Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 88:513–524
DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0119-8
Conciliating Work and Family: A Catholic
Social Teaching Perspective
ABSTRACT. Although work–family conflict is highly
relevant for both families and businesses, scarce attention
has received from business ethics perspective. This article
focuses on the latter, presenting a set of relevant insights
from Catholic Social Teaching (CST). After reviewing the
foundations and principles presented by CST regarding
work–family relationships, a set of normative propositions
are presented to develop work–family policies and for a
correct personal work–family balance. It is argued that
business responsibility with employees’ family should be
considered as a part of Corporate Social Responsibility. In
addition, the applications of these principles and proposi-
tions can lead to a mutual enrichment of both business and
family.
KEY WORDS: Catholic Social Teaching, Corporate
Social Responsibility, work–family balance, work–family
conflict, work–family enrichment
Introduction
Family and work are rich and complex aspects of
human and social life, especially given the current
economic and cultural circumstances (Cullen et al.,
2003; Donati, 2001). A multiplicity of factors, such
as a growing global economic competition, an age-
ing population along with an increasing number of
families in which both the father and the mother
have day jobs, single mothers or fathers, workers
with duties of eldercare, etc., have given rise to new
modalities of the so-called work–family conflict.
At first glance, the conflict would seem like a
‘‘private’’ family affair; however, the evident con-
Gregorio Guitián is Assistant Professor of Moral Theology at the
University of Navarra, Spain. He has a doctorate in theology
and a degree in economics. His current research interests are
Catholic Social Thought and Economic and Business Ethics,
mainly from a Christian perspective.

Springer 2009
Gregorio Guitián
sequences of the problem have pulled down the
myth of separation between work and personal life
and account for the interest generated in addressing
this issue. Several studies point out that work–family
conflict is correlated with absenteeism, decrease of
productivity, job dissatisfaction, lower organisational
commitment, lack of life satisfaction, anxiety, burn-
out, psychological distress, depression, physical ail-
ments, heavy alcohol use or marital strain (Hansen,
1
1991, pp. 348–349; Marchese et al., 2002 ;
Matthews et al., 1996). This shows that the conflict
goes beyond the case of business. Ultimately, work
and family conflict is a human and social problem.
Empirical studies, from different perspectives,
have sought to determine the characteristics, ante-
cedents and consequences of the work–family con-
flict, as well as the identification and implementation
of possible solutions to the conflicts that may arise
(Edwards and Rothbard, 2000; Frone, 2003;
Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus et al.,
1989; Gutek et al., 1991; Yang et al., 2000, etc.).
Other authors have also focused on the reasons for
which a firm might introduce family needs of
employees as a structural variable for the work
organisation (Chinchilla and Torres, 2008).
The literature has been copious; many studies
focused on the effects of family polices implemented,
such as flexibility, technical and personalized sup-
port, family-related services, etc., on performance
(Breaugh and Frye, 2007; Christensen and Staines,
1990; Connelly et al., 2002; Frye and Breaugh, 2004;
Galinsky and Stein, 1990; Glass and Riley, 1998;
Gonyea, 1993; Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran,
2006; Thomas and Ganster, 1995, etc.). It is generally
recognised that the overall result of such policies is
generally favourable, but the multiplicity of variables
that have to be taken into account implies that every
policy has its pros and cons (Marchese et al., 2002).
514 Gregorio Guitián
However, little has been proposed from a nor-
mative perspective in providing values, principles or
guidelines which might help and are at the root of a
successful work–family policy and personal balance.
An exception is Greenhaus and Powell (2006) whose
approach, perhaps in a non-intended way, has made
the best contribution to this perspective. Melé
(1989) dealt also with business duties regarding the
employees’ family rights. In this article, we wish to
contribute to enriching the normative perspec-
tive with the insights inspired by Catholic Social
Teaching (CST).
Literature on business ethics based on CST is not
abundant. Nevertheless, the existing works show the
reasonability and practical possibilities of this per-
spective (Abela, 2001; Alford and Naugthon, 2001;
Cortright and Naughton, 2002; McCann, 1997;
Melé, 2005; Naughton and Cornwall, 2006).
Accepting CST contents do not necessarily require
sharing the Catholic faith. Although inspired by
faith, CST presents rational arguments which can be
shared by everybody. That is why Papal Letter-
Encyclicals, which are basic documents of CST, are
often addressed to all people of good will.2 In this
context, we also wish to contribute to the important
topic of work–family conciliation from a CST per-
spective.
First, we present a set of basic concepts and
principles of CST on the relationship between work
and family as well as some practical aspects. Then,
we discuss how the work–family conflict has to be
considered within the Corporate Social Responsi-
bility (CSR) context. Next, we suggest some rec-
ommendations for managers and, finally, we point
out the contribution of a correct management of
work–family relationship to the business case.
Work and family in CST
Work and family are the two spheres in which
people spend most of their time. Although being
distinct, work and family are interdependent as they
are mostly related with the fulfilment of the person:
the sensitivity that every person shows regarding
these two aspects of human life accounts for it.
The better we understand the meaning and
interconnection of work and family, the better we
can approach the human dimension involved in
work–family conciliation issues. CST bibliographies
on work and family are extensive.3
The unity between work and family
The vision of CST on work stands on the common
ground that work (and so business) is ordered to
serve human beings by making life more human; this
is more appropriate to the human condition. This
approach is explained ultimately by human dignity, a
concept, the groundings of which have been
expressed in philosophy and CST in these terms:
‘‘the human being is always a value as an individual,
and as such demands to be considered and treated as
a person and never, on the contrary, considered and
treated as an object to be used, or as a means, or as a
thing’’ (John Paul II, 1988, n. 37). Furthermore,
theology contends that as an image of the Creator,
the human person is endowed with a special dignity
reflected in the calling to collaborate through work
in the development of the created order.4 Work is,
for the person, a reflection of his dignity and an
essential factor for his flourishing.
