Ifrei Canada 2011

© IESE Business School - Barcelona - 2011 Page 1
IESE
Family-Responsible environment (FRe) Index for the World
Benchmark with the Philippines
Prof. Nuria Chinchilla
Prof. Mireia Las Heras

© IESE Business School - Barcelona - 2011 Page 2© IESE Business School - Barcelona - 2011
In collaboration with:
Work and Family Foundation, Canada

The Corporate Sponsors of the International Center for Work and Family

What is a family-responsible company?
A “family-responsible company” is a company that in an explicit way develops programs,
policies and practices that facilitate work-family conciliation (for example, flexibility, leave,
policies regarding services for dependents, professional and personal support or
counseling, social benefits).

Principal Objetive
IFREI stands for IESE FAMILY-RESPONSIBLE EMPLOYER INDEX. It aims to show the impact
of family-responsible policies, practices and leadership of a company on employee health,
commitment to loyalty, intention to leave to the company, and satisfaction.

Overall Model for the Study
The Country
Legislation
Culture and
values
The Individual
Individual
characteristics
Responsibility and
role at home
Policies
Work Environment
Supervisor
Culture
Organizational Individual
Impact on Results
Participant’s
FR
environment
A
D
B
C

A Enriching
The environment
systematically facilitates
work-family conciliation.
Supportive
The environment
occasionally facilitates
Toxic
The environment
systematically hinders
D
B
C Hindering
The environment
occasionally hinders work-
family conciliation.
FRe Model (Family-Responsible environment Model)

IFREI Study Framework
A. FR Policies
1. Flexibility with Time and Space
2. Family Support
3. Information
4. Maternity/Paternity Leave
C. FR Culture
B. FR Supervisor
1. Emotional Support
2. Instrumental Support
3. Policy Management
4. Role Model
Impact on Results
1. Intention to Leave
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
4. Perceived
Organizational
Support
FR Environment
Individual Characteristics
A. Coping
Strategies
B. Integration/
Segmentation
Preferences
C. Job
Preferences
D. Transition
Styles
1. Overall Health
2. Family ↔ Work
Enrichment
3. Satisfaction with
Work/Family Balance

Worldwide IFREI Study: In progress in 23 countries
SOUTH AMERICA
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
North and
Central AMERICA
Canada
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico AFRICA
Kenya
Nigeria
ASIA
China
Philippines
EUROPE
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
AUSTRALIA
New Zealand
Methodology: Quantitative
Instrument: Structured questionnaires
Period: 2010-2011

Worldwide IFREI Study Until November 2011
SOUTH AMERICA
3011 participants
47%
North and Central
AMERICA
1190 participants
19%
AFRICA
463 participants
7%
ASIA
402 participants
6%
EUROPE
1293 participants
20%
Total Participants: 7117

IFREI World Sample
Women: 44%
Women with children:
56%
Women without
children:
44%
Men: 56%
Men with children:
66%
Men without children:
34%
Women without management
responsibility: 52%
Men with management
responsibility: 58%
Men without management
responsibility: 42%
Women with management
responsibility: 48%
With children
Without children
With children
Without children

IFREI Canada Sample
With children
Without children
With children
Without children
Women: 67%
Women with children:
60%
Women without
children:
40%
Men: 33%
Men with children:
71%
Men without children:
29%
Women without management
responsibility: 64%
Men with management
responsibility: 54%
Men without management
responsibility: 46%
Women with management
responsibility: 36%

A Enriching Supportive
ToxicD
B
C Hindering
Global employee perception of the work environment
31% perceives their
environment occasionally
facilitates work-family
conciliation.
48% perceives their
hinders work-family
conciliation.
11% perceives their
environment
9% perceives their
environment

A Enriching Supportive
ToxicD
B
CHindering
National employee perception of the work environment
42% perceives their
facilitates work-family
conciliation.
28% perceives their
hinders work-family
conciliation.
26% perceives their
environment
3% perceives their
environment

Family-Responsible
Environment: Policies

FR Policies
A. FR Policies
1. Time and Location Flexibility
2. Family Support
3. Information
C. FR Culture
B. FR Supervisor
Impact on Results
1. Intention to leave
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
4. Perceived
Organizational
Support
FR Environment
1. Overall Health
2. Family ↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family
Balance
A. Coping
Strategies
B.
Integration/
Segmentation
Preferences
C. Work
Preferences
D. Transition
Styles
4. Role Model

FR Policies
Family-responsible policies are the practices formally established within a company that support
employee work-life balance by providing flexibility in time and space. They also include those practices
that provide professional support, services and family-friendly benefits that go beyond financial
remuneration.

FR Policies
 Telecommuting: working part or full-time from home
or some place outside the company
 Working part-time or job-sharing
 Flexible hours
Time and Location Flexibility
 Professional counseling
 Personal counseling
Professional and Family Support
 Easy access to information about the work-family
balance
 Seminars, workshops and information sessions on
work-family balance
Family-Friendly Services
 Childcare center at the workplace
 Childcare subsidy
Family-Friendly Benefits

FR Policies
Positive Impact of
Family-Responsible
Policies
Individuals
Company
Society

FR Policies: Impact on Individuals
FR policies have a positive impact on individuals since they allow a person to organize their work hours
such that time spent working does not interfere or hamper their family responsibilities. In addition, FR
policies tend to reduce commute time, and thus, improve the employee’s performance.

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, and increase the involvement of individuals at work.
Furthermore, FR policies are essentially necessary and positive for industries or sectors that
experience constant and rapid product or service changes, where the added value of the employees is
greater.

