Matias, M., Andrade, C. & Fontaine, A. M. (2012). The interplay of gender, work and family in...

Running head: INTERPLAY OF GENDER, WORK AND FAMILY

Citation:

Matias, M., Andrade, C. & Fontaine, A. M. (2012). The interplay of gender, work and family in Portuguese families. Work, Organization, Labour and Globalization, vol 6(1), 11-26.

The Interplay of Gender, Work and Family in Portuguese Families

Marisa Matias, Cláudia Andrade and Anne Marie Fontaine

Authors’ Note

Marisa Matias1, Cláudia Andrade1,2 and Anne Marie Fontaine1 1Centro de Psicologia Diferencial, Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação,

Universidade do Porto. 2 Escola Superior de Educação, Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra.

INTERPLAY OF GENDER, WORK AND FAMILY

2

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marisa Matias, Centro de

Psicologia Diferencial, Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação, Universidade do

Porto; Rua Dr. Manuel Pereira da Silva, 4200-392 Porto, Portugal. E-mail:[email protected]


3

Abstract

Portugal stands out in the European context of work and family relations for not fitting either

in a traditional male breadwinner model or in a modern equitable model. Indeed, Portuguese

society is characterized by a high labour market participation of both men and women and a

gender traditional division of domestic and caring work, where women do the majority of

tasks. This paper reports on trends regarding the division of paid and unpaid labour over

recent decades in Portugal. Challenging traditional sociological and demographic

explanations, the scope of this review is to offer a psycho-social approach to the antecedents

and outcomes of this division, as well as the processes individuals and families engage in to

deal with multiple roles. Looking at the division of paid and unpaid labour through the gender

lens, we conclude that, despite some changes in attitudes and practices, the display of gender

roles shape work and family relations in Portugal.

Keywords: work-family roles, gender, attitudes, practices, division of paid and unpaid

labour.


4

The Interplay of Gender, Work and Family in Portuguese Families

Sociological research on the historical trends of family life and the labour market have

pointed the importance of some historical facts, namely the Portuguese colonial war,

emigration, the civil revolution of 1974 and the entry of Portugal into the European Union in

1986, for the current position of Portuguese women in the workforce. During the 60’s and

due to the Colonial War and emigration, men left their jobs, making them available to

women. Women, therefore, started to play not only a leading role in the family life but also

took over family businesses (Torres, 2004). For women with secondary school education or

university degrees, jobs in the services sector also became available. Emigration was also

important because for those women who emigrated with their husbands, working in foreign

countries provided them with new ways of approaching work-family relations. In other

European countries after the end of the war men returned to their previous positions in the

labour market. In Portugal, however, the Colonial war ended with the civil revolution in

1974, which brought a democratic regime with a clear emphasis on women’s rights. This

regime endorsed more definite participation of women at the social and civic level by means

of the Portuguese constitution, which in turn allowed them to keep their jobs (Torres, 2004).

Additionally, women’s position in the public sphere was reinforced by Portugal’s entry into

the European Union in 1986 which made equality a necessary principle in every law or

regulation. Thus, today, Portuguese women constitute almost half of the employed population

(46.9%) and their professional trajectory is characterized by full-time employment (84.5%)

(INE, 2010). Additionally, when becoming mothers, women leave the labour force for short

periods of maternity leave (for a maximum of six months). Indeed, recently Eurostat (2010)

reported that 70.1% of mothers of one-child and 67.7% of mothers of two children are active

in the labour market, making the majority of families in Portugal dual-earners.

These high standards of labour market participation would suggest that gender

attitudes were becoming more egalitarian and that work and family responsibilities would be

shared. However, a review of sociological research focused on gender roles and division of

labour within the family pinpoints that traditional patterns, particularly regarding the

performance of domestic chores, have remained unchanged in Portugal over the last two

decades (Andrade, 2006, 2010a; Poeschl, 2007; Torres, 2004). In addition, and although

some Portuguese public policies during the 90’s made an attempt to promote the expansion of

childcare facilities, namely for pre-school years, these services as well as elderly care


5

services are still insufficient or too expensive, making the ability to balance work and family

a challenge to Portuguese families (Soccare Project, 2004; Wall, 2005). In fact, the

Portuguese state is described by Esping-Andersen (1999 in Pfau-Effinger 1999) as a

“familistic” welfare state. For this reason, the state does not provide all necessary conditions

to support mother’s employment. In 2005, a national survey on working mothers has revealed

that 26% of children under 10 are cared by mothers, 33% attend some type of childcare

facility (nursery school, kindergarten), 26% are under the care of their grandparents and 10%

by other family members (Torres, Silva, Monteiro & Cabrita 2005). Furthermore, extended

families are the usual solution when individuals have to deal with unpredictable events, such

as sudden health problems or accidents. These data reveal that a high percentage of children

must be staying at home by themselves or go with their mothers to their place of work. Thus,

more services and facilities outside the family are required to comply with the needs of

working mothers and fathers (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007) as additional studies reveal that

long hours child care are only available in the private sector (Larsen & Hadlow, 2003).

Younger generations, as well as working mothers and fathers, rely mainly on the state

public provision for regulating care services as well as for regulating working practices

(Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007; Torres et al., 2005). Moreover, the role of companies on this

matter is not endorsed as Portuguese organizations in general do not have family friendly

policies (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007; Santos, 2010). A study undertaken with human

resources managers in Portugal found that only 38% of the companies offer flexibility in

work and in work schedules as an initiative to balance private and professional spheres

(Cabral-Cardoso, 2003). As these family friendly initiatives are not provided in a human

resources program or policy, the majority of these companies (50.3%) offer informal

solutions that rely mainly on the supervisor’s decision (Cabral-Cardoso, 2003). These

initiatives are consequently very much dependent on the relation between the supervisor and

employee and are thus more likely to be perceived as a perk and not as a right. Moreover, and

because these policies are not part of companies’ human resources management policies but

demand negotiation, the sense of entitlement of Portuguese workers to the use of family

friendly policies is quite low (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007; Sümer, Smithson, Guerreiro &

Granlund, 2008).

