Journal of Vocational Behavior 58, 453–468 (2001) doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1773, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
Work/Family Benefits: Variables Related to Employees’ Fairness Perceptions Lauren Parker and Tammy D. Allen University of South Florida This study investigated relations between several individual (parental status and gender) and situational (organization size, task interdependence, and productivity maintenance) variables with perceptions of the fairness of work/family benefits. Benefit availability, personal use, and coworker use along with age and race were included as control variables. A total of 283 employees from a variety of organizations participated. Results indicated that age, race, personal use of flexible work arrangements, and task interdependence related to fairness perceptions of work/family benefits. Specifically, younger workers, minorities, those who had used flexible work arrangements, and workers in jobs requiring a greater degree of task interdependence had more favorable perceptions concerning work/family benefits than did older workers, Caucasians, individuals who had not used flexible work arrangements, and those working in jobs requiring a lesser degree of task interdependence. Theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed. °C 2001 Academic Press
Over the past few decades, the demographic makeup of the United States workforce has experienced major changes, including increasing numbers of mothers of young children going to work (Bailey, 1991). The influx of women into the labor force has motivated organizations to become more family-friendly by implementing policies to ease the work/family conflict of mothers (Hall & Parker, 1993). Fathers’ participation in their children’s care has also increased (Bailey, 1991; Deutsch, Lussier, & Servis, 1993; Pleck, 1993), influencing organizations to include fathers in their family-friendly policies (Hyde, 1995). Work/family benefits have been defined as “any benefit, working condition, or personnel policy that has been shown to empirically decrease job–family conflicts among employed parents” (p. 382) (Glass & Fujimoto, 1995). Examples of family-friendly benefits implemented in organizations to help parents balance their work and family include parental leave, alternative work schedules, and child care. Although these types of benefits appear popular, anecdotal reports have indicated that some employees believe that work/family benefits are inequitable and This article is based on the thesis of the first author conducted under the supervision of the second. The authors thank the other committee members, Louis A. Penner, and Vicky Phares. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Tammy D. Allen, University of South Florida, Department of Psychology, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, BEH 339, Tampa, FL 33620-8200. Fax: (813) 974-4617. E-mail:
[email protected]. 453 0001-8791/01 $35.00 C 2001 by Academic Press Copyright ° All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
454
PARKER AND ALLEN
even discriminatory (Evanstock, 1999; Harris, 1997; Jenner, 1994). This resentment among some employees has been referred to as “family-friendly backlash.” As noted by Grover (1991), the advantages of family-friendly benefits are not universal. For example, childless workers have expressed the view that they are unfairly subsidizing benefits for other employees’ families (Harris, 1997). Moreover, in a survey of single/childless workers, Flynn (1996) reported that 80% felt left out by their companies’ work/family programs. One manifestation of the resentment felt by some employees is the growth of an organization known as The Childfree Network. The Childfree Network is an advocacy group of approximately 5000 members that promote the rights of childless workers (Seligman, 1999). Childless workers contend that they are expected to work longer hours, take assignments involving travel, and provided fewer opportunities to take advantage of flexible work arrangements than workers with children (Picard, 1997; Seligman, 1999). The few empirical studies that have examined employees’ attitudes toward work/family benefits have yielded somewhat inconsistent results. Specifically, Grover (1991) investigated the reactions of employees to family-related leave and concluded that fairness perceptions were influenced by whether the individual stood to gain from the policy. Employees who were presently parents or planned to have children in the future viewed parental leave more favorably than did nonparents. Grover concluded that people standing to gain from parental leave supported it more than those who did not stand to benefit from it. Similarly, Kossek and Nichol (1992) reported that current users of on-site child care were more positive regarding the effects and value of the center than were workers on the center waiting list. In contrast, Grover and Crooker (1995) reported that employees in organizations offering family-friendly benefits showed greater affective commitment and lower turnover intentions than did employees in organizations that did not offer such benefits, regardless of whether the employee would personally gain from the benefits. Grover and Crooker explained that these affective responses were likely influenced by employees’ positive fairness perceptions toward their organization as a result of the organization providing necessary benefits for employees. Both the anecdotal and limited empirical research seem to indicate that perceptions of fairness underlie employee reactions to the availability of family-friendly work benefits. These inconclusive results underscore the need for additional