


































UAFS ABR Journal Vol 4 No 1 2013.pdf


1

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

Human Resource Manager Perceptions of Organizational Culture Factors That Affect the 

Incorporation of Family-Friendly Benefits 
 

Gundars Kaupins, Boise State University 

Malcolm Coco, Abilene Christian University 
 

 

This study investigates what the organization factors human resource managers perceive affect the 
incorporation of family-friendly benefits. Based on a survey of 340 human resource managers from 

Society for Human Resource Management chapters in Texas, seventeen (17) family-friendly benefits were 
studied. These included on-site child care, compressed work weeks, flextime, elder care, domestic partner 
coverage, lactation accommodation, and college reimbursement. Corresponding to prior literature, 

organization size was highly associated with the existence of many of the benefits. The percent unionized, 
part-time employees, female employees, and under 30 years of age were not. Beyond the literature, a high 

people orientation and more liberal organization environment also were associated with more of these 
benefits. Production orientation, creativity, and organizational stress appeared to have little association 
with family-friendly benefit incorporation. 
 

 

 Many family-friendly benefits have become popular. For example, according to Matos and Galinsky 

(2012), 77 percent of companies surveyed have flextime, 36% compressed work weeks, 73% caregiving 

leaves, 87% personal time off, 7% child care at or near the worksite, 41% elder care referrals, 74% 

Employee Assistance Programs, and 63 percent wellness programs.  

 With family-friendly benefit popularity, several research studies have investigated what type of 

organizations tend to have such policies (e.g., Roberts, Gianakis, McCue, & Wang, 2004; Matos & 

Galinsky, 2012). The research tends to focus on organizational demographic characteristics such as size, 

number of part-time workers, number of female workers, and union membership. The research is 

important because family-friendly benefit providers such as Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) and 

health insurance providers need to see what kind of organizations they should target in their marketing 

efforts. Employers can see what type of comparable organizations would tend to have such benefits in 

order to remain competitive in the recruiting marketplace. Employees can see what family-friendly 

benefits certain types of employers should normally have. The research also tends to focus on whether 

management  has  positive  attitudes  toward family-friendly benefits (e.g., Breaugh and Frye, 2008; 

Yuile, Chang, Gudmundsson, and Sawang,  2012;  Villablanca, Beckett, Nettiksimmons, and Howell, 

2011). 

 Past research on the relationship between organizational characteristics and the existence of family-

friendly benefits has been beneficial for family-friendly benefit providers, employers, and employees.  

However, there are organizational characteristics that have not been adequately covered such as 

organizational culture. This culture refers to a shared history that evolves into group characteristics that 

are stable and have some emotional intensity. It is related to various values, behavioral patterns, rituals 

and traditions within the organization (Shein, 2006). This study will investigate the association of select 

organization cultural characteristics such as organizational stress, concern for people, concern for 

production, conservatism/liberalism, and creativity on the perceived existence of family-friendly benefits 

in an organization. These five characteristics were selected on the basis of a connection between them and 

some measure of organizational change involving providing employee resources. 
 

Literature Review 
 

 As stated in the introduction, existing research on the connection of organization characteristics to the 

prevalence of family-friendly benefits focuses on organization demographics. Characteristics such as 



2

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

organization size, percent of part-timers, percent of union members, and percent of women in the 

organization dominate. 
 

Organizational Demographics 
 

 Matos and Galinsky (2012) sampled 1,126 employers to analyze what type of companies offer family-

friendly benefits. Employers that tend to provide moderate to high flexibility in providing flexible work 

times are nonprofits, larger, have more women, fewer racial or ethnic minorities, fewer union members, 

fewer hourly employees, more part-timers, and more women and racial minorities in top positions.  

Employers that tend to offer generous caregiving leaves are larger, have more hourly employees and have 

downsized in the last twelve months.  

 Employers that tend to provide child and elder care assistance are larger, nonprofits, are more in one 

place, have been longer in business, have more women, and have more women and minorities in top 

positions. Employers most likely providing health care and economic security benefits are larger, 

nonprofits, have been longer in business, have more women and minorities in top positions, are doing 

better than competitors, and have experienced downsizing. 

