changing assumptions and contingent solutions: the costs and benefits of women working full- and...

Sex Roles, Vol. 28, Nos. 1/2, 1993

Changing Assumptions and Contingent Solutions: The Costs and Benefits of Women Working Full- and Part-Time 1

K a t h l e e n Barker 2 Bard College

Women in occupations traditionally dominated by males are seeking part-time work schedules and they are sometimes regarded as being on the "mommy track. " A survey was conducted of 315 predominantly white women working part- or full- t ime in male-dominated professions (law, executives), female-dominated professions (nursing, elementary education), and nonprofessional jobs (clerical, retail sales). Part-time working women reported exclusion from organizational, interpersonal, and skill enhancement opportunities and part-time professionals reported a greater risk of layoff than full-time colleagues. However, they also reported greater happiness at home and work, greater satisfaction with their jobs and children, and comparable marriage satisfaction and personal satisfaction with work compared with full-time working women. Women working part-time did not report lower role conflict and role overload than full-time working women. Consideration is given to the benefits, limits, and consequences of part-time work for women, including questions concerning the ability to get back on track.

The dramatic increase in women entering the labor force has coin- cided with an increase in jobs that are less than permanent and/or full-time. This trend has risen dramatically in both North America and Europe (Warme, Lundy, & Lundy, 1992). Individuals working in other than full- time or permanent positions have been referred to by several terms such

1Thanks are due to Alden Wessman, Florence Denmark , Gary Holden, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on early drafts.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Bard College, Annanda le -on-Hudson , NY 12504.

47

0360-0025/93/0100~047507.00/0 © 1993 Plenum Publishing Corporation

48 Barker

as the "just-in-time workforce" (Plewes, 1988) and "peripheral" (Morse, 1969), "disposable" (Pollack & Bernstein, 1985), or "contingent" (A. Freed- man, 1986) workers. Contingent workers, for example, homeworkers, mi- grant workers, seasonal workers, independent contractors, and temporary and part-time workers, have long been a fixture of the work place in the United States (Morse, 1969). However, the expansion of this form of work across many occupations that are traditionally characterized as permanent of full-time is new (Coates, 1988; Kornbluh, 1988).

Recently, it was suggested that professional women with children should be provided with a subordinate, less than full-time track (Schwartz, 1989), labeled by others as the "mommy track." The recommendation was controversial (Christensen, 1989; Friedan, 1989; Fuchs, 1989; Futter, 1989; Hennig & Jardim, 1989; Proshansky, 1989) and captured the imagination of the popular press. However, the proposed solution for combining career and traditional family roles did not utilize findings that began to emerge during the late 1980s. Many studies illuminated some risks associated with contingent work (Axel, 1988; Belous, 1989; Christensen, 1985; Smith, 1984; Women's Bureau, Department of Labor, 1988). Unfortunately, support of dual tracks for women has taken place without reference to this empirical evidence. The research reported below examines the impact of one such arrangement, part-time employment.

More than 10 years ago, Vickery (1979) commented that the tendency of more women than men to accept part-time jobs would result in a per- petuation of "the subordinate position of women in our society" (p. 199). To understand the nature and meaning of work in women's lives, the marked shifts in employment practices must be explored. The remainder of the introduction examines characteristics of contingent work, especially part-time work, related research, and study questions.

Contingent Work

Referring to employers' preference for hiring workers on less than a full-time basis, Christopherson commented, "we are at the beginning of a fundamental change in employment practices" (Connerton, 1988, p. 8). The number of contingent workers in the United States is estimated to range from 29.9 million to 36.6 million or 25% to 30% of the work force (Belous, 1989; cf. Polivka & Nardone, 1989). Almost half of all jobs created during the 1980s were part-time and temporary jobs, many in the service economy (Tilly, 1990). One of every five workers in 1990 worked less than 35 hours per week, or part-time as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1991). Women hold 66% of all part-time jobs

Changing Assumptions, Contingent Solutions 49

(U.S. Department of Labor, 1991). However, the majority of women still work full-time. For women ages 20-54 between 1980 and 1990, the proportion of white women working full-time rose from 74.9% to 76.6% and the proportion of African-American women working full-time rose from 82.2% to 84.5% (Callaghan & Hartmann, 1992). Involuntary part-time work, jobs held by individuals who would rather work full-time, accounts for the substantial growth of part-time employment (Tilly, 1991). Between 1982 and 1990, temporary employment grew from 417,400 workers to 1,295,900 workers (Callaghan & Hartmann, 1992). Temporary workers may work full-time, part-time, part-year, or intermittently, and this category also includes employees who are "leased" to employers. Temporary workers are disproportionately female (Callaghan & Hartmann, 1992). Finally, certain contractual arrangements may qualify as contingent work. For example, some independent contractors may have contractual arrangements with one firm. Some employers may use such arrangements to avoid conferring employee status and the associated benefits (company benefits and Social Se- curity contributions) associated with employee status (GAO, 1991).

Contingent workers earn less. It is estimated that part-time professionals earn on average $8.30 per hour, compared with full-time peer earnings of $14.80. Part-time clericals average $5.70 per hour, compared to an average of $8.80 per hour for their full time counterparts (Belous, 1989; cf. Blank, 1987). Training and career advancement are typically absent in contingent employment (M. Freedman, 1988).

While different forms of contingent work have long been a part of the national economy, the emergence of global economies, corporate restructuring, worldwide immigration, and the conversion of the U.S. manufacturing economy to a service one have been associated with the increase in short-term or uncertain arrangements between employer and employee (Coates, 1988; McKay, 1988). "Just as employers have reduced holdings of inventories by 'just-in-time' inventory control practices, they seem to be attempting to build 'just-in-time' work forces" (Plewes, 1988, p. 12). This restructuring also coin- cides with increased worker demands for flexibility (Christensen & Murphree, 1988). For many women, such jobs provide relief from the structures of full- time work that compete with the demands of traditional family roles. However, lower wages and minimal, if any, health benefits are the tradeoffs for many of these workers (Conway, 1988). Professionals with long-term career invest- ments (Rapoport & Rapoport, 1971) are increasingly found in part-time or reduced schedule jobs (Plewes, 1988). However, managers and professionals are less likely to work part-time than those working in sales, administrative support and unskilled occupations (Callaghan & Hartmann, 1992).