On this basis, the letter-encyclical Laborem Excer-
cens, the most representative document of CST on
human work, describes the rapport between work
and family. The document places emphasis on the
subjective dimension of work, namely, the fact
that the person who works is called to perfect
himself through that very activity (John Paul II,
1981a, n. 5).5
Experience shows how every person, through
work, transforms not only the environment but also
him or herself, enriching or impoverishing his or her
life and spirit. In this way, the subjective or personal
dimension of work is closely related to the dignity of
the human person: it points to the need to consider
the employees’ flourishing through work. It is
understood that man needs others to attain his
flourishing.6 Even more, according to CST, man
‘‘cannot fully find himself except through a sincere
gift of himself.’’ (Vatican Council II, 1965, GS, 24).
This is what happens in work when the worker
works with the willingness of serving others and
acquiring virtues.
Frequently, managers assume that the point of
business is to make a contribution to the society,
to accomplish something collectively, to provide
 Conciliating Work and Family
something unique, to build society, etc. (Novak,
1996, p. 36). These insights reflect that the purpose
of business is, in one way or the other, to serve the
society through economic activity, which includes
organising human work.
Consequently, if it should serve human beings by
making life more human, then business management
should consider the worker’s personal flourishing
through his or her work. On this point, CST not
only accepts that a human being has value as an
individual and demands to be treated always as a
person, never as a means, but also emphasises the
requirement to contribute to, or at least not to
prevent, human flourishing through the working
conditions.
The aim of work is to serve human
Proposition 1:
beings and make life more human. Business man-
agement should contribute to this end, or at least, to
avoid impeding it.
As far as the family is concerned, CST stresses its
crucial role for the welfare of the person and society.
The family is seen as the first and most vital cell of
human society with the consequent priority ‘‘over
every other community, and even over the reality of
the state’’ (PCJP, 2004, n. 254). This is in line with
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
recognises the right of every person of full age to
create a family, and it states that the family is ‘‘the
natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to the protection by society and the State’’
(United Nations, 1948, art. 16, 1 and 3).
CST, along with other voices,7 states that a better
and more human society – with its implications for
economy and business – depends on families, since
principles, values and virtues of individuals are ini-
tially fostered there. Thus, the family is called to
make life more human. As well as being the most
desirable context to receive the gift of children,
family is a privileged place for the creation of valu-
able competencies: it provides personal maturity and
internal enrichment, educates in responsibility and in
the meaning of the common good, teaches one to
combine in practice authority with affective support,
inculcates a spirit of solidarity and other social virtues
and thus becomes de facto the first school of citi-
zenship, etc. (Benedict XVI, 2005). Naturally, these
competencies are not taken for granted, that is, they
515
can be the result of a certain quality of family life not
always achieved.
If work can contribute to human flourishing, then
the family can also contribute, and probably even
more. On this point, Pope John Paul II insisted that
‘‘man does not attain his fulfilment except in relation
to and in union with other men, and especially
with those who are of his own flesh and blood’’
(1980, n. 4).
Proposition 2: The family has a primary importance
for the flourishing of the person and society. As a
consequence, the family is one of the most important
terms of reference for shaping the ethical and social
order of work.
Beyond the need of children for the family, for the
mother or father, husband or wife, the family is also
especially linked with the love through which they
fulfil themselves. In this sense, CST emphasises that
the family is the natural environment for the
development and fulfilment of the person and a
critical place for his or her happiness and hope.
On this basis, CST states that human nature is a
calling to a symbiotic relationship between work and
family: both are directed to the flourishing of the
person. Work is the basic and necessary condition
for the possibility of family life, and on the other
hand, the family is the first school of work for every
person (John Paul II, 1981a, n. 10). In addition, one
important function of the family is to make work life
easier through the resources of solidarity it generates
(PCJP, 2004, n. 249).
Proposition 3: Work and family are intrinsically
related to the dignity and flourishing of the person,
as well as the improvement of society. Both are
called to contribute to the fulfilment of the person.
Priority in conflicts between work and family
The work–family conflict, as has been said, brings
about lack of satisfaction with life, anxiety, burnout,
psychological distress, depression, physical ailments,
etc. Actually, the life of the employees becomes less
human, contrary to what it ought to be. Thus, if the
organisation of work becomes an enemy of the
family, then it is also an enemy of individual. It can
516 Gregorio Guitián
be assumed that as far as work and family maintain a
severe dialectical relationship, there is a serious
obstacle for the fulfilment of the employee required
by his or her personal dignity. Therefore, there is
some ethical disorder therein.
In this context we come to a key point – from a
normative perspective – of the relationship between
work and family. Normally, the employee is not an
isolated entity, rather he or she is placed in the
context of a family, which is for him or her, among
others, a strong point of reference from an ethical
point of view. This is especially so when the
employee is a father or mother, a husband or wife.
The bonds of blood and love that link employees
with their families are qualitatively deeper than those
involved in their relationship with their companies.
It is worth noting that one of the reasons for which,
in practice, companies implement family-friendly
policies is precisely to attract and sustain talented
employees (Chinchilla and Torres, 2008). This
reflects that the ‘‘family factor’’ has a higher value in
the life of some employees; otherwise, companies
would not have to make an effort to retain them.
