Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants of Employee Participation in Organizations’ Family-friendly Programs: A Multi-level Approach

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many organizations have become more “family-friendly” by initiating programs to help employees meet their family needs. In return, family-friendly organizations are said to benefit from the positive attitudes and behavior of appreciative employees. However, long-term positive outcomes may not emerge if employees are reluctant to participate in work–family programs because they are concerned that their organization or manager does not support their participation. We propose two parallel conceptual models of the complex, multi-level mechanisms behind employees’ decisions to participate in their organization’s family-friendly programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 414–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28(6), 787–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 496–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, R. T., & Camarata, M. R. (1998). The role of communication in creating and maintaining a learning organization: Preconditions, indicators, and disciplines. Journal of Business Communication, 35(4), 443–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baughman, R., DiNardi, D., & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2003). Productivity and wage effects of “family-friendly” fringe benefits. International Journal of Manpower, 24(3), 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L. R. (1963). Responsibility and dependency. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(5), 429–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, S. M., & Raley, S. (2003, June). Changing work and family demographics. Paper presented at the Workforce/Workplace Mismatch? Work, Family, Health, and Well-Being Conference, Washington, D.C.

  • Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2002). Employee’s use of work-family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80(3), 813–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, J. T., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E., & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of the National Study of the changing workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannen, J., & Lewis, S. (2000). Workplace programmes and policies in the United Kingdom. In L. L. Haas, P. Hwang, & G. Russell (Eds.), Organizational change and gender equity: International perspectives on fathers and mothers at the workplace (pp. 99–116). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R. J. (1997). Alternate family structures: A career advantage? Psychological Reports, 81(3, Pt 1), 812–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, A., Gasser, M., & Smart, L. (2004). A social-cognitive perspective on using family-friendly benefits. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnoy, M. (2001). The family, flexible work, and social cohesion at risk. In M. F. Loutfi (Ed.), Women, gender, and work (pp. 305–325). Geneva: International Labour Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalyst. (1997). A new approach to flexibility: Managing the work/time equation. New York: Catalyst.

  • Catalyst. (1998). Two careers, one marriage: Making it work in the workplace. New York: Catalyst.

  • Catalyst. (2003). Catalyst award overview. Retrieved June 12, 2004, 2004, from http://www.catalystwomen.org/catalyst_award/overview.htm

  • Cohen, A. (1997). Nonwork influences on withdrawal cognitions: An empirical examination of an overlooked issue. Human Relations, 50(12), 1511–1536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M., & Unger, R. K. (2000). Women and gender: A feminist psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouter, A. C. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of the work–family interface. Human Relations, 37(6), 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., & Neufeld, D. (1998). Telework and the balance between work and family: Is telework part of the problem or part of the solution? In The virtual workplace (pp. 218–255). Hershey, PA, USA: Idea Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Employee Benefit Plan Review. (1998). Employees value work/life benefits. Employee Benefit Plan Review, 53(3), 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, M. (1998). Creating the family friendly workplace: Barriers and solutions. In S. Klarreich (Ed.), Handbook of organizational health psychology: Programs to make the workplace healthier (pp. 79–100). Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family – allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, E., & Bond, J. T. (2000). Helping families with young children navigate work and family life. Paper presented at the Balancing Acts: Easing the Burdens & Improving the Options for Working Families, Washington, DC.

  • Gavin, M. B., & Hofmann, D. A. (2002). Using hierarchical linear modeling to investigate the moderating influence of leadership climate. Leadership Quarterly, 13(1), 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J. D. (1994). Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 350–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J. D. (1995). Employer involvement in eldercare: An organizational adaptation perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1657–1671.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosswald, B., Ragland, D., & Fisher, J. M. (2001). Critique of U.S. work/family programs and policies. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 12(1), 53–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 369–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayghe, H. V. (1990). Family members in the work force. Monthly Labor Review, 113, 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, E. J., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., & Colihan, J. (1998). Influences of the virtual office on aspects of work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 667–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R. (1997). When work becomes home and home becomes work. California Management Review, 39, 79–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 467–511). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, P., & Simons, T. (1995). Institutional and resource dependence determinants of responsiveness to work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1466–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. (2001). Overworked individuals or overworked families? Explaining trends in work, leisure, and family time. Work and Occupations, 28(1), 40–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judiesch, M. K., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). Left behind? The impact of leaves of absence on managers’ career success. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 641–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. (2000). The impact of work-life programs on firm productivity. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1225–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kossek, E. E. (1990). Diversity in child care assistance needs: Employee problems, preferences, and work-related outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 43(4), 769–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & K. J. Klein (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(2), 249–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, J. (1997). Bottom-line benefits of work/life programs. HR Focus, 74(7), 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S. E., & Lewis J. (Eds.). (1996). The work-family challenge: Rethinking employment. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobel, S. A. (1999). Impacts of diversity and work-life initiatives in organizations. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariani, M. (2000). Telecommuters. Occupational outlook quarterly. Retrieved May 25, 2002, from http://www.bls.gov