FR Policies: Impact on Society
FR policies have a direct impact on society by facilitating the reduction of environmental pollution due
to reduced employee commute time. They also decrease costs in health services since FR policies
lessen stress and other related illnesses.
In addition, FR policies have a positive impact on the country's educational level as parents can be
more involved in their child’s education, resulting in better academic performance, as well as reduced
addiction and crime rates.

FR Policies: Time Flexibility
The graph “FR Policies: Time Flexibility” refers to the following questions in the questionnaire:
Please indicate if you have access to these policies (Yes / No):
 Part-time work (reduced working hours in exchange for a lower salary)
 Compressed week hours (i.e. half day free in exchange for working longer hours the rest of the week
)
 Job-sharing (i.e. when the duties of a full-time position are shared by two or more employees)

FR Policies: Time Flexibility

FR Policies: Time and Location Flexibility
The graph “FR Policies: Time and Location Flexibility” refers to the following questions in the
questionnaire:
 Flexible work schedule
 Tele-commuting (i.e. allowing employees to work from an alternative location, such as a home
office)

FR Policies: Time and Location Flexibility

FR Policies: Family Support
The graph “FR Policies: Family Support” refers to the following questions in the questionnaire:
 Childcare center at the workplace
 Financial help for the care of a child or a dependent
 Leave of absence to take care of a family member

FR Policies: Family Support

FR Policies: Maternity and Paternity Leave Beyond the Legal Minimum
The graph “FR Policies: Maternity and Paternity Leave Beyond the Legal Minimum” refers to the
following questions in the questionnaire:
 Maternity leave beyond the legal minimum
 Paternity leave beyond the legal minimum

FR Policies: Maternity and Paternity Leave Beyond the Legal Minimum
The chart shows the perception of women regarding
maternity leave.
The chart shows the perception of men regarding
paternity leave.

FR Policies:
Information
The graph “FR Policies: Information” refers to the following questions in the questionnaire:
 Professional and personal counseling
 Referrals for daycare and schools or elder care and services
 Easy access to information about work-life balance benefits available to you through your company
 Seminars, workshops or information sessions on work/life balance issues

FR Policies: Information

Family-Responsible
Environment: Supervisor

FR Supervisor
Impact on Results
1. Intention to leave
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
4. Perceived
Organizational
Support
1. Overall Health
2. Family ↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family Balance
A. Coping
Strategies
B. Integration/
Segmentation
Preferences
C. Work
Preferences
D. Transition
Styles
B. FR Supervisor
4. Role Model
FR Environment
C. FR Culture
A. FR Policies
2. Family Support
3. Information

FR Supervisor
A family-responsible supervisor is one who responds to the family needs of his/her employees.
Furthermore, he/she supports and facilitates work-family balance, promotes the use of family-
responsible practices and is open and sensitive to these issues, while respecting personal freedom.

FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Emotional Support
The graphs “FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Emotional Support” refer to the following questions in the
questionnaire:
Do you agree with the following statements? (1 = strongly disagree / 7 = strongly agree)
 My supervisor is willing to listen to my problems in juggling work and non-work life
 My supervisor takes the time to learn about my personal needs
 My supervisor makes me feel comfortable talking to him or her about my conflicts between work
and non-work
 My supervisor and I can talk effectively to solve conflicts between work and non-work issues

FR Supervisor: Supervisors Showing Excellent Emotional Support

FR Supervisor: Employee Perception of the Supervisor’s Excellent Emotional
Support
The charts show the percentage of employees who receive excellent emotional support from
their supervisor. (score of 6-7 on a scale of 1-7, 7 being excellent)
Global National

FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Instrumental Support
The graphs “FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Instrumental Support” refer to the following question in the
questionnaire:
 I can depend on my supervisor to help me with scheduling conflicts between work and non-work
issues

FR Supervisor: Supervisors Showing Excellent Instrumental Support

FR Supervisor: Employee Perception of the Supervisor’s Excellent Instrumental
Support
The charts show the percentage of employees who receive excellent instrumental support
from their supervisor. (score of 6-7 on a scale of 1-7, 7 being excellent)
Global National

FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Policy Management
The graphs “FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Policy Management” refer to the following question in the
questionnaire:
 My supervisor asks for suggestions to make it easier for employees to balance work and non-work
demands

FR Supervisor: Supervisors Showing Excellent Policy Management

FR Supervisor: Employee Perception of the Supervisor’s Excellent Policy
Management
The charts show the percentage of employees who receive excellent policy management
support from their supervisor. (score of 6-7 on a scale of 1-7, 7 being excellent)
Global National

FR Supervisor:
Supervisors as Role Models
The graphs “FR Supervisor: Supervisors as Role Models” refer to the following question in the
questionnaire:
Do you agree with the following statement? (1 = strongly disagree / 7 = strongly agree)
 My supervisor is a good role model for work and non-work balance

FR Supervisor: Supervisors Who are Perceived as Excellent
Role Models

FR Supervisor: Employee Perception of the Supervisor as an Excellent Role Model
The charts show the percentage of employees who perceive their supervisor as an excellent
role model. (score of 6-7 on a scale of 1-7, 7 being excellent)
Global National

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
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
1.Overall Health
2.Family ↔ Work
Enrichment
3.Satisfaction with
Work/Family Balance

FR Organizational Culture
A. FR Policies
2. Family Support
3. Information
B. FR Supervisor
4. Role Model
A. Coping
Strategies
B. Integration/
Segmentation
Preferences
C. Work
Preferences
D. Transition
Styles
C. FR Culture
FR Environment Impact on Results
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
4. Perceived
Organizational
Support
1. Overall Health
2. Family ↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family Balance

FR Organizational Culture
An FR organizational culture promotes work-life balance:
 People who use flexible policies are valued for their contribution to the company and not penalized
for the use of flexible policies.
 A person’s workload is respected and it is not expected that people constantly place their work
before their family.