Following the aforementioned description of the sociological background and the

context of extra-familial support in Portugal, the goal of the next section is to provide an

analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of the division of paid and unpaid labour through a


6

psycho-social approach. We will first address attitudes and practices regarding the division of

paid and unpaid labour between men and women and advance possible explanations for this

division. Secondly, we will review research done with Portuguese samples addressing work-

family relations and their outcomes. Finally, we will report on research focusing on

individual-level coping mechanisms to achieve work-family balance. We argue that, despite

clear changes in the social arena, men and women family relations are still gendered.

Gender roles and the division of family labour

We begin this section with an analysis of the attitudes towards the labour division,

held by both men and women in Portugal. We will, then, address the practices of paid and

unpaid labour division and offer some possible explanations about this division and how it is

achieved between the partners. Psycho-social explanations for this division will also be

offered. The section ends by reaffirming the role of gender displays in explaining the division

of labour in Portugal.

The organization and dynamics of the family remain traditional, despite the strong

participation of Portuguese women in the labour market (Poeschl, 2000). Research that aimed

to identify social representations of labour division in Portuguese families and their influence

on the routines adopted by couples has shown that individuals hold gendered representations

of family roles. Namely, women are perceived as having to do more household chores and

childcare than men and to have less power in financial allocation of resources within the

family (Poeschl & Serôdio, 1998; Poeschl & Silva, 2001). Yet women´s power of decision is

perceived to be higher than men’s in activities related to children and the household (Poeschl,

2000). Additionally, when asked about who should do what in the household, young men,

more than young women see the household chores as part of women´s role in the family

(Andrade, 2006, 2010a). These studies report on traditional representations about roles in the

family, where the man has the main responsibility towards the “outside world”, and the

woman is responsible for the “inside family world”. These data are in line with what has been

documented in other countries (Crompton & Lyonette, 2008) and are indicators of an unequal

division of domestic chores in Portuguese families.

Portuguese attitudes and representations regarding work and family relations are

characterized by both modern and traditional positions in a paradoxical way. On the one

hand, there is a strong adherence to the equality norm for women’s labour force participation

(Wall & Guerreiro, 2005) and to the role of men in the family sphere. More than 80% of men


7

and women agree that men should perform more childcare than they do (Aboim, 2007). On

the other hand, women are seen as the gatekeepers of the family and their employment

outside the home is still seen as having a negative impact on their children (Wall, 2007). The

role of women is perceived as cumulative: it is desirable for women to be professionally

active and independent but they are also expected to be available for their family at all times

and to take care of the children. These contradictory attitudes regarding women’s role put

them at a higher risk of overburdening themselves in their attempt to fulfil societal

expectations. Nevertheless, education level plays a crucial role in the enactment of these

attitudes, especially for women, as higher educated women tend to have more modern

attitudes regarding women’s roles (Aboim, 2007; Wall, 2007).

Organizations still entail a view of the ideal worker as an individual without family

responsibilities, fully committed and completely available (Santos, 2010). This representation

influences the decisions and procedures used to grant access to resources, to recruit or to

promote workers. Even when family friendly policies are implemented, they are aimed at

specific groups and do not put at stake this “ideal worker” assumption, which does not fit the

current reality of dual-earner and single-earner families. Moreover, when men want to

participate more in the family or want to make use of legal rights like parental leave, they are

discriminated against (Santos, 2010). This criticism is noticeable by both co-workers and

supervisors, not so much because these actions are costly to the organization, but mainly

because of the prevailing masculinity ideology (Santos, 2010). A model where work and

family life are seen as separate spheres is a fallacy that subsists in the organizational world

and puts women at a higher stake for difficulties on balancing both spheres and limits men’s

involvement in the family (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007).Therefore, the labour market has

changed only to the extent that it is more shared by men and women.

These difficulties on balancing work and family are, as previously referred,

accentuated by an unequal allocation of household chores and childcare between partners.

Similar to what is found in other countries, in Portugal women tend to do more housework

than men even when both partners are engaged in the labour force (Amâncio, 2007; Fontaine,

Andrade, Matias, Gato & Mendonça, 2007; Perista, 2002; Poeschl, 2000; Wall & Guerreiro,

2005). Classic division of labour still prevails with women being perceived as naturally suited

to expressive functions such as performing domestic and care work and men as naturally

suited to instrumental activities displayed through labour market work.


8

Not only do women perform more household chores but the type of tasks they

perform is also quite distinct. Women perform more domestic and childcare related chores

(preparing meals, doing the laundry, caring work, ironing, cleaning the house) while men

perform more repair and maintenance tasks (washing the car, gardening, paying bills)

(Fontaine et al., 2007; Perista, 2002; Wall & Guerreiro, 2005). The first kind of task is more

time consuming, routine, cannot be postponed and occurs inside the house; while the second

type of task has a more precise beginning and ending, can be performed in a variety of

schedules and very often outdoors (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, & Robinson, 2000; Coltrane,

2000; Gupta, 1999; Presser, 1994). Therefore not only do women spend more time doing

family work but the type of tasks they perform also implies a heavier burden. In line with

Hochschild´s definition of “emotional work”, promoting the emotional well-being of family

members, sustaining ties with relatives and developing significant networks outside the

family are also women’s responsibility (Coltrane, 2000). These distinction on the type of

family work men and women perform is revealing of the pervasive gender specialization

effect. The female-typed tasks are daily required and imply clearly the nurturing and caring

abilities women are expected to have, while the male-typed tasks are more associated to the

instrumental role (eg. repairing tasks). It can be argued that men and women are expected to

‘‘affirm’’ and ‘‘produce’’ their gender identities by performing domestic tasks, suggesting a

reinforcing process by performing these tasks (Coltrane, 2000).