P a r t - - T i m e Work: Panacea or Paradox? Compared with many other forms of contingent work, part-time workers are more likely to have stable

50 Barker

arrangements with employers (Kahne, 1985). Tilly (1991, 1992) recommends distinguishing between two types of part-time jobs. "Secondary" part-time jobs provide lower pay than comparable full-time jobs; these part-time jobs offer little opportunity for advancement. "Retention" part-time jobs are characterized by higher skill and compensation levels. "Their [retention] part-time schedules are special arrangements negotiated to retain or attract valued employees, typically women with young children" (Tilly, 1992, p. 218). Tilly calls these "good" part-time jobs and Kahne (1985) calls these "new concept" part- time jobs. This type of part-time job is fairly recent (Kahne, 1985). Of the 5 million Americans paid at or below the minimum wage in 1987, 44% of these workers were women working part-time (Levitan & Conway, 1992). Most part-time jobs continue to be low-wage and low-skill positions (TiUy, 1991). While not all part-time jobs share the qualities of a strict definition of contingent work, such as variable hours, job insecurity, and absence of benefits (Polivka & Nardone, 1989), many part-time jobs have some or all of these contingent characteristics while others do not (Kahne, 1992).

A consistent theme throughout this literature concerns the bifurcation of the workplace, whether the focus is on contingent vs. noncontingent jobs or secondary vs. retention part-time jobs. Some specialists in the area have expressed concerns regarding the implications of a restructured work force for the individual and society. What are the social consequences of a workplace in which permanent employees share in the social contract for benefits and rights, while secondary employees share in few or none (Christensen & Murphree, 1988; Kahne, 1992)? What price, if any, do women pay to avoid the work-home conflict by seeking flexible hours?

One suggestion would codify new, subordinate "tracks" for professional women with young children who wish to work less than full-time. Schwartz (1989) argued that employing women was more expensive than employing men due to women's "counterproductive expectations and perceptions" (p. 67) of the workplace and their attention to child rearing (cf. A. Freedman, 1989). Schwartz views two tracks as most promising for women. One track, the typical full-time professional one, is comparable to the work schedule associated with full-time, male employment. Another, the "mommy track," is a position that attains flexibility at the cost of salary and promotion. According to Schwartz, such reduced work schedules should be awarded only to high performers.

Regarding separate tracks for women, several points can be made. First, there is no indication that changes in preference alone (e.g., flexibility) account for the growth in jobs which are less than full-time or permanent; rather, employers have created jobs specially designed for such workers (Callaghan & Hartmann, 1992; Christopherson, 1988; Tilly, 1990). According to Levitan and Conway (1992),


Business often casts part-time employment as an accommodation of workers' desire for flexibility. Terms such as "mothers' hours" and "after-school work" reflect this representation of short schedules. While many employees clearly prefer the flexibility offered by part-time work, employers frequently reap the lion's share of the benefit. (p. 500).

Second, both men and women are facing an increasing risk of holding a subordinate, if "flexible," position in the work force (Freedman, 1986). Third, stratifying "tracks" specifically for women may result in discrimination against woman through the legitimation of different tracks for men and women based on women's childbearing potential. Finally, findings from research on the contingent work force have detailed the lower pay and the absence of career-ladders, advancement, training, and benefits (Christen- sen, 1989; Levitan & Conway, 1992; 9 to 5, 1986). It has been noted that employers may utilize such jobs as a way to evade worker protections, such as unemployment compensation, and occupational safety and health protections (Callaghan & Hartmann, 1992).

Are "good" part-time jobs immune from contingent characteristics? Economic penalties associated with part-time work are documented (Ap- plebaum, 1983; Olson, Frieze, & Detlefsen, 1990). Women who had worked part-time in a male-dominated profession (Master's of Business Admini- stration) were more likely to experience lower subsequent income than peers who had not (Olson et al., 1990). How secure are individuals in "good" part-time jobs? Even if some part-time jobs are "good" (Tilly, 1992), jobs that are typically negotiated on an individual-by-individual basis may vanish in a shift of employers' needs, perceived or real.

Potentially as serious as the division of labor that historically segre- gated women is a division by work force. Even though most women are not contingent workers, most contingent workers are female (Callaghan & Hartmann, 1992). Some researchers believe the result will be the institu- tionalization of organizational "detachment" from part-time and temporary workers and the formation of more secure bonds with fewer full-time, skilled employees (Magnum, Mayall, & Nelson, 1986). Attitudes and actions toward individuals in part-time jobs may manifest as prejudice re- gardless of education, experience, and occupation. Is there any evidence to support differential on-the-job treatment of full- and part-time workers?

Women and Part-Time Work: Satisfaction and Role Conflict

Articles published during the 1960s and 1970s focused on differences in job satisfaction between full-time and part-time workers. Some studies detailed the usefulness of part-time workers for peak-production, while others noted the problems in managing part-timers in "secondary" types of

52 Barker

part-time jobs (Gannon, 1975; Gannon & Northern, 1971; Hall & Gordon, 1973; Logan, O'Reilly, & Roberts, 1973; cf. Catalyst, 1968, 1971). Hall and Gordon (1973) reported that women working part-time reported less career satisfaction and more role conflict than women employed full-time. How- ever, in comparison with volunteers, nonemployed women, and full-time working women, part-time working women were the most likely to prefer their current activities. Hall and Gordon concluded that the part-time working women appeared to enjoy multiple roles. Women working part-time were

simply a different type of person from the full-time worker . . . the part-timer's satisfaction may come from multiple involvements--activity qua activity--whereas full-time employees and housewives seek deeper involvement and achievements in a more limited number of activities. (Hall and Gordon, 1973, p. 47)

Gannon and Northern (1971) concluded that personal traits rather than job-related attitudes predicted turnover for part-time workers. Link- ages among commitment, gender, and personality are codified in images of the "pin-money" part-time worker, such as, "[T]he job seems to be such a minor source of remuneration that it can be virtually eliminated from their perspective . . . The peripheral employee is essentially different from the committed or regular employee" (Gannon, 1975, pp. 482-483).

During the 1980s, a new trend became apparent. A major review of the field noted that the "missing persons" of research, part-time workers, were indiscriminately included in analyses of full-time workers (Rotchford & Roberts, 1982). Vecchio (1984) concluded that much of the research that examined part-time work attempted to assign personality as the reason for differences in attitudes between full- and part-time workers. Re- searchers had attributed to the job holder the (a) characteristics of the job and (b) the organization's attitude toward part-time workers. The attribution error was apparent (Jones & Davis, 1965). Part-time workers were viewed as uncommitted and "different" .from full-time workers.

Three studies during the latter period are critical to the "mommy tracks" debate. Although premised on many of the assumptions of the earlier period, Miller and Terborg (1979) commented that part-time employees may be less included in the social system of an organization than full-time employees. In another study, part-time workers in positions of responsibility were significantly more satisfied with their organizations, rewards, and power than full-time workers (Eberhardt & Shani, 1984). While occupation was not reported, the authors attributed this finding to part- time workers receiving benefits comparable to full-time workers and occu- pying positions of responsibility. In a later study, part-time clericals were significantly less satisfied with their jobs than full-time employees (Bergmann, Grahn, & Wyatt, 1986). In post hoc discussions, part-time em-


ployees complained "that the organization viewed them as peripheral" (p. 48, italics added).

