Sessão especial - Fast Track SEMEAD: Antecedentes do conflito trabalho‐família: diferenças entre a percepção de homens e mulheres nas melhores empresas para você trabalhar

IF 1.8 Q3 MANAGEMENT REGE-Revista de Gestao Pub Date : 2017-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.rege.2017.07.001
Érica Custódia de Oliveira , Angela Christina Lucas , Tania Casado
{"title":"Sessão especial - Fast Track SEMEAD: Antecedentes do conflito trabalho‐família: diferenças entre a percepção de homens e mulheres nas melhores empresas para você trabalhar","authors":"Érica Custódia de Oliveira ,&nbsp;Angela Christina Lucas ,&nbsp;Tania Casado","doi":"10.1016/j.rege.2017.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article aims to analyze if there are differences between men's and women's perceptions about organizational antecedents related to the work‐family conflict (WFC). The methodology is descriptive quantitative, using secondary data from the The Best Companies for You to Work survey of 2015, and the techniques of descriptive statistics (frequency of formal practices), factorial analysis (workers’ perceptions about four antecedents) and test t and ANOVA two‐way (to evaluate statistical significance of the analyzed groups’ different means). Two of all the results found stand out: women perceive more support from the manager and less involvement in the work, which suggests less WFC for them, but less colleagues social support and balance between professional and personal life, which indicates higher WFC for them; there is a detachment between formal practices for WFC management and the workers’ WFC perception in the organizations investigated, since the presence of such practices is not associated with lower perception of the antecedents that increase WFC.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":43596,"journal":{"name":"REGE-Revista de Gestao","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rege.2017.07.001","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REGE-Revista de Gestao","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1809227616306841","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This article aims to analyze if there are differences between men's and women's perceptions about organizational antecedents related to the work‐family conflict (WFC). The methodology is descriptive quantitative, using secondary data from the The Best Companies for You to Work survey of 2015, and the techniques of descriptive statistics (frequency of formal practices), factorial analysis (workers’ perceptions about four antecedents) and test t and ANOVA two‐way (to evaluate statistical significance of the analyzed groups’ different means). Two of all the results found stand out: women perceive more support from the manager and less involvement in the work, which suggests less WFC for them, but less colleagues social support and balance between professional and personal life, which indicates higher WFC for them; there is a detachment between formal practices for WFC management and the workers’ WFC perception in the organizations investigated, since the presence of such practices is not associated with lower perception of the antecedents that increase WFC.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
特别会议-快速通道SEMEAD:工作-家庭冲突的背景:男性和女性对最适合你工作的公司的看法的差异
本文旨在分析男性和女性对与工作家庭冲突(WFC)相关的组织前因的看法是否存在差异。方法是描述性定量的,使用2015年“最适合你工作的公司”调查的二手数据,以及描述性统计(正式实践的频率)、析因分析(工人对四种前因的看法)和检验t和方差分析两种方法(评估分析组不同方法的统计显著性)的技术。其中两个结果比较突出:女性认为来自管理者的支持更多,对工作的投入更少,这表明她们的WFC更低;而同事的社会支持和职业与个人生活的平衡更少,这表明她们的WFC更高;在被调查的组织中,WFC管理的正式实践与工人的WFC感知之间存在脱节,因为这种实践的存在与对增加WFC的前因的较低感知无关。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
39
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Sessão especial - Fast Track SEMEAD: Tem ação nessa pesquisa? Um levantamento da pesquisa‐ação como estratégia de pesquisa qualitativa Sessão especial - Fast Track SEMEAD: Comportamento de cidadania organizacional: sua interação com os valores organizacionais e a satisfação no trabalho Propriedades psicométricas das medidas do Questionário Psicossocial de Copenhague I (COPSOQ I), versão curta Participação social nos serviços públicos: caracterização do estado da arte por meio da bibliometria e da revisão sistemática Sessão especial - Fast Track SEMEAD: Potencialidades e desafios na articulação entre a memória e a aprendizagem organizacional: o Centro de Memória Bunge
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1