Ifrei Nigeria 2011

©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 1
IESE
Family-Responsible environment(FRe) Index
for theWorld and Nigeria
Prof. Nuria Chinchilla
Prof. Mireia Las Heras

©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011 Page 2©IESE Business School -Barcelona -2011
In collaboration with:
LagosBusinessSchool
Nigeria

The Corporate Sponsors of the International Center for Work and Family

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.

Overall Model for the Study
The Country
Legislation
Culture and
values
TheIndividual
Individual characteristics
Responsibility and role at
home
Policies
Work Environment
Supervisor
Culture
YourFREnvironment Organizational Individual
Impact on Results

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

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

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

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

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

IFREI study in Nigeria
With children
Without children
With children
Without children
76%
24%
50%
50%
75%
25%
33%
67%
Women: 149/ 49%
Womenwith children:
64%
Womenwithout children:
36%
Men: 153/ 51%
Menwith children:61% Menwithout children: 39%
Womenwithout management
responsibility:45%
Menwith managementresponsibility:
68%
Menwithout managementresponsibility:
32%
Womenwith managementresponsibility:
55%

BC
AD
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
hinders work-family balance
systematically hinders work-family balance
10%
29%49%
12%

BC
AD
Employees’ Perception of their Work Environment
 5% perceive that their environment systematically
hinders work-family balance
systematically hinders work-family balance
5%
22%59%
15%

Family-Responsible Environment:
Policies

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

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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)

FR Policies:
Time Flexibility
MenNationwide
MenWorldwide
WomenWorldwide
WomenNationwide
14%
25%
33%
6%
15%
23%24% 25%
29%
13%
16%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Part-timework Compressed work week Jobsharing

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

FR Policies:
Time and Location Flexibility
MenNationwide
MenWorldwide
WomenWorldwide
WomenNationwide
36%
60%
25%
43%
32%
58%
21%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Flexible work hours Tele-commuting

FR Policies:
Family Support
The graph“FR Policies: Family Support”refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire:
 Childcare center at the workplace
 Financial help for the care ofa child or adependent
 Leave ofabsence to take care ofa family member

FR Policies:
Family Support
6%
20%
40%
5%
35%
54%
13%
22%
44%
12%
22%
53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Childcare center at work Subsidy for childcare Permission to leavedueto a
family emergency
MenNationwide
MenWorldwide WomenWorldwide
WomenNationwide

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:
 Maternity leave beyond the legal minimum
 Paternity leave beyond the legal minimum

FR Policies:
Maternity and Paternity Leave beyond the Legal Minimum
Maternity Leave
Beyond the Legal Minimum
Paternity Leave
Beyond the Legal Minimum
MenNationwide
MenWorldwide
WomenWorldwide
WomenNationwide
22%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Paternity leave
25%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Maternityleave

FR Policies:
Information
The graph“FR Policies: Information” refers tothe following questions in the questionnaire:
 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

FR Policies:
Information
50%
19%
37% 37%
48%
14%
40%
50%48%
21%
38%
35%
50%
14%
34%
52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Professional andpersonal
counseling
Referralsfor daycare/
schools& elder care
services
Accessto information
about work-life balance
Seminars& workshops on
work-life balance
MenNationwide
MenWorldwide WomenWorldwide
WomenNationwide

Supervisor

FR Supervisor
Impact on Results
1. Intention to leave
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
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. FamilySupport
3. Information

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.

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

FR Supervisor:
Supervisors Showing Excellent Emotional Support
Global National
Women
Men
31%
35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
27% 27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

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 National
29%
27%35%
25%30%
41%36%
31%

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

FR Supervisor:
Supervisors Showing Excellent Instrumental Support
Global National
Women
Men
31% 32%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
44% 44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

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)
Global National
40%
50%45%
45%
31%
37%35%
31%

FR Supervisor:
Supervisor’s Policy Management
The graphs “FR Supervisor: Supervisor’s Policy Management” refer tothe following question in the questionnaire:
 Mysupervisor asks forsuggestions tomake it easier foremployees tobalance work and non-work demands

FR Supervisor:
Supervisors Showing Excellent Policy Management
Global National
Women
Men
41%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
43% 44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

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)
Global National
29%
27%35%
25%
39%
51%46%
44%

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

FR Supervisor:
Supervisors Who are Perceived as Excellent Role Models
Global National
Women
Men
31%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
38%
42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

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)
Global National
35%
44%30%
31%37%
46%39%
37%

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. FamilySupport
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
1. Intention to Leave
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
Support
1. Overall Health
2. Family↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family Balance

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.