 Gianakis, McCue, and Wang (2004) sampled 427 local governments concerning which tended to 

provide family-friendly benefits such as on-site child care, compressed work weeks, flex-time, wellness 

programs, and college tuition reimbursement. A greater percentage of employees 31-50 years old was 

positively related (r = .174; p < .05) to such benefits coverage.  Part-timers (r = .182; p < .01), number of 

unions (r = .151; p < .05), organization size (r = .215; p < .05), and operating budget (r = .233; p < .01) 

also were positively related to such benefits coverage.  

 The Eby, et al. (2005) review of literature from 1980 to 2002 found that organizations supporting 

work-life benefits tended to be larger, have a greater percentage of female employees, and be in industries 

where female employment is higher such as healthcare and financial services. 
 

Organizational Culture 
 

 Leadership is perceived as one of the largest factors contributing to organizational culture and 

employee perceptions in the workplace (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003; Buckingham & Coffman). 

Transformational leaders attend to follower’s needs, mentor or coach followers, listen to follower’s 

concerns, foster a supportive climate for individual growth (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998) and talk creatively 

about complex problems (Shin and Zhou, 2003). Wang and Walumbwa (2007) found that family-friendly 

benefits programs combined with supportive transformational leadership may have positive effects on 

employee commitment and reduced work withdrawal. 

 Some variables may be related to such transformational leadership based on descriptions of various 

research studies. For example, organizational creativity has been directly mentioned in the description of 

transformational leadership (Shin & Zhou, 2003; Wang & Walumbwa, 2007). Creativity refers to 

developing new insights from inspirations that can come from anytime and anywhere (Kaupins & Napier, 

2012). Lambert (2000), Goodstein (1994), and Milliken, Martins & Morgan (1998) found a link between 

organizational responsiveness to submitted suggestions and family-friendly benefits. Allen (2001) found a 

link  between  supervisors being willing to hear their employee’s needs for schedule flexibility and 

family-friendly benefit availability. Wang and Walumbwa (2007) found an association between 

transformational leadership that includes creativity in its definition with childcare benefits and flexibility 

benefits. 

 Transformational leadership tends to have a high focus on people and organizational commitment 

(Wang & Walumbwa, 2007). This sounds similar to Managerial Grid organizations that are “high on 

people and production” (9, 9) and tend to have supportive supervision of employees in a strongly, pro-

organizational manner (Coghlan & McKee, 2000). Allen (2001) found a correlation between supportive 

supervision and perceived benefit availability. Breaugh and Frye (2008) discovered a positive (r = .14) 

correlation between a family-supportive supervisor and telecommuting in the workplace. The correlation 



3

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

3 

 

was significant only at the p < .10 level. The result is limited in that only seven percent of their sample 

reported having telecommuted. They also found a significant (r = -.54) correlation between a family-

supportive supervisor and work-family conflict at the p < .01 level. Yuile, Chang, Gudmundsson, and 

Sawang (2012) found significant positive associations between managerial support for family-friendly 

policies and work-life balance (r = .44; p < .01), offsite working (r = .17; p < .05), care givers 

arrangements (r = .13; p < .05), and a flexible work schedule (r = .15; p < .05). Gray (2002) found a 

significant positive association between the use of a family-friendly practices and workplace 

performance. Berg, Kalleberg, and Appelbaum (2003) showed that a high-commitment environment with 

high-performance work practices positively influences employees’ perceptions that the company is 

helping them achieve work-life balance. This article supports the view that helping workers balance work 

and family responsibilities is not just a matter of benefits and formal family-friendly policies.  

 High organizational stress was associated with decreased organizational and people commitment and 

increased workload required of employees (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). Employees whose supervisors 

supported a balanced work and family life tended to have less work stress and family conflict (Thomas & 

Ganster, 1995, Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999).   

 Managerial conservatism was associated with resistance to change, lower social responsibility, and 

fiscal prudence (Sturdivant, Ginter & Sawyer, 1985; Zwiebel, 1995). Companies in the fiscally more 

liberal northeast and west coast tend to offer more flexible work options (Milliken, Martins, & Morgan, 

1998). Widener (2007) states that more liberal Western European political philosophy tends toward a 

welfare state model strongly in favor of more flexible work arrangements. European Union directives 

tend to support national generously-paid maternity, paternity, child care (including early childhood 

education) and family leave policies. In contrast, about half of working Americans have no paid leave.  

