Reenvisioning Family-Supportive Organizations Through a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Perspective: A Review and Research Agenda

IF 9.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Ellen Ernst Kossek, Hoda Vaziri, Matthew B. Perrigino, Brenda A. Lautsch, Benjamin R. Pratt, Eden B. King
{"title":"Reenvisioning Family-Supportive Organizations Through a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Perspective: A Review and Research Agenda","authors":"Ellen Ernst Kossek, Hoda Vaziri, Matthew B. Perrigino, Brenda A. Lautsch, Benjamin R. Pratt, Eden B. King","doi":"10.1177/01492063241310149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The growing literature on family-supportive organizations (FSOs) examines work–family supports that organizations provide to employees—informal (e.g., perceptions of supervisor and coworker support, climate) and formal (e.g., policies, including those mandated in national contexts). Yet FSO research remains underintegrated with the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) literature, limiting understanding of how to enhance FSO-related effects. We draw on a DEI perspective to analyze the extent and quality to which core DEI-related constructs are integrated into FSO scholarship. Results from 192 reviewed studies show that diversity (39%) and equality (35%) are the most studied constructs, although there were limitations with their conceptualization by work–family researchers. Other constructs are frequently omitted from studies and, when included, are poorly applied. These include intersectionality (15%), which is often used with a lack of attention to intersecting and multilevel influences; equity (5%), which is confounded with equality; and inclusion (12.5%) and belonging (5%), which are vaguely operationalized. Our thematic review-driven insights emphasize how improved integration of DEI constructs into the FSO literature will drive research that (1) broadens the conceptualization of who needs family support to better reflect an increasingly diverse workforce with intersecting work and family identities; (2) gives greater attention to power, stigma, and marginalization in the context of work–family dynamics; and (3) unpacks causality involving multilevel relationships across DEI and FSO constructs and links these to work–family–supportive leadership. Future research is needed to ensure that all employees experience FSO that neither intentionally nor unintentionally privileges higher-power employee groups over others.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"158 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241310149","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The growing literature on family-supportive organizations (FSOs) examines work–family supports that organizations provide to employees—informal (e.g., perceptions of supervisor and coworker support, climate) and formal (e.g., policies, including those mandated in national contexts). Yet FSO research remains underintegrated with the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) literature, limiting understanding of how to enhance FSO-related effects. We draw on a DEI perspective to analyze the extent and quality to which core DEI-related constructs are integrated into FSO scholarship. Results from 192 reviewed studies show that diversity (39%) and equality (35%) are the most studied constructs, although there were limitations with their conceptualization by work–family researchers. Other constructs are frequently omitted from studies and, when included, are poorly applied. These include intersectionality (15%), which is often used with a lack of attention to intersecting and multilevel influences; equity (5%), which is confounded with equality; and inclusion (12.5%) and belonging (5%), which are vaguely operationalized. Our thematic review-driven insights emphasize how improved integration of DEI constructs into the FSO literature will drive research that (1) broadens the conceptualization of who needs family support to better reflect an increasingly diverse workforce with intersecting work and family identities; (2) gives greater attention to power, stigma, and marginalization in the context of work–family dynamics; and (3) unpacks causality involving multilevel relationships across DEI and FSO constructs and links these to work–family–supportive leadership. Future research is needed to ensure that all employees experience FSO that neither intentionally nor unintentionally privileges higher-power employee groups over others.
从多元化、公平和包容的角度重新审视家庭支持组织:回顾和研究议程
越来越多的关于家庭支持组织(fso)的文献研究了组织为员工提供的工作-家庭支持——非正式的(例如,对主管和同事支持的看法,氛围)和正式的(例如,政策,包括在国家背景下强制执行的政策)。然而,FSO研究与多样性、公平性和包容性(DEI)文献的整合仍然不足,限制了对如何增强FSO相关效应的理解。我们利用DEI的观点来分析核心DEI相关结构融入FSO奖学金的程度和质量。192项研究的结果表明,多样性(39%)和平等性(35%)是研究最多的概念,尽管工作-家庭研究人员对其概念化存在局限性。其他结构经常被忽略,即使被纳入研究,也没有得到很好的应用。其中包括交叉性(15%),在使用时往往缺乏对交叉性和多层次影响的关注;股权(5%),与平等混淆;以及包含(12.5%)和归属(5%),它们被模糊地操作化了。我们的专题评论驱动的见解强调了DEI结构与FSO文献的改进整合将如何推动研究:(1)拓宽了谁需要家庭支持的概念,以更好地反映具有交叉工作和家庭身份的日益多样化的劳动力;(2)在工作-家庭动态的背景下,更多地关注权力、耻辱和边缘化;(3)揭示了DEI和FSO结构中涉及多层次关系的因果关系,并将这些关系与工作-家庭支持型领导联系起来。未来的研究需要确保所有员工都体验到FSO,无论是有意还是无意地使更高权力的员工群体优于其他人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
22.40
自引率
5.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management (JOM) aims to publish rigorous empirical and theoretical research articles that significantly contribute to the field of management. It is particularly interested in papers that have a strong impact on the overall management discipline. JOM also encourages the submission of novel ideas and fresh perspectives on existing research. The journal covers a wide range of areas, including business strategy and policy, organizational behavior, human resource management, organizational theory, entrepreneurship, and research methods. It provides a platform for scholars to present their work on these topics and fosters intellectual discussion and exchange in these areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信