research investigating the issue of perceived fairness of work/family benefits. For the purpose of the present study, the perceived fairness of work/family benefits is defined as a belief about the exchange relationship between employees and employers that deals with the offering and usage of work/family benefits. The employer offers work/family benefits while (some) employees use such benefits. Individual employees may view this exchange relationship as either fair or unfair. An individual’s perception of the degree of inequity of this exchange relationship helps to form their fairness perception of the relationship. The present study extended the limited research examining attitudes toward work/family benefits by investigating both individual (parental status and gender) and situational (organization size, task interdependence, and productivity maintenance) variables
WORK /FAMILY BENEFITS
455
that may relate to general fairness perceptions of work/family benefits. Whereas individual variables have been the focus of several studies, research has yet to examine situational factors that may relate to fairness perceptions. Although it seems likely that there are numerous factors that might influence employee perceptions of the fairness of work/family benefits, the factors in the present study were chosen based on previous research regarding work/family issues and concepts drawn from organizational behavior research. It should be noted at this point that because of limited research on this topic, the present selection of variables was not intended to be all inclusive. In general, individual attitudes and behavior are thought to be influenced by both personal and situational characteristics (e.g., Pervin, 1989). The specific variables investigated are reviewed in the following sections. Individual Variables Parental status. Several investigations concerning work/family benefits have concentrated on parents and their opinions of such benefits. Goldberg, Greenberger, Koch-Jones, O’Neil, and Hamill (1989) examined the attractiveness of employers to married and single parents and concluded that both fathers and mothers found work/family benefits such as a flexible work hours and financial contributions to child care appealing. Similarly, Grover (1991) reported that employees who were currently parents or who planned to be parents someday held more favorable attitudes toward parental leave than did nonparents. Rothausen, Gonzalez, Clarke, and O’Dell (1998) reported that past, current, and future users of an employer’s on-site child-care center showed higher recruiting and retention effects than did employees who did not have a foreseeable need for the center. Employees who are parents are also more likely to use work/family benefits than employees who are not parents (Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). Finally, the anecdotal evidence reported by Harris (1997) indicated that some childless employees view work/family benefits as unfair because they “exclude large groups of people” (p. 28). In sum, existing research suggests that because work/family benefits apply to parents more than nonparents, nonparents view the benefits as less fair than do parents. Hypothesis 1: Employees who are parents, or intend to be parents in the future, rate work/family benefits as more fair than employees who do not have, nor plan to have, children.
Gender. Another individual variable that may influence the perceived fairness of work/family benefits is gender. In their study of 570 pregnant women and 550 of their husbands/partners, Hyde, Essex, and Horton (1993) concluded that women were stronger supporters of parental leave than were men. Hyde et al.’s study indicated that men and women may hold different views about job-guaranteed parental leave. Several studies suggest that women are more likely to use work/family benefits than are men (Greenberger et al., 1989; Thompson et al., 1999). Likewise, Kossek and Nichol (1992) report that on-site child care had a greater impact on women than on men. Greenberger et al. also concluded that women were more ready than were men to leave their employer for improved benefits.
456
PARKER AND ALLEN
Hypothesis 2: Females perceive work/family benefits as more fair than do males.
Situational Variables Organization size. Glass and Fujimoto (1995) investigated employer characteristics related to the offering of family-friendly benefits. They hypothesized that firm size should have a positive effect on work/family policies because bigger organizations are required to follow the state regulations on public policy. Additionally, larger firms have professional personnel managers who can promote the innovation of work/family benefits. Firm size increases organizational resources that enable the organization to provide work/family policies. Grover and Crooker (1995) concluded that larger organizations were more likely to offer vacation days, disability, and sick leave because they have more economic power and, therefore, were able to cover absent workers. Since larger organizations have more employees, perhaps it is easier to reassign leave takers’ work, arrange alternative work schedules, and implement other work/family policies. As a result, employees who will potentially benefit from such policies find it easier to balance their work and nonwork lives, so they will perceive the policies as being fair. Additionally, employees in larger organizations who do not stand to benefit from such policies are less likely to suffer the negative consequences that employees in smaller firms may experience. Hypothesis 3: Employees in larger organizations perceive work/family benefits as more fair than do employees in smaller organizations.