American social entitlements have been shaped by cultural beliefs such as individualism, free market, 

laissez-faire economics, volunteerism to help workers, and the concept that the state or companies should 

not interfere with the family as a private unit. Widener (2007/2008) states that this has lead American 

companies to provide a patchwork of family-friendly benefits. 
 

Hypotheses 
 

 Several hypotheses are developed regarding the organizational cultural variables. Prior research has 

suggested that organizational stress is associated with family friendly policies (Thomas & Ganster, 1995, 

Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999).  
 

Hypothesis 1: The more perceived organizational stress, the less likely the organization will 

provide various family-friendly benefits. 
 

 If the organization is people friendly, there may be a greater focus on the needs of people outside of 

their regular job duties (Allen, 2001; Braugh & Frye, 2008; Yuile, Chang, Gudmundsson, & Sawang, 

2012).  
 

Hypothesis 2: The more perceived people friendliness in an organization, the more likely the 

organization will have various family-friendly benefits. 
 

 If the organization focuses on high production, it might do what it takes to enhance the work life of its 

employees (Coghlan & McKee, 2000; Gray, 2002; Berg, Kalleberg, & Apelbaum, 2003).  
 

Hypothesis 3: The more perceived production orientation in an organization, the more likely the 

organization will have various family-friendly benefits. 
 

 Conservatism tends to be more associated with fiscal constraint and liberalism with more fiscal 

spending (Sturdivant, Ginter & Sawyer, 1985; Zwiebel, 1995). More liberal areas tend to have more 

family-friendly benefits (Milliken, Martins, & Morgan, 1998; Widener, 2007).   



4

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

 

Hypothesis 4: The more liberal the organization is perceived, the more likely the organization will 

have various family-friendly benefits. 
 

 Creativity involves new insights from anytime and anywhere (Kaupins & Napier, 2012). Lambert 

(2000), Goodstein (1994), and Milliken, Martins & Morgan (1998) found associations between 

organizational responsiveness to submitted suggestions and family-friendly benefits.     
 

Hypothesis 5: The more creative the organization is perceived, the more likely the organization 

will have various family-friendly benefits. 
 

Methodology 
 

Data Collection 
 

 Human resource managers, specialists, consultants, and other human resource professionals were the 

target sample. These professionals tend to have significant knowledge of organizational policies 

associated benefits (Dessler, 2014). 

 To obtain the target sample, one co-author attended ten Society for Human Resource Management 

(SHRM) monthly meetings and asked attendees to complete a two page questionnaire covering the key 

issues associated with the hypotheses. At these meetings, 340 respondents completed the survey between 

February and May of 2013. 

 Questionnaires were distributed in Abilene, Amarillo, Fort Worth, Grand Prairie, Lubbock, 

Midland/Odessa, San Angelo, San Antonio, San Marcos, Stephenville, and Wichita Falls, Texas.          

The chapters were from large cities such as San Antonio (population 1,327,407) and Fort Worth (1,197, 

816) and smaller towns such as Stephenville (17,123) (Texas State Library and Archives Commission, 

2010).   
 

Sample 
 

 As shown on Table 1, most respondents were human resource managers involved in hiring. Sixty-five 

(65) percent work in companies that have 500 or fewer employees.  About fifty-five (55) percent are with 

companies that are in multiple locations. 
 

Data Analyses 
 

 Multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Seventeen different regression 

equations were run as there are seventeen different dependent variables.  Each dependent variable 

represents a different family-friendly policy. 

 The main independent variables were organizational stress (1 = Not Stressed to 10 = Stressed), 

conservatism/liberalism (1 = Conservative to 10 = Liberal), people orientation (1 = Low Concern for 

People to 10 = High Concern for People), production orientation (1 = Low Concern for Production to     

10 = High Concern for Production), and creativity (1 = Not Creative to 10 = Creative). 