CST holds that the family has a natural priority
over work: ‘‘work is for the family, because work is
for the sake of man (and not vice versa) and it is
precisely the family, above all else, that is the specific
place for man’’ (John Paul II, 1981b, n. 5). The
family is not an accidental dimension but one that is
essential in order to carry out work truly in the
service of the human person.
Thus, if the organisation of work is to consider
the human flourishing of the employees, then their
familial dimension is one of the values most related
to their fulfilment as persons. That is why CST
regards the family as ‘‘one of the most important
terms of reference for shaping the social and ethical
order of human work’’ (John Paul II, 1981a, n. 10).
It is important to highlight that the order men-
tioned does not mean a conceptual opposition
between work and family for they need each other.
For instance, experience shows how frequently
family shapes the meaning of work. Unity and order
between work and family means integrating them in
such a way that neither work nor family perma-
nently overwhelms the other, even though work
should be oriented towards the family. This subor-
dination also requires a balance on the part of the
family, since an excessive emphasis on the family,
even with the best intention, is a source of conflict in
relation with work (Friedman and Greenhaus,
2000). In this sense, the work–family balance
demands personal decisions guided by a proper scale
of values. It happens that ‘‘the individual conscience
also often lacks the capacity to assess the comple-
mentary nature and individual value of various forms
of activity – educational, cultural, community and
professional – in order to make a proper choice’’
(Vignon, 2002, p. 93).
In addition, it might be convenient to revise the
approach to the work–family relationship, as this is
quite focused on conflict, as scholars acknowledge
(Greenhaus and Powell, 2006, p. 72). Conflict does
exist; however, if we are only interested in the
problematic dimension of the relationship, we then
lose sight of one interesting – and no less real chal-
lenge: under certain conditions (for example, a
supportive environment) work empowers family and
family empowers work.
The fact that both spouses work might be an
opportunity to discern what is really more important
than other tasks, to increase productivity at work by
making a good use of time (a parent who does not
work extra hours feels the challenge to demonstrate
her or his efficiency more than others), to learn to
organise and program family tasks and activities, to
increase the communication between the spouses as
it is crucial for family organisation, and to involve
the children naturally in family tasks (this way, they
learn to cooperate with others, be responsible and
appreciate the value of division of labour).
Some studies suggest that family itself has the
ability to find solutions for work–family conciliation
(Pérez Ortiz, 2006). This shows that the family itself
under certain conditions has the capability to
generate natural and satisfactory solutions to the
problems.8
Fortunately, there are some preliminary signs on
the side of social sciences of a more positive
approach (Friedman and Greenhaus, 2000; Green-
haus and Powell, 2006). In any case, one of the
pending issues in this field is to analyse in depth the
positive aspects of the work–family relationship.
A second aspect is to consider a deeper and more
complete vision of work, especially in respect to its
human dimension. By pointing out the subjective or
personal dimension of work, CST shows that work
is indeed more than what it seems at first sight: it is a
 Conciliating Work and Family
human activity that transforms the world and the
person, a part of a human project geared towards
one’s own perfection and is open to the others
(of whom the family occupies a privileged place).
Actually, work is a ‘‘total, social fact’’, namely,
economic, social, moral, juridical and emotional
(Donati, 2005b, p. 587).
As a primary human activity, work is subordinated
to the person and the family, but not vice versa. This is
what CST points out with the principle ‘‘work is ‘for
man’ and not man ‘for work’’’ (John Paul II, 1981a,
n. 6). Yet this perspective does not negate the fact that
the first aspect of human work to be taken into
account by business firms is the provision itself. It is a
matter of integrating the labour provision in its per-
sonal and social context. The solution depends on
each specific situation and should be found pruden-
tially, with practical wisdom.
Work and family form a unity or inter-
Proposition 4:
dependence in which the family has a higher value.
Work should be prudently oriented towards family.
In this context, the role of the woman in both family
and work has a particular importance. On the one
hand, CST recalls that the pursuit of solutions for
current, urgent social problems is often mediated by
the contribution of women. This is so, for instance,
in education, health care, ecology, quality of life,
issues related to migration, social services, drugs, etc.
(John Paul II, 1995, n. 4). On the other hand, the role
of the mother for the well-being of her children is
evident. In such cases, the work–family conflict
entails special difficulties for women. It must be
noted that the subjective dimension of work is closely
related to the family when the worker is a mother.
Considering the dignity and fulfilment of women
in the context of the organisation of work, for CST
‘‘the true advancement of women requires that labour
should be structured in such a way that women do not
have to pay for their advancement by abandoning
what is specific to them and at the expense of the
family, in which women as mothers have an irre-
placeable role’’ (John Paul II, 1981a, n. 19).
Proposition 5: Work and family conflict in women
neither should be solved at the cost of their moth-
erhood nor should it prevent the irreplaceable role of
women in the family.
517
Work and family within the Corporate Social
Responsibility context
An additional application of the CST vision is related
to the personal and social aspects of work and family
involved in concepts such as CSR. It is well known
that in the current economic context, sustainability
has become an indispensable variable of every busi-
ness. Through this and other related concepts
(especially CSR, but also Corporate Citizenship,
Corporate Sustainability, etc.), companies also give
expression to their social responsibility and service to
society.
Personal and social dimensions of work–family conflict
The work–family conflict has two dimensions which
should be considered by the social responsibility or
sustainability of the company.
First, there is a personal dimension in the work–
family conflict closely related to the concern of CSR
about labour conditions of the employees. On the
one hand, it is a reality that women suffer the worst
in the work–family conflict; consequently, the cur-
rent European approach to work–family conciliation
is identified with the issue of equal opportunities for
women (Donati, 2005a, p. 52; European Commis-
sion, 2007, pp. 3–4, 6–7). Hence, work–family
conciliation policies, as far as they are oriented to
solving the real problems of women, should be in-
cluded as part of the social responsibility of the firm
when dealing with equal opportunities.