An ironic development is that research which focused on employee attributes revealed the differential experience of part- and full-time workers. Researchers neglected the importance of work place social relations. There may not be immutable differences between different status workers, but there may be a variety of differences in their treatment on the job.

Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to compare women's responses to full- and part-time employment. The research questions are grouped into two broad areas of inquiry.

First, it has been maintained that "good" part-time jobs resemble full- time jobs in the sense that employers value and want to retain highly skilled employees (Tilly, 1990) and that such jobs should be provided to women (Schwartz, 1989). It has also been argued that such jobs are not strictly contingent (Polivka & Nardone, 1989), but others note that such jobs may have contingent characteristics (Kahne, 1992). However, the psychological outcomes of such jobs, in contrast to their economic underpinnings, have been studied less often. Because part-time work is historically linked with subordinate groups in society (Morse, 1969), attitudes and actions toward women working in "good" part-time jobs may be based on old stereotypes of marginal workers. One study revealed that part-time workers reported feelings of exclusion on the job (Bergmann et al., 1986).

Therefore, the first set of research questions pertain to work place social relations. Specifically, do women working part-time report differential treatment on the job? Because occupations have differed in their tra- ditions regarding the availability of par t - t ime work, th ree broad occupational groups will be contrasted. Nonprofessional occupations, such as clerical, administrative, and retail sales, and professions that have a long history of female segregation, such as nursing and library science, provide structured part-time schedules (Sales & Frieze, 1984). Professions with a history of male incumbency, such as law and finance, have not provided such schedules.

To measure perceived differential treatment on the job, the bipolar construct of Centrality-Peripherality is introduced. Peripherality is defined as low participation in organization activities, high uncertainty, marginality in social relations, and occupational disadvantage vis-/t-vis skill development. Centrality is defined in contrasting terms: high participation in organizational activities, control over uncertainty, positive and accepting social in-

54 Barker

teractions, and skill advantages. The three levels across which Centrality- Peripherality are proposed to operate are the organizational, interpersonal, and skill or occupational development areas.

It is hypothesized that individuals who work part-time will report greater peripherality than full-time workers. Given that women may be more sensitive to external validation than men (Astin, 1991), as well as the gender imbalance of male-dominated professions, peripherality may be ex- acerbated by holding a part-time job in fields in which the male model of full-time work predominates. It is predicted that respondents working part- time in professions designated as male-dominated (more than 60% male) will report less centrality than women working part-time in female-dominated professions (more than 60% female) and nonprofessional occupations (more than 60% female).

In addition, the lack of an explicit or implicit agreement regarding the permanence of a job has been noted as a defining characteristic of contingent work (Polivka & Nardone, 1989). Yet this characterization of an agreement between an employer and the employed has been stated as a categorical variable when it may be a continuous variable. It is predicted that professional women working part-time will report a greater vulnerability to layoffs than professional full-time working women.

The second broad area of inquiry will address work self-esteem and life satisfaction areas. Various employment schemes confer different rights and benefits (Christensen & Murphree, 1988) and women working in part- time jobs reported less career satisfaction than full-time peers (Hall & Gor- don, 1973). Part-time schedules may represent less secure bonds between the employer and the employee, especially for those working in occupations that have a long history of male incumbency and a culture of full-time work commitment. Are part-time schedules associated with lower work-related self-esteem? Multiple roles were positively associated with self-esteem in a sample of highly educated women (Pietromonaco, Manis, & Frohardt-Lane, 1986). The relationship of work schedule arrangements to self-esteem was reported by Pietromonaco, Manis and Markus (1987). Although occupation was not reported, career-oriented full-time working women reported higher self-esteem than career-oriented part-time working women; full-time non- career-oriented women reported the lowest self-esteem of all groups. In the current study, it is hypothesized that women working part-time in male- dominated professions will express lower work related self-esteem than full- time peers and women working part-t ime in occupations that have traditionally provided part-time schedules.

Women working in part-time jobs reported greater role conflict than women working full-time (Hall & Gordon, 1973). However, occupation was not reported and it is not unlikely that the demands of occupations interact


with role conflict. For women working part-time in male-dominated occupations, which are associated with an elastic norm of hours worked (Schor, 1991), role conflict may be higher than role conflict for women working in female-dominated occupations. It is predicted that women working part- time in female-dominated occupations will report lower role conflict and overload than women working in male-dominated occupations. Finally, to complement findings regarding work-related conditions, child and partnership/marriage satisfaction will be examined and happiness at home and work will be contrasted across groups.

METHOD

Data Collection

Study participants were recruited through professional organizations or part-time professional organizations or identified by the primary inves- tigator. Three separate mailings were conducted. For the first mailing, the questionnaire was mailed to women identified by the Chicago Bar Asso- ciation, Lawyers for Alternative Work Schedules, and a random sample of female attorneys in the Chicago area. For the second mailing, the American Nurses Association provided a random list of 500 nurses in 50 states, aged 25-44, working full-time, and 278 nurses, aged 25-44, working part-time. From this list, a disproportionate stratified sample of 100 full-time and 100 part-time labels were selected for mailing. Finally, 51 individuals working in a professional capacity in the greater New York metropolitan area were also identified through a membership list provided by the Association for Part-Time Professionals (APTP). Members' occupations cover a broad spectrum of occupations ranging from, for example, an elementary school teacher to a bank vice-president. Return rates for the law, nursing, and APTP mailings were, respectively, 55%, 73%, and 63%.

Respondents for the nonprofessional group were recruited for study by placing posters in three New York City-based firms (advertising, televi- sion, and a social agency). Forty-nine women were recruited.

Respondents

The sample consisted of 328 women working in organizations. Of the 328 questionnaires, 10 respondents were excluded due to either incomplete responses across most of the major areas of study or reporting self-employment. The self-employed have been demonstrated to possess unique

56 Barker

qualities vis-a-vis paid workers (Mannheim & Schiffrin, 1984). Three respondents who reported working two part-time jobs or both a full-time and a part-time job were not included due to difficulty in interpreting responses. Therefore, the final sample consisted of 315 working women.

The sample was 91.7% white, 2.5% African-American, 2.9% Latin- American, 1.6% Asian-American, and 1.2% other. Nearly 25% of the sample reported no children. The mean age of the sample was 36 years of age and the mean number of years in their current job was 4.1, and neither variable was significantly different when examined by occupation, work schedule, and labor status. Sixty-one percent of the respondents were classified as voluntary in their labor status and reported working their current work schedule due to personal preference or occupational reasons. Of the remaining sample, 20.3% reported working due to economic need, 12.4% reported inadequate day care or a lack of day care, and 5.7% reported working in the only job that was available. Of the women who cite day-care problems as their primary reason (n = 39), almost all were working part- time (n = 38), mostly in the female-dominated profession group (n = 26). There was a marginally significant trend for women who categorized themselves as working voluntarily to report higher husband income than women working involuntarily D~ 2 = (6) 11.43, p < .07, Cramer's v = .21]. Women working part-time in the male and female-dominated profession groups reported higher husband income than peers working full-time [~2 = (30) 79.15, p < .001, Cramer's v = .25].