 In addition to the main independent variable, various demographic independent variables were 

included in each regression equation based on the literature. These are:  single organization location        

(0 = no, 1 = yes), number of employees (1 = 1-100 employees, 2 = 101-500 employees, 3 = 501-1000 

employees, 4 = 1001-2000 employees, 5 = 2001+ employees), and the percentage of part-timers, 

percentage unionized, percentage under the age of 30, and percentage female (for the last four variables   

1 = 0-19%, 2 = 20-39%, 3 = 40-59%, 4 = 60-79%, 5 = 80-100%). 

Results 
 



5

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

 Multidimensional scaling of the seventeen family-friendly benefits helps provide patterns among the 

dependent variables. The patterns could lead to insights into relationships with the independent variables 

in this study. Table 2 shows the results of multidimensional scaling of the family-friendly benefits. 

 Interpretations of the two dimensional results are not clean but Dimension 1 appears to be related to 

physical commitment to family-friendly benefits. Benefits high on this dimension tend to be more 

expensive and onsite activities such as onsite daycare and lactation accommodation. Benefits at the lower 

end of the scale might involve less physical commitment on the part of the organization such as job 

sharing, college tuition reimbursement, and off-site child care assistance. 

 Dimension 2 appears to be a more age-related dimension. Benefits scoring low on this dimension tend 

to focus on established employees covering elder benefits, elder referrals, and onsite medical care. At the 

other end of the dimension, age dependency appears not as important with cafeteria programs, flextime, 

and flexplace. 

 Table 3 correlations between the independent variables showed several significant associations. The 

most significant one was between people orientation and creativity (r = .553; p < .01). People orientation 

also was highly related to production orientation (r = .284; p < .01). Liberal orientation was positively 

correlated with creativity (r = .278; p < .01) and the percent of part-time workers in the organization        

(r = .237; p < .01). Organization size’s only significant positive association was with union membership  

(r = .185; p < .05). Stress level was negatively associated with creativity (r = -.164; p < .01) and people 

orientation (r = -.191; p < .01). 

 Results in Table 4 indicate that only eight of seventeen regression equations were significant. The 

main independent variable causing significance was organization size. When it was significant, t values 

were always positive. Significance was with compressed work weeks, job sharing, wellness programs, 

college tuition reimbursement, lactation accommodation, and onsite medical care. Almost all other t 

values were positive. The other demographic-related independent variables such as percentage of union 

members, percentage of part-time workers, percentage of employees under 30, and percentage of females 

had almost no significant t values related to the family-friendly benefits. 

 The second most significant independent variable was people orientation. This variable showed 

significant (p < .01 or < .05) associations with offsite child care, compressed work weeks, flexplace, and 

elder care referrals. Many other t values were positive. Hypothesis 2 concerning people orientation was 

supported with significant results with four of the seventeen regression equations. 

 The third most significant independent variable was liberal orientation. Organizations perceived to be 

more liberal tended to provide offsite child care, child care referrals, job sharing, and domestic partner 

benefits more. Many other t values were positive. Hypothesis 4 concerning conservatism/liberalism was 

supported for four of the seventeen regression equations. 

 Organization stress, creativity, and production orientation had few significant associations. Many of 

the non-significant associations were a mix of positive and negative t values in the regression equation. 

 Hypothesis 1 with stress was not supported by any regression equation. All of the regression equations 

were not significant and roughly half of the t-values were positive and half negative. 

 Production orientation was positively associated with cafeteria programs. Hypothesis 3 with 

production orientation was supported by only one regression equation. Cafeteria programs were 

significantly (p < .01) associated with production orientation. The rest of the t values were a near 50/50 

mix of positive and negative values. 

 Hypothesis 5 with creativity was supported by two of seventeen regression equations. Elder-care 

benefits (p < .05) and lactation accommodation (p < .01) had significant positive associations with 

creativity. However, there was a significant strong negative association with job sharing (p < .01). Most 

of the rest of the t values were negative. 

  



6

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics 
 

Demographics    N % 

Type of Organization   

Single location !" #$%& 

Multiple locations '!! $$%( 

Division of a national entity () '*%* 

Public sector $( '$%& 

Private sector, for profit +" #!%$ 

Private sector, not for profit &' '"%+ 

Number of People Employed at Primary Location   

1-100 employees ''( ((%# 

101-500 employees '*! ('%! 