If, on the other hand, and as scholars argue, the
work–family conflict is a source of outcomes such as
absenteeism, anxiety, burnout, psychological distress,
physical ailments or depression, then work–family
policy would also merit being included under the
social responsibility of the firm regarding working
conditions.
Second, the social dimension of the work–family
conflict is also related to the social responsibility of
the firm. The work–family conflict posits problems
not only to parents but also to children (for instance,
Crouter et al., 2001). It has been said that ‘‘children
need to know and feel the love of their parents, and
we as a society need to provide those opportunities
for parents to give that love to their children’’
(Friedman and Greenhaus, 2000, p. 145). Through
518 Gregorio Guitián
flexibility policies, employees can devote more
attention and energy to their children and ‘‘the
nation benefits from well-adjusted kids who do well
in school and exhibit fewer behavioural problems
(…). Society needs to choose to value quality of life
and the development of the next generation to a
greater extent than we do now’’ (Idem, pp. 145–
147). Work–family policies are also, on the part of
the companies, an exercise of responsibility since
they are a form of protection of childhood and a
contribution to the sustainability of society.
Proposition 6: Business should consider the familial
dimension of their employees and include family
protection within its duty to contribute to a
sustainable society.
In the context of the human rights
It is common to take human rights as a reference for
the social responsibility of the firm. As has been
mentioned above, the family, due to its importance
for the person and society, is entitled to the pro-
tection of society and the State. Accordingly, com-
panies should consider family aspects involved in
work (and just those) as part of their respect towards
human rights. And so, also from this point of view,
work–family policies are a response to the respon-
sibility of companies to protect the family.
Moreover, the progressive ageing of populations in
developed countries, mostly provoked by a sustained
low birth rate (United Nations, 2007), is also related to
the work–family relationship. The work–family
conflict is sometimes an obstacle to having children
(González and Jurado-Guerrero, 2006; López and
Montoro, 2002). From the point of view of the sus-
tainability of our society, and even from one which is
exclusively pragmatic, it makes sense to promote
proper family policies which make it easier to increase
the birth rate, according to the present situation as well
as prospects we already know. By doing so, business
firms show also their commitment to the sustainability
of some societies. For instance, this is quite evident in
Europe where the birth rate of some countries is a
cause of concern in the midterm and long term.
Keeping in mind these two dimensions (personal
and social), we suggest that the work–family issue
takes part in the responsibility of the company before
society. CSR (and other expressions of social
responsibility) should include work–family concili-
ation policies as a normal component of the social
sustainability or social responsibility policy of the
firm, in as much as they constitute a clear contri-
bution to ‘human ecology’ of society in both short
term and long term.
Unfortunately, if we look at the well-regarded
institutions that set trends in policy-making geared
towards sustainability, family policies for their
employees are not regarded as a significant factor for
sustainability.9 For example, in the Guide G3 for
Sustainability Reports, work–family conflict policies
are not even mentioned when dealing with equal
opportunity policies (Global Reporting Initiative,
2006, p. 34). With a few exceptions, it appears that
the most common concept of social responsibility or
sustainability practiced by firms today does not
recognise that family policies are a significant
implementation of the social responsibility of the
firm.
CST contends that the more power one has the
more responsibility it demands (Vatican Council II,
1965, GS, n. 32). Family policies adapted to the
particular situations of employees and the circum-
stances of the firm itself is probably something within
the scope of a company; it is a great contribution to
the common good and has a yet undiscovered social
relevance.
The reasons why a business firm implements
conciliation policies might be many; however, they
reflect, in the end, to what extent the business cul-
ture has internalised the personal or subjective
dimension of the employees. In this context, we
suggest a correction towards a better approach to
family policies through two images.
Frequently, the underlying vision might be
explained by the image of a skier. The skier (the
employee) leans on two boards (work and family).
Conciliation consists of coordinating both boards in
such a way that the person manages to slide down to
the finishing line. Work and family attain unity in
the employee; otherwise, if we do not take into
account the employee, work and family become
independent and do not ‘know’ one another,
like two separated ski boards. In this vision, the
employee is the ‘key’ in work–family conciliation.
As far as we understand, this vision is correct but
 Conciliating Work and Family
insufficient. Should we not support to some extent
the effort of the employee?
A complementary approach to the relationship
might be suggested by another image. If we intend to
achieve a business and humanistic perspective, it
could be meaningful to understand the relationship
between work and family like that of a building and
its foundations. Both form a unified structure
although what is visible is only the building. Business
(for instance, a construction company) is most of all
interested in the visible aspect of the building (work),
which is in the end a service to persons, in this case,
housing. However, the company is equally interested
– although invisibly – in the building being based on
solid and reliable foundations (the balanced work–
family relationship of their employees).
A building with unstable foundations or totally
devoid of them will collapse if subjected to excess
weight or certain natural occurrences. A work
organisation that does not take into account the
familial dimension of their employees as an essential
element, inherent to work itself, is not sustainable
through time from a humanistic – and sometimes
even economic – point of view. Yet, solid founda-
tions on which nothing is built make no sense. A
balanced work–family relationship without efficient
and quality work makes sense neither for enterprises,
nor for families (this would lead to unemployment
and we know full well the effects of unemployment
on the family).
All of this suggests that a more unified vision of
work and family, while of course making sure at the
same time that the company performs well, is yet to
be achieved. In addition, supporting a work–family
balance is, in the current society, a noteworthy
feature of CSR.