Several theoretical models have made a valuable contribution to the explanation of the

persistence of gendered division of labour within the family (Kluwer, 1998; Mikula, 1998;

Shelton & John, 1996). One of the models, the relative resource model, claims that income

can be used in exchange for not performing domestic labour. Taking this assumption into

account, we would expect that the increased involvement of married women in the labour

force, and their consequent greater contribution to the household income would lead to a

more equitable division of labour in the home over time. However, the relation between

women’s earnings and participation in the household seems far more complex. Studies

focusing on the relationship between relative earnings and housework in couples where

women out-earn their partners have questioned this assumption (Bittman, England, Sayer,

Folbre, & Matheson, 2003; Brines, 1994). Brines (1994), found that women who out-earn

their partners still perform most of the household chores.

Another explanation comes from the gender role ideology that states that unequal

divisions of family work stem from the internalization of gender beliefs about men and


9

women’s roles in the family. In fact, men with less traditional gender attitudes do more

family work and women with less traditional gender attitudes do less family work

(Greenstein, 1996; Presser, 1994). Nevertheless, there is an interaction between husbands’

and wives’ attitudes so that husbands do little domestic labour unless both, they and their

wives, hold non-traditional beliefs about gender (Greenstein, 1996). Closely associated to this

explanation is the doing gender or social-construction of gender perspective which assumes

that marriage and other intimate relationships provide arenas for displaying these beliefs

(West & Zimmerman, 1987). The motivation to display one’s gender is stronger when people

deviate from their gender roles in some aspect. Therefore, as family work is more closely

related to women’s traditional gender role, when they deviate from this role as, for instance,

spending a lot of time on professional work or earning more money than their partners, they

can compensate for this detour by doing more family work. Similarly, men who deviate from

their traditional gender role, for instance by being unemployed or earning little money can

display their gender by not performing family work. Support for this approach has been

found by the previously mentioned study of Brines (1994) with women that out-earned their

partners and also by Greenstein (1996) in his study of matching gender beliefs. In sum, the

symbolic construction of housework means that the distribution of family work is not

exclusively due to a rational choice.

In Portugal, the dominant gender role model remains a traditional one: men are

expected to be the main family providers and women to be responsible for family household

chores and emotional well being. In order to be considered by society as a ‘good’ man or

woman, partners need to conform to this dominant model. According to the ‘doing gender’

perspective, this process is activated when gender identity is more salient, after marriage or

parenthood, for instance.

A study undertaken with 245 Portuguese dual-earners with toddlers found not only

that the division of family tasks was unequal but also that women perceived themselves to be

more burdened than men. Nevertheless, both men and women were satisfied with the

unbalanced division of family-work (Fontaine et al., 2007). This apparent paradox was

explained by the degree of partner participation in family tasks and by the level of

gratification derived from these tasks. In order to reduce the distress caused by the gap

between ideal and real division of tasks, individuals must narrow this gap cognitively,

altering their perception of the amount of work performed (Kroska, 2003). According to

Kroska’s (2003) view on the meaning attached to household chores, individuals change the


10

meanings attached to elements of the situation which are inconsistent with their own identity.

Rather than changing their identities, individuals may revise their understandings of

housework arrangements so that these elements become congruent with the situational

identity. Thus, the more gratified the individual is with the performance of family tasks and

the more his/her partner participates in these tasks, the more he/she is satisfied with the

division (Fontaine et al., 2007). Another explanation may be derived from the sense of

entitlement that men and women have (Major, 1993). Because of their socialization to gender

roles, women and men may perceive a traditional division of family work as legitimate

because it matches their expectations as well as their comparison standards. On the one hand,

men (holding traditional gender beliefs) may consider that his wives’ performance of family

work is consistent with their expectations of married women, and so do women (Greenstein,

1996). On the other hand, women compare themselves with other women and their husbands

with other men, rather than compare themselves with their husbands. These comparisons lead

women to feel better-off than their mothers or other women (Poeschl, 2007). Thus,

satisfaction with an objective unfair division of tasks is influenced by the degree of solidarity

shown by the partners (Fontaine et al., 2007), by the sense of entitlement from each partner to

the other contribution to housework, and by the comparison process. Additionally, because

men’s involvement in the family role is socially not expected, it can be taken as a matter of

choice more than an obligation. When something is performed out of choice it leads to more

satisfaction (Kroska, 2003).

Men are currently being called upon to do their family duties (Aboim, 2007; Gerson,

1993; Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007; Gupta, 1999). Nevertheless this request for participation

is embedded in tough negotiations between old and new models of gender (Aboim, 2010).

While the majority of both Portuguese men (82%) and women (88%) agree that men should

be more involved in the family, a significant proportion of men (80%) and women (77%) also

consider that when women work children suffer (Aboim, 2010). Moreover, men seem to have

replaced the sole breadwinner model with a “continuous worker model” (Wall, 2007). Some

type of modified traditionalism seems to be gaining place (Gerson, 2002), where men have a

pathway of continuous work, while participate moderately in the family, and women work as

long as they can and are the main responsible for the family (Gerson, 2002).

Men’s low participation in the family can also be related with the lack of role models

from previous generations (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007). Nevertheless, a more intra-familial

explanation can be derived from the power and decision-making framework. In order to


11

preserve their authority and their status in the family, some women may resist men’s greater

involvement in family tasks by “gate keeping” the domestic sphere. Thompson and Walker

(1989) suggest that wives may actively prevent their husbands from undertaking household

chores by setting high standards of family work execution or complaining about their

partner’s performance. As paid labour is more valued than family work and this is

consistently seen as men’s competence, women may resist giving up or sharing their sphere

of competence and power. In addition, men’s assumed domestic incompetence and emotional

inexpressiveness may also act as resources that men use to protect their privileged status

(Coltrane & Adams, 2001), as emotional connection and care providing are less valued than

economically providing for the family (Gerson, 2002). Thus, individuals may use the

argument that men are less able to do domestic and childcare tasks and build a mother expert-

father helper relationship. Not surprisingly, women with gender traditional attitudes will

make more use of maternal gate keeping, as shown by Greenstein’s result (1996): wives’

gender role attitudes were more determinant to men’s participation in family chores,

especially feminine related chores, than husband’s attitudes. These explanations are tied with

the previously referred doing gender perspective. In order to build, confirm or reinforce their

gender identity, people refer to masculine and feminine models which vary according to

social and personal values. In Portugal, the dominant gender role model is a traditional one:

men are expected to be the main family providers and women to be responsible for family

chores and emotional well being. Moreover, women are also expected to restructure their

career and cut back on paid labour in order to balance work and family demands (Andrade,

2006, 2010b, 2011). In order to be considered by society as a ‘good’ man or woman, partners

need to conform to this dominant model. What is more, data suggest that the reduction in the

number of hours working women devote to family tasks (compared to nonworking women) is

not due to higher participation of men in these tasks but due to external paid or unpaid help

(Amâncio, 2007) performed by other women (extended family or daily help) (Perista, 2007).