  • Merrill, D. M. (1997). Caring for elderly parents: Juggling work, family, and caregiving in middle and working class families. Westport, CT: Auburn House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J., Dutton, J. E., & Beyer, J. M. (1990). Understanding organizational adaptation to change: The case of work-family issues. Human Resource Planning, 13(2), 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J., Martins, L. L., & Morgan, H. (1998). Explaining organizational responsiveness to work-family issues: The role of human resource executives as issue interpreters. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 580–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, H., & Milliken, F. J. (1993). Keys to action: Understanding differences in organizations’ responsiveness to work-and-family issues. Human Resource Management Journal, 31, 227–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M., & Matthews, K. (1999). Federal family-friendly workplace policies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19, 34–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, W. R., Fox, S., Phoenix, A., & Viano, K. (2002). Real-world reactions to work-life balance programs: Lessons for effective implementation. Organizational Dynamics, 30(3), 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orthner, D. K., & Pittman, J. F. (1986). Family contributions to work commitment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(3), 573–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus J. H. (Eds.). (1997). Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world. Westport, CT: Quorum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlow, L. A. (1995). Putting the work back into work/family. Group and Organization Management, 20(2), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry-Smith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Work-family resource bundles and perceived organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1107–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. L., Newstrom, J. W., Dunham, R. B., & Barber, A. E. (1989). Alternative work schedules. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleck, J. H. (1993). Are “family-supportive” employer policies relevant to men? In J. C. Hood (Ed.), Men, work, and family. Research on men and masculinities series (Vol. 4, pp. 217–237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N. (1997). The sex difference in employee inclinations regarding work-family programs: Why does it exist, should we care, what should be done about it (if anything)? In S. Parasuraman & J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work an family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 167–174). Westport, CT: Quorum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N. (1998). The abusive organization. Academy of Management Executive, 12, 95–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, F., & McCloskey, D. W. (1997). Telecommuting as a response to helping people balance work and family. In S. Parasuraman & J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 133–142). Westport, CT: Quorum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, G. E., Gianakis, J. A., McCue, C., & Wand, X. (2004). Traditional and family-friendly benefits practices in local government: Results from a national study. Public Personnel Management, 33(3), 307–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, F. S., & Rodgers, C. (1989). Business and the facts of family life. Harvard Business Review, 67, 121–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothausen, T. J., Gonzalez, J. A., Clarke, N. E., & O’Dell, L. L. (1998). Family-friendly backlash–fact or fiction? The case of organizations’ on-site child care centers. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 685–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneer, J. A., & Reitman, F. (1993). Effects of alternate family structures on managerial career paths. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 830–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedmak, N. J., & Vidak, C. (1994). Family and medical leave act of 1993. In Primer on equal opportunity (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.

  • Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing social climate at work (pp. 149–164). Westport, CT: Quorum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SHRM. (2004). SHRM 2004 Benefits Survey Report. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

  • Squirchuk, R., & Bourke, J. (2000). From equal employment opportunity to family-friendly policies and beyond: Gender equity in Australia. In L. L. Haas, P. Hwang, & G. Russell (Eds.), Organizational change and gender equity: International perspectives on fathers and mothers at the workplace (pp. 117–132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Labor. (2002). Workers on flexible and shift schedules in 2001. Retrieved May 21, 2002, from http://www.bls.gov

  • Vannoy, D., & Dubeck P. J. (Eds.). (1998). Challenges for work and family in the twenty-first century. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Working Mother. (2003). The 100 best companies for working mothers list 2003. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://www.workingwoman.com/oct03/100BestList.shtml

  • Zedeck, S. (Ed.). (1992). Work, families, and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    Cathleen A. Swody

  2. Leadership Research Institute, 163 College Street, Middletown, CT, 06457, USA

    Cathleen A. Swody

  3. Department of Management, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    Gary N. Powell

Authors
  1. Cathleen A. Swody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary N. Powell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cathleen A. Swody.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Swody, C.A., Powell, G.N. Determinants of Employee Participation in Organizations’ Family-friendly Programs: A Multi-level Approach. J Bus Psychol 22, 111–122 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9057-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9057-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation