|
COPYRIGHT 2005 Society for the Advancement of Management
Once a rarity, commuter marriages among dual-career couples are increasingly common. Many choose to maintain separate residences instead of living in hotels. Employers sometimes worry that such arrangements will hurt their employee's organizational commitment. They shouldn't. A study of 82 commuters and 39 noncommuters in dual-career marriages found that traveling employees in commuter marriages have higher levels of "affective" organizational commitment--the desire to be identified with an organization--than those residing with their families. They also work longer hours. Evidence suggests commuter employees reward organizations that give them the understanding and flexibility needed to maintain family ties.
**********
In 1999 Bill and Hillary Clinton became the most high profile commuter marriage couple in the country, and the concept of "commuter marriage" became a household term when First Lady Hillary moved to Chappaqua, New York, to pursue a U.S. Senate seat while husband finished his term as 42nd President of the United States. Their lifestyle, while a new concept for many Americans, merely put them among the ranks of over 2.5 million Americans who were living the commuter marriage lifestyle, according to 1998 census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 1998).
Historically, the commuter lifestyle has been employed in cases of immigration, migration, war, and economic instability (Gerstel, 1984; Rolfing, 1995). Particular careers and occupations such as sports, acting, politics, business, and the military have also had a large number of commuter marriage participants (Kiefer, 2000).
Employers agree that the ranks of workers participating in commuter marriages are growing (Coolidge, 1997). Several factors have contributed to this trend. First is the rising number of dual career households in the U.S. At the same time these married couples are trying to advance their separate careers, employers, responding to structural changes in the U.S. economy, are reassigning and laying off record numbers of employees at all levels (Greer and Youngblood, 1999). In some cases, one member of a dual career couple has to relocate to remain employed, for career advancement, or to continue working for the company to qualify for benefits, such as a pension or health insurance. Another factor is employer expectations that employees will relocate as a part of their career development. In all of these situations, the relocation of one member of the dual career couple can make it hard for the trailing spouse to maintain a career.
Systematic documentation of employer attitudes toward commuter employees is limited. One exception is a 1988 study by Taylor and Lounsbury that assessed managers' attitudes toward applicants who revealed that they planned to become commuters rather than move their families if selected for a management position requiring relocation. Taylor et al. found that the selecting executives viewed those planning a commuter marriage more negatively than those planning a more traditional family relocation, irrespective of gender. Some executives justified their bias by beliefs that employees in commuter marriages would be less committed, less likely to remain employed, and less likely to give their best performance. This work investigates commitment toward the organization among traveling partners in commuter marriages.
Literature Review
Commuter Marriage
Both members of a commuter marriage are pursing a career, which is why they have geographically separate residences. They reside apart on a regular basis for a minimum of two nights per week (Bunker and Vanderslice, 1992; Govaerts and Dixon, 1988). Four criteria distinguish commuter marriages from other marital situations (Gerstel and Gross, 1987). The first is that the marriage partners pursue two careers simultaneously. The second feature requires that the separation, while not necessarily the preferred alternative, has an element of choice, even if it was a choice among relatively undesirable alternatives. The third characteristic relates to the primary motivation for the separation, namely, an opportunity for continued or increased career involvement, advancement or professional satisfaction. Financial gain is not the primary motivation. In most instances, commuter marriage couples experience a net financial cost after adopting the commuter lifestyle (Justice, 1999; Ray, 1989).
The fourth distinguishing characteristic feature identified by Gerstel and Gross (1987) specifies that commuter couples establish and maintain two residences. Many employees in occupations such as marketing, auditing, and sales travel extensively. In these situations, individuals usually have temporary accommodations, such as a hotel, for periods away or between work situations. A spouse staying in hotels or other temporary quarters is not considered to be in a commuter marriage.
Previous research on the commuter lifestyle found that successful commuter marriages tended to involve couples 1) who had been...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