However, it is clear that the scope of CSR
regarding family is limited. Public powers, other
intermediate groups and, ultimately, each individual
person also bear responsibilities. The latter is an
important point, for it is also suggested that work–
family balance depends on the personal choices of
the employee (Poelmans, 2001). It has been noted
that the effort to build an organisational culture
which promotes and supports the needs and duties of
the family cannot substitute the responsibility of
each employee before her or his family (Frye and
Breaugh, 2004, p. 218). In line with this, experience
shows that there are a number of cases in which the
519
values orientation of the employee is at the root of
the conflict (Melé, 1989, pp. 651–652).
Proposition 7: Implementation of appropriate con-
ciliation of work–family policies should be included
within corporate social responsibility.
Recommendations for managers
As we have explained in the second section,
the family is a basic good for the flourishing of the
person and society; thus, it is widely recognised that
it merits protection and support. When companies
consider the familial dimension of their employees
according to their possibilities, they are fostering a
human reality regarded as a good by the whole
society. Furthermore, it has been shown that an
improper work–family relationship gives rise to
inequalities and significant disorders which have
been traced from several perspectives (medical,
sociological, ethical, economical, etc.).
Therefore, proper work–family conciliation pol-
icies – where needed – give shape to the protection
and support of a good (family) crucial for the person
and society. Thus, to integrate the familial dimen-
sion in the work organisation of a company is not a
form of discrimination towards those employees
hypothetically not involved in any family. Rather, it
seems that, under certain circumstances, to do
nothing in respect to the work–family balance of
employees is often a source of inequality of oppor-
tunities, especially for women.
Keeping in mind the normative principles and
possible consequences mentioned in the preceding
sections, we suggest a set of recommendations which
might help managers to develop work–family policy
and for a correct personal work–family balance. At
the same time, these recommendations incorporate
some outcomes of the studies provided by social
sciences and reported in this study.
(1) Make the aim of work–family policies to
seek synergies between work and family,
and not just to avoid the effects of the
work–family conflict. Work and family are
called on and can enrich each other.
(2) Analyse the current familial situation of
employees: mothers or fathers, husbands or
wives, daughters or sons (elder care), etc.
520 Gregorio Guitián
Then, consider the conditions for their
human flourishing in the light of the current
work organisation and the work–family pol-
icy of the company.
(3) In a proper situation, work should be pru-
dently oriented towards one’s family, as
human flourishing requires. This orientation
is present in the scale of values of many
employees. A supportive attitude with regard
to this order on the part of supervisors is
important for the personal work–family bal-
ance and fulfilment of employees. Seek
work–family policies that reflect this support.
(4) When the company detects significant
work–family conflict, an examination of the
sources of the conflict is needed. Sometimes
this might come from a disorder in the scale
of values of the employee, a lack of personal
order at work, etc., and this should be
picked up on. In as much as the conflict is
provoked by work organisation factors, the
dignity of the employee as well as the very
purpose of business (to serve society through
economic activity but not against the per-
sonal dignity of the employees) raises some
ethical responsibility on the part of the com-
pany. Hence, some conciliation policy
should be implemented.
(5) Since work–family policies are due to per-
sonal circumstances, they must be adapted –
as far as they can – to the particular situation
of the employees. Given that the work–family
balance depends on a scale of values as well as
personal choices, consider – as some compa-
nies do – providing services focused on per-
sonal decisions (time management programs,
technical or psychological support, etc.)
(6) Finally, see work–family policy as a part of
the good that business does for society, for
it is not just an internal affair of the com-
pany but also has societal effects.
Ethics and business success in dealing
with work–family conciliation
In this last section, we depart from the normative
approach and present, as a complement, the results of
some studies on the business case for work–family
conciliation, which are related to concepts expressed
by CST.
As we have seen, CST puts emphasis on the
positive rapport that work and family are called to
maintain, given the role-play they have in the fulf-
ilment of the person. Work and family should help
each other. In fact, the few studies available focused
on this positive spillover ‘‘lend support to the notion
that work experiences can enrich family life and that
family experiences can enrich work life’’ (Greenhaus
and Powell, 2006, pp. 78–79; Huang et al., 2004).
Moreover, most of these studies ‘‘found [out] that
family-to-work enrichment was substantially stron-
ger than work-to-family enrichment’’ (Greenhaus
and Powell, 2006, p. 76).
In contrast, scholars have focused more on the
dimension of work. Hence, it is not surprising that
some authors are becoming more aware of the need
to deepen the role of the family (Frye and Breaugh,
2004, p. 218; Voydanoff, 2007, pp. 146–147).
From the point of view of CST, this is a worthy
effort – given the value the family has within the
relationship.
If we look into the particular advantages the
family can provide to business companies, we find
some similarity with the insights of CST. It has been
stated that managing a household (with its financial,
interpersonal, entrepreneurial, and administrative
requirements), coping with interpersonal difficulties,
teaching children, etc., are resources that can be
applied to one’s work (Crouter, 1984). Moreover,
the sensitivity to the emotional needs of family
members makes it easier to be emotionally available
to work colleagues (Friedman and Greenhaus, 2000,
p. 133). For instance, a female manager reports that
‘‘being a mother and having patience and watching
someone else grow has made [her] a better man-
ager’’. She adds, ‘‘I am more able to be patient with
other people and let them grow and develop in a
way that is good for them’’ (Ruderman et al., 2002,
p. 373).