Design

The study design is a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial. The independent variables were occupation: male-dominated profession (MDP), female-dominated profession (FDP), and nonprofessional occupation (NPO); work schedule (full-time, part-time); and labor status (voluntary, involuntary). Occupations listed by the U.S. Department of Labor (1990) as less than 40% female were classified as MDP. Professions that were more than 60% female were classified as FDP. The composition of MDP group was primarily attorneys (n = 84), high-level executives (n = 18) and women working in universities, and technical jobs (n = 8). Women in the FDP group were primarily nurses (n = 140), complemented by women working as nurse instructors, elementary educators, librarians, and social workers (n = 16). Secretaries, data entry clerks, retail clerks, bank tellers, and receptionists (n = 49) comprised the NPO group.


Questionnaire

Employment Background. Respondents were asked about their work schedule arrangements, duration of employment with current employer, primary reason for working their schedule, and company size. To measure job security, respondents were asked to respond to a scenario in which their employer experienced a financial crisis and layoffs were a recom- mended strategy to cope with the crisis. Respondents indicated their agreement with the statement, "I think it is highly unlikely that I would be dismissed" on a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 indicating strongly agree and 1 indicating strongly disagree.

Centrality-Peripherality (CP). 3 Forty items, derived from interviews and a survey of the literature, addressed organizational and interpersonal exclusion and opportunities to develop skills and/or careers. Two experts agreed upon a pool of 29 items as relevant and clear. These Likert-type items were followed by a 5-point response scale ranging from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree. Direction of questions was randomly pre- sented. Scale instructions emphasized that respondents should use a specific reference group, full-time co-workers, when making comparisons to other within their organization or responding to questions. It may be argued that the three subscales do not assess actual Centrality-Peripherality, but the individual's subjective appraisal of her work situation. Previous research in the job satisfaction literature suggests that the individual's perception of job attributes is more critical to their psychological response to work than the objective conditions of the job situation (Seashore & Taber, 1975).

Frequency distributions for each item were computed and inspected. The corrected item-total scale correlations, Cronbach's alphas, and alpha if an item was deleted were computed. As suggested by Kline (1986), items which did not pass an item analytic criterion (item-total correlation > .2) were closely examined. Of the 29 Likert items in the CP Scale, 7 items were deleted after the internal consistency analysis. The same items had low item-total correlations within each of their respective subscales as well. The final CP scale of 22 items yielded an internal consistency of .88. Cron- bach's alpha was computed for the 5-item organizational (.70), 7-item interpersonal (.72), and 10-item occupational advantage (.78) subscales.

Work Self-Esteem. On the basis of the work of Mortimer and Lorence (1979), four items were chosen to represent a personal efficacy dimension of the self-concept at work: strong-weak, active-quiet, confident-anxious, and competent-not too competent. Respondents described themselves on

3Complete details regarding scale development procedures may be obtained by writing to the author.

58 Barker

a 7-point semantic differential rating scale. Internal consistency for the four-item scale yielded a satisfactory .83.

Role Issues. Each respondent was asked to indicate the number of social roles she occupied (paid worker, parent, partner, caretaker for eld- erly, etc.). The measures of role overload and role conflict were adopted from Barnett and Baruch (1985). Role overload was defined as the response to the following question: "How often do the things you do add up to being just too much?" Role conflict was defined as the response to the question: "How often do you have to juggle different obligations that conflict with one another and give you a pulled-apart feeling?" Response cate- gories ranged from never (1) to very often (4).

Satisfaction Measures. Job satisfaction, satisfaction with marriage/partnership, and satisfaction with children was determined by respondents' an- swers, respectively, to the questions, "How do you feel about your present job?", "How do you feel about your marriage or partnership?" and, "The rewards and satisfactions of having children are an important source of pleasure and enjoyment in my life." The latter two items were adopted from Pietromonaco et al. (1986) and responses for the three questions were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) very satisfied to (5) very dissatisfied. Two questions asked how happy they felt at home and at work and a third item asked, "Overall, would you say you are happiest when at home or when at work?" Two items probed the importance of personal satisfaction and career goals in the decision to work.

RESULTS

Table I presents the correlations of the CP scale, the three subscales of CP, Work Self-Esteem, and Job Satisfaction for the entire sample, Work self-esteem and job satisfaction measures were significantly correlated with CP and all of the subscales of CP.

Centrality-Peripherality

The first hypothesis, that women working part-time would report higher peripherality than full-time working women, was confirmed (t = 4.22, df 296, p < .001). Subscale analysis indicated uniform results. Women working part-time reported greater organizational (t = 3.45, df 304, p < .001) and interpersonal (t = 3.28, df 302, p < .001) peripherality and occupational disadvantage (t = 4.25, df 305, p < .001) than women working full-time. In a 3 × 2 × 2 (Occupation, Work Schedule, and Labor Status)

Changing Assumptions, Contingent Solutions

Table I. Intercorrelation of Three Subscales of Centrali ty-Peripherali ty, Marital Role Power, Work Self-Esteem, and Job Satisfaction for Overall Sample a

59

CP C P O R G CPIP CPSKILL WSE JS

CP 1.00 .83* .87* .89* .31" .47* C P O R G 1.00 .69* .55* .25* .30* CPIP 1.00 .64* .23" .37" CPSKILL 1.00 .31" .50" WSE 1.00 .24" JS 1.00

aCen t r a l i t y -Pe r iphe ra l i t y sca le (CP) , the CP o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s u b s c a l e ( C P O R G ) , CP interpersonal subscale (CPIP), CP skill subscale (CPSKILL), Work Self-Esteem (WSE), and Job Satisfaction (JS). All reverse-direction items were recoded so that a higher score reflected greater centrality. All correlations are based on listwise deletion of cases (N = 289).

*p < .001.

ANOVA, all three factors were significant. Women working full-time [F(1, 286) = 9.80, p < .002], in the professions [F(2, 286) = 14.46, p < .0005], and voluntarily [(F(1, 286) = 5.32, p < .02] reported greater centrality in the workplace. Women working part-time reported a greater number of children (t = -6.69, df 312, p < .005) and a lower age of youngest child (t = 3.31, df 235, p < .001) than full-time working women. To factor out the potential effects of number of children, the 3 × 2 × 2 (Occupation, Work Schedule, and Labor Status) A N C O V A was calculated, with number of children (0 through 4) living at home and age of youngest child as covariates. Although age of youngest child [F(1,216) = 5.19, p < .03] and number of children [F(1, 216) = 3.78, p < .05] were significant covariates, all main effects, work schedule [/7(1, 216) 7.75, p < .006], occupation [F(2, 216) 9.73, p < .0005], and labor status [F(1, 216) 4.13, p < .04], remained significant. Inspection of means revealed consistent differences between and within groups. Within groups, women working part-time reported less centrality than occupationally similar colleagues in full-time jobs. Between groups, centrality decreased with a decrease in occupational status. NPO women reported the least centrality (Fig. 1). In addition, women working part-time reported being seen as less committed to their firms (M = 3.1) than women working full-time (M = 4.0, t = (308) 6.59, p < .001).

