Paid maternity leave in 'best practice' organisations: introduction, implementation and organisational context

Australian Bulletin of Labour, June, 2007 by Sara Charlesworth

The Case Study Organisations

The paper draws on a wider research project in nine Australian 'best practice' organisations. This research was carried out in 2002 and 2003, investigating a range of EEO and diversity initiatives nominated by the organisations (Charlesworth, Hall and Probert 2005). In each organisation in-depth interviews were undertaken with key personnel, including the chief executive officer (CEO), human resources (HR) and other managers, employee members of the group that the particular EEO/diversity action was designed to benefit, as well as union officials where relevant. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Internal documentation in relation to the implementation and evaluation of the specific initiatives researched was provided by the case study organisations. Given the community debate at the time of the research around the HREOC proposal for a national paid maternity leave scheme, decisions around paid maternity leave (PML) and paid parental leave (PPL) were examined in each of the seven organisations that had at that time introduced it or recently increased it.

The seven organisations that are the focus of this paper have been made anonymous and their profiles are set out in Table 1. (3) While the case studies are all large organisations, they vary in size and industry sector, from Socialco with 350 employees to Carco with 8000 employees, and in gender composition from the female-dominated Healthco to the male-dominated Carco. (4)

Organisational Decisions Around PML

As outlined above, it is assumed that the business case is a significant driver for enterprise initiatives around PML, yet our research suggests a narrow business case rationale was not the sole or even the main reason for introducing or increasing PML in the case study organisations. Several other rationales were identified behind the introduction and/or increase in the quantum of PML. Drivers such as 'the right thing to do ', improving the stature and reputation of the organisation and improving organisational commitment and cohesion were just as important, and in some organisations much more important than a business case. These findings are consistent with both UK and Australian survey data that suggest motivations to take on family-friendly, diversity and EEO initiatives include the social justice case, legal pressures, political pressure and personal leadership commitment (Rutherford and Ollereanshaw 2002, p. 7; EEONA 2003).

The Business Case

While most of those interviewed in the case study organisations argued that there were sound business reasons for introducing or increasing PML, few pointed to any financially quantifiable cost benefits as a driver for action. The most frequent use of the business case driver was where retention and attraction of employees generally and/or in key (mainly female) occupations was seen as an issue. In most cases this formed part of a broader business case rationale, less concerned with immediate cost savings than with the medium to long-term interests of the organisation. For Unico, with an ageing academic and administrative workforce, a decision to increase PML from 12 weeks to 52 weeks was seen as a means to attract and retain younger staff. For Healthco, faced with the critical shortage of qualified nursing staff, offering paid parental leave (PPL), along with other flexible work arrangements, was seen as a way of becoming the employer of choice in a tight labour market. In a number of instances the interpretation of the business case extended to a rationale for 'looking after people' to ensure the longer term survival of the organisation. At Manuco, for example, a decision to introduce six weeks PML was driven by the need to retain staff who were willing to meet demands for continuous improvement in a competitive market.