Ifrei Philippines 2011

© IESE Business School - Barcelona - 2011 Page 1

IESE Family-Responsible environment (FRe) Indexfor the World and the Philippines

Prof. Nuria Chinchilla

Prof. Mireia Las Heras

© IESE Business School - Barcelona - 2011 Page 2© IESE Business School - Barcelona - 2011

In collaboration with:

University of Asia and the PacificPhilippines


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

LegislationCulture and

values

The Individual

Individual characteristicsResponsibility and role at

home

Policies

Work Environment

Supervisor

Culture

Your FR Environment Organizational Individual

Impact on Results


Model FRe (Family-Responsible environment)

EnriquecedoraContaminante

BC

AD

EnrichingContaminating

BC

AD

Disc

reci

onal

Syst

emat

ic

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. Flexibility with Time and Space2. Family Support3. Information4. Maternity/Paternity Leave

C. FR Culture

B. FR Supervisor

1. Emotional Support2. Instrumental Support3. Policy Management4. Role Model

Impact on Results

1. Intention to Leave

2. Loyalty

3. Commitment

4. Perceived Organizational Support

Organizational Individual

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 22 countries

Nueva

Zelanda

SOUTH AMERICA

Argentina

Brazil

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Venezuela

NORTH AND

CENTRAL AMERICA

Canada

Costa Rica

El Salvador

Guatemala

MexicoAFRICA

Kenya

Nigeria

ASIAChina

Philippines

EUROPEGermany

ItalyNetherlands

PortugalSpain

AUSTRALIA

New Zealand

Methodology: quantitativeInstrument: structured questionnaires

Period: 2010-2011


Worldwide IFREI Study Until Today (May 2011)

SOUTH AMERICA

3637 participants

58%

NORTH AND

CENTRAL AMERICA

386 participants

6%

AFRICA

402 participants

7%

ASIA

499 participants

8%

EUROPE

1275 participants

21%

Total Participants: 5449


Participation in the Worldwide IFREI Study

Women: 2161 / 40%

Women with children: 54%

Women without children: 46%

Men: 3288 / 60%

Men with children: 66% Men without children: 34%

Women without management responsibility: 48%

Men with management responsibility: 61%

Men without management responsibility: 39%

Women with management responsibility: 52%

60%

40%

49%

51%

71%

29%

60%

40%With childrenWithout children

With children

Without children


IFREI study in the Philippines

With childrenWithout children

With children

Without children

Women: 205 / 48%

Women with children: 52%

Women without children: 48%

Men: 219 / 52%

Men with children: 64% Men without children: 36%

Women without management responsibility: 49%

Men with management responsibility: 58%

Men without management responsibility: 42%

Women with management responsibility: 51%

57%

43%

45%

55%

62%

38%

66%

34%



BC

AD


Disc

reci

onal

Syst

emat

icEmployees’ Perception of their Work Environment

10% perceive that their environment systematically facilitates work-family balance

29% perceive that their environment occasionally facilitates work-family balance

49% perceive that their environment occasionally hinders work-family balance

12% perceive that their environment systematically hinders work-family balance

10%

29%49%

12%



BC

AD


Disc

reci

onal

Syst

emat

icEmployees’ Perception of their Work Environment

9% perceive that their environment systematically facilitates work-family balance

23% perceive that their environment occasionally facilitates work-family balance

40% perceive that their environment occasionally hinders work-family balance

28% perceive that their environment systematically hinders work-family balance

9%

23%40%

28%


Family-Responsible Environment: Policies


FR Policies

A. FR Policies

1. Time and Location Flexibility2. Family Support3. Information4. Maternity/Paternity Leave

C. FR Culture

B. FR Supervisor

Impact on Results

1. Intention to leave

2. Loyalty

3. Commitment



FR Environment

1. Overall Health






C. Work Preferences

D. Transition Styles



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 companyWorking 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

Men Nationwide

Men Worldwide

Women Worldwide

Women Nationwide

14%

25%

33%

18%

34%

41%

24% 25%29%

17%

45%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Part-time work Compressed work week Job sharing


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

Men Nationwide

Men Worldwide

Women Worldwide

Women Nationwide

36%

60%

44%

71%

32%

58%

43%

71%

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 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