FR Organizational Culture: Co-Workers Respect For Extended Maternity or
Paternity Leave
The graph “FR Organizational Culture: Co-Workers Who Respect Extended Maternity or Paternity
Leave” refers to the following questions in the questionnaire:
Do you agree with the following statements?
(1 = strongly disagree / 7 = strongly agree)
 Many employees are resentful when men in this organization take extended leaves to care for
newborn or adopted children
 Many employees are resentful when women in this organization take extended leaves to care for
newborn or adopted children
In this dimension, the lower the score between 1 and 7, the more family-responsible the
organizational culture.

FR Organizational Culture: Co-Workers Who Respect Extended Maternity or
Paternity Leave
Participants who responded with 1-2 are represented. It signifies that co-workers
are not bothered by extended leaves. Therefore, it is an FR organizational culture.

FR Organizational Culture: Negative Consequences for the Career
The graph “FR Organizational Culture: Negative Consequences for the Career due to FR Behavior” refers
to the following questions in the questionnaire:
 In this organization employees who participate in available work-family programs are viewed as less
serious about their careers than those who do not participate in these programs
 To turn down a promotion or transfer for family-related reasons will seriously hurt one’s career
progress in this organization
 In this organization employees on a flexible schedule are less likely to advance their careers than
those who do not use flextime

FR Organizational Culture: Negative Consequences for the Career due to FR
Behavior
Participants who responded with 1-2 are represented. It signifies that there are no negative
consequences. Therefore, it is an FR organizational culture.

FR Organizational Culture: Expectations regarding Workload and Working Hours
El The graph “FR Organizational Culture: FR Expectations regarding Workload and Working Hours”
refers to the following questions in the questionnaire:
 To get ahead at this organization, employees are expected to work more than 50 hours a week,
whether at the workplace or at home
 Employees are often expected to take work home in the evenings and/or on weekends
 Employees are regularly expected to put their jobs before their families
 To be viewed favorably by top management, employees in this organization must constantly put their
jobs ahead of their families or personal lives

FR Organizational Culture: FR Expectations regarding Workload and Working
Hours
Participants who responded with 1-2 are represented. It signifies that there are no expectations
regarding workload and hours. Therefore, it is an FR organizational culture.

Individual Characteristics:
Coping Strategies

Coping Strategies
A. Coping
Strategies
Impact on Results
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
4. Perceived
Organizational
Support
1. Overall Health
2. Family ↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family Balance
A. FR Policies
2. Family Support
3. Information
C. FR Culture
B. FR Supervisor
4. Role Model
FR Environment
B. Integration/
Segmentation
Preferences
C. Work
Preferences
D. Transition
Styles

Coping Strategies
Coping strategies are the methods people use to overcome challenges and accomplish all they have
committed to at home and at work.
Coping strategies consist in:
Planning daily work and prioritizing different tasks
 Seeking emotional and material support among family and friends

Coping Strategies: Planning & Prioritizing
The graph “Coping Strategies: Planning & Prioritizing” refers to the following questions in the
questionnaire:
 I plan and organize my time at work
 I set priorities and do the most important thing first
 I work more efficiently so I can finish things quickly
 I plan and organize my tasks

Coping Strategies: Seeking Social Support
The graph “Coping Strategies: Seeking Social Support” refers to the following questions in the
questionnaire:
 I talk about my feelings with someone who is not directly involved
 I have several friends I can readily talk to about what matters most to me
 I seek understanding from someone
 I ask my relatives for help when I need it
 My family helps me if I have a problem

Coping Strategies: Seeking Social Support

Preferences for Integration or
Segmentation

Preferences for Integration or Segmentation
B. Integration/
Segmentation
Preferences
Impact on Results
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
4. Perceived
Organizational
Support
1. Overall Health
2. Family ↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family Balance
A. FR Policies
2. Family Support
3. Information
C. FR Culture
B. FR Supervisor
4. Role Model
FR Environment
A. Coping
Strategies
C. Work
Preferences
D. Transition
Styles

Preference for Integration or Segmentation
Some individuals prefer to establish barriers such that work and family domains do not overlap and
are completely separate (segmentation). Others prefer to unify the different domains (integration).
Segmentation and integration are two extremes of a continuum. At one end, work and non-work life
do not overlap at all; on the other end, they fully share the same time and space.
In and of itself, one preference is not better than the other. However, a company’s way of working to
accommodate the preferences of an individual, whether it be integration or segmentation, is
significant.