Despite the fact that women’s strategies to deal with the division of household chores

have generally received the most attention from research, men’s more passive strategies to

avoid household chores like ‘‘forget’’ to carry out household tasks or wait for instructions

may also be important to analyse (Hochschild & Machung, 1999; Thompson &Walker,

1989).

Negative perspective on work-family relations: costs of combining multiple roles


12

The conflicting demands imposed by work and family roles led to a dominant view of

the work-family relations as essentially negative. Thus, research points out that dual-earner

households face high levels of stress and lack of time to combine all roles.

This line of studies is grounded in the scarcity hypothesis, which assumes that

individual resources, like time, attention and energy are limited and as the individual assigns

time or energy to one role, this inevitably drains away resources from the other role. In other

words, the demands from different domains compete with each other in terms of time and

energy (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Interrole conflict can occur in a bidirectional manner

(Frone, Russel & Cooper, 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Powell, 2003).

Negative moods, tension and lack of time related to the work role may conflict with the

performance of the family role (family to work conflict) as well as negative moods, tension

and lack of time due to the fulfillment of family responsibilities may conflict with the

performance of the work role (work to family conflict).

The majority of studies undertaken with Portuguese samples refer mainly to a conflict

perspective, because Portuguese women engage in a ‘second shift’ after their professional

work schedule (Hochshild & Machung, 1999). The existence of this second-shift was found

in several studies conducted with Portuguese samples, namely the Famwork research project1

and the International Social Survey Programme. The former was carried out in nine European

countries with the aim of identifying how dual-earner couples with toddlers perceived their

work and family balance and the later was developed among 17 European countries including

Portugal. Both have showed that Portuguese women have higher rates of work and family

stress when compared to other European counterparts (from Austria, Belgium, Czech

Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and

The Netherlands) (Famwork, 2005; Guerreiro & Carvalho, 2007). Portuguese women also

show work-family conflict at higher levels (Famwork, 2005; Guerreiro & Carvalho, 2007;

Santos, 2010). Possible explanations for these results are anchored on long work schedules

for working parents and on the lack of organizational support for the family. Indeed,

Portuguese individuals, especially women, report low levels of family friendliness in their

workplaces (Famwork, 2005).

1 The authors were part of the Portuguese team of Famwork Project. The project funded by the European Union, was conducted by a consortium of the following universities: University of Fribourg (Switzerland), University Graz (Austria), University of Jyväskylä (Finland), University of Mons (Belgium), University of Munich (Germany), University of Nijmegen (Netherlands), University of Palermo (Italy), University of Porto (Portugal), and University of Toulouse-le-Mirail (France).


13

Portuguese men report the highest levels of work-family conflict together with

Austrian, Belgian, German, and Swiss men, but report the lowest levels of family-work

conflict (Famwork, 2005). Work stress and professional work schedules are the main

predictors of work-family conflict, regardless of country and gender. Thus, because

Portuguese men and women engage in very long working schedules and suffer tension in

their professional role their levels of work-family conflict are high. However, regarding

family-work conflict the relations are more diverse (Famwork, 2005). In effect, for

Portuguese women, high family stress, spending few hours on household chores and low

appreciation from the partner regarding the housework performed predict family-work

conflict (Matias, 2007; Matias, Andrade & Fontaine, 2011) while for men high family stress

and spending long hours in childcare tasks have a strong effect on family-work conflict

(Matias, Andrade & Fontaine, 2011). The fact that for Portuguese women, a low performance

of domestic chores is associated to high family-work conflict cannot be explained by a

rational assessment of work, once again supporting the importance of gender roles. Through

the performance of housework, women act according to their traditional gender role,

reinforcing their gender identity (Brines, 1994; West & Zimmerman, 1987), which in turn

buffers the negative impact of these tasks on conflict.

Engaging in traditional gender roles may also have negative impacts. Andrade and

Bould (in press) found that mother´s burden with childcare activities and perceptions of

injustice in the division of these activities, strongly affect mother’s relationship satisfaction

and have a negative impact on mother´s intention to have another child.

Positive perspective on work-family relations: benefits of multiple roles

Over the last ten years there has been a shift in work-family literature and the research

focus has moved from an essentially negative perspective to a more positive one, focusing on

the positive outcomes that can be derived from balancing multiple roles (Grzywacz & Marks,

2000). Most employed women and men believe that strong benefits will be gained from

combining work and family and that these benefits outweigh the costs (Torres, 2004). This

perspective is based on the role expansion or role promotion approaches (Grzywacz & Marks,

2000), which suggest that participation in multiple roles can provide individuals with a

greater number of opportunities and resources that can be used to promote growth and better

functioning across several life domains (Barnett, 1998). Resources are not viewed as scarce

or limited but as flexible and capable of being transferred from one role to another, promoting


14

better functioning, satisfaction and sense of self-worth (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000;

Kirchmeyer, 1992). In fact, combining multiple roles was found to be associated with

stronger organizational commitment, higher job satisfaction and personal growth

(Kirchmeyer, 1992). This process, which may be labelled as facilitation, is “the extent to

which participation at work (or home) is made easier by virtue of the experiences, skills, and

opportunities gained or developed at home (or work)” (Frone, 2003: 145). Similar to conflict,

the facilitation process is also bidirectional. Positive moods, benefits and resources can be

gained in the work role and transferred to the family role (work-family facilitation) or

resources, benefits and moods associated to the family role can be transferred to the work role

(family-work facilitation).