The hypothesis that women working part-time in the M DP group (M = 3.5) would report less centrality than women working part-time in the FDP (3 / /= 3.6) and NPO (M = 2.9) groups was not supported. However, women working part-time in the MDP (M = 3.3) and FDP (M = 3.2) groups reported a significantly greater chance of a layoff than women working full-time in the MDP (M = 4.0) and FDP (M = 3.6) groups [F(1, 259)

6 0 B a r k e r

4 - 7

/

/ / / / / / / / / / - - \ / / \ / - , ) / / \ / \ / - - \ / \ / - - \ / \

/

C P

\ i ) -

/ \ // / × , _ \ / / -,, \ /

• . / x~ - - / / × l - \ /

/ • / \ . . /

/ \ / . / /

/ / • / _ _ /

/ \ . / • I \ . I .. / \ , . /

/ / / _ \ .

i / _ \ / /

O r g a n I z a t l o n a l I r l t e r p e r s o n a l

_ 7 1 _

; 7

- 5 ×

)~ \ . ;x \ •

_ \ .

\ •

\ / - - \ / , v , - - , \

S k i l l

/ / ~ _ / ~ - - \ "

; x

MDP: Full-Time ~]MDP: Part.Time FIFDP: Full-time

~]FDP: Part.Time ~NPO: Full.Time ~NPO: Part.Time

Fig. 1. Mean scores: Centra|ity-Peripherality and subscales by occupation and work schedule.

10.15, p < .002]. CP was not significantly different when examined by cate- gories of organizational size [F(1, 5) 1.68, p ns].

Satisfaction and Happiness: Work and Home

Satisfaction and happiness at work were examined next. Although women working part-time reported greater exclusion on the job than women working full-time, they reported greater job satisfaction and happiness at work than women working full-time. Women working part-time IF(l, 301) = 4.13, p < .04], in the professions [F(2, 301) 5.13, p < .006], and voluntarily IF(l, 301) 6.27, p < .01] reported greater job satisfaction. Familywise Scheff~ comparisons revealed that the MDP (M = 3.8) and FDP (M = 3.6) groups reported significantly greater job satisfaction than


women in the NPO group (M = 3.1). Women working part-time reported greater happiness at work IF(l, 298) = 5.81,p < .02], as did women working voluntarily [F(1, 298) = 5.64, p > .02]. When working voluntarily, both full-time (M = 3.7) and part-time (M = 3.7) working women reported moderately high happiness at work comparable to women working part-time and involuntarily (M = 3.6). Women involuntarily working full-time reported the lowest happiness (M = 3.1).

In terms of satisfaction variables associated with the home, women working part-time reported greater satisfaction with children [F(1, 227) = 8.22, p < .005] than women working full-time and this effect was qualified by occupation [F(2, 227) 8.67, p < .0005]. For the MDP, FDP, and NPO groups, the full-time scores were, respectively, 4.7, 4.4, and 3.9, and the part-time scores were, respectively, 4.9, 4.7, and 4.4. A subsequent AN- COVA tested whether effects were due to number of children and age of youngest child. Partialing out the effects of number of children [F(1, 222) = 1.151, p ns] and age of youngest child [/7(1, 222) = 1.24, p ns] did not remove work schedule [F(1, 222) = 6.27, p < .01] and occupation [F(2, 222) = 7.10, p < .001] as significant source effects on child satisfaction.

Unlike satisfaction with children, there were no significant differences among any of the groups in reporting marriage/partner satisfaction. Yet women working part-time reported greater happiness at home than women working full-time [F(1, 298) 5.84, p < .02]. Women overwhelmingly selected home over work when asked where they were happiest and there were no significant differences when examined by work schedule and profession. Of women in the MDP group, 86.3% selected home as where they were happiest, followed by 82.6% of the women in the NPO group and nearly 81% of the women in FDP group.

Work Self-Esteem. Does part-time employment impact negatively on women in occupations which require extensive education and professional preparation? A three-way analysis of variance indicated a main effect for work schedule IF(l, 295) = 3.78, p < .05] and occupation [F(2, 295) 5.98, p < .003] but not for labor status [F(1, 295) = 3.51, p ns]. A two-way in- teraction, Occupation x Work Schedule, was only marginally significant IF(2, 295) 2.47, p < .09]. There was a tendency for women working part-time to report higher self-esteem than full-time peers except women working in the MDP group (Fig. 2). Women working full-time in the NPO group reported the lowest work-self esteem of all groups. Planned comparisons revealed that the full-time NPO group was significantly different from all other groups. The prediction that women working part-time in male-dominated professions would express lower work self-esteem than full-time peers and women working part-time in occupations that have traditionally provided part-time schedules received only partial support. Women working

62 Barker

7

6

5

4

3

2

• " , , , . , ° ° o ,

-I~ F u l l - T i m e ' ~ P a r t - T i m e

1 I L I M D P F D P N P O

I F u l l - T i m e I 5 . 7 2 5 . 8 5 4 . 7 7 P a r t - T i m e 5 . 4 9 5 . 9 9 5.61

Note. MDP = Male-dominated Profession; FDP = Female-dominated profession; NPO = Non-professional occupation.

Fig. 2. Work self-esteem mean scores: Occupation and work schedule.

part-time in the MDP group reported significantly lower work self-esteem than women working part-time in the FDP group, but their scores were not significantly different from women working part-time in the NPO group or full-time MDP peers. Work self-esteem was moderately associated with income for women working full-time (v12 = .26). Variation in work self-esteem was not explained by income for women working part-time (rl 2 = .06). Unlike women working full-time, women working part-time do not associate income rewards with their self-regard in the work place.

Women with children working part-time tended to report working on an voluntary basis more frequently than comparable full-time working women [Z z = (1) 9.00, p < .002, v = .20]. Although the relationship was not strong, women working part-time, who were earlier found to report higher husband income, may simply place more importance on satisfaction from the work they do. This speculation was not supported. The correlation of importance of personal satisfaction in the decision to work with work self-esteem for women with children working full-time was .36 (n = 98, p


< .001) and for women with children working part-time was .22 (n = 130, p < .006) and the difference between correlations was not significant (Zobt = 1.14, p ns). 4 Women with children working part-time were just as likely to report that their decision to work was important to career goals [t(231) .58, p ns] and important to personal satisfaction [t(231) -.30, p ns] as women with children working full-time.

Role I s s u e s

Women with children reported greater role overload than women without children [t(310) --- 3.29, p < .001] and women with children working part-time reported significantly more roles than women with children working full-time [t(233) -3.50, p < .001].

The hypothesis that women working part-time in female-dominated occupations (FDP and NPO groups) would report lower role conflict and role overload than women working in male-dominated professions received only partial support. Examining work schedule, occupation, and labor status for role conflict, occupation was the only significant effect IF(2, 303) = 4.406,p < .01], with women working in the FDP group (M = 3.08) reporting lower role conflict than women in the MDP (M = 3.21) and NPO (M = 3.18) groups. Role conflict was next explored in an ANCOVA with number of children as covariate. Although number of children was a significant covariate [F(1, 302) = 18.38, p < .0005], occupation was still significant [F(2, 302) = 3.08, p < .05]. Examining work schedule, occupation, and labor status for role overload, only labor status was significant [F(1, 300) = 5.15, p < .02]. Women working involuntarily reported greater role overload (M = 3.21) than women working voluntarily (M = 3.02). Women with children working full and part-time reported comparable means for role overload, 3.09 and 3.23, and role conflict, 3.09 and 3.08, respectively.

DISCUSSION

The results of the study underscore the need to control for work schedule, gender composition of occupations, and labor status when study- ing women's responses to employment. In this study, part-time working women reported less centrality in the work place than full-time working women. Women working part-time reported that they were less included than full-time working women across three realms: organizational, inter-

4The author thanks an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this analysis.

64 Barker

personal, and skill or occupational development areas. Within occupations, part-time women consistently reported less inclusion than full-time colleagues. Between occupations, greater centrality in the workplace was most often associated with those in the professions, The feelings of exclusion were greatest for those in clerical occupations in which the job-holder is important to production but the least central to office power relations (Kanter, 1977). The systemic exclusion of part-time workers within occupational groups raises serious concerns about part-time work in contempo- rary society. Perceived vulnerability to layoff was significantly greater for the part-time professional groups compared with full-time colleagues.

The response to "good" part-time jobs in male-dominated professionals fields may be influenced by the gender imbalance of the work place. As one executive commented, "After my son was born, I suggested a part- time or time-share role, but upper management was extremely negative to the concept." Exclusion for women working part-time in male-dominated professions was strongest for organizational activities. Is this due to the salience of power relations in law firms for this primarily attorney sample and the "greedy" institution of law (Epstein, 1981)? Women with children working part-time commented on the "chilly" reception of colleagues and superiors to their "special" arrangements. Full-time working women with and without children commented unfavorably in open-ended questions on part-time or reduced work schedules. One full-time, attorney commented, "I am a professional, not just an employee and a 'part-time' lawyer will always be an employee . . . . " Speaking of her prior part-time job, a full-time attorney concurred, "My work was undervalued . . . . I was treated as only marginally competent." A trend to observe, considering the economic advantages which accrue to employers of part-time professionals, is whether the presence of such workers result in the constriction of full-time jobs and the expansion of "loose" attachment arrangements, such as contracting out and part-time work.

Considering the greater peripherality or exclusion on the job for the part-time working women, a perplexing question concerns their report of greater satisfaction with their jobs and happiness at work than full-time working women. Crosby (1982, 1984; Crosby et al., 1989) has accumulated evidence that women deny personal discrimination but recognize collective or aggregated discrimination. This model may account for women's responses in this study. Women working part-time reported being systemati- cally excluded but also reported being happier with their jobs and at work. An additional explanation for greater happiness on the job may be culled from women's responses to open-ended questions. Many women described their current part-time job as a "relief" rather than a career risk. This may explain, in part, the finding that women involuntarily working full-time re-


ported the lowest happiness at work. Women working part-time have been able to set limits on their work hours and continue their careers and traditional roles in the family. Spouse income may be a factor facilitating the ability to reduce hours and it may influence the "preference" of some professionals to work fewer hours.

A fairly small proportion of women, 12.4%, was working part-time due to day-care problems. Some women were not able to work full-time because of day-care costs. In contrast, many women preferred to stay at home part-time and work part-time. Socioeconomic status appeared to play a role in the freedom to choose or find flexible work schedules. The effects of household income on preference for work schedule is exemplified in the comment of one attorney," . . . Professional women choose to work part- time simply as a way to spend more time with their children even tho (sic) the women are very happy with their nannies." A part-time nurse appeared to recognize the comingling of income and choice:

I was very sat isf ied wi th af ter school chi ld care, but I wan ted to be h o m e af ter school and have m o r e t ime for the family on weekends . I rea l ize this is a luxury few w o m e n have o p e n to them, but the re was a t rade-of f on the job.

A part-time nurse commented on the unique set of circumstances, high demand for nurses, and family income: "I feel fortunate that I have the choice to stay home the majority of the time and can return to my field in 5-10 years." Referring to the cost of child care, a part-time clerical putting her husband through school commented, "I would work full-time if we could afford it."

Other women felt the costs associated with part-time work, such as promotion, were too high. For women in male-dominated professions, it is extremely difficult to negotiate or find a part-time position. However, not all women face the same set of risks. With shorter career ladders in nursing and few, if any, in clerical work, the costs may be lessened, except when considering lost earnings. Even subsequent earnings have been found to be unaffected by working part-time due to family reasons in a female-dominated profession (Olson et al., 1990). In addition, considering the shortage of nurses in this country and abroad, these health care workers enjoy a special advantage in their ability to select both employer and work schedule. Finally, it has been maintained that female-dominated professions, for example, social work and librarianship, have historically accommodated women's work and traditional roles in the family (Sales & Frieze, 1984, cf. Corcoran et al., 1984). This argument is supported by the finding that the female-dominated professionals, whether full-time or part-time, reported comparable work self-esteem and the lowest role conflict of any group and were also the largest group selecting work as where they were happiest.

66 Barker

In those occupations that typically provided part-time schedules, women working part-time reported higher work self-esteem than peers working full-time. Of professional women working part-time, those in the male-dominated professions reported the lowest work self-esteem, although not significantly different from women working in nonprofessional occupations. Women working in male-dominated professions may experience an ambivalent management that values their contributions but marginalizes them. In addition, more than any other group, women in the male-dominated professions selected home as where they were happiest. Work self- esteem differences were not dramatic but further research is needed to document whether there is a decline over time in work self-esteem for women opting for reduced schedules in male-dominated professions. In addition, a different perspective or frame of reference may be employed by women working part-time. While income for full-time workers was associated with work self-esteem, part-time workers' self-esteem was unrelated to earnings and there were no differences in working due to personal satisfaction between the full-time and the part-time groups. Perhaps being "off-track" removes income as an indicator of work self-esteem for women working part-time. With less time on the job, both positive and negative feedback may be minimized in relation to feedback received in other life spheres, for example, as a parent for part-time working women.