Preference for Integration or Segmentation: Working at Home
The graphs “Preference for Integration or Segmentation: Working at Home” refers to the following
questions in the questionnaire:
How acceptable are the following situations for you? (1 = Not at all / 7 = Very much)
 Being required to work while at home
 Being required to think about work while at home
 Being required to think about work once I leave the workplace
 Being expected to take work home

Preference for Integration or Segmentation: It is acceptable to work at home

Preference for Integration or Segmentation: It is unacceptable to work at home

Preference for Integration or Segmentation: Bringing Family Issues to Work
The graph “Preference for Integration or Segmentation: Bringing Family Issues to Work” refers to the
How acceptable are the following situations for you? (1 = Not at all / 7 = Very much)
 Having to solve family issues while at work
 Thinking about family issues while at work
 Running family errands during standard working hours

Preference for Integration or Segmentation: It is acceptable to bring family issues
to work

Preference for Integration or Segmentation: It is unacceptable to bring family
issues to work

Work Preferences
C.Work
Preferences
Impact on Results
1.Intention to Leave
2.Loyalty
3.Commitment
4.Perceived
Organizational
Support
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

Work Preferences
C. Work
Preferences
Impact on Results
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
4. Perceived
Organizational
Support
1. Overall Health
2. Family ↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family Balance
A. FR Policies
2. Family Support
3. Information
C. FR Culture
B. FR Supervisor
4. Role Model
FR Environment
A. Coping
Strategies
B. Integration/
Segmentation
Preferences
D. Transition
Styles

Work Preferences
It is defined as the reason or reasons why an individual decides to work on a particular task or in a
particular job. There are three types: preference for extrinsic, intrinsic and transcendent motivations.
 Extrinsic motivation: the individual searches for separable and tangible satisfaction generated by
interactions. In other words, the individual searches for his or her own satisfaction without
considering the consequences for others.
 Intrinsic motivation or preference for growth opportunities: it is what causes a person to search for
his or her own learning.
 Transcendent motivation or preference for opportunities to contribute: it is what causes a person
to consider positive and relevant learning. Persons that act on transcendent motivations grant
importance to the effects of their actions on others.

Work Preferences: Preference for Growth Opportunities
The graph “Work Preferences: Preference for Growth Opportunities” refers to the following questions
in the questionnaire:
 I like challenging jobs
 I do not like repetitive jobs, without a lot of decision making or major challenges (reverse)
 I prefer assignments that contribute to my professional experience

Work Preferences: Strong Preference for Growth Opportunities

Work Preferences: Preference for Opportunities to Contribute
The graph “Work Preferences: Preference for Opportunities to Contribute” refers to the following
 I feel really fulfilled when I can be useful to others
 I am deeply thankful to those who help me
 All things being equal, I prefer a job where I can be more useful to others
 What I like the most in my job is that I can contribute to the good of others

Work Preferences: Strong Preference for Opportunities to Contribute

Impact on
Organizational Results

Impact on Organizational Results
A. FR Policies
2. Family Support
3. Information
C. FR Culture
B. FR Supervisor
4. Role Model
FR Environment
A. Coping
Strategies
B. Integration/
Segmentation
Preferences
C. Work
Preferences
D. Transition
Styles
Impact on Results
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
4. Perception of
Organizational
Support
1. Overall Health
2. Family ↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family Balance

Impact on Organizational Results: Intention to Leave the Company
Undesired turnover has negative consequences that affect the morale of the other employees as well
as the outcomes for the company:
 Lower productivity
 Loss of expertise
 Deteriorated work environment and lack of motivation among the remaining staff
In addition, there are significant direct costs:
 Costs of recruitment for a replacement
 Costs of training a new employee
 Costs of substitution while the vacant position is covered

The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Intention to Leave the Company” refer to the following
 I would prefer another more ideal job than the one I have now
 If it was up to me, in three years I would not be in this organization
 I frequently think of quitting my job

The more family-responsible the work environment, the lower the intention is of the
employee to leave the company.

Impact on Organizational Results: Loyalty
The graph “Impact on Organizational Results: Loyalty” refers to the following questions in the
questionnaire:
 I am loyal to this organization
 I frequently suggest new ideas to improve my department
 I am expected to do only the job that I am paid to do
 Even when it is not required, I try to help other colleagues with their work

Impact on Organizational Results: Participants who demonstrate loyalty
The more family-responsible the work environment, the more loyal the employee is to
the company.

Impact on Organizational Results: Perceived Organizational Support
The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Perceived Organizational Support” refer to the
 When I have a problem, the organization tries to help me
 The organization is sincerely concerned about my well-being
 The organization takes my opinion seriously
 The organization is concerned about my overall satisfaction at work

Impact on Organizational Results: Perceived Organizational Support
Depending on the Environment
The more family-responsible the work environment, the more the employee perceives
organizational support.

Impact on Organizational Results: Commitment
Commitment refers to the nature of the relationship that an individual has with his/her organization.
It can present as:
 Commitment due to a lack of alternatives: the commitment of an individual is related to the high
costs of leaving the company or to a lack of alternatives. It is the most fragile commitment: the person
is willing to leave as soon as he/she finds other options. The higher the commitment due to a lack of
alternatives, the worse the quality is of the individual’s relationship with his/her company.
 Commitment due to professional development: the commitment is due to the individual’s
perception of existent opportunities that will satisfy his/her professional and personal growth. It
implies a stronger commitment than the previous one since the person is willing to collaborate while
there exists possibilities for learning and development.
 Emotional commitment: the commitment manifests itself as a sentiment of personal duty and
obligation towards the company. It is the strongest attachment since it is the one in which a person
wishes to contribute to the company as a result of personal convincing and moral duty.

Impact on Organizational Results: Lack of Alternatives Commitment
The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Lack of Alternatives Commitment” refer to the
 Right now, staying with this organization is a necessity for me
 It would not be difficult for me to find an interesting job in other organization
 Switching to a different organization would be highly inconvenient right now

Impact on Organizational Results: Lack of Alternatives Commitment
The more family-responsible the work environment, the lower the employee is committed
due to lack of alternatives.

Impact on Organizational Results:
Professional Development Commitment
The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Professional Development Commitment” refer to the
 Working in this organization offers me opportunities to learn and grown professionally
 I really like working for this organization
 My work in this organization is not especially attractive

Impact on Organizational Results: Professional Development
Commitment
The more family-responsible the work environment, the more positively the person views the
possibilities of professional growth and better values the organization itself.