501-1000 employees )' '#%' 

1001-2000 employees (# +%) 

2001+ employees )( '#%& 

Job Title of Respondent   

Human resource manager/director '#& ("%' 

Human resource specialist "# #'%# 

Other ')' )'%$ 

Who Contributes to Family-Friendly Benefit 

Decisions? 

  

Human resource manager ##& &&%$ 

Chief executive officer '!& $)%" 

President '$$ )$%& 

Benefits manager '#( (&%# 

Other ''$ ((%! 

Percent Part-Time   

0-19% ##( "+%) 

20-39% )* ''%! 

40-59% " #%' 

50-79% '' (%# 

80-100%  * *%* 

Percent Unionized   

0-19% #$& "$%( 

20-39% '( (%! 

40-59% ) '%# 

50-79% ) '%# 

80-100% * *%* 

Percent Under the Age of 30   

0-19% )+ ')%) 

20-39% '(& )*%* 

40-59% $& '&%$ 

50-79% ## &%$ 

80-100% * *%* 

Percent Female   

0-19% #" "%+ 

20-39% && '+%) 

40-59% !& #$%( 

50-79% "( #'%$ 

80-100%  ' *%( 

 

 

 
 



7

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

Table 2: Family Friendly Benefit Scales 
 

 
Onsite=Onsite Child Care Eldben=Elder-Care Benefits 

Offsite=Offsite Child Care Eldref=Elder-Care Referral 

Emerg=Emergency Child Care Well=Wellness Programs 

Child=Child Care Referral Dompar=Domestic Partner Coverage 

Compres=Compressed Work Weeks Empast=Employee Assistance Programs 

Jobshar=Job Sharing Colltu=College Tuition Reimbursement 

Flxpl=Flexi-place Lac=Lactation Accommodation 

Flxti=Flexi-time Medcar=Onsite Medical Care 

Caf=Cafeteria Programs  
 

Table 3: Correlations between Independent Variables 
 

       1  2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 1: % Single      -.277**  -.116 -.071 -.102 -.080 .028  .044  .055  -.023 -.023  

 2: Size          .114  .185* .110  -.005 .111  .060  -.054 -.053 -.039 

 3: % Part-Time          -.069 .283**  .196* -.101 .149* .007  .237** .196** 
 4: % Union             -.065 -.180 .056  -.081 .041  -.008 -.041 

 5: % < 30               .134* .051  .000  .138* .036  .084 

 6: % Female                 .030  .098  -.029 .103  .135* 
 7: Stress Level                  -.191** -.097 .113* -.164** 

 8: People Orientation                   .284** .091  .553** 

 9: Production Orientation                    -.012 .278** 
 10: Liberal                         .253** 

 11: Creativity 

 
1: % Single = % of organizations in a single location; 2: Size = Number of employees; 3: % Part-Time = 

% of part-time employees; 4: % Union = % Unionized; 5: % < 30 = % of employees under 30 years old; 

6: % Female = % of female employees; 7: Stress Level = Scale from 1 Not Stress to 10 Stressed; 8: 

People Orientation = Scale from 1 Low Concern for People to 10 High Concern for People; 9: Production 

Orientation = Scale from 1 Low Concern for Production to 10 High Concern for Production; 10: Liberal = 

1 Conservative to 10 Liberal; 11: Creativity = 1 Not Creative to 10 Creative. 

 



8

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

Table 4: Regression Analyses 
 

Dependent 

Variables 
R2

 F Sig. %  

Single 

Size %  

Part-time 

%  

Union 

%  

< 30 

%  

Female 

Stress 

Level 

People 

Orient. 

Product 

Orient. 

