1. Introduction “Family caregiver” is the term generally applied to unpaid family and friends who are assisting a person who needs help with routine activities. As our population ages and people survive longer with chronic health conditions, the person receiving the help is increasingly likely to be an older adult. In many cases, their adult children are serving as caregivers (36% of caregivers assist a parent [1] and are often (41%) [2] also raising their own children. “Sandwich generation” describes these caregivers – sandwiched between providing assistance to people in both the older and the younger generations. This commentary will explore the challenges and suggest options for sandwich generation caregivers who are also employed, a population at risk due to multiple life demands. Seventy-three percent of caregivers indicate that they were employed at some time while they were caregiving [1]. Nearly six in ten of those who were caregivers in the past 12 months are currently employed, and most work full time [1]. As of 2011, 7% of employed men and women (about 9.8 million people out of 139.3 million employed persons) are caring for both their children and their aging parents [3]. These numbers will continue to increase as people have children later, life expectancy gets longer, and the average age of our population increases. 2. The sandwich generation population Most family caregivers face stressors at points in their caregiving careers: emotional (guilt, depression, isolation), changes in relationships, physical issues (fatigue, caregiver health issues, physical capacity to provide needed help), environmental challenges, time constraints (amount and type of care needed, travel time), and competing demands (home, family, social). Sandwich generation employees also face challenges in balancing work, eldercare, parenting, spousal relationships, and other life demands. 1051-9815/14/$35.00 c 2014 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved 492 A. O’Sullivan / Pulled from all sides: The sandwich generation at work Many sandwich generation employees say they are stressed about their caregiving responsibilities and, at the same time, are worried about how their caregiving is impacting their jobs [4]. Among younger Baby Boomers, more than half said they have missed work or left early in the last six months due to caregiving responsibilities. Many took paid vacation time to care for another person, which means “they are using their paid time off as an extension of their hectic lives rather than a vacation [4].” Being a working member of the sandwich generation is the source of compounded concerns about daily finances, saving for retirement, home ownership, paying college costs, and availability of family time [5]. Sandwiched employees spend as much time on their work responsibilities as people who are not family caregivers [3], and, in addition, provide an average of 10 hours a week in unpaid care [6]. Studies have confirmed that caregiving employees who are juggling these multiple demands can cost US businesses as much as $34 billion each year. This includes the cost to employers of absenteeism, workplace disruptions, and reduced work status [7]. In tandem with the issue of absenteeism can be “presenteeism” – the employee is at work, but preoccupied with family or other concerns. Should caregivers choose to leave their jobs, in addition to the cost of replacing employees, businesses stand to lose the value of the expertise, experience, and institutional memory that sandwich generation workers bring to the table. Should caregivers choose to continue working, it may become more difficult for them to provide the assistance needed by the care recipient. Clearly, there is a lot at stake on all sides. 3. Strategies for sandwich generation employees Employer response to the eldercare needs of their employees can reduce costs and improve retention [7]. In the 1970’s, many employers moved towards offering childcare-related benefits to working parents, recognizing it as a way to reduce turnover and absenteeism. This thinking can now be applied to elder caregiving employees, particularly those in the sandwich generation. A MetLife study showed that benefits are an important mechanism, often underrated by employers, to support business goals of employee attraction, retention and productivity. Employees who are satisfied with their benefits are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs [8]. While additional employer-paid eldercare benefits can be put into place, many workplaces may have benefits currently available that could be helpful to sandwich generation or other family caregivers, if employees and supervisors are aware of them or if adjustments are made in how they are delivered. – Employee assistance programs (EAPs) can help caregivers identify caregiving supports and resources and manage stress. – Flexible scheduling, compressed work schedules, and telecommuting options [7] all help workers to balance responsibilities. This author worked full time, 10 hours a day, 4 days a week, for 9 years, to allow one full day to be spent with her elderly mother and still have weekend time with her husband and children, which contributed greatly to the sustainability of the situation. – Paid time off can be offered as “earned time”, with no distinction made between sick and vacation time. – Employees can be allowed to use sick time for caregiving for any family member, including older adults and children. – Pre-tax dependent care benefits can be applied to eldercare. – Group discounts can be negotiated for long term care insurance, to include family members. – Employers may have existing benefits for employees who are raising children which can be helpful to sandwich generation caregivers if they are made aware of them. Other low/no cost options that an eldercare-friendly workplace might