Men Nationwide

Men Worldwide Women Worldwide

Women Nationwide

6%

20%

40%

7%

52%

13%

22%

44%

15%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Childcare center at work Subsidy for childcare Permission to leave due to a

family emergency


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

Maternity Leave

Beyond the Legal MinimumPaternity Leave

Beyond the Legal Minimum

Men Nationwide

Men Worldwide

Women Worldwide

Women Nationwide

25%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Maternity leave

22%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

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

Men Nationwide

Men Worldwide Women Worldwide

Women Nationwide

50%

19%

37% 37%

62%

25%

46%50%48%

21%

38%35%

62%

17%

45%

51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Professional and personal

counseling

Referrals for daycare/

schools & elder care

services

Access to information

about work-life balance

Seminars & workshops on

work-life balance


Family-Responsible Environment: Supervisor


FR Supervisor

Impact on Results

1. Intention to leave

2. Loyalty

3. Commitment



1. Overall Health






C. Work Preferences


B. FR Supervisor


FR Environment

C. FR Culture

A. FR Policies



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 lifeMy supervisor takes the time to learn about my personal needsMy supervisor makes me feel comfortable talking to him or her about my conflicts between work and non-workMy supervisor and I can talk effectively to solve conflicts between work and non-work issues


FR Supervisor: Supervisors Showing Excellent Emotional Support

Global NationalWomen

Men

31%35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

33% 35%

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 graphic shows 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)

Mal

e M

anag

erFe

mal

e Man

ager

Female Non-ManagerMale Non-Manager

Global National


30%

41%36%

31% 38%

33%45%

30%


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


Men

44% 44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

47% 48%

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 of employees who receive excellent instrumental support from their supervisor. (score of 6-7 on a scale of 1-7, 7 being excellent)

Mal

e M

anag

erFe

mal

eMan

ager


Global National


40%

50%45%

45%46%

46%55%

43%


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


Men

43% 44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

53%57%

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 of employees who receive excellent policy management support from their supervisor. (score of 6-7 on a scale of 1-7, 7 being excellent)

Mal

e M

anag

erFe

mal

eMan

ager


Global National


55%

54%57%

52%39%

51%46%

44%


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


Men

38%42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

48%52%

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 of employees who perceive their supervisor as an excellent role model. (score of 6-7 on a scale of 1-7, 7 being excellent)

Mal

e M

anag

erFe

mal

eMan

ager


Global National


37%

46%39%

37% 48%

54%54%

45%


Family-Responsible Environment: Organizational Culture

A. FR Policies

1.Time and Location Flexibility

2.Family Support

3.Information

4.Maternity/Paternity Leave

B. FR Supervisor

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. FR Culture

FR Environment 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


B. FR Supervisor





C. Work Preferences


C. FR Culture

FR Environment Impact on Results


2. Loyalty

3. Commitment



1. Overall Health




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 culture.


FR Organizational Culture: Co-Workers Who Respect Extended Maternity or Paternity Leave

Global National

The 1-2 signifies that co-workers are not bothered by extended leaves. Therefore, it is an FR culture.

Women

Men

42% 42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-71-2

33%

49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-71-2


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

Global National

The 1-2 signifies that there are no negative consequences. Therefore, it is an FR culture.

Women

Men

18%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-71-2

17%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-71-2


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

Global National

The 1-2 signifies that there are no expectations regarding workload and hours. Therefore, it is an FR culture.

Women

Men

49%51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-71-2

30%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-71-2


Individual Characteristics: Coping Strategies


Coping Strategies



Impact on Results


2. Loyalty

3. Commitment



1. Overall Health



A. FR Policies


C. FR Culture

B. FR Supervisor


FR Environment


C. Work Preferences



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



Do not plan my workload Plan my workload

Women Worldwide

Men Worldwide

1%

43%

55%

1%

36%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2 3-5 6-7



Do not plan my workload Plan my workload

1%

35%

64%

0%

31%

70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2 3-5 6-7

Women Nationwide

Men Nationwide


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 itMy family helps me if I have a problem


Coping Strategies: Seeking Social Support

Without Children With Children

Female Managers

Female Non-Managers

Male Managers

Male Non-Managers

39%39% 37%40%

25%

31%

19%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Individual Characteristics: Preferences for Integration or