Using the facilitation framework, a study by Andrade and Matias (2009) found that, in

dual-earners, flexible supervision at the workplace promoted work-to-family facilitation and

work satisfaction in women. This may be due to the fact that supervisor support is not

compulsory and thus enhances a family supportive work environment (Kossek & Ozeki,

1998). As a consequence, it might help individuals cope better with family issues

(Voydanoff, 2004), especially women as they have the main responsibility for childcare and

family tasks. Concerning the positive relations between family and work, higher levels of

marital satisfaction and men’s participation in the household are associated with women’s

family-work facilitation (Matias & Fontaine, 2011a). However, for men the perception of

burden with household tasks diminishes their family-work facilitation. This may be due to the

fact that men’s perception of burden is greater regarding chores which are not associated with

their traditional gender role. Nevertheless, men’s participation in household tasks has the

opposite impact on the facilitation process for men and for women. This fact raises some

questions about the best way to divide family tasks between Portuguese men and women

(Matias & Fontaine, 2011a). Attitudes towards the division of roles and tasks in the family

are undergoing a significant transition: even if the mother continues to have the main

responsibility for childcare, a higher participation of men in family chores is also expected

(Wall, 2007). Despite their contribution to household chores, it is not enough to match

women’s participation and it refers mainly to childcare tasks (Aboim, 2007; Crompton &

Lyonette, 2008). Because gender roles are in flux it is difficult for individuals to identify and

comply with what others expect. Though raised in very traditional environments, these men

are probably the first generation being called upon to do their family duties (Guerreiro &

Abrantes, 2007). Thus, men are assuming family roles that are still new to them. The current


15

fluidity in men’s family gender role (to be the breadwinner and also to participate more in

childcare) may be causing them dissonance and strain.

Multiple roles: Adaptive strategies and outcomes

So far we have been discussing the way the division of tasks is being performed

among Portuguese families. Nevertheless, to fully grasp the work-family interface it is

important to focus also on the strategies used to cope with the responsibilities of both roles.

This is the point of this final section.

The literature offers a comprehensive model of how individuals and families approach

the work-family interface (Voydanoff, 2008). According to this model, dealing with multiple

roles implies a fit assessment. Work-family fit is a linking mechanism that derives from

assessing relative demands and resources associated with work, family and community roles.

There is fit when the individual has the abilities needed to meet the demands, and misfit

occurs when demands and needs exceed individual abilities and resources. The perception of

misfit between work and family demands and resources leads individuals and families to take

actions to reduce this lack of congruence. One type of strategy could be changing the

demands associated to one of the roles (for example cutting back on work hours, reducing

work responsibilities, limiting housework) and another strategy could be to increase

resources, for instance taking a more flexible job or hiring services.

Nevertheless, this conceptualization does not encompass the use of individual skills

and abilities to deal with multiple roles nor does it consider individuals’ and families’

strategies to avoid misfit. According to Moen and Chesley (2008), adaptive strategies include

individual agency and individual and families are active decision-makers in dealing with

work-family. Due to the complexities of work-family balance, viewing the work-family

interface as merely a means of solving problems and difficulties seem incomplete. A

conceptualization of coping that takes into consideration individual as well as family’s

proactive choice of actions, including also emotional strategies, will add to our understanding

of work-family balance.

Indeed, as mentioned earlier, organizational and public facilities in Portugal are

inadequate for family needs (Famwork, 2005; Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007). Thus, analysing

work-family balance exclusively as a matter of increasing resources will not give us the

complete picture of the way families balance their roles. In managing multiple roles

individuals are proactive (Moen & Yu, 2000) and rely on their own private solutions


16

(Haddock, Ziemba, Zimmerman & Current, 2001; Matias & Fontaine, 2011b; Skinner &

McCubbin, 1987).

Empirical studies in Portugal have stressed the relevance of individual traits, abilities

and positive appraisals to better balance work-family. In a study with dual-earner families

with and without children, Matias and Fontaine (2011b) found five types of reconciliation

strategies: partner coping; positive attitude towards multiple roles, use of management and

planning skills, professional adjustments and institutional support. Partner coping refers to

couples supporting each other and time spent together. Positive attitudes toward multiple

roles refers to a positive view about being dual-earner families. These two dimensions are

essentially dyadic and relational. The third type of strategy, use of management and planning

skills, refers to a personal way of coping with work-family responsibilities. Making

professional adjustments implies reducing the involvement of one of the partners in work.

Finally, an instrumental strategy is evident in the use of Institutional Support, like using

childcare and free time facilities or canteens for children’s lunch. A feature of couple and

family negotiation is evident in these types of strategies. Strategies associated with the

promotion and exchange of positive emotions in the family and creating harmonious

environments motivate individuals to strive to balance work and family life and may also

protect them from the adversities and difficulties of this balance (Matias & Fontaine 2011b).

This study clearly shows that incrementing resources (use of institutional support) or limiting

demands (professional adjustments) are only part of the solution when trying to deal with

multiple roles.

Similar results are obtained with qualitative studies. Increasing resources, such as

outsourcing to ease the domestic burden (eg daily help or a paid laundry service, take away

meals, etc) and using childcare facilities or limiting demands, including asking for flexitime

or working fewer hours are desired strategies to help to find the balance, though they are not

very often available or affordable. Again, intra-familial strategies like managing time and

assigning tasks to other family members, taking time for family activities and valuing family

moments seem very useful and are frequently used for achieving a better work-family

balance (Matias, Fontaine, Simão, Oliveira & Mendonça 2010; Núncio; 2008).

Concluding Remarks


17

In this final section, we remind readers of two major factors affecting the balance of

work and family roles in Portugal: the influence of traditional gender roles on the division of

unpaid work and the egalitarian participation of women and men in the workforce. Both have

profound implications for the attitudes and practices related with work-life balance in

Portuguese dual-earners couples.

