No abstract

With all of the changes in the workforce, there is increasing strain on the delicate balance between work time and personal time. Work–family issues have also been impacted by trends such as an increase in expectations for work hours, rising numbers of women in managerial and executive positions, changes in family structures, and decisions about balancing career and life. Both researchers and organizations recognized the narrow scope of work–family balance, and have expanded the focus to include the employee’s life outside of work. This chapter begins with a brief overview of what work–life effectiveness means in the current business environment, and provides a business case for why work–life effectiveness matters. It also provides two case studies detailing the types of efforts that leading organizations are making today to meet their employees’ expectations for work–life effectiveness. It concludes with a perspective on work–life evaluation and future thoughts.

The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) has a proud history of using surveys to assess the attitudes and opinions of our employees for nearly 80 years. The P&G Survey, as it exists today, consists of approximately 80 core items that tap into employee attitudes, satisfaction, and engagement. It is delivered to over 100,000 employees, in 80+ countries, in 20+ languages, and is designed to replace all other employee surveys at P&G. Our Employer of Choice model serves as a foundation for the P&G Survey. This model is based on research conducted with external job applicants on what constitutes an ideal work setting, a review of historical internal employee surveys, and a review of external surveys on what it takes to be a great place to work. Over the years, we have used both anonymous and identified surveys. Currently, the P&G Survey is an identified survey, and we conduct linkage research with a variety of data sources including attrition data, business unit financial data, and other data sources. P&G's longstanding survey tradition puts us in a unique position to share lessons learned and offer guidelines for those thinking about using identified surveys. Below, we expand on the recommendations Saari and Scherbaum (2011) posit, and propose six additional

No abstract

No abstract