Liberal Creativity 

Onsite Child Care .089 1.621 .096 1.447 1.678 .615 .209 .153 1.186 -.161 1.940 -1.940 1.381 -.453 

Offsite Child Care .072 1.281 .239 -.431 -.519 -1.174 -.453 -.274 -1.082 1.154 2.169* .513 2.449** -1.001 

Emergency Care .071 1.256 .253 1.226 -.001 -1.270 .258 1.740 -1.084 .493 1.928 -.010 1.920 -.982 

Child Care Referral .080 1.435 .161 1.877 1.759 -1.151 -1.490 .329 -1.060 -.301 .258 .555 2.716** -.156 

Compressed Week .112 2.070 .025 .630 2.025* -2.661** 1.653 1.429 .269 -.549 .465 -.077 -1.327 1.632 

Job Sharing .201 4.054 .001 3.510** 1.993* -.851 1.249 1.372 -.494 -.694 3.234** 1.715 3.376** -2.997** 

Flex-Place .081 1.424 .165 .886 .587 -1.479 -.465 .880 .242 -.944 2.608** .388 1.249 -.718 

Flex-Time .117 2.137 .020 .902 1.132 -3.420 -.026 1.065 1.874 1.741 1.680 .493 .711 -.118 

Cafeteria Program .086 1.536 .122 -.270 1.551 .342 -.529 -.178 2.114* -.760 .312 2.579* -.083 -.696 

Elder-Care Benefit .076 1.329 .212 -.227 1.319 -1.679 -.428 -.809 .267 -.742 .141 -.029 .748 2.117* 

Elder-Care Referral .092 1.647 .089 -.038 .912 -1.181 -.945 .106 -1.753 .272 2.705** -.067 .560 .317 

Wellness Program .153 3.013 .001 .424 4.129** -1.277 .537 -.824 -1.555 .316 .980 .392 1.909 1.124 

Domestic Partner .139 2.605 .004 -2.359* 1.438 -1.263 -.038 2.459* -.085 -.850 1.449 -.576 2.001* .169 

Emp. Asst. Program .093 1.713 .073 -.998 2.333* -.129 -.519 .461 -.835 1.618 1.498 .746 .086 -.118 

College Tuition  

Reimburse 

.135 2.589 .004 -.508 3.428** .732 .896 -1.391 -1.370 .121 .874 1.539 1.376 -.233 

Lactation  
Accommodation 

.164 3.158 .001 -1.514 2.818** -.176 -.339 .411 1.786 .699 -1.585 -.305 -.699 2.955** 

Onsite Medical 

Care 

.175 3.535 .001 1.631 4.972** -1.696 1.040 .203 1.584 -.664 .583 .529 .845 1.355 

 

% Single = % of organizations in a single location; Size = Number of employees; % Part-Time = % of 

part-time employees; % Union = % Unionized; % < 30 = % of employees under 30 years old; % Female 

= % of female employees; Stress Level = Scale from 1 Not Stress to 10 Stressed; People Orientation = 

Scale from 1 Low Concern for People to 10 High Concern for People; Production Orientation = Scale 

from 1 Low Concern for Production to 10 High Concern for Production; Liberal = 1 Conservative to 10 

Liberal; Creativity = 1 Not Creative to 10 Creative. 
 

Discussion 
 

 Though the main purpose of the study was to examine select organizational cultural associations with 

family-friendly benefits, organizational size used in prior research cannot be ignored. This independent 

variable in the regression analyses was significantly associated with seven family-friendly benefits and 

positively associated with most others. Organization size cannot be underestimated. Intuitively, large 

organization may have more resources to provide such benefits. They also have a greater variety of 

people with more employees with children, domestic partner relationships, and elder care needs. 

 Among the primary study independent variables, people orientation had the most significant 

associations with family-friendly benefits. From the transformational leadership literature (e.g., Avolio, 

1999), it seems intuitively sensible that a greater focus on people’s needs would be associated with 

policies that center on people’s needs such as offsite child care, need to work at home while taking care of 

the family (flexplace), need to reduce work time to take care of family matters (job sharing), and the need 

for elder care referrals. Many of the other family-friendly benefits were positively associated with people-

orientation. Many of the significant family-friendly benefits seemed to be associated with the benefits 

requiring little overhead commitment (lower end of Dimension 1 from Table 2) such as job sharing, 

flexplace, and offsite child care. 