While female labour force participation brings Portugal near to egalitarian societies,

where gender equity in the division of roles tens to be established, attitudes and practices

towards the division of unpaid labour resemble those societies where the male breadwinner

model is the norm. Thus, not surprisingly, women´s dual-role accounts for higher levels of

work-family conflict and burden when compared to their European counterparts (Famwork,

2005; Guerreiro & Carvalho, 2007).

Analyses of individual attitudes reveal that Portuguese couples prefer the dual-earner

instead of the breadwinner model (Torres, 2004). However, both men and women maintain

traditional attitudes towards motherhood and division of unpaid labour (Aboim, 2007; Wall,

2007; Wall & Guerreiro, 2005). Socialization processes, translated in the attempt to conform

and display traditional gender roles within the family, play a very important role. Therefore,

when women do not perform childcare according to the social prescribed standards, they

report higher levels of family-work conflict and when men feel themselves burdened with the

performance of household chores they report less family to work facilitation. Both these

situations defy traditional gender roles and are evidence of some resistance to change in

family practices.

Nevertheless, some changes within the family organization can also be noticed:

women benefit when their partners contribute to household chores (Matias & Fontaine,

2011a), young fathers are participating more in childcare even though their contribution is

still scarce when compared to mothers (Aboim, 2007) and younger generations hold more

egalitarian attitudes towards gender roles when compared with their parents (Andrade, 2006).

In addition, institutional support policies as well as workplace measures are

progressively more responsive to changes occurring in dual earner families. Nevertheless,

there is a gap between intentions to develop family-friendly policies and the real awareness

and use of these policies by the individuals. This may be due to the widespread representation

of the worker as an individual who performs only one role, the professional one. Meanwhile,

a large number of Portuguese dual-earner families struggle to combine work and family roles


18

using individual and familial resources (Matias & Fontaine, 2011b; Matias et al, 2010;

Núncio, 2008)

Finally, we encourage future research to focus on attitudes and practices of gender

roles in the context of family-work relations in Portugal. Given the co-existence of traditional

gendered ideals concerning participation in the family and modern ideals concerning

participation in the professional role, and the discrepancies between couples’ ideals and their

reality in work and family balance, the commitment to achieve equality could be hindered by

the gendered perception of who should do what. Time, investment and emotional work are

easily blended in the display of women´s family role providing a ground for the persistence

of inequalities within the family. And because inequalities within the family can easily spread

to inequalities in the society, Portuguese women´s participation in the labour force and family

roles should be questioned in a society that places a greater emphasis on the importance of

family.


19

References

Aboim, S. (2007). ‘Clivagens e continuidades de género face à família em Portugal e

noutros países europeus’. [Gender cleavages and continuities towards family in

Portugal and in other European countries]. In K. Wall e L. Amâncio (orgs.),

Família e género, atitudes sociais dos Portugueses (pp.35-91) [Family and Gender

in Portugal and in Europe]. Lisboa, Portugal: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais.

Aboim, S. (2010). ‘Género, família e mudança em Portugal.’ [Gender, family and

change in Portugal]. In K. Wall, S. Aboim & V. Cunha (coords.), A vida familiar

no masculino: negociando velhas e novas masculinidades (pp.39-66). [Family life

in maculine: negotiating old and new masculinities]. Lisboa, Portugal: CITE.

Amâncio, L. (2007). ‘Género e divisão do trabalho doméstico – o caso português em

perspectiva’. [Gender and domestic work division – perspectives on the Portuguese

situation]. In K. Wall e L. Amâncio (orgs.), Família e género, atitudes sociais dos

Portugueses (pp.181-210) [Family and Gender in Portugal and in Europe]. Lisboa,

Portugal: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais.

Andrade, C. & Bould, S. (in press). ‘Women´s decision on having a second child: do the

perceptions of justice in the division of childcare count?’ Manuscript accepted for

publication.

Andrade, C. (2006). ‘Antecipação da conciliação dos papéis familiares e profissionais

na transição para a idade adulta: estudo diferencial e intergeracional’. [Anticipation

of the reconciliation of family and work roles in the transition to adulthood: a

differential and intergenerational study]. PhD Dissertation, University of Porto,

Portugal.

Andrade, C. & Matias, M. (2009). ‘Gender Differences in Work-to-Family Facilitation

in Portuguese Employees’. Exedra, 2, 161-172.

Andrade, C. (2010a). Trabalho e Família na Transição para a Idade Adulta. [Work and

Family in the transition to Adulthood]. Porto: LivPsic.

Andrade, C. (2010b). ‘“Juggling Act”: Questões relativas às relações Trabalho-Família

no contexto actual? Exedra, 3, 117-130.

Andrade, C. (2011). Gender, Generations and Work-Family Relations in Portugal.

Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Barnett, R. (1998). ‘Toward a review and reconceptualization of the work/family


20

literature.’ Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 124 (2), 125-153.

Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C. & Robinson, J. P. (2000). ‘Is anyone doing

the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor.’ Social Forces,

79, 191-228.

Bittman, M., England, P., Sayer, L., Folbre, N., Matheson, G. (2003). ‘When gender

trump money? Bargaining and time in the household.’ American Journal of

Sociology, 109, 186-214.

Brines, J. (1994). ‘Economic dependency, gender and the division of labor at home.’

American Journal of Sociology, 100 (3), 652-688.

Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2003). A igualdade de oportunidades entre homens e mulheres em

contexto organizacional. [Equal opportunities between men and women in the

organizational context]. Braga, Portugal: Escola de Economia e Gestão.

Coltrane, S. & Adams, M. (2001). ‘Men’s family work: Child –centered fathering and

the sharing of domestic labor’. In R. Hertz & N. Marshall (Eds,) Working families:

The transformation of the American home. (pp. 72-99). Los Angeles: University of

California Press.

