Unpaid family caregiving responsibilities, employee job tasks and work‐family conflict: A cross‐cultural study

• Published date: 01 July 2021
• Author: Hugh T. J. Bainbridge,Esther Palm,Man Mandy Fong
• Date: 01 July 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12333

Received: 17 June 2019

-

Revised: 15 November 2020

-

Accepted: 17 November 2020

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12333

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Unpaid family caregiving responsibilities,

employee job tasks and work‐family conflict: A

cross‐cultural study

Hugh T. J. Bainbridge

1

|Esther Palm

2

|Man Mandy Fong

1

1

School of Management, Business School,

University of New South Wales, Sydney,

Australia

2

University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

Correspondence

Hugh T. J. Bainbridge, School of

Management, Business School, University of

New South Wales, Room 510, Sydney, NSW

2052 Australia.

Email: h.bainbridge@unsw.edu.au

Abstract

Employment is often undertaken simultaneous with

providing unpaid care for an elderly or disabled family

member. These dual responsibilities can create substantial

inter‐role conflict. The current study considers how these

roles affect work‐family conflict by examining: (i) the pro-

cess which the gender of employees with caregiving re-

sponsibilities shapes work‐family conflict and (ii) whether

this effect of employee gender is moderated by the societal

level of gender egalitarianism. Data were collected from

employees with caregiving responsibilities in 33 European

countries. Findings suggest that the mediated relationship

between gender and work‐family conflict is moderated by

gender egalitarianism. As gender egalitarianism increases,

women's commitment to caregiving is unchanged, while

men, contrary to expectations, provide less caregiving. This

gendered effect leads to an adjustment in an employee's

job tasks, which in turn, reduces work‐family conflict.

Overall, the findings suggest that gender, job tasks and

cross‐cultural variables are important considerations at the

interface of employment and caregiving.

KEYWORDS

caregiving, cross‐cultural, disability, gender egalitarianism, social

norms, work‐family

Abbreviations: Carers NSW, Carers New South Wales; EWCS, European Working Conditions Survey; GII, Gender Inequality Index; HILDA,

Household and Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia; JD‐R, Job Demands‐Resources; NACAARP, National Alliance for Caregiving and American

Association of Retired Persons; OECD, Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development; UN, United Nations.

658

-

Hum Resour Manag J. 2021;31:658–674. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

1

|

INTRODUCTION

Many employees are also unpaid caregivers for an elderly or disabled family member. Employees perform this dual

role when they support an elderly parent, a spouse (e.g., with a mental health condition) or a son/daughter (e.g.,

with a developmental disability). In Europe, 10%–20% of employees care for an elderly or disabled family member

(Reichert & Franke, 2011). This role is also common in the United States where one in five adults provide unpaid

care (NACAARP, 2015).

Caregiving is mentally and physically demanding. So, to manage simultaneous employment and caregiving roles,

individuals often make job‐related adjustments to reduce inter‐role conflict. This issue, concerning how caregiving

affects employment, is the focus of increasing attention given ageing populations and the associated increasing

prevalence of care (e.g., Bainbridge & Townsend, 2020; Burch, Dugan, & Barnes‐Farrell, 2019; Calvano, 2013; Las

Heras, Van der Heijden, De Jong, & Rofcanin, 2017; Plaisier, van Groenou, & Keuzenkamp, 2015). Studies reveal

that caregiving may affect hours of employment. It can prompt a temporary reduction in hours via the use of sick

leave, caregivers leave or a paid or unpaid leave of absence. It can also permanently reduce hours when employees

move from full to part‐time or exit the labour market (Lilly, Laporte, & Coyte, 2007; NACAARP, 2015).

Viewing the effect of caregiving through the lens of reduced employment hours does however provide only a

partial picture. Employees also respond to caregiving demands when they alter how they do their job by adjusting

the tasks they perform. To illustrate, employees report that caregiving prompts a rescheduling of job tasks and

leads to changes in how a job is performed (Gautun & Hagen, 2010; Reid, Stajduhar, & Chappell, 2010). Caregiving

is also tied to adjustments in job content and employee perceptions of the quality of the job role (Reid et al., 2010).

Despite these indications of caregiving's broader effect, little attention has been given to changes in the job tasks

that employees perform.

2

|

FAMILY CAREGIVING RESPONSIBILITIES AND EMPLOYEE JOB ROLES

We commence our examination of the interface of caregiving and employment with a consideration of job features.

The job demands‐resources (JD‐R) model (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz‐Vergel, 2014) considers jobs as having

characteristics that are classified as either a demand or a resource. Job demands are physical, social or organisa-

tional aspects of a job that require sustained effort. Job resources refer to aspects that allow goals to be achieved,

that reduce demands or that encourage employee development. Pressure to complete job tasks and information

overload are typical examples of job demands. Job autonomy and social support are often studied resources. Job

demands and resources are associated with important employee outcomes. For example, high job demands lower

well‐being and performance while increasing burnout and sick leave usage (Bakker et al., 2004,2014).

Key points

�Work‐family research focuses on childcare

�Little attention has been given to the effects of caregiving for elderly or disabled family on an em-

ployee's job

�Our findings underline the importance of gender, social norms and caregiving on employment.

�Organisations might consider providing employees with a right to return to a job equivalent to that

held before caregiving, encouraging open communication between managers and employees about

non‐work responsibilities, and awareness training concerning caregiving.

BAINBRIDGE ET AL.

-

659