As far as the bottom line is concerned, the con-
clusions of an international analysis on work–family
issues show that work–family policies are an oppor-
tunity to: (1) reduce productivity losses associated
with a lack of balance; (2) provide an incentive
to increase workers’ motivation and commitment
and thus get higher levels of productivity from the
 Conciliating Work and Family
current labour pool; (3) attract and retain the best-
quality people and enable them to advance and (4)
obtain community recognition by being seen as
‘‘good’’ corporate citizens (Haas et al., 2000,
p. 256).
Particular studies have reported that there is an
increase of productivity where work–family policies
are present (Galinsky and Stein, 1990), and that
shareholder value increases as companies announce
family-friendly decisions (Arthur and Cook, 2004).
Finally, other authors contend that family-friendly
policies provide a competitive advantage in attract-
ing and retaining highly productive workers
(Galinsky et al., 1991; Haas et al., 2000).
As we can see, family-friendly policies refer to
qualitative factors which, perhaps, are not directly
related to economic results but might influence
them. For instance, retaining valuable human
resources could be, in the end, crucial for business
performance. In line with this (and in the context of
America), Friedman and Greenhaus argue that
‘‘employers also need to pay attention to family
issues. It’s a business concern with bottom-line
implications. In a global economy, with height-
ened competition, American employers perhaps
more than ever need the advantage of committed
employees’’ (Friedman and Greenhaus, 2000,
p. 145).
Furthermore, the need for support for the per-
sonal effort to achieve the work–family balance is
overwhelmingly confirmed by an ‘‘accumulating
evidence’’ (Secret, 2000, p. 218), achieving a general
consensus regarding the crucial importance of a
positive and supportive attitude towards work–
family conflict situations from the part of those with
authority or supervisory role in the firm (Breaugh
and Frye, 2007; Hansen, 1991; Mesmer-Magnus and
Viswesvaran, 2006; Secret, 2000; Swody and Pow-
ell, 2007; Thomas and Ganster, 1995). In the end,
the key is for the business culture to adopt the values
on which the policies for conciliation are funda-
mentally based.
Conclusions
From a normative perspective, the contribution of
CST to the understanding of the work–family
conflict has it roots in the human dignity and the
521
meaning of work and family for the fulfilment of the
person. The meaning, unity and order between
work and family have given rise to seven proposi-
tions of which the possibility of mutual enrichment
and prudent orientation of work towards family
stands out. These propositions inspired some prac-
tical recommendations to managers to reflect on
work–family conflicts and to find possible ways of
reconciliation.
Our proposal includes considering the work–
family issue under the social responsibility of the
firm. We argued that the characteristics of the
work–family relationship in the current social and
economic circumstances, along with the effects of
the conflict, make work–family policies a significant
factor in the implementation of CSR. In other
words, we suggest that nowadays sustainability,
CSR, etc., are incomplete if a firm is not family
responsible for a family. In addition, CST principles
have inspired six normative propositions for man-
agers approaching work–family policies and conflict.
The social sciences have shown that a healthy
work–family relationship provides companies with
some qualitative and valuable competencies from the
part of their employees. These can benefit produc-
tivity and other key factors related to human capital,
such as retaining valuable employees. This latter fact
reflects that, in practice, even though work is
important, it is not the most important factor for
many employees. Family-oriented work is not just
an ideal but also a reality in the life of valuable
workers, and is – as it seems – a need for business.
Certain evidence suggests that our approach is not
just a matter of humanising business but might be
also a way to improve economic results of business.
However, regarding the latter point, further empir-
ical research is necessary. So far, little research has
been done on the costs and benefits of such policies
and further analysis on the positive spillover between
work and family is needed. In any case, the challenge
is for managers as well as employees to find ways of
achieving a synergic alliance between work and
family.
Notes
1
This study provides specific bibliography on each
one of the effects mentioned.
522 Gregorio Guitián
2
These documents are available at www.vatican.va.
3
Here we mainly refer to the CST insights on the
role and interconnection of work and family for the
fulfilment of the person. In particular, we focus this
section on the unity and order between them.
4
The roots of this vision can be found at Genesis 1:
26–28.
5
For further detail on this topic, see: Stres, 2002.
6 Review 21, 241–273.
This conclusion has come from many different
perspectives. See, for instance: McIntyre, 1999.
7
On this point it is worth noting that significant
social problems are related to the breakdown of the
family, as shown from experience (Colson, 2001).
8
It would be interesting to study the impact of
divorce and other forms of family break-up on the
work–family conflict.
9
This is the case of the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (http://www.wbcsd.org) or
the Guide G3 for Sustainability Reports, by the Global
Reporting Initiative.
References
Abela, A. V.: 2001, ‘Profit and More: Catholic Social
Teaching and the Purpose of the Firm’, Journal of
Business Ethics 31, 107–116.
Alford, H. J. and M. J. Naugthon: 2001, Managing as if
Faith Mattered. Christian Social Principles in the Modern
Organization (Notre Dame University Press, Notre
Dame, IN).
Arthur, M. M and A. Cook: 2004, ‘Taking Stock of
Work-Family Initiatives: How Announcements of
‘Family-Friendly’ Human Resource Decisions Affect
Shareholder Value’, Labor Relations Review 57, 599–613.
Benedict XVI, Pope: 2005, ‘Speech to the Ambassador of
France to the Holly See’, http://www.vatican.va/
holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/
documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051219_ambassador-
france_en.html.
Breaugh, J. A. and N. K. Frye: 2007, ‘An Examination of
the Antecedents and Consequences of the use of
Family-Friendly Benefits’, Journal of Managerial Issues
19, 35–52.