Impact on Organizational Results:
Emotional Commitment
The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Emotional Commitment” refer to the following
 Right now I would not abandon this organization because of a sense of obligation toward the people
I work with
 I feel an obligation to continue working for this organization (reverse)
 I would feel guilty if I were to quit this organization now

Impact on Organizational Results: Emotional Commitment
The more family-responsible the work environment, the higher the emotional commitment
of the employee to the company.

Impact on Individual
Results

Impact on Individual Results
Impact on Results
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
4. Perception of
Organizational
Support
1. Overall Health
2. Family ↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family Balance
A. FR Policies
2. Family Support
3. Information
C. FR Culture
B. FR Supervisor
4. Role Model
FR Environment
A. Coping
Strategies
B. Integration/
Segmentation
Preferences
C. Work
Preferences
D. Transition
Styles

Impact on Individual Results: Overall Health
Overall health refers to the wellbeing of an individual, which can have consequences in a company
since if the health of an individual is precarious there is:
 Greater absenteeism
 Less productivity
 Increased leave due to illness
 Decreased motivation

Impact on Individual Results:
Overall Health
The graphs “Impact on Individual Results: Overall Heath” refer to the following question in the
questionnaire:
Please rate the following aspects of your health over the past 4 weeks
(1 = very poor / 7 = Excellent)
 Overall, how would you rate your health during the past 4 weeks?

Impact on Individual Results: Overall Health
The more family-responsible the work environment, the better the overall health of the
employee.

Impact on Individual Results: Enrichment between Work and Family Environments
Work-family enrichment occurs when experiences in the work environment improve the quality of life
in the family environment and vice versa. This occurs when abilities and competencies that develop in
the professional domain are transferred to the familial domain, and vice versa: the learning and
experiences acquired in the family environment are transferred to the professional domain.

Impact on Individual Results: Family → Work Enrichment
The graphs “Impact on Individual Results: Family → Work Enrichment” refer to the following
 Fulfilling my family responsibilities has enriched the interpersonal skills I need to succeed 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 to multi-task at work
 Being involved at home has enabled me to better understand people at work

Impact on Individual Results: Family → Work Enrichment

Impact on Individual Results: Perception of Family → Work
Enrichment

Impact on Individual Results: No Perception of Family → Work
Enrichment

Impact on Individual Results: Work → Family Enrichment
The graphs “Impact on Individual Results: Work → Family Enrichment” refer to the following
 Fulfilling my work responsibilities has enriched the interpersonal skills I need to succeed at home
 Overcoming obstacles at work has given me more confidence in my abilities at home
 Juggling multiple tasks at work has improved my ability to multi-task at home
 Being involved at work has enabled me to better understand people at home

Impact on Individual Results: Work → Family Enrichment

Impact on Individual Results: Perception of Work → Family
Enrichment

Impact on Individual Results: No Perception of Work → Family
Enrichment

Impact on Individual Results: Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance
The person is satisfied with how he or she is managing work and family responsibilities.
This variable refers to the level of satisfaction that the person has with how he or she divides his or
her attention between work and family. It is also the satisfaction with how both domains, the familial
and professional, fit to form a balanced framework that the person likes.
This satisfaction is facilitated, in large part, by the resources that the company provides a person to do
their job in an independent and flexible manner. In this way, he or she can contribute professionally
without it negatively affecting his or her family life.

The graphs of “Impact on Individual Results: Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance” refer to the
Please tell us how satisfied you are with the following aspects of your life
(1 = Very dissatisfied / 7 = Very satisfied)
 The way I divide my time between work and personal or family life
 The way I divide my attention between work and home
 The way my personal and family life fit together
 My ability to balance the needs of your job with those of my personal or family life
 The opportunity to balance my job and look after my duties at home

Impact on Individual Results: High Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance

Impact on Individual Results: Low Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance

Summary Policies 1
Family Responsible Environment
Policies
* 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 278 68% 24% 28% 30% 21% 46% 72% 90%
Canada 467 72% 46% 42% 27% 23% 74% 86% 97%
Costa Rica 93 73% 14% 15% 8% 6% 16% 51% 82%
Honduras 758 43% 13% 14% 27% 19% 37% 58% 90%
Guatemala 64 51% 3% 6% 17% 17% 35% 86% 85%
North & Central America 1100 54% 13% 16% 25% 19% 40% 72% 88%
Argentina 653 68% 16% 33% 34% 30% 45% 74% 87%
Brazil 305 62% 7% 20% 13% 12% 35% 73% 94%
Colombia 307 58% 12% 24% 19% 19% 31% 67% 92%
Chile 363 44% 15% 22% 22% 20% 31% 76% 95%
Ecuador 464 46% 20% 17% 20% 21% 27% 58% 88%
Peru 301 66% 16% 30% 21% 23% 38% 83% 96%
Venezuela 305 61% 13% 19% 17% 14% 36% 61% 93%
South America 2698 58% 14% 24% 21% 20% 35% 70% 92%
Italy 578 53% 15% 20% 11% 9% 30% 60% 77%
Portugal 37 68% 14% 38% 27% 31% 43% 86% 89%
Spain 623 45% 28% 25% 15% 8% 25% 45% 84%
Europe 1217 49% 26% 27% 16% 13% 31% 60% 85%
China 63 38% 14% 27% 32% 29% 41% 48% 48%
Philippines 318 70% 18% 40% 28% 27% 75% 74% 93%
Asia 381 54% 16% 33% 30% 28% 58% 61% 70%
Nigeria 302 36% 9% 14% 13% 6% 47% 57% 76%
Kenya 158 36% 6% 20% 17% 14% 51% 55% 89%
Africa 460 36% 7% 17% 15% 10% 49% 56% 83%
Global 7102 50% 15% 23% 21% 18% 43% 64% 84%