Coltrane, S. (2000). ‘Research on household labour: modelling and measuring the social

embeddedness of routine family work.’ Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62,

1208-1233.

Crompton R. and Lyonette, C. (2008). ‘Who does the housework? The division of

labour within the home. ’ In A. Park, A.J. Curtice, K. Thomson, M. Phillips, M.

Johnson & E. Clery (eds) British Social Attitudes: 24th Report, (pp. 53–80).

London: Sage.

Eurostat (2010). ‘Employment rate of adults by sex, age groups, highest level of

education attained, number of children and age of youngest child.’ Retrieved from

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/setupUpdateInfo.do. [14 June 2011].

Famwork Research Consortium (2005). Family life and professional work: Conflict and

synergy (final report). Available at http://www.eu-project-famwork.org [30 June

2006].

Fontaine, A., Andrade, C., Matias, M., Gato, J., & Mendonça. M. (2007). ‘Family and

work division in dual earner families in Portugal.’ In I. Crespi (Ed), Gender

mainstreaming and family policy in Europe: perspectives, research and debates.

Milan, Italy: Vita e Pensiero


21

Frone, M. (2003). ‘Work-family balance.’ In J. Quick & L. Tetrick (Eds,), Handbook of

Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 143-162). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Frone, M., Russell, M & Cooper, M. (1992). ‘Antecedents and outcomes of work-

family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. ’ Journal of Applied

Psychology, 77 (1), 65-78.

Gerson, K. (1993). No man’s land: men’s changing commitments to family and work.

New York: Basic Books.

Gerson, K. (2002). ‘Moral dilemmas, moral strategies, and the transformation of

gender: Lessons from two generations of work and family change.’ Gender &

Society, 16 (1), 8-28.

Greenhaus, J. & Beutell, N. (1985). ‘Sources of conflict between work and family

roles.’ Academy of Management Review, 10 (1), 76-88.

Greenhaus, J. & Powell, G. (2003). ‘ When work and family collide: decide between

competing role demands.’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 90, 291-303.

Greenstein, T. (1996). ‘Husbands‘ participation in domestic labor: Interactive effects of

wive’s and husbands‘ gender ideologies. ’ Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58,

585-595.

Grzywacz, J. & Marks, N. (2000). ‘Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: a

ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between

work and family.’ Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5 (1), 111-126.

Guerreiro, M. & Abrantes, P. (2007). Transições Incertas: Os Jovens Perante o

Trabalho e a Família. [Uncertain Transitions: Young Adults in Work and Family].

Lisboa, Portugal: CITE.

Guerreiro, M. & Carvalho, H. (2007). ‘O stress na relação trabalho-família: Uma análise

comparativa.’ [Stress in the work-family relation: A comparative analysis]. In K.

Wall, & L. Amâncio (Eds.). Família e Género em Portugal e na Europa (pp. 93-

128) [Family and Gender in Portugal and in Europe]. Lisboa, Portugal: Imprensa

de Ciências Sociais.

Gupta, S. (1999). ‘The effects of transitions in marital status on men's performance of

housework.’ Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 700-711.

Haddock, S., Ziemba, S., Zimmerman, T. & Current, L. (2001). ‘Ten adaptive strategies


22

for family and work balance: Advice from successful families.’ Journal of Marital

and Family Therapy, 27 (4), 445-458.

Hochschild, A. & Machung, A. (1999). The Second Shift: Working Parents and

Revolution at Home. New York: Avon

INE (2010). Estatísticas do emprego e da população. [Employment and Population

Statistics]. Retrieved from http://www.pordata.pt/.

Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). ‘Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging the

common view of conflict-ridden domain relationships.’ Basic and Applied

Psychology, 13 (2), 231-249.

Kluwer, E. (1998). ‘Responses to gender inequality in the division of family work: The

status quo effect.’ Social Justice Research, 11 (3), 337-357.

Kossek, E. & Ozeki, C. (1998). ‘Work-family conflict, policies and the job-life

satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behaviour-

human resources research.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (2), 139-149

Kroska, A. (2003). ‘Investigating gender differences in the meaning of household

chores and childcare.’ Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 (2), 456-473.

Larsen, T. & Hadlow, J. (2003). Multi-Career Families, Work and Care in Finland,

France, Italy, Portugal and the UK. Available at

http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/sostut/soccare/report3.pdf [12 September 2011]

Major, B. (1993). ‘Gender, entitlement and the distribution of family labor.’ Journal of

Social Issues, 49, 141-159.

Matias, M. & Fontaine, A. M. (2011a). The Role of Gender When Family Intersects

Work: Conflict or Facilitation? Psicologia, Educação e Cultura, 25 (2), 337-354.

Matias, M. & Fontaine, A. M. (2011b). Managing Multiple Roles: Development of the

Work-Family Strategies Scale. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Matias, M. Fontaine, A. M. , Simão, C., Oliveira, E. & Mendonça, M. (2010). ‘A

conciliação trabalho-família em casais de duplo-emprego.’ [Work and family

conciliation in dual-earner couples]. In C. Nogueira, I. Silva, L. Lima, A.T.

Almeida, R. Cabecinhas, R. Gomes, C. Machado, A. Maia, A. Sampaio & M. C.

Taveira (Eds.), Actas do VII Simpósio Nacional de Investigação em Psicologia.

[National Symposium on Psychology Research]. Retrieved on 13/12/2010 from

http://www.actassnip2010.com/ conteudos/actas/PsiFam_1.pdf.

Matias, M., Andrade, C. & Fontaine, A. M. (2011). ‘Diferenças de género no conflito


23

trabalho-família: Um estudo com famílias portuguesas de duplo-emprego com

filhos em idade pré-escolar.’ [Gender differences in work-family conflict: A study

with Portuguese dual-earner families with toddlers]. Psicologia, 25 (1), 9-32.

Matias. M. (2007). Vida profissional e familiar: Padrões de conflito e facilitação na

gestão de múltiplos papéis. [Family and Work Life: Patterns of conflict and

facilitation in multiple role management]. Master dissertation, University of Porto,

Porto.