Chinchilla, N. and E. Torres: 2008, ‘Family-Friendly
Corporation’, in R. W. Kolb (ed.), Encyclopedia
of Business Ethics and Society (Sage, Los Angeles), pp.
858–859.
Christensen, K. E. and G. L. Staines: 1990, ‘Flextime: A
Viable Solution to Work/Family Conflict?’, Journal of
Family Issues 11, 455–476.
Colson, C.: 2001, ‘The Global Breakdown of the Family,
and its Consequences’, in Pontifical Council for the
Family – Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and
Liberty (ed.), Globalization, Economics, and the Family
(Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City), pp. 49–58.
Connelly, R., D. S. Degraff and R. Willis: 2002, ‘If you
Build It, they will Come: Parental use of On-Site
Child Care Centers’, Population Research and Policy
Cortright, S. A. and M. J. Naughton: 2002, Rethinking the
Purpose of Business. Interdisciplinary Essays from Catholic
Social Tradition (Notre Dame University Press, Notre
Dame, IN).
Crouter, A. C.: 1984, ‘Spillover from Family to Work:
The Neglected Side of the Work-Family Interface’,
Human Relations 37, 425–442.
Crouter, A. C., M. F. Bumpus, M. R. Head and
S. M. McHale: 2001, ‘Implications of Overwork and
Overload for the Quality of Men’s Family Relation-
ships’, Journal of Marriage and the Family 63, 404–416.
Cullen, K., N. Kordey, L. Schmidt and E. Goboardi:
2003, Work and Family in the eWork Era (IOS Press,
Amsterdam).
Donati, P.: 2001, Il lavoro che emerge: prospettive del lavoro
come relazione sociale in una economia dopo-moderna
(Bollati Boringhieri, Torino).
Donati, P.: 2005a, ‘Quale conciliazione tra famiglia e
lavoro? La prospettiva relazionale’, in P. Donati (ed.),
Nono rapporto CISF sulla famiglia in Italia. Famiglia e
lavoro: dal conflicto a nuove sinergie (San Paolo, Cinisello
Balsamo), pp. 31–84.
Donati, P.: 2005b, ‘Il lavoro e la persona umana’, La
Società 66, 575–595.
Edwards, J. R. and N. P. Rothbard: 2000, ‘Mechanisms
Linking Work and Family: Clarifying the Relationship
Between Work and Family Constructs’, Academy of
Management Review 25, 178–199.
European Commission: 2007, Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, The
European Economic and Social Committee and the Com-
mittee of the Regions. Tackling the Pay Gap Between
Women and Men (Brussels 18-7-2007, COM [2007]
424).
Friedman, S. D. and J. H. Greenhaus: 2000, Work and
Family, Allies or Enemies?: What Happens when Business
Professionals Confront Life Choices (Oxford University
Press, Oxford).
Frone, M. R.: 2003, ‘Work-Family Balance’, in J. C.
Quick and L. E. Tetrick (eds.), Handbook of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology (American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC), pp. 143–162.
Frye, N. K. and J. A. Breaugh: 2004, ‘Family-Friendly
Policies, Supervisor Support, Work-Family Conflict,
 Conciliating Work and Family
Family-Work Conflict and Satisfaction: A Test of a
Conceptual Model’, Journal of Business and Psychology
19, 197–220.
Galinsky, E., D. E. Friedman and C. A. Hernandez: 1991,
The Corporate Reference Guide to Work-Family Programs
(Families and Work Institute, New York).
Galinsky, E. and P. J. Stein: 1990, ‘The Impact of Human
Resource Policies on Employees’, Journal of Family
Issues 11, 368–383.
Glass, J. L. and L. Riley: 1998, ‘Family Responsive
Policies and Employee Retention Following Child-
birth’, Social Forces 76, 1401–1435.
Global Reporting Initiative: 2006, ‘Sustainability Report-
ing Guidelines, Version 3.0’, http://www.global
reporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/ED9E9B36-AB54-4DE1-
BFF2-5F735235CA44/0/G3_GuidelinesENU.pdf.
Gonyea, J.: 1993, ‘Family Responsibilities and Family-
Oriented Policies: Assessing Their Impacts on the
Work Place’, Employee Assistance Quarterly 9, 1–29.
González, M.-J. and T. Jurado-Guerrero: 2006,
‘Remaining Childless in Affluent Economies: A
Comparison of France, West Germany, Italy and Spain,
1994–2001’, European Journal of Population 22, 317–352.
Greenhaus, J. H. and N. Beutell: 1985, ‘Sources of
Conflict Between Work and Family Roles’, Academy of
Management Review 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., S. Parasuraman, C. Skromme Granrose,
S. Rabinowitz and N. J. Beutell: 1989, ‘Sources of
Work-family Conflict Among Two-Career Couples’,
Journal of Vocational Behavior 34, 133–153.
Greenhaus, J. and G. N. Powell: 2006, ‘When Work and
Family are Allies: A Theory of Work-Family Enrich-
ment’, Academy of Management Review 31, 72–92.
Gutek, B., S. Searle and L. Klepa: 1991, ‘Rational Versus
Gender Role Explanations for Work-Family Conflict’,
Journal of Applied Psychology 76, 560–568.
Haas, L. L., P. Hwang and G. Russell: 2000, Organiza-
tional Change and Gender Equity. International Perspectives
on Fathers and Mothers at the Workplace (Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA).
Hansen, G. L.: 1991, ‘Balancing Work and Family: A
Literature and Resource Review’, Family Relations 40,
348–353.
Huang, Y.-H., L. B. Hammer and M. B. Neal: 2004,
‘The Relationship Between Work-to-Family Conflict
and Family-to-Work Conflict: A Longitudinal Study’,
Journal of Family and Economic Issues 25, 79–100.