Summary Policies 2
Policies
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 51% 27% 38% 41% 18% 12% 41% 33%
Canada 72% 23% 28% 43% 4% 6% 54% 42%
Costa Rica 40% 11% 56% 14% 11% 15% 30% 18%
Honduras 52% 15% 36% 17% 2% 9% 26% 44%
Guatemala 30% 2% 26% 14% 1% 2% 41% 31%
North & Central America 44% 15% 33% 24% 7% 8% 36% 36%
Argentina 49% 26% 26% 30% 8% 24% 61% 39%
Brazil 36% 27% 40% 31% 6% 32% 22% 25%
Colombia 59% 13% 27% 43% 6% 12% 30% 35%
Chile 49% 32% 19% 25% 7% 29% 50% 30%
Ecuador 53% 7% 45% 30% 5% 5% 33% 69%
Peru 54% 12% 34% 31% 2% 5% 29% 27%
Venezuela 57% 28% 40% 32% 11% 30% 45% 28%
South America 51% 21% 33% 32% 6% 20% 39% 36%
Italy 20% 17% 11% 52% 9% 11% 14% 11%
Portugal 47% 16% 27% 51% 17% 22% 36% 47%
Spain 40% 14% 23% 19% 13% 7% 30% 20%
Europe 39% 17% 19% 31% 13% 9% 31% 25%
China 30% 13% 29% 19% 10% 19% 17% 21%
Philippines 60% 21% 39% 43% 10% 54% 46% 53%
Asia 45% 17% 34% 31% 10% 36% 32% 37%
Nigeria 42% 11% 20% 20% 8% 23% 31% 45%
Kenya 39% 12% 29% 23% 4% 15% 32% 57%
Africa 41% 11% 24% 21% 6% 19% 32% 51%
Global 44% 16% 29% 28% 8% 18% 34% 37%

Summary Supervisor
Supervisor
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 58% 42% 6.42 7.75 6.76 7.68 6.30 7.59 6.19 7.49
Canada 62% 38% 7.19 7.52 7.59 7.56 7.12 7.29 6.97 6.89
Costa Rica 67% 33% 6.77 7.27 6.55 7.24 6.67 7.64 6.45 7.44
Honduras 52% 48% 6.67 6.93 6.91 7.16 6.80 7.14 6.65 6.96
Guatemala 67% 33% 7.06 8.99 7.42 9.33 7.23 9.48 7.40 8.14
North & Central America 59% 41% 6.72 7.89 7.03 8.06 6.77 8.07 6.74 7.53
Argentina 64% 36% 7.60 7.91 7.50 7.66 7.27 7.25 7.02 6.95
Brazil 75% 25% 6.53 6.69 7.25 7.39 6.97 6.85 6.76 6.54
Colombia 80% 20% 6.93 6.90 7.21 6.92 7.07 6.56 6.81 6.22
Chile 88% 12% 7.03 7.06 7.19 7.48 6.68 7.24 6.41 6.87
Ecuador 72% 28% 7.43 7.50 7.73 7.52 8.36 8.55 7.82 7.73
Peru 75% 25% 6.81 7.36 6.66 7.36 6.51 7.03 6.38 6.83
Venezuela 43% 57% 6.70 7.04 6.96 7.01 6.91 6.86 6.82 6.75
South America 71% 29% 7.00 7.21 7.21 7.33 7.11 7.19 6.86 6.84
Italy 84% 16% 5.86 5.81 5.29 5.58 5.53 5.10 5.04 4.60
Portugal 74% 26% 5.96 5.91 5.55 5.56 5.49 4.60 5.49 5.24
Spain 61% 39% 5.87 7.94 5.71 7.93 5.54 8.13 4.48 7.31
Europe 62% 38% 6.16 7.08 5.96 6.92 5.79 6.73 5.05 6.06
China 46% 54% 6.11 5.51 5.71 5.34 5.76 5.55 6.01 5.59
Philippines 65% 35% 7.12 7.55 6.99 7.39 7.52 7.56 7.14 7.21
Asia 56% 44% 6.61 6.53 6.35 6.36 6.64 6.55 6.58 6.40
Nigeria 70% 30% 6.52 6.45 5.88 6.17 6.82 6.95 5.89 6.41
Kenya 77% 23% 5.81 6.56 5.24 6.43 4.91 5.76 5.16 6.00
Africa 74% 26% 6.17 6.50 5.56 6.30 5.87 6.35 5.53 6.21
Global 64% 36% 6.53 7.04 6.42 6.99 6.44 6.98 6.15 6.61

Summary Culture
Organizational Culture (the higher the score, the more FR the culture is) Workload
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 4.26 4.15 6.48 6.49 7.12 37.32 6.07
Canada 2.90 2.78 6.99 7.59 7.71 2.66 1.34
Costa Rica 4.40 4.56 6.27 6.40 7.83 49.49 2.68
Honduras 4.11 4.05 5.82 6.10 5.98 3.77 1.73
Guatemala 4.50 4.51 6.26 7.74 7.19 45.21 5.13
North & Central America 4.29 4.24 6.19 6.77 6.76 28.77 4.31
Argentina 4.29 4.30 6.61 7.58 7.82 42.95 3.58
Brazil 4.73 4.73 6.24 6.94 7.54 49.13 5.67
Colombia 4.11 3.84 6.54 6.54 7.35 48.75 6.38
Chile 5.19 5.05 6.06 7.23 7.96 44.02 3.73
Ecuador 5.70 5.54 5.90 6.97 7.62 43.52 2.00
Peru 4.33 4.04 6.73 7.09 7.61 44.08 3.54
Venezuela 4.49 4.27 6.72 7.09 7.66 40.06 3.01
South America 4.69 4.54 6.40 7.06 7.65 44.64 3.99
Italy 4.74 4.65 4.87 5.90 6.25 41.02 6.10
Portugal 5.00 4.92 5.99 5.83 5.91 44.56 8.57
Spain 4.16 3.93 6.04 6.36 6.66 40.49 4.21
Europe 4.47 4.27 5.89 6.48 6.80 40.92 4.45
China 5.80 5.44 5.73 5.24 5.37 40.94 7.90
Philippines 4.39 3.75 6.72 6.91 6.85 39.60 9.52
Asia 5.10 4.60 6.23 6.08 6.11 40.27 8.71
Nigeria 4.67 3.99 6.09 6.27 6.50 45.88 5.67
Kenya 3.67 4.01 5.98 7.43 6.48 23.36 2.40
Africa 4.17 4.00 6.04 6.85 6.49 34.62 4.04
Global 4.54 4.33 6.15 6.65 6.76 37.84 5.10

Summary Individual Characteristics
Coping Strategies Segmentation/Integration Work Preferences Style
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 8.31 7.93 4.06 4.24 3.88 9.39 9.22 4.81 7.77
Canada 6.43 8.49 7.07 4.43 4.70 5.04 8.40 8.64 5.80 7.50
Costa Rica 8.88 8.77 7.35 4.42 2.83 2.34 8.33 9.07 8.28 6.89
Honduras #¡DIV/0! 8.75 7.82 4.10 3.59 3.00 9.17 9.19 6.58 8.01
Guatemala 7.37 8.99 7.37 4.24 3.24 3.24 9.24 9.18 5.66 6.75
North & Central America #¡DIV/0! 8.68 7.71 4.13 3.69 3.37 9.27 9.20 5.68 7.51
Argentina 5.13 8.59 7.91 4.04 2.91 4.07 9.09 8.77 6.05 7.27
Brazil 5.35 7.79 7.52 4.74 4.43 4.18 8.98 8.91 5.57 8.63
Colombia 6.47 8.34 7.55 4.16 3.89 4.50 9.34 8.96 4.57 8.20
Chile 6.88 8.35 7.42 4.26 3.68 5.17 9.34 9.00 4.92 8.17
Ecuador 6.91 9.31 7.93 4.25 2.86 2.79 8.86 9.37 8.28 7.93
Peru 6.01 8.25 7.55 4.27 3.32 4.20 9.04 8.96 5.01 7.74
Venezuela 6.40 8.47 7.61 4.38 3.22 3.35 8.79 8.64 5.57 7.35
South America 6.16 8.44 7.64 4.30 3.47 4.04 9.06 8.95 5.71 7.90
Italy 5.22 8.09 6.82 4.01 4.57 4.22 8.30 8.01 6.02 8.27
Portugal 5.81 7.91 6.73 4.96 5.48 5.64 8.73 8.96 4.81 7.64
Spain 4.87 8.04 7.64 4.20 3.82 3.62 8.57 8.55 5.84 7.64
Europe 5.09 8.23 7.55 4.41 4.31 4.15 8.60 8.68 5.45 7.87
China 5.20 6.75 6.46 5.87 5.29 5.57 6.80 7.67 6.76 6.49
Philippines 8.33 8.76 7.35 4.13 4.52 4.16 8.47 9.02 5.01 7.37
Asia 6.77 7.75 6.90 5.00 4.91 4.87 7.64 8.34 5.88 6.93
Nigeria 8.66 8.62 6.46 4.40 4.51 3.85 8.74 9.02 4.64 7.29
Kenya 7.42 7.87 6.56 4.80 3.86 4.93 8.86 9.07 5.48 6.48
Africa 8.04 8.25 6.51 4.60 4.18 4.39 8.80 9.05 5.06 6.88
Global #¡DIV/0! 8.27 7.26 4.49 4.11 4.16 8.67 8.84 5.56 7.42

