy and Planning Systems Politecnico di Milano Irene Kinuthia Director Magdalene Kiragu Administrator María del Carmen Bernal González Director Alejandra Moreno Maya Research Director Netherlands Laura den Dulk Assistant Professor Public Administration, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam New Zealand Kirstie McAllum Lecturer Waikato Management School, University of Waikato Nigeria Chantal Epié Faculty Director Lagos Business School, Pan-African University Philippines María Victoria Q. Caparas Associate Professor University of Asia and the Pacific Marisa Aguirre Nieto Professor Juan Carlos Pacheco Professor Maria de Fátima Carioca Director of AESE and Professor of Human Behavior in the Organization Filomena Gonçalves Assistant Researcher Spain Manuel Asla Marketing Director Edenred Cristina Navarro Colmenares President, Council of Scientific, Human and Technological Development (CDCHT) Carolina Arcay de López President, Committe of Economic Promotion María Eugenia Peña de Arias Director, Center for Communication Research Venezuela Monteávila University Italy Mexico Research Center of Women in High Management (Centro de Investigación de la Mujer en la Alta Dirección), Universidad Pan-Americana (IPADE) Peru Department of People Management, PAD, Management School, University of Piura Portugal AESE, School of Management and Business ELIS Consortium Kenya Center for Research on Organisations Work and the Family ( CROWF), Strathmore Business School
  144. 144. ©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 144 IESE Family-Responsible environment(FRe) Index for theWorld and Asia Prof. Nuria Chinchilla Prof. Mireia Las Heras

×