To complete the study, we analyzed the social, legislative, and economic environment in the European Union and, particularly, in Hungary. We chose a research method we considered appropriate for the subject matter, and processed the acquired data to formulate recommendations for the administration and policy makers on how measures aiming at the reconciliation of work and family could be made more effective.

Our study, Mantalk, is based upon a research of forty interviews conducted with two target groups (twenty subjects each). As a method we chose interviewing, as this allows a deep insight into masculine narratives about family and family-friendly work environment. The first target group consisted of political decision makers who worked for gender equality or took part in the elaboration of the Family-Friendly Workplace Award project. The second target group was selected from enterprise executives whose organizations received the FFW award. All interview subjects were told why they have been selected and what the interview will be about. Still, few of them prepared in advance for the discussion itself. Generally our interview requests were greeted; surprisingly enough, members of the administrative institutions responsible for gender equality or family-friendly projects were the least inclined to give us an interview. Since we wished to prevent that the answers be preformed in accordance with the interviewer’s presumable expectations, we sent no questions to the subjects prior to the interview itself. Although each interview was recorded, we agreed that no names will be revealed in the upcoming study. The interviews were conducted in an open and friendly atmosphere, and most interviewees eventually gave us more time than we previously agreed upon.

While compiling the questions, we conducted “trial” interviews with a focus group to fine-tune the questionnaire. The members of the focus group differed from the general interview subjects, as they had greater-than-average knowledge about the subject matter. The focus group interviews can be considered successful—notwithstanding that the two governmental policy makers we also invited cancelled their participation in the last minute. Not only could we fine-tune and reformulate some of our questions, we also gained several invaluable ideas for further inquiries as well.

Most of the questions were identical for the two target groups. First we asked general questions about the concept of family and family-friendliness, the nature of family-friendly measures, and asked whose responsibility they thought the reconciliation of work and personal life is. The second group of questions asked about personal experience; i.e., how all those concepts discussed in the first section are put into practice as regards to the interview subject. The third group of questions inquired about the various effects (advantages and disadvantages) of family-friendly measures at the workplace on individual, corporate and social levels. In the fourth section we asked about how an executive career can be reconciled with family responsibilities, and what role a manager should play in introducing and implementing family-friendly facilities in a company. In this section we also asked what steps the interviewee himself takes to help his employees manage their personal life besides their work, what measures he have introduced, and whether he plans to introduce any other measures to complement previous endeavors. We also compiled a fifth group of questions for executives whose company have won the FFW award. In this section we asked about the award itself (e.g., how did he become aware of it, what other good practices does he know, why did he nominated the company for the award, how did winning the award affect the company life, etc.).

 

 

The answers of our interview subjects show that overexertion—contrary to widely accepted opinions—characterizes both the managers and the workers. Though some of the subjects indicated that their family-friendly work environment and the measures taken for developing and maintaining such an environment are just as beneficial for single people and for those living “only” in a relationship as they are for married people, as a general rule, the subjects did not differentiate between personal and familial life. Consequently, most subjects talked about the work environment in relation to the familial life of married people.

The family definitions we encountered varied greatly regardless of whether the subject was a political decision maker or an enterprise executive. Even though some politicians endeavored to use a politically correct discourse—thus, deliberately including homosexual relationships and other family models into the definition—it was generally married heterosexual parenting that was meant under “family,” and this definition was supported and consolidated by the concrete examples they provided.

Personal matters and activities other than familial responsibilities (e.g., meeting friends) were barely mentioned as legitimate demands. The overwork leaves very little time for private life; therefore, people are likely to spend what little time they have remaining with their family or with their significant others. The responsibilities at the workplace overtop any other personal responsibilities. All interview subjects felt it difficult to reconcile their job with their familial or personal life, and many of them could not work this conflict out adequately, which, in turn, led to compunction—especially for those with small children. The effect of age on mentality or opinion in this regard was negligible.

The two target groups shared the view that certain professions and jobs—chiefly “assembly line” jobs—are not fit for family-friendly arrangements. Although the majority of our interview subjects argued that the example shown by managers and executives are of vital importance, they also admitted that taking advantage of family-friendly measures and facilities (e.g., part-time jobs, long weekend leaves, work-time rearrangements, etc.) is considered irreconcilable with managerial responsibilities. Most interviewees agreed on the nature of family-friendly measures and recommendations to the Family-Friendly Workplace Award (see Recommendations). In addition, the interview subjects (including the politicians) believed that primarily the private sector should take the necessary steps for developing a family-friendly environment. This is all the more intriguing if we take into consideration the fact that one of the target groups, namely, that of the political decisions makers, has greater influence in legislation, by means of which it could create a legal environment supportive of family friendly job arrangements.

 

 

Although it was never an aim for this interview series to test or measure knowledge, we could detect differences in terms of how well-informed our two target groups are in respect to family friendly arrangements. While the executives and managers of organizations already awarded could provide solid examples for such arrangements—albeit, they mostly listed what they themselves have implemented—the politicians and the administrative officials could barely list any examples. The only exceptions from the latter group were those who are currently managing on family friendly workplace environment projects. On the other hand, those administrative officials who have already met or worked on gender issues were much more competent answering gender-related question and reflecting upon problems regarding gender equality at workplaces.

