Company Culture and Men's Usage of Family Leave Benefits in Sweden

Abstract

The 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) gave some parents in the United States the right to stay home from work to care for babies or seriously ill children. Despite its limitations (the leave is short, unpaid, and only about one half of workers are covered), many individuals who approve of government support for individuals' managing work and family roles see the FMLA as a small step in the right direction. One interesting aspect of the new law is that men as well as women are entitled to take leave. Indeed, the FMLA seems to be the first U.S. law that has promoted the equal participation of men and women in child care. Few observers expect, however, that men will take great advantage of this new law. Many people believe that families cannot afford for fathers to stay home from work without pay, whereas others assume that men would not want to stay home to care for children because they see children as women's responsibility and gain more satisfaction from work than family. We think that these assumptions must be critically examined. It is not clear that families can better afford for mothers to stay home without pay than fathers, or that financial considerations always outweigh other concerns about family well-being. It is also not clear that men do not care to spend more time with children. Indeed, researchers have found that a majority of men consider their family role as more important than their work role, and many are concerned that they do not spend enough time with their children (Altergott, 1988; Gibbs, 1993; Jacobsen & Edmondson, 1993). Two studies of men's attitudes toward parental leave revealed that a majority felt they should have the right to take unpaid leave from work for child-care purposes (Hyde, Essex, & Horton, 1993; Shapiro, Patterson, Russell, & Young, 1987). A study of DuPont employees found that almost two thirds of the men wanted the opportunity to stay home with sick children and over half wanted the option of part-time work when their children were small (Efron, 1992). The greatest obstacles to men taking advantage of family leave may originate not in individual gender identities or family economics but in the gendered culture of work organizations. The purpose of this article is to assess how corporate culture--the assumptions, norms, expectations, and beliefs inherent in organizational policy, structure, and practice--may affect men's likelihood of becoming more actively involved in child care and using government-mandated family leave benefits. It is too early to examine this issue in the U.S. because the legislation is so recent. The setting chosen for this study is Sweden, a country that granted men family leave benefits as early as 1974. GENDER AND CORPORATE CULTURE Gender has been a fundamental aspect of work organizations in industrial societies. This aspect is manifested in several ways. There are links between the traditional male stereotype and values that historically have dominated organizations. Corporations emphasize rational communication and decision making, impersonality, hierarchical bureaucracy, analytical thinking, and toughness and aggressivity, while suppressing characteristics traditionally associated with women and family life, such as emotion, flexibility, collaborative problem-solving, praise, and positive feedback (Bowen & Orthner, 1991; Kanter, 1977; Mills, 1992; Morgan, 1986; Shepard, 1985). Women are often regarded as less suitable workers, particularly as managers, because they lack masculine qualities (Morgan, 1986). Tasks that are gendered outside of work--especially breadwinning and caring of children--are affirmed and recreated through organizational practices and ideology (Martin, 1992). Employers assume men are more responsible than women for family income provision and that participation in paid work is their primary life pursuit. It is expected that women, even if they are employed, will take on the major responsibility for home and children, freeing up husbands and fathers for employment (Bowen & Orthner, 1991; Martin, 1992). …