offer could include. – Maintaining resource information on eldercare, even things as simple as brochures for the local Agency on Aging, through the human resources department. – Offering employee lunch and learns on topics related to eldercare, resources, and life balance. – Including eldercare resources in employee health and wellness fairs. – Allowing the use of phone/internet during breaks and lunches to communicate regarding child and elder care. It is important that employees understand that this is acceptable, and also know what expectations and limits might exist. – Making caregiver support groups available on site during non-work hours, or giving information about support off site. (Depending on the workplace climate, employees may feel more or less “safe” in accessing support at their place of work.) A. O’Sullivan / Pulled from all sides: The sandwich generation at work 493 Additional research has shown that caregiving employees cost employers more for healthcare, largely related to issues of stress-related medical conditions, non-pursuit of preventive care (often due to time pressures), delayed treatment, and health risk behaviors [7]. Addressing the root causes of stress can reduce these costs and improve employee health. Raising children while employed has many inherent stressors. Parenting while also working and assisting older adult family members can exacerbate or create additional concerns for sandwich generation caregivers. The caregiver can feel caught among the emotional needs of children, spouse, and older adult, who may all be asking for more attention, and the expectations of employers. Families may be experiencing grief and sadness over a loss of health or independence for the person receiving care, as well as losses of routine, leisure activities, and relationships and fear of an unknown future. If the care recipient has cognitive losses, family members, particularly children and adolescents, may experience embarrassment about their behavior. Families may need to adapt to new schedules or changes in communication and privacy, and may have to adjust their expectations. Sandwich generation caregivers find themselves needing to manage a multitude of priorities, which can be stressful. While stress can be a motivator, unmanaged stress can have many well-documented potential negative effects [8]. On a physical level, stress can contribute to muscle tension and aches, digestive problems, high blood pressure, heart disease, headaches, insomnia, and lowered immunity. The emotional impact of ineffective stress management can include anger, anxiety, defensiveness, depression, irritability, feelings of isolation and sadness, as well as loss of appetite, loss of interest, inability to concentrate, difficulty making decisions, and feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness. From a behavioral point of view, any of these may contribute to increased use of alcohol, nicotine, and/or caffeine, poor job performance, withdrawal from relationships, and difficulty meeting responsibilities in all aspects of life. Sandwich generation caregivers, and other stressed employees, can access workplace resources as part of self-care. Wellness programs not only help companies reduce costs and improve productivity, they can also improve retention. Employees who participate in wellness programs are more likely to report loyalty to their employer and perceive that their employer is more loyal to them. In addition, they are more likely to say that benefits are a reason they remain with their employer [9]. Employee wellness programs can address many areas that are particularly relevant to sandwich generation caregivers, which may not only reduce employer health-related costs, but improve retention if these employees need to make work/life choices. Opportunities include – Stress management and reduction (exercise, relaxation) – Assistance to stop or reduce negative health behaviors – On-site medical screening – Health coaching – Training in time management and priority-setting Another important step in making a workplace caregiver- and sandwich generation-friendly is supervisor training. It is important that managers at all levels are aware of, and comply with, work-life policies. This is particularly significant with supervisors and middle management who are responsible for assignments, leave approval, schedules, and promotions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (www.eeoc.gov) has detailed information about employer best practices with caregivers. As part of an at-risk population, what can individual sandwich generation employees do to better cope with all their competing demands [10]? – Connect with local resource points, such as Aging and Disability Resources Centers and Agencies on Aging, to learn what help might be available. The Eldercare Locator (www.eldercare.gov) can direct people to the local agency anywhere in the US. – Learn to ask for help and to accept help when offered. People are often willing to assist, but may not know what is needed. There are free Internet sites that allow caregivers to set up pages where people can get updates on a person’s situation and learn what help is needed. Assistance doesn’t have to be related to direct care provision, but might include meal preparation, yard work, transportation, or other means of reducing the demands on a caregiver’s time and energy. – Set priorities, and accept that no one person can do everything. Learn to say “no”. – Incorporate selfcare into daily routines. Exercise, healthy diet, and socialization often fall victim when there are many competing responsibilities. – Support children in coping by being honest with them, listening to their concerns, and answering their questions. Sticking to routines and schedul- 494 A. O’Sullivan / Pulled from all sides: The sandwich generation at work ing special time together can reduce stress and foster feelings of security. Involve children as much as possible, and invite them to help. – Inform supervisors and co-workers about the situation and problem-solve ways to continue to be an effective employee while parenting and caregiving. 