Research Notes

Updated 10:00 AM August 16, 2004

Research Notes

Businesses can win the battle between work and family

Some companies wage an ongoing war between work and family that ultimately undermines the goals of the organization and leads to higher employee burnout and turnover. But it doesn't have to be like that.

Lynn Wooten, assistant professor of corporate strategy and international business at the Business School, says companies can win this war by making smart investments in family-friendly cultures, policies and practices that facilitate employees' efforts to balance work demands with the obligations of personal life.

When this is achieved, she says, business organizations are positioned to reap a competitive advantage from their human capital through their ability to recruit, develop and retain a capable, committed workforce.

"Today's knowledge economy demands investments in human capital and the creation of a work environment where employees can manage the boundaries of work and family, and thus excel at their jobs," Wooten says. "The ideal family-friendly programs address a broad perspective of an individual's personal life, including not only care-giving to a spouse or child, but also community involvement and personal interests."

Making meaningful changes to an existing corporate culture is not easy, she says. It requires rethinking traditional notions of how work is structured and a strong, long-term commitment from company leaders who are willing to "walk the talk." Some firms have discovered that partnering with other organizations enables them to share knowledge, save costs and develop innovative work-family solutions.

Wooten's findings appear in a book chapter titled "Creating the Family-Friendly Organization: Successful Strategies for Winning the Battle Between Work and Family," which will be included in the Next Generation Business Handbook, scheduled for publication in September by Wiley & Sons.
—Bernie DeGroat, News Service

Female & Black legislators more likely to prioritize children's health

When it comes to new proposals to protect children's health at the state level, women and African Americans serving in legislatures are far more likely than other lawmakers to put forth new bills—but the issue doesn't appear to rank high on legislatures' overall priority list, a study finds.

In an exhaustive analysis of more than 9,800 bills introduced in three states during a two-year period, researchers from the U-M Health System, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital and the Ford School of Public Policy find that a tiny percentage—two-thirds of 1 percent—pertained to children's health.

That's only 11 percent of all health bills, even though children's medical issues often involve important preventive measures, as well as the Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) services that make up a large part of state budgets. The paper is in the July-August issue of Ambulatory Pediatrics.

Women legislators were more than twice as likely as their male counterparts to sponsor child health bills. Women's proposals made up 37 percent of all child health bills while their total number of proposals made up 16 percent of all bills introduced.

Members of the Black Caucus in each state legislature also were more likely than non-Caucus legislators to put forth children's health legislation. There was no significant difference between legislators of the two major political parties.

But when the researchers looked at the bills introduced by senior legislators of any gender or race who had risen to committee chair positions, they found an opposite trend: a far lower percentage of bills introduced by chairs pertained to child health when compared with the bills introduced by non-chairs.

The lead author was Dr. Matthew Davis, assistant professor of both pediatrics and public policy. He led the project with Ford School graduate student Amy Upston. They examined bills presented in the state legislatures of Michigan, Colorado and Louisiana.
—Kara Gavin, UMHS Public Relations

Do powerful leaders feel your pain or feel lonely at the top?

Bill Clinton told Americans, "I feel your pain." Is a powerful leader really in touch with everyday people or isolated and lonely at the top? It depends on how deliberately one pursues power, according to new U-M research.

"Power affects your emotions and behavior, and we want to examine how it affects someone's self-identity," says Fiona Lee, a psychology and business professor who is an expert on organizational behavior. "Does power make the power-holder feel disconnected, do they have a harder time relating to others, and generally become more lonely at the top? Or does power help the power-holder feel like they know everyone, can influence others to get things done, and therefore feel more connected to others?"

These feelings vary based on how deliberately and strategically one thinks about power. The more you think about power, Lee says, the more likely you will dwell on how you can build relationships with others and how other people can help you get things done. In this case, having power makes one feel more connected to others.

Lee and graduate student Brianna Barker worked with Stanford University organizational behavior professor Larissa Tiedens to learn how power affects someone's self concept, specifically examining whether it makes people feel more alone or more connected with others. They presented findings from two different studies at the annual conference of the American Psychological Association earlier this month.

"Some people are in very high power jobs, but they are not necessarily motivated by power. They may not think a lot about how to gain and accrue power in their everyday lives. For these people, having more power is related to feeling more disconnected to others," Lee says. "However, some people are interested in a job precisely because it affords a lot of power and influence."
—Joseph Serwach, News Service

Software offshoring: Big savings, quality concerns

Companies can save thousands of dollars by outsourcing the development of custom-software projects to low-cost, offshore locations such as India and China, say researchers at the Business School and the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

In a new study, Michigan Business School professors Sendil Ethiraj, Prashant Kale and M.S. Krishnan and Wharton professor Jitendra Singh estimate the average annual decline in quality-adjusted price for software projects developed offshore is about 14 percent—or $56,000 per project.

This is significant in an industry in which projects normally are expected to exceed budget and delivery schedule, the researchers say.

"The offshoring movement in software development is driven by a strong cost-saving motive," says Krishnan, associate professor of business information technology. "In order to improve both quality and cost, some of the successful offshore software vendors have adapted and disciplined their development processes to squeeze costs out of the system."

There are tradeoffs, however, between the low prices customers enjoy and the potential for increased dissatisfaction due to greater uncertainties associated with distributed development.

"The problems of contracting in custom software are compounded when the development moves offshore," Krishnan says. "While offshore locations such as India are a fertile source of low-cost labor, the cheaper labor available locally can also create incentives for the vendor to staff the project with less-qualified employees, which potentially can increase defects and schedule spillovers and may lead to significant opportunity costs for customers.
—Bernie DeGroat, News Service

Research Notes

More Stories