 Production-orientation focuses on getting things done. Perhaps more can get done when employee take 

care of family matters. Only one family-friendly benefit was significantly positively related to production 

orientation but most other benefits were slightly positively related. One almost significantly related 

negative association (onsite child care) is related to a major organizational physical and probably financial 

commitment. 

 Creativity did not appear to be related to many family-friendly benefits even though it is a key part of 

transformational leadership. There are several other possible moderating factors not measured in the 

present study that may have accounted for the lack of association. First, creative organizations might find 



9

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

alternatives to family-friendly benefits that can help workers in need. Alternatives could be higher pay, 

reduced workload, changing jobs, etc.  Second, creative organizations might not necessarily be people-

oriented. There was a significant negative correlation (-.164; p < .01) between creativity and people-

orientation in this study as shown in Table 3.   

 Stress did not appear to be related to many family-friendly benefits. A possible moderating factor 

might be that organizational stress might be a function of how managers react to stress. Some might 

clamp down and tighten all benefits while others might loosen the budget a bit to get more work out of 

employees. 

 Liberalism had four significant positive associations with family-friendly benefits. Liberalism is linked 

to higher benefit spending for poor and discriminated individuals (Sturdivant, Ginter & Sawyer, 1985; 

Zwiebel, 1995) and this may contribute to the positive associations. 
 

Future Research 
 

 The people-oriented and liberal independent variables showed significant positive associations with 

select family-friendly benefits. Future research needs to analyze why those few benefits (and not others) 

have those associations.  For example, liberal organizations tend to have significantly more offsite child 

care and child care referrals and slightly more onsite child care. However, they tend to have slightly less 

compressed workweeks. From personal experience of one author, compressed work weeks might not be 

so family-friendly because it causes significant amount of managerial work stress during extended ten 

hour days and the working spouse is gone those entire days. Are compressed work weeks more of a 

convenience for the organization rather than the employee because the organization has the employee for 

almost the entire days he or she is at work? 
 

Conclusion 
 

 People-friendliness and liberalism seemed to be the dependent variables most associated with the 

existence of various family-friendly benefits in organizations. Organizational stress, creativity, and 

production seemed to not have as many positive associations with family-friendly benefits. A major 

demographic factor that may be more important than the organizational cultural variables just mentioned 

is organizational size. Size may matter because there may be greater financial ability to provide such 

benefits and there may be a greater diversity of employees. 

 

REFERENCES 
 

Allen, T. 2001. Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of 

Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435. 
 

Avolio, B. 1999. Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand 

Oaks, CA:  Sage. 
 

Bagraim, J. & Sader, R. 2007. Family-friendly human resource practices and organizational commitment.  

Management Dynamics, 16(4): 2-10. 
 

Bass, B. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, 

N. J.: Erlbaum. 
 

Bass, B., Avolio, B., Jung, D., & Berson, Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing 

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1): 217-218. 
 

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. 
 



10

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

Baxter, J., & Chesters, J. 2011. Perceptions of work-family balance: How effective are family-friendly 

policies?  Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 14(2): 139-151. 
 

Berg, P., Kalleberg, A., & Appelbaum, E. 2003. Balancing work and family: The role of high 

commitment environments. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 42(2): 168-

188. 

Breaugh, J., & Frye, N. 2008. Work-family conflict: The importance of family-friendly employment 

practices and family-supportive supervisors. Journal of Business Psychology, 22(4): 345-353. 
 

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. 1999. First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers 

do differently.  New York:  Simon & Schuster. 
 

Coghlan, D., & McKee, R. 2000. Aligning grid organization development and interlevel dynamics for 

systematic change. Organization Development Journal, 18(3): 37-48. 
 

Dessler, G. 2014. Fundamentals of human resource management. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 

Pearson. 
 

Eby, L., Casper, W., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, A., & Brinley, A. 2005. Work and family research in 

IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 

66(1): 124-197. 
 

Ellin, A. 2103. Work-life balance off kilter, research finds. Retrieved September 3, 2013 from 

http://abcnews.go. com/blogs/business/2013/04/work-life-balance-off-kilter-research-finds/. 
  

Goodstein, J. 1994. Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in work-

family issues.  Academy of Management Journal, 37(2): 350-382. 
 

