Revisiting the social construction of family in the context of work

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how traditional definitions of family, in the context of employment, have not kept pace with actual family formation in the USA and much of the rest of the world, and how this disadvantages individuals from atypical (i.e. non‐nuclear), but increasingly common, families.Design/methodology/approachA wide range of literature from disciplines spanning industrial relations, gerontology, management, and family studies is invoked to illustrate how employers' definitions of “family” are often incompatible with actual contemporary family structures, and how this poses difficulties for employed individuals in non‐traditional families.FindingsMany family structures are not accounted for by employment legislation and thus organizational work‐family policies. These include same‐sex couples, multi‐generational and extended families (e.g. including parents or other elders; members from outside the bloodline or with grandparents providing primary care for grandchildren) and virtual families.Practical implicationsThe authors discuss a number of problems associated with current provision of work‐family policy and practice among organizations, and recommend that governments and organizations expand upon the traditional definition of “family” to better enable employees in a variety of familial configurations to successfully balance their work and family demands.Originality/valueThis paper identifies current failings in employment legislation and suggests improvements so that both governments and organizations can better facilitate employees' work‐life balance. As such, it will be of use researchers, practitioners, and policy makers interested in the interface between work and family.