Task interdependence. Independent of the size of an organization, employees often have at least some tasks that must be coordinated with coworkers. Employees’ task inputs, processes to perform assigned work, goal definition, and reward systems can all be interdependent (Wageman, 1995). Task interdependence may affect employees’ perceived fairness of work/family benefits since the use of such benefits by an employee may have negative consequences on coworkers with whom the employee shares tasks. It is likely that the utilization of work/family benefits by coworkers will not affect employees who work individually to the same degree that it affects workers who perform interdependent tasks. Hypotheses 4: Employees in jobs characterized by a high degree of reciprocal task interdependence perceive work/family benefits as less fair than do employees whose jobs require less task interdependence.
Productivity maintenance. The successful administration by management of work/family benefits may be a crucial factor related to perceived fairness. Productivity maintenance is defined as the extent that an organization has effective and well-developed procedures to handle the work of all employees when work/family benefits are used. If an organization has well-developed procedures that enable users and nonusers of work/family benefits to effectively perform their work, it seems less likely that coworkers will experience negative consequences when work/family benefits are used. However, if employees experience negative consequences as a result of the use of work/family benefits by
WORK /FAMILY BENEFITS
457
others, they will likely view the policies as less fair than if they experience no/limited negative consequences (Harris, 1997). To prevent employees from experiencing negative consequences, communication between employees must be adequate. Work/family experts suggest that managers discuss how the employee’s work will be completed and establish effective ways for the benefit user to provide needed information to his/her manager and coworkers (Harris, 1997). Hypothesis 5: Employees in organizations that have effective and well-developed procedures for maintaining productivity of all employees when work/family benefits are used perceive the benefits as more fair than do employees in organizations that have less effective procedures.
In summary, the current investigation examined the perceptions of both employees who are in a position to use work/family benefits as well as employees who do not stand to gain from such benefits. The present study resembles previous investigations dealing with work/family policies in that it addresses individual differences in an effort to understand employee reactions to work/family benefits. However, this study extends previous research in its empirical investigation of situational features that may relate to attitudes regarding work/family benefits. METHOD Participants The participants consisted of 283 individuals employed by multiple organizations. The majority of study participants were female (68.2%) and 86.9% were Caucasian. Most participants (84.8%) were between the ages of 21 and 50 (25.8% were 21–30, 35.7% were 31–40, and 23.3% were 41–50). Level of education ranged from high school to doctoral degree with a median of a 4-year college degree. Average organizational tenure was 6.41 (SD = 6.81). Slightly over half of the study participants were parents (53.7%). Of the male participants, 33 were not parents and 88 were parents. Of the females, 57 were not parents and 104 were parents. The participants were employed in a wide range of functional areas, including administrative support (15.9%), communications/public relations (6.7%), engineering (4.9%), financial (11%), human resources/training (8.5%), information systems (6%), management (8.5%), production (3.9%), research and development (.7%), sales/marketing (13.1%), technical support (2.1%), and other (18%). Procedure A short presentation describing the research study was given at local meetings of several professional organizations (e.g., Society for Human Resource Management). Individuals attending the meetings were asked by the researcher to take 5 to 10 surveys for distribution to employees in their respective organizations. Approximately 10% of the meeting attendees took surveys. In addition, 55 local organizations that had participated in a campus job fair were contacted and asked to participate in the study. Three agreed to do so. Contacts at each of
458
PARKER AND ALLEN