When we studied the individual family-friendly measures, we found that the managers of the awarded organizations value Christmas parties, office parties and enterprise events, and emphasize their importance in the life of their workers. As for the governmental workplaces, these events are generally disdained, since people tend to consider them remnants of the socialist era, and, as such, they are commonly viewed as undesirable traditions. The fact is, however, that such events can provide many cultural and recreational opportunities (e.g., shared cultural programs, discounts for holiday accommodations, etc.) for all workers of a given company. Since we interviewed managers and executives and not employees, the question remains whether such events or measures are really the most suitable for the worker’s needs. Most of the interview subjects noted, though, that they have been given positive feedback that far.

 

 

During the interviews some key concepts came up on a regular basis. “Wild capitalism”—a term used for the current socio-economic arrangement and as an excuse for the lack of family-friendly work environment—was one of them. Another common phenomenon, especially in the administration, was the practice of informal reconciliation of interests: since superiors tend to be empathetic and they take personal (and familial) needs into consideration, it seemed that the workers negotiated their individual needs with their superiors rather than the HR department (if any).

Most of the interview subjects saw “mentality”—another reoccurring concept—as the greatest obstacle to family-friendly measures. “Mentality,” all throughout the interviews, served as an umbrella term to express the beliefs and values that are implicitly mediated and communicated to us by the various enterprises, the administration, the legislative environment, and the prevalent social policy—according to the interview subjects, these beliefs and values are everything but family-friendly. Another aspect of this “mentality” is the general attitude and outlook of Hungarian people, who find it difficult to adapt to the altered conditions (e.g., the increasing demand for equal distribution of labor between the sexes). Many interviewees characterized Hungarian society as “traditional” and “conservative.” Although most of them discussed Hungarian society as if they were outsiders—admitting gender inequalities and expressing sorrow for it—their personal examples were more often than not well in line with the “conservative” Hungarian model they outlined. Almost without exceptions, the subjects (including ministerial executives and representatives of Parliament) felt powerless when it came to facing difficulties that they attribute to this “mentality.” While criticizing the social policy (or the lack of it) as much as the legislative and political decisions, most of them thought they have no influence on determining the general directions or shaping the professional decisions.

State socialism (and relating to it) was also a significant and reoccurring theme: some interview subjects felt nostalgic about the state redistribution system, work performance, social welfare, etc. of the previous regime; others, on the other hand, stressed that we are still struggling to break free from the etatism we inherited from those times.

The discrepancy between theory and practice was enormous. What our interviewees knew and told us about a family-friendly work environment differed greatly from what they realized in practice. Most of the subjects also agreed that domestic responsibilities (including housework) should be shared equally between the family members; nevertheless, in practice, as it turned out, the familial work is typically left to women to deal with.

 

 

 

 

1.            Family-friendly measures should be encouraged and supported. The Family-Friendly Workplace Award should be integrated into a well considered employment and demographic policy. Since they coincide with EU endeavors, these priorities enjoy great institutional support.

2.            Changes should be made in a complex, integrative manner, including work, education, media, social policy and the role of the family. Workplace environment is but one aspect of the whole issue at hand.

3.            The government should provide unequivocal directives, priorities and messages for both the public and private sectors.

4.            The necessary legislative steps should be taken to provide appropriate provisions for supporting family-friendly measures (such as home-based or location independent work, other flexible job arrangements, changes in taxation to support these forms of employment, etc.).

5.            Introduction of alternative employment forms (e.g., job-sharing) should be supported. These alternative forms should not strengthen or further consolidate the traditional distribution of labor between women and men.

6.            Incentives should be created for fathers so that they too should utilize any family-friendly facilities at their disposal (e.g., reduced work time or taking GYES leave).

7.            The individual family-friendly employment contracts based on mutual agreement should be made part of all employment contracts.

8.            Family- and gender-related issues should be included into all HR and executive trainings.

 

 

1.            The Family-Friendly Workplace Award should be audited thereby giving more prestige to the award and inciting stronger commitment on the part of the recipients. A quality insurance system should be developed. Such a system could create even more powerful competition between the recipients. A ranking system might be added, or the award might be given out for a determinable period of time only, rather than permanently.

2.            Due to the auditing, some workplaces could qualify for a “Family-Friendly Workplace” title. Such a title might mean an advantage in tenders (e.g., EU Developmental Funds, public procurement tenders, etc.); as a result, organizations would gain a long-term economic advantage, which could be an ideal incentive for developing a family-friendly environment.

3.            The awarding procedure should be revised and supplemented with a proper monitoring system. The award should be given out only for implementing tangible, effective and enduring changes, which are to be verified by the monitoring procedures. The award should become renewable and revocable.

4.            The criteria for winning the award should also be revised; they should be redefined to make them more rigorous. In the current system nearly any applicant meets the necessary criteria in one category or another. Certain categories (such as “training”) contain measures and facilities that do not necessarily aim for reconciling job responsibilities with personal life.

5.            The marketing of the award should be improved, and an effective marketing communications campaign should be launched: more people ought to be informed, more organizations should be invited to apply for the award, and the award should be made more prestigious.

6.            The ministry giving out this award should collect and publish (on its homepage) the best practices both of Hungarian and of foreign origin.