Gray, H. 2002. Family-friendly working: What a performance! An analysis of the relationship 

between the availability of family-friendly policies and establishment performance. London, 

England: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science. 
 

Grossman, R. (2013, April). Phasing out face time: Flexibility rules at Unilever - as long as the work gets 

done. HR Magazine, 58, 32-37. 
 

Kaupins, G., & Napier, N. 2012. Business aha! Tips: Creativity. Boise, Idaho: CCI Press. 
 

Lambert, S. 2000. Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship 

behavior.  Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 801-815. 
 

Matos, K., & Galinsky, E. 2012. National study of employers. Retrieved September 3, 2013 from http:// 

familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/NSE_2012.pdf. 
  

Milliken, F., Martins, 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. 
 

Muhammad, B., Muhammad, Z., & Irfan. R. 2010. Impact of family friendly policies on employees’ job 

satisfaction and turnover intention (a study on work-life balance at workplace). Interdisciplinary 

Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2: 378-395. 
 

Mulvaney, M. 2011. A study of the role of family-friendly employee benefits programs, job attitudes, and 

self-efficacy among public park and recreation employees. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration, 29(1): 58-79. 



11

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

 

Pheng, L., & Lee, B. 1997. “Managerial Grid” and Zhuge Liang’s “Art of management”: Integration for 

effective project management. Management Decision, 35(5): 382-391. 
 

Roberts, G., Gianakis, J., McCue, C., & Wang, X. 2004. Traditional and family-friendly benefits practices 

in local governments:  results from a national survey. Public Personnel Management, 33(3): 307-

330. 
 

Sands, J., & Harper, T. 2007. Family-friendly benefits and organizational performance. Business 

Renaissance Quarterly, 2(1): 107-126. 
 

Shein, E. 2006. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
 

Shin, S., & Zhou, J. 2003. Transformational leadership, conversation, and creativity. Evidence from 

Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6): 703-714. 
 

Siegel, M. (2010, October). The best vs. the rest. Working Mother, 33, 62-70. 
 

Texas State Library and Archives Commission. 2010. 2010 Census: Population of Texas cities 

arranged in descending order. Retrieved from https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/popcity32010. 

html. 
 

Thompson, C., Beauvais, L., & Lyness, K. 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. 
 

Thomas, L., & Ganster, D. 1995. Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and 

strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1): 6-15. 
 

Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, N. 2005. Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the role of 

employees’ stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27(2): 160-174. 
 

Van Woerkum, C., Aarts, M., & De Grip, K. Creativity, planning and organizational change. Journal of 

Change Management, 20(6): 847-865. 
 

Villablanca, A., Beckett, L, Nettiksimmons, J., & Howell, L. 2011.  Career flexibility and family-friendly 

policies: An NIH-funded study to enhance women’s careers in biomedical sciences. Journal of 

Women’s Health, 20(10): 1485-1496. 
 

Wang, P, & Walumbwa, F. 2007. Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work 

withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60, 397-427. 
 

Widener, A. 2007. Family-friendly policy: Lessons from Europe-Part I. Public Manager, 36, 57-61. 
 

Widener, A. 2007/2008. Family-friendly policy: Lessons from Europe-Part II.  Public Manager, 36: 44-

49. 
 

Yuile, C., Chang, A, Gudmundsson, A. & Sawang, S. 2012. The role of life friendly policies on 

employees’ work-life balance. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(1): 53-63. 
 

Zwiebel, J. 1995. Corporate conservatism and relative compensation. Journal of Political Economy, 

103(1): 1-25. 
 

 



12

Kaupins and Coco                                                                                                                                                         Advances in Business Research 

2013, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-12 

 

 

Gundars (Gundy) Kaupins is a department chair and professor at Boise State University. He is certified 

as a senior professional in human resources (SPHR).  He teaches human resource management. His 

publications include over 200 articles in training and development, Baltic Studies, and human resource 

ethics. 
 

Malcolm Coco is a professor of human resource management at Abilene Christian University and directs 

the College of Business Administration’s internship program. He is certified as a professional in human 

resource management (PHR). Dr. Coco is the author of over 50 survey-based articles on management, 

human resources, and international human resource management. 