4. Summary Managing the multiple priorities of paid employment, raising children, and providing help to an older adult family member is a core of daily life for sandwich generation employees. There are many strategies that caregivers and employers can use to help make this situation sustainable and to help prevent negative health consequences for the caregiver. New studies continue to show that effective employer interventions need not be complicated or expensive, but can have a powerful impact. Community services and resources are also available to support sandwich generation family caregivers in maintaining wellness at home and in the workplace. The uncertainty plaguing the economy today has many workers concerned about their future employment. This, coupled with unprecedented work demands and personal and family responsibilities that many employees struggle to manage with, has many individuals reporting increased levels of stress and conflict. Work–family conflict (WFC), a growing topic of interest in both popular and academic literatures, occurs when the demands of work and family life are incompatible in some respect, such that participation in one role is made more difficult due to participation in the other role (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985). Changes in the demographic composition of the workforce (i.e. more dual earners or dual-career couples with the added responsibility of either childcare or eldercare), coupled with extensive downsizing by large corporations, have many individuals experiencing difficulties in juggling the demands of the workplace and the home. Barrette (2009) reported that, since 1996, between 46% and 61% of parents have a hard time juggling work and family life. Conceptualizing WFC Early research conceptualized WFC as a unidimensional construct. More recently, however, researchers have distinguished between two types of WFC: conflict due to work *Email: lisafix@yorku.ca q 2013 Taylor & Francis 654 L.M. Fiksenbaum interfering with family (WIF) and conflict due to family interfering with work (FIW). The former is said to occur when work-related activities interfere with home responsibilities (e.g. taking work home), whereas the latter is said to occur when family responsibilities interfere with work activities(e.g. an employee having to cancel a business meeting because a child is suddenly ill). Individuals tend to report more WIF than FIW (Frone, Russell and Cooper 1992; Kinnunen and Mauno 1998; Burke and Greenglass 2001; Geurts, Kompier, Roxburgh and Houtman 2003), a finding that Frone et al. (1992) attribute to the greater permeability of family boundaries in comparison with work boundaries. Theoretical approaches of WFC Traditionally, the WFC literature has been dominated by role theory (Montgomery, Peeters, Schaufeli and Den Ouden 2003), which predicts that multiple roles lead to role stress that in turn leads to strain. Several other theoretical frameworks, however, have attempted to further explicate the nature of WFC; these include spillover, compensation and segmentation theories. According to spillover theory (Staines 1980), the boundaries between work and family are permeable; consequently, the experience of one domain influences attitudes, behaviors, values and skills in the other domain. In contrast to spillover theory, compensation theory (Staines 1980; Zedeck 1992) postulates an inverse relationship between work and family roles, such that work and family experiences are incompatible. This theory posits that deficits in one domain are offset or counteracted by activities pursued within the other domain. For example, individuals with unsatisfying family lives may tend to pursue work activities that bring satisfaction. Likewise, if individuals are dissatisfied with their work lives and satisfied with their family lives, they will exert more time and effort toward developing their family roles. Such compensation leads to an imbalance between the two domains. Unlike spillover and compensation theories, segmentation theory (Lambert 1990; Zedeck 1992) assumes no relationship between work and family domains; rather the domains are viewed as being completely independent of one another. In fact, segmentation theorists suggest that there is an inherent separation between work and family, with involvement in one domain not necessarily impacting the other. The two domains serve disparate functions; the family meeting primarily expressive and affective needs, whereas work serves instrumental purposes. Grandey and Cropanzano (1999) suggested that Hobfoll’s conservation of resources (COR) model might offer a fruitful theoretical guide for understanding the work–family literature. According to COR theory, ‘people strive to retain, protect, and build resources . . . what is threatening to them is the potential or actual loss of these valued resources’ (Hobfoll 1989, p. 1). Resources include objects, energy (e.g. time, money and knowledge), conditions (e.g. unemployed and marital status) and personal characteristics (e.g. selfesteem). Stress occurs when the possibility of losing resources is raised. Grandey and Cropanzano (1999) reported support for COR theory in their model of WFC and strain. Consequences of WFC Given the growing concern about WFC, much attention has been directed toward the potential outcomes of such conflict. Extant research has shown that WFC tends to result in a number of work-related outcomes, such as low levels of job satisfaction (Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Allen, Herst, Bruck and Sutton 2000), lack of organizational commitment (Lyness and Thompson 1997), absenteeism (Gignac, Kelloway and Gottlieb 1996; Hammer, Bauer and Grandey 2003), turnover (Good, Page and Young 1996; Netemeyer, Boles and McMurrian 1996; Greenhaus, Collins, Singh and Parasuraman 1997) and The International Journal of Human Resource Management 655 burnout (Bacharach, Bamberger and Conley 1991; Boles, Johnston and Hair 1997; Richardsen, Burke and Mikkelsen 1999). Many studies have also documented an inverse relationship between WFC and family satisfaction (Frone, Barnes and Farrell 1994), life satisfaction (Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Allen et al. 2000) and marital satisfaction (Kinnunen and Mauno 1998; Allen et al. 2000). Of all the potential outcomes of WFC, however, stress-related outcomes seem to be the most detrimental for the individual. Stress-related outcomes such as depression (Grzywaca and Bass 2003), anxiety (Beatty 1996; Frone 2000), substance abuse (Frone 2000), elevated blood pressure and serum cholesterol levels (Thomas and Ganster 1995), gastrointestinal disorders (Kinnunen and Mauno 1998), cardiovascular disease (Frone et al. 1997) and somatic complaints, such as poor appetite, fatigue and nervous tension (Burke 1988; Grzywaca and Bass 2003) tend to take an enormous toll on the individual and his or her social others. Given the recent focus of ‘positive psychology’ (Seligman and Csikszenthmihalyi 2000), ‘positive organizational scholarship’ (Cameron, Dutton and Quinn 2003) and ‘positive organizational behavior’ (Luthans 2002), which emphasizes human strengths and optimal functioning rather than human weaknesses and malfunctioning, researchers have started to examine the relationship of WFC and engagement. The research in this field is relatively scant since the concept of engagement is rather new, as is the whole emerging trend of positive psychology. Engagement refers to a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind, and is distinct from organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement and psychological empowerment (Hallberg and Schaufeli 2006; Macey and Schneider 2008). Gibbons’ (2006) meta-analysis defined employee engagement as ‘a heightened emotional and intellectual connection that an employee has for his/her job, organization, manager, or co-workers that, in turn, influences him/her to apply additional discretionary effort to his/her work’ (p. 5). According to Maslach and Leiter (1997), engagement is assessed by the opposite pattern of scores on the three Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) dimensions: emotional exhaustion, cynicism and lack of professional efficacy. Furthermore, they contend that burnout is an erosion of engagement, whereby ‘energy turns into exhaustion, involvement turns into cynicism, and efficacy turns into ineffectiveness’ (p. 24). Although some researchers believe that engagement and burnout are opposite endpoints of a continuum that can be measured with the same instrument, other researchers have opposed this notion (e.g. Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter 2001). For example, Maslach et al. (2001) assert that burnout and engagement are not polar opposites, but rather independent states of mind. They further believe that engagement cannot be adequately measured by the opposite profile of burnout. They define engagement as ‘a persistent, positive affectivemotivational state of fulfillment in employees that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption’ (Maslach et al. 2001, p. 417). Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working and by the willingness and ability to invest effort in one’s work. Dedication is characterized by a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one feels carried away by one’s job. Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker (2002) have constructed the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al. 2002), which is a 17-item self-report inventory to measure these three dimensions of engagement. Confirmatory factor analysis has demonstrated the factorial validity of this inventory (Schaufeli et al. 2002). Demerouti, Bakker, De Jonge, Janssen and Schaufeli (2001) found that levels of job demands and job control were predicted by two discriminant functions: a core burnout function (i.e. emotional exhaustion and cynicism) and an extended 656 L.M. Fiksenbaum engagement factor (i.e. the three-core engagement scales plus the positively phrased professional efficacy from the burnout inventory). Likewise, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) found support for this two-factor conceptualization in four different samples of employees in the Netherlands. Engagement is not only important for the employee, but it is also significant for the organization. High levels of work engagement have been related to positive outcomes for both the individual and the workplace. For example, Halbesleben, Harvey and Bolino (2009) showed that work engagement was positively associated with high levels of organizational citizenship behavior. Similarly, Organ and Paine (1999) found that engaged workers were highly dedicated to their work and the organization and were inclined to help their colleagues if needed. Other research has found that engaged employees tend to be safer, create stronger customer relationships and stay longer with their companies than less engaged employees (Harter, Schmidt and Hayes 2002; Crabtree 2005; Gallup Organization 2006; Gibbons 2006; Ellis and Sorensen 2007). Workers who are engaged tend to be less stressed, more satisfied with their personal lives, use less health care and take fewer sick days than employees who are actively disengaged (Harter et al. 2002; Gallup Organization 2006). Schaufeli et al. (2001) interviewed 30 employees, and found that engaged workers were generally optimistic, took personal initiative to increase skill variety in their jobs and were proud of their work. Although WFC is positively related to burnout, a small but growing body of literature demonstrates that it is negatively related to favorable outcomes, such as engagement. Montgomery et al. (2003), in a cross-sectional study of 127 newspaper managers, examined the notion that job and home demands lead to burnout and decreased feelings of engagement, whereas job and home resources lead to increased feelings of engagement and reduced burnout (specifically exhaustion and cynicism). Results revealed that WIF was indeed inversely related to vigor. Further results revealed that WIF mediated the effects of emotional job demands on exhaustion and cynicism. Taken together, it is evident that WFC is related to serious psychological detriments, negative attitudes and feelings that affect the functioning of everyone concerned: the employee, his or her family and his or her employer. Clearly, it is in the best interest of both the employer and the employee to further understand and, therefore, work to curb the development of WFC. Reducing the consequences of WFC: the role of formal family–work arrangements and a supportive work–family culture Given the prominent role of WFC in the literature, organizations are increasingly offering various formal programs to assist employees in balancing work and family life, or ameliorating the harmful effects of such conflict on work attitudes and outcomes. Examples of such interventions include on-site childcare, flexible work schedules (flextime), a compressed work week, telecommuting, job sharing, part-time work or leaves of absence/sabbaticals. These programs are designed to alleviate the difficulty inherent in coordinating and managing multiple roles. Flexible work arrangements such as flextime, telecommuting, job sharing and compressed work week also give employees some level of control over when and where they work. Although these programs are usually viewed as beneficial, there are some inherent disadvantages with each of them for the employee and the organization. For example, with job sharing difficulties in communications and collaboration between partners who share the job may arise. Given that telecommuters work off-site, supervisors cannot directly observe the telecommuter, and may also be skeptical of the number of hours they are putting in. Telecommuting may also impact The International Journal of Human Resource Management 657 career mobility as they are less present in the organization and less likely to be part of the political environment, which is required for career advancement. A compressed work week requires employees to work longer hours, so they are typically exhausted and less productive toward the end of the work day. Despite these drawbacks, research has demonstrated that overall such programs are instrumental in achieving a healthy work– family balance (Eby et al. 2005). Voydanoff (2005) defines work–family balance as a global assessment of the extent to which work and family resources are sufficient to meet work and family demands. Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright and Neuman’s (1999) metaanalysis of 39 studies supports the effectiveness of such organizational programs in increasing productivity, job satisfaction and satisfaction with work schedule. These programs also reduced absenteeism rates. Much of the early research on family-oriented benefits has focused on the nature of these benefits, the extent to which they are available, and the receptiveness of workplaces to their implementation. However, more recent empirical investigations have examined the relationship between the use of family-oriented benefits and WFC outcomes. Researchers have found that when employees had flexibility in their work schedules, they experienced less WFC. Additional results revealed that employees with schedule flexibility reported higher levels of job satisfaction (Thomas and Ganster 1995). Rosin and Korabik (2002) examined the extent to which perceptions of, satisfaction with, and importance of family-friendly policies (parental leave, paid days off for family concerns, job sharing, policies dealing with family responsibilities, daycare, flextime and telecommuting) impacted WFC (both WIF and FIW) and a variety of work and family outcome variables. Higher satisfaction with family-friendly policies was associated with reductions in both WIF and FIW which, in turn, were related to reduced stress, increased work and family satisfaction, organizational commitment and lower turnover intentions. Despite the potential benefits of such family-friendly options, additional research has demonstrated that even when such benefits are offered to employees, many employees are hesitant to use them. This is usually due to ‘stigmas’ attached to taking advantage of these programs. A stigma is an attribute or behavior that is deeply discredited or disapproved by society, and consequently the stigmatized individual may adjust his/her behavior accordingly. It is commonly believed that any employee who takes advantage of these programs is not truly dedicated, loyal or committed to their employer and research supports this perception (Judiesch and Lyness 1999; Cohen and Single 2001). Judiesch and Lyness (1999) found that taking a leave of absence was associated with fewer subsequent promotions and smaller salary increases. Almer et al. (2003) found that professionals working in assurance services who participated in flexible work arrangements were negatively perceived in terms of career success and anticipated turnover. Attitudes regarding the use of these flexible programs, however, may be affected by the practices of management. Research has demonstrated that many managers do not encourage employees to utilize these programs (Kossek, Barber and Winters 1999). The degree to which an organization