the three organizations were sent 10 surveys to distribute to employees in their organization. Completed surveys were returned via a postage-paid envelope directly to the researchers. In all, a total of 720 surveys were distributed and 286 were returned for a response rate of 39.7%. Measures Organization size. Participants indicated the approximate number of employees working in their organization. Response options were 1–50 (20%), 51–100 (10%), 101–200 (11%), 201–300 (2%), 301–500 (7%), and over 500 (50%). Task interdependence. Reciprocal task interdependence was assessed using a five-item subscale of a larger measure created by Pearce and Gregersen (1991) to measure employee-perceived task interdependence. An item from this dimension is “My own performance is dependent on receiving accurate information from others.” Responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The mean of the items was used to indicate a scale score. Higher scores indicate more interdependence. Pearce and Gregersen reported an internal consistency estimate of .76. The observed internal consistency in the present study was .76. Productivity maintenance. Productivity maintenance was measured by five items rationally developed for this study. The scale items were designed to address areas believed to constitute productivity maintenance (i.e., the degree that effective and well-developed procedures are in place for maintaining productivity when work/family benefits are used). The five items are (1) I feel that I have too much responsibility for the work of others who use work/family benefits, (2) My organization facilitates adequate communication between workers who utilize work/family benefits (e.g., job sharing and flextime) and employees who do not use work/family benefits so that all employees are able to perform their assigned duties effectively, (3) When my coworkers use work/family benefits (parental leave, flextime, and work at home) I feel that I have to do more work than I can comfortably handle, (4) My organization does not have well-developed procedures for dealing with work distribution issues that arise when employees use work/family benefits, and (5) My organization has effective procedures for maintaining the productivity of all employees when coworkers use work/family benefits. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The mean of the items was used to indicate a scale score. Higher scores indicate more effective procedures. The items measuring productivity maintenance produced an internal consistency reliability of .71. Gender. Gender was coded 0 = female and 1 = male. Parental status. Similar to Grover and Crooker (1995), we assessed both current parental status and plans for future children. Individuals who did not have, nor plan to have, children in the future were coded “0.” Individuals who did have children, or planned to in the future, or were uncertain were coded “1.” Perceived fairness of work/family benefits. A review of the literature resulted in the identification of several scales which assessed constructs similar to that
WORK /FAMILY BENEFITS
459
of the perceived fairness of work/family benefits. These scales were reviewed and served as the basis for item development of the current scale. Scales that were used include a measure of policy fairness and attitudes toward leave takers developed by Grover (1991); a scale created by Halpert, Wilson, and Hickman (1993) that assesses company treatment of pregnant women; items developed by Smither, Millsap, Stoffey, Reilly, and Pearlman (1996) to identify the perceived fairness of a selection procedure and human resource practices; a scale probing work conflict (Higgins & Duxbury, 1992); and items created to assess the fairness of employee drug testing (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). Thus, items included in past research were selected, (some were) combined and modified, and new items were developed to create the initial 16-item scale assessing general fairness perceptions. Scale items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The mean of the items was used to indicate a scale score. Higher scores indicate more favorable fairness perceptions. A pilot study was conducted to initially assess the psychometric soundness of the new measure. A convenience sample of 49 individuals employed in various occupations completed the measure. Based on an item analysis, 4 items from the original measure were deleted (complete results of the pilot study available upon request). Table 1 displays the 12 items used in the major study. Based on the item TABLE 1 Internal Consistency Information for Perceived Fairness of Work/Family Benefit Items Item 1. It is not a company’s responsibility to provide work/family benefits. (R) 2. Work/family benefits are not fair to employees without families. (R) 3. Having a child is a strain on parents and they deserve the aid of work/family benefits. 4. Companies should be willing to make special accommodations to help employees balance their work and family. 5. Children are a necessary part of society and it is the responsibility of large institutions (companies) to help in the effort. 6. It is fair for companies to offer fathers paid parental leave. 7. It is fair for companies to offer mothers paid parental leave. 8. Flextime is fair because it allows individual employees to schedule their day effectively. 9. Job sharing is a fair policy because it allows employees to balance their work and nonwork lives. 10. It is fair when companies provide on-site day care facilities for employees’ children. 11. Work/family benefits are fair even though employees who are not responsible for the care of their children or elderly family members do not get to use them.a 12. It is fair for employees to be required to do their coworkers’ work while they are using a work/family benefit.a Note. R represents items that were reverse coded. Items deleted from subsequent analyses.