Finally, similar to the findings of Hall and Gordon (1973), part-time workers reported a greater number of social roles. However, unlike their findings, women working full- and part-time reported comparable role conflict and role overload. Amelioration of role conflict was not fulfilled by working reduced hours but rather by working in female-dominated professions. Women working in male-dominated professions and nonprofessional occupations reported the greatest role conflict. Occupational norms in male-dominated professions, in which individuals may be expected to work more than 40 hours per week, place particular value on full-time work-role commitments. Alternatively, women working in nonprofessional jobs with concomitant lower incomes may not possess the resources to purchase serv- ices that reduce role conflict.

Another Hall and Gordon finding was were less satisfied with their careers than though part-time working women reported ported greater job satisfaction and there

that women working part-time full-time women workers. AI- exclusion on the job, they re- were no differences between

full-time and part-time groups with respect to the importance of personal satisfaction in the decision to work and the importance of work to career goals in this study.

What would account for the discrepancy between the current study and the Hall and Gordon study? First, there is a span of nearly 20 years


of social history between studies and unparalleled changes in the employment opportunities for women. The trend toward women's increasing employment attachment to the labor market began during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Not only were there barriers to women attaining prestigious full-time positions, but there were few, if any, comparable part-time jobs. Second, Hall and Gordon's sample was college educated, but occupation was never reported. How much satisfaction would a women with a degree in journalism express if she could only find part-time work editing the manuscripts of others? Third, and related to the last point, husband's income was not examined. Alternatively, the part-time worker with a journalism degree could have been a traditional woman who would have worked at home full-time if economic constraints did not force her to work outside the home.

The limitations of this research are apparent in its predominantly white sample and its occupational reliance on attorneys for masculine professions and nurses for feminine professions. While differences due to organizational size were controlled, future research should attempt to include a wider diversity of occupations within each type. Finally, casual or irregular part-time employment has not been addressed in this study. The emergence of involuntary part-time work in women's lives needs further examination.

Benefits, Limits, and Consequences of the Mommy Track

Perhaps some women do bring "expectations" regarding the flexibility of the work place (Schwartz, 1989) that result in preferences for flexible work schedules. While such arrangements resulted in greater exclusion in the workplace, women working such schedules were just as happy at work as women voluntarily working full- and part-time. Alternatively, without a national day- care program that provides child care, the lack of choice regarding child care may be masked as preference but is actually related to family income.

Is it "traditional attitudes" which led some women in male-dominated professions to pursue part-time work and spend more time at home? Part- time work for this group generally meant 40 hours per week. Or is it a rejection of a model of work in which every worker is a "good provider" (Bernard, 1981) or on the "daddy track"? To be included in the mainstream of organizations, the male model of work specified that employees comply with organizational norms. One of those norms is the elastic number of hours spent at work. According to Schor (1991),

Some professionals and managers are starting to refuse the long hours. The rising numbers of professional women with children and a new ethos of fathering are leading many in long hour jobs to desire more time away from work. It is likely that these demands will grow, rather than recede. Yet at the moment , few who

68 Barker

feel this way have been able to reconcile the conflicting demands of employer and family. (p. 72)

If exclusion is viewed as a penalty for noncompliance with organizational or occupational norms, organizations appear to effectively deliver their message to the part-time working women in this sample. For the women working part-time in this sample, exclusion is the price; reconciliation or amelioration of role burden is the elusive prize.

Individually negotiated "arrangements" with management that codify a lower standing vis-a-vis full-time workers is a trade-off many women are willing to accept. Further research is needed which examines the opportunity to get "back on track," which in some professions may be problematic, potentially due to the stereotype or "corporate image" that accompanies part-time work and the skill disadvantages observed in this sample. Re- gardless of occupation, professional women reported a greater risk of layoff than full-time peers. The trend toward converting full-time jobs into part- time jobs in professions long dominated by men is a recent development. In addition to the negative effect of working part-time on subsequent sala- ries in male-dominated professions (Olson et al., 1990), studies conducted over the next 5 to 10 years from now would provide information concerning other problems women experienced when reconverting the part-time job back into a full-time one. For a woman in an occupation which is in high demand (one in which the employer finds it difficult to replace employees due to market competition), it may be easier for her to resume a full-time job if she has not been passed over when retraining opportunities occur. For other women, the expanding pool of involuntary part-time jobs (Tilly, 1991) should serve as a caution.

The status and experiences of working women, and the appeal of contingent or marginal employment as a reconciliation of home-work conflicts, remain a matter of paramount concern.

REFERENCES

Applebaum, E. (1983). Back to work: Determinants of women's successful re-entry. Boston: Auburn.

Astin, H. (1991). Citation classics: Women's and men's perceptions of their contributions to science. In H. Zuckerman, J. R. Cole, & J. T. Bruer (Eds.), The outer circle: Women in the scientific community (pp. 56-70). New York: Academic Press.

Axel, H. (1988). Part-time employment: Crosscurrents of change. Flexible workstyles: A look at contingent labor (pp. 41-45). Washington, DC: Women's Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor.

Barnett, R. C., and Baruch, G. K. (1985). Women's involvement in multiple roles and psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 135-145.

Belous, R. S. (1989). The contingent economy: The growth of the temporary, part-time and subcontracted workforce. Washington, DC: National Planning Association.


Bergmann, T. J., Grahn, J. L., & Wyatt (1986). Relationship of employment status to employee job satisfaction. Akron Business Review, Summer, 45-50.

Bernard, J. (1981). The good provider role: Its rise and fall. American Psychologist, 36, 1-12. Blank, R. (1987). Part-time work and wages among adult women. Proceedings of the 39th

Annual Meeting, Industrial Relations Research Association (pp. 479-486). Madison, WI. Callaghan, P., & Harmann, H. (1992). Contingent Work: A chartbook on part-time and

temporary employment. Washington, DC: Institute for Women's Policy Research, Economic Policy Institute.

Catalyst, Inc. (1968). Part-time teachers and how they work: A study of five school systems. New York: Catalyst.

Catalyst, Inc. (1971). Part-time social workers in public welfare. New York: Catalyst. Christensen, K. (1985). Impacts of computer-mediated home-based work on women and their

families. New York: The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York, Center for Human Environments.

Christensen, K. (1989, May-June). Letter to the editor. Halyard Business Review, p. 204. Christensen, K., & Murphree, M. (1988). Introduction to Conference Proceedings. Flexible

Workstyles: A look at contingent labor (pp, 1-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau.

Christopherson, S. (1988). The origins of contingent labor demand in changing production organization. Flexible Workstyles: A look at contingent labor (pp. 34-38). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau.

Coates, V. T. (1988). Office automation technology and contingent work modes. Flexible Workstyles: A look at contingent labor (pp. 29-33). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau.