can be viewed as instilling a family-supportive work environment is related to its organizational culture. Organizational culture is a multifaceted, dynamic phenomenon and has been defined as ‘a deep level of shared beliefs and assumptions, which often operate unconsciously, develop over time, and are embedded in the organization’s historical experiences’ (Lewis 1997, p. 18). According to Allen (2001), a supportive organizational culture is one that acknowledges and is supportive of employees’ family and personal situations, and promotes flexibility, tolerance and support for family needs and obligations. These organizations do not establish an employee’s commitment, dedication and value to the organization contingent 658 L.M. Fiksenbaum on the number of hours they are in the office and whether they make their work life and responsibilities a top priority. Individuals working in such an environment may feel more comfortable devoting time and energy to their family and personal life without fearing the negative career consequences. They may also feel less pressured to invest themselves completely in their work role at the expense of their family. Thompson, Beauvais and Lyness (1999) developed a multi-dimensional measure of work–family culture, which comprises three components: organizational time demands, career consequences for using work–family benefits and managerial support. The first two components are negative in nature, serving work–family barriers, whereas the third component is positive (supportive). Organizational time demands refer to the extent to which there are expectations for long hours of work and for prioritizing work over family. Perceived career consequences are the degree to which employees perceive positive or negative career consequences for using work–family benefits. Finally, managerial support represents the extent to which managers are sensitive to, and accommodating of, employees’ family needs. Respect for an employee’s non-work life is an important component of a familysupportive organization. Through its policies and practices, an organization sends a message to its employees that nonwork activities are important and valued. Although the concept of work–family culture is a relatively novel concept, limited research has examined the relationship of work–family culture to work–family benefit utilization, organizational attachment, WFC and a host of outcome variables (Thompson et al. 1999; Allen 2001; CampbellClark 2001). Allen (2001)found employees working in an environment perceived as more family-supportive reported less WIF, even after controlling for the availability of family-friendly benefits and the receipt of familysupportive supervision. In addition, Allen’s results suggest that employees’ family-supportive organization perceptions may be partially influenced by the family-supportive supervision they receive and the availability of family-supportive benefits. Finally, Allen found that familysupportive organizational perceptions correlated positively with employees’ actual use of familysupportive benefits, particularly flexible work arrangements (e.g. flextime, compressed work weeks and telecommuting). Allen (2001) concluded that family-supportive organization perceptions may be a key indicator of whether the employees’ work environment is instrumental in reducing WFC. Thompson et al. (1999) also found that a supportive work–family culture was related to employee attitudes above and beyond simply offering work–family benefits. More recentstudiessupport these findings(e.g. Gordon, Whelan-Berry and Hamilton 2007; Lapierre, Spector, Allen, Poelmans, Cooper and O’Driscoll 2008). Gordon et al. (2007) found that a supportive work–family culture was negatively associated with WFC and positively related to job satisfaction, whereas Lapierre and Allen (2006) confirmed the vital role of family-supportive supervision (a key factor in a supportive work–family culture) for low WFC and high affective well-being. Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran’s (2006) metaanalysis, based on 38 studies, confirmed a negative relationship between positive work– family culture perceptions and WFC. These findings are not limited to North America. A few studies conducted in Finland found positive perceptions of work–family culture, which were associated with better self-reported health (Mauno, Kinnunen and Pyykko¨ 2005), job satisfaction, organizational commitment and a lower level of physical symptoms (Mauno, Kinnunen and Ruokolainen 2006). Positive work– family culture has also been associated with higher work motivation (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment and lower turnover intentions; Allen 2001). Taken together, these studies clearly demonstrate that a supportive work–family culture contributes significantly to the achievement of work– family balance, which, in turn, increases productivity and personal wellbeing. Thus, it seems that a carefully nurtured work–family culture has much to contribute to the well The International Journal of Human Resource Management 659 being of the many individuals who struggle to maintain full involvement in both their personal and professional lives. Again, such involvement serves to benefit both the employee and the employer. • based on the narrator’s regrets with respect to how she cared for her daughter, identify two family-friendly benefits you and employer would offer her in order to alleviate the stress she describes in the story. Fully explain why you believe each would have helped. • o o You must choose at least one benefit identified in the article by Sullivan and one benefit identified in the article by Fikesenbaum. In writing your post, you must provide reference to dialogue and narration in the short story that is relevant to your arguments. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment