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.