Segmentation


Preferences for Integration or Segmentation



Impact on Results


2. Loyalty

3. Commitment



1. Overall Health



A. FR Policies


C. FR Culture

B. FR Supervisor


FR Environment


C. Work Preferences



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


Men

4% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

5% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7


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


Men

60%63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2

44%

55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2


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 following questions in the questionnaire:

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


Men

6% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

9%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7


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


Men

50%

57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2

40%

59%

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. FR Policies

1.Time and Location Flexibility

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

FR Environment

A. Coping

Strategies

B. Integration/

Segmentation

Preferences

D. Transition

Styles


Work Preferences


C. Work Preferences

Impact on Results


2. Loyalty

3. Commitment



1. Overall Health



A. FR Policies


C. FR Culture

B. FR Supervisor


FR Environment





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


Men

73% 71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

60% 59%

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 for Opportunities to Contribute” refers to the following questions in the questionnaire:


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 othersWhat 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


Men

69%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

71%

77%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7


Individual Characteristics: Transition Styles


Transition Styles



Impact on Results


2. Loyalty

3. Commitment



1. Overall Health



A. FR Policies


C. FR Culture

B. FR Supervisor


FR Environment



C. Work Preferences


Transition Styles

Transition styles describe the way in which individuals make the mental switch from one environment to the next (“being at home” to “being at work” and vice versa). They cross physical and psychological boundaries.

There are three 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 of destination starts upon arrival there.

Lagged: the concern with the newly entered domain does not start until the individual has been physically present there for a period of time.


Transition Styles

The graphs “Transition Styles” refer exclusively to the anticipatory style and are measured through the following questions in the questionnaire:


I tend to start thinking about work issues when I go to my workplaceWhen I get to work, I have already been thinking about work-related issues that are waiting for me


Transition Styles:I think of work before arriving there


Men

56%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

37%42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7


Transition Styles: I do not think of work before arriving there


Men

7% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2

2%7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2


Impact on Organizational Results


Impact on Organizational Results

A. FR Policies


C. FR Culture

B. FR Supervisor


FR Environment




C. Work Preferences


Impact on Results


2. Loyalty

3. Commitment

4. Perception of Organizational Support


1. Overall Health




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 expertiseDeteriorated 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 questions in the questionnaire:


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



Intention to leave

No intention to leave

The more FR the environment is, less is the intention of the employee to leave.

AD C B

10%12% 49% 29%

2,2

2,8

3,6

4,6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7



Intention to leave

No intention to leave

AD C B

9%28% 40% 23%

2,0

2,93,2

3,8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Impact on Organizational Results: Loyalty

The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Loyalty” refer 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


Men

19%15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

24% 22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7


Impact on Organizational Results: Participants who do not demonstrate loyalty


Men

0,5% 0,4%0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

1-2

0% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2


Impact on Organizational Results: Perceived Organizational Support

The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Perceived Organizational Support” refer to the following questions in the questionnaire:


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

Manager

Non-Manager5,9

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%


Impact on Organizational Results: Perceived Organizational Support Depending on the Environment

Manager

Non-Manager

6,2

5,7

5,3

4,8

6,0

5,65,3

5,0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ABCD AD C B

9%28% 40% 23%


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 following questions in the questionnaire:


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



High Commitment

Low Commitment

The higher the commitment due to a lack of alternatives, the worse the quality of the relationship of the individual with thecompany.

AD C B

10%12% 49% 29%

3,73,9

4,14,3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7



High Commitment

Low Commitment

AD C B

9%28% 40% 23%

3,9

4,54,44,5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Impact on Organizational Results: Professional Development Commitment

The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Professional Development Commitment” refer to the following questions in the questionnaire:


Working in this organization offers me opportunities to learn and grown professionally I really like working for this organizationMy work in this organization is not especially attractive



The more FR the professional environment is, the more positively the person views the possibilities of professional growth and better values the organization itself.

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

AD C B

9%28% 40% 23%

6,3

5,85,75,4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Impact on Organizational Results: Emotional Commitment

The graphs “Impact on Organizational Results: Emotional Commitment” refer to the following questions in the questionnaire:


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



The more FR the professional environment, the higher the emotional commitment.