John Paul II: 1980, ‘Homily on the Mass for the Workers,
31-5-1980’, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_
paul_ii/homilies/1980/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19800
531_lavoratori-francia_fr.html.
John Paul II: 1981a, Encyclical ‘Laborem Excercens’ (on
Human Work) (Vatican Polyglot Press, Vatican City).
523
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0217/_INDEX.
HTM.
John Paul II: 1981b, Apostolic Exhortation ‘Familiaris
consortio’ (Vatican Polyglot Press, Vatican City).
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/
apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_198111
22_familiaris-consortio_en.html.
John Paul II: 1988, Christifideles Laici. Post-Synodal Apos-
tolic Exhortation on the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay
Faithful in the Church and in the World (Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, Vatican City). http://www.vatican.va/holy_
father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_
jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html.
John Paul II: 1995, Letter to Women (Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, Vatican City). http://www.vatican.va/holy_
father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_
29061995_women_en.html.
López, D. and C. Montoro: 2002, ‘Familia y trabajo.
Conflictos y estrategias de conciliación’, in Comisión
Organizadora del Congreso General de la Familia (ed.),
La familia, protagonista. Congreso General de la Familia
(Fundación Caja Navarra, Pamplona), pp. 71–95.
Marchese, M. C., G. Bassham and J. Ryan: 2002, ‘Work-
Family Conflict: A Virtue Ethics Analysis’, Journal of
Business Ethics 40, 145–154.
Matthews, L. S., R. D. Conger and K. A. S. Wickrama: 1996,
‘Work-Family Conflict and Marital Quality: Mediating
Processes’, Social Psychology Quarterly 59, 62–79.
McCann, D. P.: 1997, ‘Catholic Social Teaching in an
Era of Economic Globalization: A Resource for
Business Ethics’, Business Ethics Quarterly 7, 57–70.
McIntyre, A.: 1999, Dependent Rational Animals: Why
Human Beings Need the Virtues (Open Court, Chicago).
Melé, D.: 1989, ‘Organization of Work in the Company
and Family Rights of the Employees’, Journal of
Business Ethics 8, 647–655.
Melé, D.: 2005, ‘Exploring the Principle of Subsidiarity
in Organizational Forms’, Journal of Business Ethics 60,
293–305.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. and C. Viswesvaran: 2006, ‘How
Family-Friendly Work Environments Affect Work/
Family Conflict: A Meta-Analytic Examination’,
Journal of Labor Research 27, 555–574.
Naughton, M. J. and J. R. Cornwall: 2006, ‘The Virtue
of Courage in Entrepreneurship: Engaging the Cath-
olic Social Tradition and the Life-Cycle of Business’,
Business Ethics Quarterly 16, 69–93.
Novak, M.: 1996, Business as a Calling: Work and the
Examined Life (Free Press, New York).
Pérez Ortiz, L.: 2006, Las abuelas como recurso de conciliación
entre la vida familiar y laboral. Presente y futuro, Ministerio
de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Secretarı́a general de Polı́ticas
de Igualdad (Instituto de la Mujer, Madrid).
524 Gregorio Guitián
Poelmans, S.: 2001, A Qualitative Study of Work-Family
Conflict in Managerial Couples, Research Document 445
(IESE, Barcelona).
Pontifical Council ‘Justice and Peace’ (PCJP): 2004,
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City).
Ruderman, M. N., P. J. Ohlott, K. Panzer and S. N.
King: 2002, ‘Benefits of Multiple Roles for Managerial
Women’, Academy of Management Journal 45, 368–386.
Secret, M.: 2000, ‘Identifying the Family, Job, and
Workplace Characteristics of Employees Who Use
Work-Family Benefits’, Family Relations 49, 217–225.
Stres, A.: 2002, ‘‘Laborem excercens’ and Human Work’,
in Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (ed.), Work
as Key to the Social Question. The Great Social and Eco-
nomic Transformations and the Subjective Dimension of
Work (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City),
pp. 23–29.
Swody, C. A. and G. N. Powell: 2007, ‘Determinants of
Employee Participation in Organizations’ Family-
Friendly Programs: A Multi-Level Approach’, Journal
of Business and Psychology 22, 111–122.
Thomas, L. T. and D. C. Ganster: 1995, ‘Impact of
Family-Supportive Work Variables on Work-Family
Conflict and Strain: A Control Perspective’, Journal of
Applied Psychology 80, 6–15.
United Nations: 1948, Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (United Nations, Paris).
United Nations: 2007, World Population Prospects: the 2006
Revision (United Nations, New York).
Vatican Council II: 1965, ‘Pastoral Constitution Gaudium
et Spes’ (GS) (on the Church in the Modern World)’,
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_
vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_
gaudium-et-spes_en.html.
Vignon, J.: 2002, ‘Major Trends and Issues in the Sub-
jective Dimension of Work’, in Pontifical Council for
Justice and Peace (ed.), Work as Key to the Social
Question. The Great Social and Economic Transformations
and the Subjective Dimension of Work (Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, Vatican City), pp. 91–98.
Voydanoff, P.: 2007, Work, Family and Community.
Exploring Interconnections (Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates, Mahwah, New Jersey).
Yang, N., C. C. Chen, J. Choi and Y. Zou: 2000,
‘Sources of Work-Family Conflict: A Sino-U.S.
Comparison of the Effects of Work and Family De-
mands’, Academy of Management Journal 43(11), 3–123.
Faculty of Theology,
University of Navarra,
31080 Pamplona, Spain
E-mail: gguitian@unav.es
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.