The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
"The policy exists but you can't really use it": communication and the structuration of work-family policies
Abstract
Although work-family benefits are increasingly important organizational policies, limited research addresses the impact of communication on benefit utilization. However, communication is significant because the perceived appropriateness of work-family benefits emerges through interaction. For example, when coworkers complain about "picking up the slack" for those using family leave, their discourse may impact future decisions of other workers regarding whether they utilize the work-family benefits available to them. We apply Giddens' (1984) Structuration Theory to examine organizational members' discursive responses to conditions (and contradictions) present in utilizing work-family benefits in a governmental organization. We argue the daily discursive practices of individuals can either reinforce or undermine formally stated work-family initiatives, and in turn discuss the implications of this "structuration" of policy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Barley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Cited by
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421 · Cited by 1,116
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7 · Cited by 811
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206308328510 · Cited by 807
Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions.
Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M. (2014) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726713495704 · Cited by 341
Tracy, S. J., & Trethewey, A. (2005) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00331.x · Cited by 305
Kaplan, S., Engelsted, L., Lei, X., & Lockwood, K. (2018) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-017-9498-5 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Kirby, E., & Krone, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Communication Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 50-77
- ISSN
- 0090-9882 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-5752
- OpenAlex
- W1988823037
- Cited by
- 486
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 23.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.