High Commitment

Low Commitment

AD C B

10%12% 49% 29%

4,64,4

4,13,8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7



High Commitment

Low Commitment

AD C B

9%28% 40% 23%

5,25,15,04,9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Impact on Individual Results


Impact on Individual Results

Impact on Results


2. Loyalty

3. Commitment

4. Perception of Organizational Support


1. Overall Health



A. FR Policies


C. FR Culture

B. FR Supervisor


FR Environment




C. Work Preferences



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 illnessDecreased 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?


Overall Health:Excellent Overall Health


Men

56%51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

51% 50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7


Overall Health:Poor Overall Health


Men

2% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2

1% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2


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 andvice 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 questions in the questionnaire:


Fulfilling my family responsibilities has enriched the interpersonal skills I need to succeed at workOvercoming 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



Family →Work Enrichment

Female Manager

Female Non-Manager

Male Manager

Male Non-Manager

Low Commitment

High Commitment

5,85,75,5

5,3

6,1

5,65,3

5,1

5,95,95,5

5,3

6,05,75,6

5,3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ABCD



Family →Work Enrichment

Low Commitment

High Commitment

Female Manager

Female Non-Manager

Male Manager

Male Non-Manager

6,15,8

5,75,8

6,5

6,05,85,9

6,8

6,06,05,6

6,36,46,16,1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ABCD



Perception of Family →Work Enrichment


Men

47%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

59% 61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7



No Perception of Family →Work Enrichment


Men

4% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2

1% 0%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 to the following questions in the questionnaire:


Fulfilling my work responsibilities has enriched the interpersonal skills I need to succeed at homeOvercoming 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



Work → Family Enrichment

Female Manager

Female Non-Manager

Male Manager

Male Non-Manager

Low Commitment

High Commitment

5,55,45,3

4,7

5,8

5,35,0

4,8

5,65,55,1

4,9

5,75,45,2

4,6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ABCD



Work → Family Enrichment

Low Commitment

High Commitment

Female Manager

Female Non-Manager

Male Manager

Male Non-Manager

5,0

5,6

5,15,4

6,35,95,85,8

6,7

5,95,75,4

6,46,2

5,95,8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ABCD



Perception of Work→ Family Enrichment


Men

37%41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

53%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7



No Perception of Work→ Family Enrichment


Men

6% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2

2% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2


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 following questions in the questionnaire:

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 togetherMy 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



Female Manager

Female Non-Manager

Male Manager

Male Non-Manager

Low Commitment

High Commitment

5,7

5,2

4,74,3

5,6

5,1

4,7

4,1

5,55,3

4,6

3,9

5,55,1

4,6

3,9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ABCD



Low Commitment

High Commitment

Female Manager

Female Non-Manager

Male Manager

Male Non-Manager

5,95,6

5,35,0

6,0

5,45,55,1

6,4

5,7

5,2

4,8

5,95,85,6

4,7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ABCD


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


Men

27%29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7

39%

44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6-7


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


Men

10% 11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-2

5% 4%

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

ParticipantsFlexible 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 relativeFlexible 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 workSubsidy 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




ReligionPlanning 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 childrenNumber 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 4No 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

sa lary

Monthly sa lary:

level 1

Monthly sa lary:

level 2

Monthly sa lary:

level 3

Monthly sa lary:

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 & Centra l 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

Brazi l 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

Chi le 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

Ita ly 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$

Phi l ippines 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

As ia

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 Universidad Austral

Argentina

Work & Family FoundationCanada

Universidad de la SabanaColombia

Universidad de los AndesChile

Instituto Superior de Empresa

Brazil

La Empresa y la FamiliaCosta Rica

Instituto de DesarrolloEmpresarial

Ecuador ELISItaly

Universidad del Istmo

GuatemalaFundación Emprepas

El Salvador

University of MacauChina

Politecnico MilanItaly


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

PortugalEdenred

Spain

Universidad MonteávilaVenezuela

University of Asia and the PacificPhilippines


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

ChinaZenon 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 RicaAna 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

GuatemalaHugo D. Cruz Rivas Executive Director of the Center of Research in Humanism and Business Istmo University

HondurasCarmen 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

NetherlandsLaura den Dulk Assistant Professor Public Administration, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus

University Rotterdam

New ZealandKirstie 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)

PeruDepartment 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) Indexfor the World and the Philippines

Prof. Nuria Chinchilla

Prof. Mireia Las Heras

Presentations & Public Speaking

Ifrei Philippines 2011