When two worlds collude: Working from home and family functioning in Australia

• Date: 01 December 2018
• Published date: 01 December 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12119

International Labour Review, Vol. 157 (2018), No. 4

Copyright © The authors 2018

Journal compilation © International Labour Organization 2018

* Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University, email: m.dockery@curtin.

edu.au. ** Curtin Business School, Curtin University, email: Sherry.Bawa@curtin.edu.au. This

article uses data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Sur-

vey. The HILDA project was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department

of Social Services (DSS), and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and

Social Research (Melbourne Institute). The ndings and views reported in this article, however,

are those of the authors and should not be attributed to either the DSS or the Melbourne Institute.

Responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles rests solely with their authors, and

publication does not constitute an endorsement by the ILO.

When two worlds collude: Working from

home and family functioning in Australia

Alfred M. DOCKERY* and Sherry BAWA**

Abstract. This article analyses the effect of employees working from home on their

partners’ assessments of family functioning using Australian household panel data

collected from 2001 to 2 013 in 48 multivariate models. Some evidence is found that

working from home contributes to better relationships and a more equitable divi-

sion of household responsibilities for couples with children. Limited evidence of

negative externalities is observed, notably where male employees work substantial

hours from home. Overall the ndings contribute to the weight of evidence that

working from home is conducive to families achieving a better work–life balance.

T

here is widespread concern that increasing labour market demands gener-

ate negative effects for workers and their families (Keene and Reynolds,

2005; Nomaguchi, 2009; Swanberg and Simmons, 20 08), reected in a growing

literature on work–family balance. Often attributed to labour market deregu-

lation, globalization and consumer expectations of the 24/7 economy, work-

ing arrangements are believed to be increasingly precarious, to require working

outside standard hours (Li et al., 2014), and to be entering the home or other

places beyond the workplace (Golden, 2012), with a tendency for workers to

work excessive hours (Dockery, 2012). The scope for spillover effects is obvi-

ously greater for workers who have a partner and dependent children.

While much of the literature on exibility of working arrangements and

job quality has focused on exibility of working hours and contractual status,

the effects of the place where employees carry out their work has received

less attention. Although far from conclusive, there is evidence that employ-

ees themselves value the exibility of being able to work from home, but few

International Labour Review610

studies have assessed the impact on the homeworker’s family. Parasuraman

and Greenhaus (2002) identify limited analyses at the couple or family level,

and of crossover effects from one partner to the other, as a key gap in the

work–family literature. This article contributes to bridging that gap by looking

at the impact of working from home (WFH) on family functioning or work–

family conict using assessments by employees’ partners, contained in data

from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA)

Survey, collected from 20 01 to 2013.

The remainder of this article is organized into ve sections. The rst sec-

tion provides the background to this study with a brief literature review and

outline of the Australian regulatory framework in relation to working arrange-

ments. In the second section, we present our data set and method, dening

the variables used and introducing the selected descriptive statistics. The third

section provides an overview of the results of the multivariate models and the

fourth section discusses said results. The fth section concludes.

Background

Literature review

Much of the literature on working from home refers to teleworking or telecom-

muting. This terminology implies the use of computers and telecommunications

and does not necessarily involve working from home, but simply working away

from the main workplace (Bailey and Kurland, 20 02; Baruch, 2001; Golden,

2012). Here, however, we are specically interested in the effects of employ-

ees bringing work into their family home, irrespective of that work being fa-

cilitated by telecommunications. Our focus on employees reects an interest

in working arrangements between rms and their employees, rather than the

working habits of the self-employed or employers.

Flexible working arrangements allow workers to continue making pro-

ductive contributions to the workforce while also attending to family and other

responsibilities, in situations where such workers would otherwise reduce their

labour supply or leave the rm (Council of Economic Advisors, 2010). Benets

identied for rms include higher productivity, lower staff turnover and absen-

teeism, and savings on other workplace costs, against the potential drawback of

increased difculty to monitor work (Bloom et al., 2013; Baruch, 2001; Bailey

and Kurland, 2002). Employees may benet from reduced commuting time

(Baruch, 2001; Bailey and Kurland, 20 02), greater discretion regarding the tim-

ing and pace of their work (Greenhaus and Powell, 2006), and the possibility

of combining work with the needs and rhythm of the family and other private

spheres of life (Nätti et al., 2011). Identied drawbacks for people who work

from home include career stagnation (Baruch and Nicholson, 1997; Bloom et

al., 2013), feelings of social isolation (Bailey and Kurland, 2002; Baruch, 2001),

increased work-related stress and a tendency to work longer hours (Dockery

and Bawa, 2014; Baruch, 200 0; Kurland and Bailey, 1999; Nätti et al., 2011).