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.

Co-Workers Who Respect Extended Maternity or Paternity Leave
Global National
The 1-2 signifies that co-workers arenot bothered by extended leaves. Therefore, it is an FR culture.
Women
Men
37% 38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-71-2
42% 42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-71-2

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

Negative Consequences for the Career due to FR Behavior
Global National
The 1-2 signifies that there areno negative consequences. Therefore, it is an FR culture.
Women
Men
14%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
18%
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7 1-21-2

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

FR Expectations regarding Workload and Working Hours
Global National
The1-2signifiesthattherearenoexpectationsregardingworkloadandhours.Therefore,itisanFRculture.
Women
Men
38% 36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
49%
51%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7 1-21-2

Individual Characteristics: Coping
Strategies

Coping Strategies
A. Coping
Strategies
Impact on Results
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
Support
1. Overall Health
2. Family↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family Balance
A. FR Policies
2. FamilySupport
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
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

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

Coping Strategies:
Do not plan my workload Plan myworkload
WomenWorldwide
MenWorldwide
1%
43%
55%
1%
36%
63%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2 3-5 6-7

Coping Strategies:
Do not plan my workload Plan myworkload
WomenNationwide
MenNationwide
2%
34%
64%
1%
29%
70%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2 3-5 6-7

Coping Strategies:
Seeking Social Support
The graph“CopingStrategies: Seeking Social Support” refers to the following questions in the questionnaire:
 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

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%

Individual Characteristics:
Preferencesfor Integrationor
Segmentation

Preferences for Integration or Segmentation
B. Integration/
Segmentation
Preferences
Impact on Results
2. Loyalty
3. Commitment
Support
1. Overall Health
2. Family↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family Balance
A. FR Policies
2. FamilySupport
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 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.

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

It is acceptable to work at home
Global National
Women
Men
4% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
4% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

It is unacceptable to work at home
Global National
Women
Men
60%
63%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2
37%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2

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

It is acceptable to bring family issues to work
Global National
Women
Men
4% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
6% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

It is unacceptable to bring family issues to work
Global National
Women
Men
52%
62%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2
50%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2

Individual Characteristics: 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
Support
1. Overall Health
2. Family↔ Work
Enrichment
Work/Family Balance
A. FR Policies
2. FamilySupport
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 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.

Work Preferences:
Preference for Growth Opportunities
The graph“Work Preferences: Preference forGrowth Opportunities” refers tothe following questions in thequestionnaire:
 Ilike challenging jobs
 Idonotlike repetitive jobs, without a lot ofdecision making ormajorchallenges (reverse)
 Iprefer assignments that contribute tomy professional experience

Work Preferences:
Strong Preference for Growth Opportunities
Global National
Women
Men
74%
66%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
73% 71%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

Work Preferences:
Preference for Opportunities to Contribute
The graph“Work Preferences: Preference forOpportunities toContribute” refers tothe following questions in thequestionnaire:
 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

Work Preferences:
Strong Preference for Opportunities to Contribute
Global National
Women
Men
76%
83%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
69%
75%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

Individual Characteristics:
TransitionStyles

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

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.

Transition Styles
The graphs “Transition Styles” refer exclusively tothe anticipatory style andaremeasured through the following questions in the
questionnaire:
 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

Transition Styles:
I think of work before arriving there
Global National
Women
Men
42% 43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
56%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

Transition Styles:
I do not think of work before arriving there
Global National
Women
Men
11%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2
7% 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2

Impact on Organizational
Results

Impact on Organizational Results
A. FR Policies
2. FamilySupport
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 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

The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Intention toLeave the Company”refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire:
 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

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

Intention toleave
No intention toleave
2,5
3,3
4,3
4,7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AD C B
5%15% 59% 22%

Loyalty
The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Loyalty” refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire:
 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

Participants who demonstrate loyalty
Global National
Women
Men
16%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
19%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

Participants who do not demonstrate loyalty
Global National
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
2% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2

Perceived Organizational Support
The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Perceived OrganizationalSupport” refer tothe following questions in thequestionnaire:
 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

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%

Perceived Organizational Support Depending on the Environment
Manager
Non-Manager
6,3
5,1
3,9
2,5
5,45,4
4,3
3,4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ABCD AD C B
5%15% 59% 22%

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.

Lack of Alternatives Commitment
The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Lack ofAlternatives Commitment” refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire:
 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

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

High Commitment
Low Commitment
3,83,83,9
4,2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AD C B
5%15% 59% 22%

Professional Development Commitment
The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Professional Development Commitment” refer tothe following questions in the
questionnaire:
 Working in this organizationoffers me opportunities tolearn and grown professionally
 Ireallylike working for this organization
 Mywork in this organizationis notespecially attractive

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

High Commitment
Low Commitment
6,2
5,8
5,0
4,5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AD C B
5%15% 59% 22%

Emotional Commitment
The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Emotional Commitment” refer tothe following questions in thequestionnaire:
 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

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

High Commitment
Low Commitment
4,8
4,6
4,0
3,8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AD C B
5%15% 59% 22%

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. FamilySupport
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 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

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?

Overall Health:
Excellent Overall Health
Global National
Women
Men
57%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
56%
51%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

Overall Health:
Poor Overall Health
Global National
Women
Men
7% 6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2
2% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2

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.

Family → Work Enrichment
The graphs “Impact on Individual Results: Family → Work Enrichment” refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire:
 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

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

Low Commitment
High Commitment
FemaleManager
FemaleNon-Manager
MaleManager
MaleNon-Manager
5,4
6,3
5,3
5,8
6,06,2
5,6
4,7
6,7
6,05,95,8
6,3
6,1
5,8
5,6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ABCD

Perception of Family → Work Enrichment
Global National
Women
Men
47%
53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
52%
56%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

No Perception of Family → Work Enrichment
Global National
Women
Men
5% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2
4% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2

Work → Family Enrichment
The graphs “Impact on Individual Results: Work → Family Enrichment” refer tothe following questions in the questionnaire:
 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

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

Low Commitment
High Commitment
FemaleManager
FemaleNon-Manager
MaleManager
MaleNon-Manager
4,9
6,2
5,4
6,1
5,35,45,5
5,2 5,2
5,4
5,7
5,2
5,85,65,5
4,9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ABCD

Perception of Work → Family Enrichment
Global National
Women
Men
44% 42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
37%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

No Perception of Work → Family Enrichment
Global National
Women
Men
6% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2
3% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2

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.

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

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

Low Commitment
High Commitment
FemaleManager
FemaleNon-Manager
MaleManager
MaleNon-Manager
6,0
5,8
4,4
5,5
5,2
5,4
4,9
4,3
5,9
5,2
4,6
3,8
4,3
5,2
4,3
4,5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ABCD

High Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance
Global National
Women
Men
27% 28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7
27%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6-7

Low Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance
Global National
Women
Men
9%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2
10% 11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-2

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

Summary (II/VIII)
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

Summary (III/VIII)
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

Summary (IV/VIII)
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

Summary (V/VIII)
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 8,34 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

Summary (VI/VIII)
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
Impact on Results

Summary (VII/VIII)
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

Summary (VIII/VIII)
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

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

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

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

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 theWorld and Nigeria
Prof. Nuria Chinchilla
Prof. Mireia Las Heras

Ifrei Nigeria 2011

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Ifrei Nigeria 2011

Similar to Ifrei Nigeria 2011 (20)

More from Mireia Las Heras

More from Mireia Las Heras (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ifrei Nigeria 2011

Editor's Notes