Connerton, P. (1988). A new job force to be reckoned with. Business and Health, October, 8-11.

Conway, E. (1988). Working along the edge. Business and Health, October, 12-17. Corcoran, M., Duncan, G. J., & Ponza, M. (1984). Work experience, job segregation, and

wages. In B. F. Reskin (Ed.), Sex segregation in the workplace: Trends, explanations, remedies (pp. 171-191). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press. Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27,

371-386. Crosby, P., Pufal, A., Snyder, R. C., O'Connell, M., & Whalen, P. (1989). The denial of

personal disadvantage among you, me, and all the other ostriches. In M. Crawford & M. Gen t ry (Eds.) , Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Eberhardt, B. J., & Shani, A. B. (1984). The effects of full-time vs. part-time employment status on attitudes towards specific organizational characteristics and overall job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 893-900.

Epstein, C. (1981). Women in law. New York: Basic Books. Freedman, A. (1986). Jobs: Insecurity at all levels. Across the Board, January 4-5. Freedman, M. (1988). Shifts in labor market structure and patterns of occupational training.

Flexible Workstyles: A look at contingent labor (pp. 65-68). Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau.

Freedman, A. (1989). The costly good 'ol boys. The New York Times, July 12. Friedan, B. (1989, May-June). Letter to the editor. Harvard Bushzess Review, p. 200. Fuchs, V. (1989, May-June). Letter to the editor. Harvard Business Review, p. 197. Futter, E. V. (1989, May-June). Letter to the editor. Harvard Bushless Review, p. 198. Gannon, M. J. (1975). The management of peripheral employees. Personnel Psychology, 24,

248-286. Gannon, M. J., & Northern, J. C. (1971). A comparison of short-term and long-term

employees. Personnel Psychology, 24, 687-696. Hall, D. T., & Gordon, F. E. (1973). Effects of career choices on married women. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 58, 42-48.

70 Barker

Hennig, M., & Jardim, A. (1989), May-June) Letter to the editor. Harvard Business Review, p. 197.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 7, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press.

Kahne, H. (1985). Reconceiving part-time work: New perspectives for oMer workers and women. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

Kahne, H. (1992). Part-time work: A hope and a peril. In B. D. Warme, K. Lundy, & L. A. Lundy (Eds.), Working part-time: Risks and opportunities. New York: Praeger.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic. Kline, P. (1986). Handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric theory. New York:

Methuen. Kornbluh, J. L. (1988). The contingent workplace: Historical perspectives on part-time and

temporary workers. Flexible Workstyles: ,4 look at contingent labor (pp. 14-20). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau.

Levitan, S. A., & Conway, E. (1992). Part-timers: Living on half-rations. In B. D. Warme, K. Lundy, & L. A. Lundy (Eds.), Working part-time: Risks and opportunities (pp. 217-228). New York: Praeger.

Logan, M., O'Reilly, C., & Roberts, K. (1973). Job satisfaction among part-time and full-time employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 33-41.

Mangum, G., Mayall, D., & Nelson, K. (1986). The temporary help industry: A response to the dual internal labor market. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 38, 599-611.

Mannheim, B., & Schiffrin, M. (1984). Family structure, job characteristics, rewards and strains as related to work-role centrality of employed and self-employed professional women with children. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 5, 83-101.

McKay, R. V. (1988). Internal competition: Its impact on employment. Flexible workstyles: A look at contingent labor (pp. 23-28). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau.

Miller, H. E., & Terborg, J. R. (1979). Job attitudes of part-time and full-time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 380-386.

Morse, D. (1969). The peripheral worker. New York: Columbia University Press. Mortimer, J. T., & Lorence, J. (1979). Occupational experience and the self-concept: A

longitudinal study. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 307-323. Nine to Five, National Association of Working Women (1986). Working at the margins:

Part-time and temporary workers in the United States. Cleveland, OH: Author. Olson, J. E., Frieze, I. H., & Detlefsen, E. G. (1990). Having it all? Combining work and

family in a male and a female profession. Sex Roles, 23, 515-533. Pietromonaco, P. R., Manis, J., & Frohardt-Lane, K. (1986). Psychological consequences of

multiple social roles. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 373-382. Pietromonaco, P. R., Manis, J., & Markus, H. (1987). The relationship of employment to self

perception and well-being in women: A cognitive analysis. Sex Roles, 17, 467-477. Plewes, T. J. (1988). Understanding the data on part-time and temporary employment. Flexible

workstyles: A look at contingent labor (pp. 9-13). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau.

Pollack, M. A., & Bernstein, A. (1985). Part-time workers: Rising numbers, rising discord. Business Week, April 1.

Polivka, A. E., & Nardone, T. (1989, December). On the definition of "contingent work." Monthly Labor Review, pp. 9-16.

Proshansky, H. M. (1989, May-June). Letter to the editor. Harvard Business Review, p. 200. Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R. N. (1971). Dual-career families. Baltimore: Penguin Books. Rotchford, N. L., & Roberts, K. H. (1982). Part-time workers as missing persons in

organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 7, 228-234. Sales, E., & Frieze, I. H. (1984). Women and work: Implications for mental health. In L. E.

Walker (Ed.), Women and mental health policy (pp. 229-246). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Schor, J. B. (1991). The overworked American. New York: Basic Books.


Schwartz, F. N. (1989). Management women and the new facts of life. Harvard Business Review, 110, 65-76.

Seashore, S. E., & Taber, T. D. (1975). Job satisfaction indicators and their correlates. American Behavioral Scientist, 7, 401-426.

Smith, J. (1984). The paradox of women's poverty: Wage-earning women and economic transformation. Signs, 10, 291-310.

Tilly, C. (1990, March). Reasons for the continuing growth of part-time employment. Monthly Labor Review, pp. 10-18.

Tilly, C. (1991). Short hours, short shrift. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Tilly, C. (1992). Two faces of part-time work: Good and bad part-time jobs in U.S. service

industries. In B. D. Warme, K. Lundy, & L. A. Lundy (Eds.), Working part-time: Risks and opportunities (pp. 217-228). New York: Praeger.

U.S. Department of Labor (1991). Employment and Earnings, 38 (1). U.S. General Accounting Office (1991). Workers at risk. GAO Report HRD-91-56, March. Vecchio, R. P. (1984). Demographic and attitudinal differences between part-time and

full-time employees. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 5, 213-218. Vickery, C. (1979). Women's economic contribution to the family. In R. E. Smith (Ed.), The

subtle revolution: Women at work. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Warme, B. D., Lundy, K. L. P., and Lundy, L. A. (1992). Working part-time: Risks and

opportunities. New York: Praeger. Women's Bureau, Department of Labor (1988). Flexible Workstyles: A look at contingent labor.

Washington, DC: Author.

changing assumptions and contingent solutions: the costs and benefits of women working full- and...

Documents