A price worth paying?: Women and work – choice, constraint or satisficing

Purpose – Are women held back or holding back? Do women choose their jobs/careers or are they structurally or normatively constrained? The purpose of this paper is to shed fresh light on these questions and contribute to an on-going debate that has essentially focused on the extent to which part-time work is women’s choice, the role of structural and organisational constraints and the role of men in excluding women. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses data from interviews with 80 working women – both full-time and part-time – performing diverse work roles in a range of organisations in the south east of England. Findings – It was found that many women do not make strategic job choices, rather they often ‘‘fall into’’ jobs that happen to be available to them. Some would not have aspired to their present jobs without male encouragement; many report incidents of male exclusion; and virtually all either know or suspect that they are paid less than comparable men. Those working reduced hours enjoy that facility, yet they are aware that reduced hours and senior roles are seen as incompatible. In short, they recognise both the positive and negative aspects of their jobs, whether they work full or part-time, whether they work in male-dominated or female-dominated occupations, and whatever their position in the organisational hierarchy. Accordingly, the paper argues that the concept of ‘‘satisficing’’, i.e. a decision which is good enough but not optimal, is a more appropriate way to view women’s working lives than are either choice or constraint theories. Originality/value – There is an ongoing, and often polarised, debate between those who maintain that women choose whether to give preference to work or home/family and others who maintain that women, far from being self-determining actors, are constrained structurally and normatively. Rather than supporting these choice or constraint theories, this paper argues that ‘‘satisficing’’ is a more appropriate and nuanced concept to explain women’s working lives.

"I’ll call you when we are ready" (One family’s experience of critical care and end of life decision making)

The purpose of this paper is to explore through narrative accounts one family's expérience of critical care, after the admission of a family member to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and their subséquent death five weeks later. Numerous studies support the need for effective communication and clear information to be given to the family. In this instance it was évident from their stories that there were numerous barriers to communication, including language and a lack of insight into the needs of the family. Many families do not understand the complexities of nursing care in an ICU so lack of communication by nursing staff was identified as uncaring behavior and encounters. Facilitating a family's proximity to a dying patient and encouraging them to participate in care helps to maintain some sensé of personal control. Despite a commitment to involving family members in care, which was enshrined in the Unit Philosophy, relatives were banished to the waiting room for hours. They experienced feelings of powerlessness and helplessness as they waited with other relatives for news following investigations or until 'the doctor had completed his rounds'. Explanations of "we must make 'the patient' comfortable" was no consolation for those who wished to be involved in care. The words "I'il call you when we are ready" became a mantra to the forgotten families who waited patiently for those with power to admit them to the ICU. Implications are this family felt they were left alone to cope with the traumatic expériences leading up to and surrounding the death. They felt mainly supported by the priest, who not only administered the last rites but provided spiritual support to the family and dealt sensitively with many issues. Paternalism in décision making when there is a moral obligation to ensure that discussions on end of life dilemmas are an inclusive process with families, doctors, nurses was not understood, therefore it caused conflict within the family over EOL décision making. The family felt that the opportunity to share expériences through telling and retelling their stories would enable them to reconfigure the past and create purpose in the future.