Mikula, G. (1998).‘Division of household labor and perceived justice: A growing field

of research.’ Social Justice Research , 11, 215-241.

Moen, P. & Chesley, N. (2008). ‘Toxic job ecologies, time convoys, and work-family

conflict: Can families (re)gain control and life course “fit”?’ In K. Korabik, D.

Lero & D. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of Work-Family Integration, (pp. 95-123).

London: Elsevier.

Moen, P. & Yu, Y. (2000). ‘Effective work/life strategies: Working couples, work

conditions, gender, and quality of life.’ Social Problems, 47 (3), 291-326.

Núncio, M. (2008). Mulheres em dupla-jornada: A conciliação entre o trabalho e a

família.[Women in dual-shift: Work and family reconciliation]. Lisboa, Portugal:

Instituo Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas.

Perista, H. (2002). ‘Género e trabalho não pago: Os tempos das mulheres e os tempos

dos homens.’ [Gender and unpaid work: The times of women and men]. Análise

Social, 37 (163), 447-474.

Perista, H. (2007). ‘A partilha do privado.’ [Sharing the private] In. L. Amâncio, M.

Tavares, T. Joaquim & T. S. Almeida (Org.). O Longo Caminho das Mulheres:

Feminismos 80 Anos Depois. (pp. 365-374). [Women’s Long Road: Feminism 80

Years Latter]. Lisboa, Portugal: Publicações Dom Quixote.

Pfau-Effinger, B. (1999). ‘The modernization of family and motherhood in Western

Europe.’ In R. Crompton (Ed.), Restructuring gender relations and employment.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Poeschl, G. & Serôdio, R. (1998). ‘Rôles de genre, travail familial et pouvoir familial :

représentations et relations.’ [Gender roles, family work and power over the

family: representations and relationships]. La Revue Internationale de l´Education

Familiale, 2, 5-23.

Poeschl, G. & Silva, A (2001). ‘Efeito das crenças nas diferenças entre sexos na


24

percepção e no julgamento das práticas familiares.’ [Beliefs on sex differences and

practices in the family]. Psicologia, 15, 93-113.

Poeschl, G. (2007). ‘What family organization tells us about fairness and power in

marital relationships.’ Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1 (1), 557-571.

Poeschl. G. (2000). ‘Trabalho doméstico e poder familiar: Práticas, normas e ideais.’

[Housework and family power: Practices, norms and ideals]. Análise Social, 35

(156), 695-719.

Presser, H. (1994). ‘Employment schedules among dual-earner spouses and the division

of household labor by gender.’ American Sociological Review, 59, 348-364

Santos, G. (2010). ‘Gestão, trabalho e relações sociais de género.’ [Management, work

and gendered social relations]. In V. Ferreira (Org.), A Igualdade de Mulheres e

Homens no Trabalho e no Emprego em Portugal – Políticas e Circunstâncias [The

Equality between Women and Men on Work and Employment in Portugal –

Policies and Circumstances] (pp. 99-138). Lisboa, Portugal: CITE.

Shelton, B. A. & John, D. (1996). ‘The division of household labor. ’ Annual Review of

Sociology, 22, 299-322.

Skinner, D. & McCubbin, H. (1987). ‘Coping in dual-employed families: Spousal

differences.’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on

Family Relations. Washington, DC.

Soccare Project (2004). New kinds of families, new kinds of social care (final report).

Available at

ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/citizens/docs/kina21322ensfinal_soccare.pdf [12

September 2011].

Sümer, S., Smithson, J., Guerreiro, M. & Granlund, L. (2008). ‘Becoming working

mothers: Reconciling work and family at three particular workplaces in Norway,

the UK and Portugal.’ Community, Work and Family, 11 (4), 365-384.

Thompson, L. & Walker, A. (1989). ‘Gender in families: Women and men in marriage,

work, and parenthood.’ Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 845 – 871.

Torres, A. (2004). Vida conjugal e trabalho: Uma perspectiva sociológica. [Conjugal

life and work: A sociological perspective] Oeiras, Portugal: Celta Editora.

Torres, A., Silva, F., Monteiro. T. & Cabrita, M. (2005). Homens e mulheres entre

família e trabalho. [Men and women between family and work]. Lisboa, Portugal:

CITE


25

Voydanoff, P. (2004). ‘Implications of work and community demands and resources for

work-to-family conflict and facilitation.’ Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 9 (4), 275-285.

Voydanoff, P. (2008). ‘A conceptual model of the work-family interface.’ In K.

Korabik, D. Lero & D. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of Work-Family Integration,

(pp. 37-56). London: Elsevier.

Wall, K. & Guerreiro, M. D. (2005). ‘A divisão familiar do trabalho.’ [The division of

family work]. In K. Wall (Org.), Famílias em Portugal: Percursos, interacções,

redes sociais. [Families in Portugal: Pathways, interactions and social networks]

(pp. 303-362). Lisboa, Portugal: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais.

Wall, K. (2005). Famílias em Portugal: percursos, interacções, redes sociais. [Families

in Portugal: pathways, interactions and social networks]. Lisboa, Portugal:

Imprensa de Ciências Sociais.

Wall, K. (2007). ‘Atitudes face a divisão familiar do trabalho em Portugal e na Europa.’

[Attitudes towards the division of family work in Portugal and in Europe]. In K.

Wall e L. Amâncio (Orgs,), Família e género, atitudes sociais dos Portugueses

[Family and gender – Portuguese social attitudes] (pp 211-257). Lisboa, Portugal:

Imprensa de Ciências Sociais.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. (1987). ‘Doing gender.’ Gender & Society, 1 (2), 125-151.


26

Acknowledgements

The first author has been awarded a doctoral grant from the Fundação para a Ciência e

Tecnologia (SFRH/BD 35963/2007).

Matias, M., Andrade, C. & Fontaine, A. M. (2012). The interplay of gender, work and family in...

Documents

Transcript of Matias, M., Andrade, C. & Fontaine, A. M. (2012). The interplay of gender, work and family in...