Summary Impact on Results
Impact on Results
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 4.32 8.66 5.04 8.20 5.81 7.27 7.82 8.21 7.98 7.08
Canada 4.35 7.87 6.83 7.75 6.81 7.08 7.59 7.67 7.21 7.34
Costa Rica 5.56 7.83 6.28 6.75 5.80 5.22 8.25 8.65 8.15 7.74
Honduras 4.04 8.47 5.97 8.02 6.11 6.44 7.63 8.64 8.04 7.29
Guatemala 4.03 8.41 5.67 8.31 5.41 7.78 7.02 8.63 8.04 6.87
North & Central America 4.13 8.51 5.56 8.18 5.78 7.16 7.49 8.49 8.02 7.08
Argentina 4.59 8.40 5.70 7.58 5.86 6.92 7.64 7.85 7.16 6.83
Brazil 3.50 8.78 4.77 8.32 6.26 6.87 7.48 7.60 7.49 6.25
Colombia 3.99 8.67 4.75 8.46 5.63 7.25 7.83 7.83 7.33 6.78
Chile 4.50 8.75 5.03 8.02 5.93 7.32 8.36 8.02 7.44 7.12
Ecuador 5.11 8.32 7.42 7.69 6.55 7.84 8.06 8.99 8.70 7.57
Peru 5.21 8.36 4.76 7.66 5.93 6.99 7.59 7.89 7.40 6.73
Venezuela 4.76 8.07 5.20 7.57 5.31 6.60 8.07 7.71 7.26 6.90
South America 4.52 8.48 5.37 7.90 5.92 7.11 7.86 7.99 7.54 6.88
Italy 5.19 8.47 6.10 7.32 5.50 5.59 7.56 7.36 6.80 5.94
Portugal 5.83 8.40 6.56 7.00 6.10 6.95 7.26 7.29 7.24 6.44
Spain 4.74 8.03 5.77 7.37 5.98 6.00 7.67 6.95 6.36 6.36
Europe 4.75 8.33 5.83 7.53 6.06 6.38 7.61 7.24 6.81 6.39
China 6.76 6.44 6.12 6.00 5.62 5.58 5.37 6.95 6.76 5.91
Philippines 4.48 8.31 6.23 8.09 7.11 7.46 7.72 8.48 8.18 7.64
Asia 5.62 7.37 6.18 7.04 6.37 6.52 6.55 7.72 7.47 6.78
Nigeria 5.68 8.17 5.55 7.48 5.99 6.25 7.60 8.17 7.81 6.77
Kenya 5.78 7.80 6.21 7.09 5.79 6.00 7.36 7.86 7.38 6.36
Africa 5.73 7.98 5.88 7.28 5.89 6.12 7.48 8.01 7.60 6.56
Global 4.95 8.13 5.76 7.59 6.00 6.66 7.40 7.89 7.49 6.74

Summary Demographic Data 1
Demography
Participant
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 30% 70% 40 68% 1.38 4.67
Costa Rica 38% 62% 33 85% 1.49 3.60
Guatemala 41% 59% 33 54% 1.00 5.30
North & Central America 36% 64% 35 69% 1.29 4.53
Argentina 48% 52% 36 47% 1.20 5.67
Brazil 55% 45% 38 68% 1.22 2.71
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% 0.66 2.67
Venezuela 34% 66% 33 63% 0.80 4.05
South America 61% 39% 36 59% 1.32 3.60
Italy 76% 24% 43 57% 1.25 5.15
Portugal 67% 33% 37 64% 1.14 1.96
Spain 54% 46% 39 41% 96% 461%
Europe 53% 47% 38 53% 0.97 4.43
China 30% 70% 28 44% 0.24 4.89
Philippines 51% 49% 39 58% 2.02 4.65
Asia 41% 59% 33 51% 1.13 4.77
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 49% 51% 36 56% 1.27 3.94

Summary Demographic Data 2
Demography
Participant
Male Female Age
Participants with
management
responsibility
Number of children
Number of dinners with
children last week
Mexico 31% 69% 40 67% 1.39 4.64
Canada 33% 67% 42% 1.42 2.08
Costa Rica 38% 62% 33 85% 1.49 3.60
Honduras 45% 55% 31% 0.87 2.22
Guatemala 41% 59% 33 54% 1.00 5.30
North & Central America 39% 61% 36 51% 1.09 4.05
Argentina 48% 52% 36 47% 1.20 5.67
Brazil 55% 45% 38 68% 1.22 2.71
Colombia 70% 30% 37 85% 1.10 3.63
Chile 82% 18% 42 85% 2.77 3.64
Ecuador 73% 27% 32 33% 1.49 2.81
Peru 66% 34% 34 34% 0.66 2.65
Venezuela 34% 66% 33 63% 0.80 4.05
South America 61% 39% 36 59% 1.32 3.59
Italy 75% 25% 43 57% 1.25 5.11
Portugal 65% 35% 37 65% 1.16 1.88
Spain 54% 46% 39 41% 96% 461%
Europe 53% 47% 38 53% 0.97 4.41
China 30% 70% 28 44% 0.24 4.89
Philippines 51% 49% 39 58% 2.01 4.65
Asia 41% 59% 33 51% 1.13 4.77
Nigeria 51% 49% 37 62% 1.69 3.14
Kenya 54% 46% 35 39% 1.68 2.00
Africa 52% 48% 36 50% 1.68 2.57
Global 49% 51% 36 53% 1.24 3.88

Partners (I/II)
IAE
Universidad Austral
Argentina
Work & Family
Foundation
Canada
Universidad de la
Sabana
Colombia
Universidad de los
Andes
Chile
Instituto Superior
de Empresa
Brazil
La Empresa y la
Familia
Costa Rica
Instituto de
Desarrollo
Empresarial
Ecuador
ELIS
Italy
Universidad
del Istmo
Guatemala
Fundación
Emprepas
El Salvador
University of
Macau
China
Politecnico Milan
Italy

Partners (II/II)
Strathmore
Business School
Kenya
Eramus University
Rotterdam
Netherlands
Lagos
Business School
Nigeria
The University of
Waikato
New Zealand
Universidad
Pan-Americana
Mexico
Escuela de Dirección
Universidad de Piura
Peru
Escola de
Direcção e Negócios
Portugal
Universidad
Monteávila
Venezuela
University of Asia
and the Pacific
Philippines

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

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

IESE
Family-Responsible environment (FRe) Index for the World
Benchmark with the Philippines
Prof. Nuria Chinchilla
Prof. Mireia Las Heras

Ifrei Canada 2011

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Ifrei Canada 2011

Similar to Ifrei Canada 2011 (20)

More from Mireia Las Heras

More from Mireia Las Heras (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ifrei Canada 2011

Editor's Notes