a
Item–Total r .41 .42 .49 .50 .55 .51 .54 .40 .39 .46 .25
.19
460
PARKER AND ALLEN
analysis results from the major study, 2 items with low item–total correlations (.25 and lower) were deleted from the final version of the measure. The internal consistency estimate of the final 10-item measure used in all subsequent analyses was .80. Control Variables Benefit availability, personal use, and coworker use. Since our participants came from various organizations with differing work/family benefit packages, we thought benefit availability would be an important control. Moreover, experience with personal use and coworker use of the benefits might also correlate with the other study variables. Participants were given a list of 11 family-supportive benefits commonly offered by organizations. Since previous research has shown that different types of benefits have differing relationships with other variables, we used benefit categories rather than summed composite indicators of overall number of benefits (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Accordingly, the list was grouped into two categories of benefits, (a) flexible work arrangements (FWA) (flextime, compressed work week, telecommuting, part-time work, and job sharing) and (b) dependent care supports (DCS) (on-site child-care center, subsidized local child care, child-care information/referral services, paid maternity leave, paid paternity leave, and elder care). Participants were presented with the list of benefits and asked to place a checkmark next to each benefit offered by their organization, another checkmark next to each benefit offered by the organization that they personally had used, and another checkmark next to each benefit that had been used by other employees in their organization. Benefits that were not available or were not used were coded “0” and benefits that were available or were used were coded “1.” A summed score for each category of benefits was computed so that higher scores indicated a greater number of benefits available, greater personal use, and greater coworker use. Demographics. Age was measured with seven categories (under 20, 21–30, 31–40, 41–50, 51–60, 61–70, over 70). Race was measured by one item with six categories; however, because of the small number of minorities, Caucasian/Whites were coded “0” and all others were coded “1.” Organizational tenure was reported in years and months. Education was measured by one item with six categories ranging from 1 = high school to 6 = doctoral work. RESULTS Hypotheses Testing The hypotheses were tested through hierarchical multiple regression. Perceived fairness of work/family policies was regressed onto the control and predictor variables. The demographic control variables were entered into the first step of the equation. At Step 2, the six control variables representing work/family benefit availability and use were entered into the equation. Next, the two individual variables, parental status and gender, were entered. Finally, at Step 4, the three situational variables were entered into the equation. The standardized regression
WORK /FAMILY BENEFITS
461
coefficients from the final step were examined to determine support for the hypotheses. Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables that were included in this study. The regression results are shown in Table 3. The results indicate that the demographic control variables accounted for 9% of the variance associated with work/family fairness benefit perceptions (F = 6.37, p < .001). Age (β = −.21, p < .01) and race (β = .17, p < .01) were both significant predictors. Specifically, individuals who were younger or who were a minority perceived work/family benefits as more fair than did older individuals or those who were Caucasian. At Step 2, the benefit availability and use variables captured an additional 5% of the variance associated with work/family benefit fairness perceptions (1F = 2.44, p < .05). The results indicated that individuals who had personally used flexible work arrangement benefits perceived work/family benefits to be more fair than did nonusers (β = .17, p < .05). The individual predictors accounted for an additional 3% of variance (1F = 4.69, p < .01). Contrary to Hypothesis 1, after considering the demographic controls and benefit variables, parental status was not significantly related to work/family fairness perceptions (β = .10, ns) . Hypothesis 2 stated that females view work/family policies as more fair than do males. This hypothesis was supported by the data (β = .16, p < .01). Specifically, females viewed work/family policies more favorably (M = 3.99, SD = 0.50) than did males (M = 3.77, SD = 0.66). The situational variables accounted for an additional 2% of variance (1F = 2.05, ns). Hypothesis 3 posited that employees in larger firms perceive work/family benefits as more fair than do employees in smaller firms. Hypothesis 3 was not supported (β = −.03, ns). Hypothesis 4 stated that employees in jobs characterized by a high degree of reciprocal task interdependence would rate work/family benefits as less fair than employees whose jobs require less task interdependence. Although the beta-weight associated with task interdependence was significant, the direction was contrary to that expected (β = .13, p < .05). Specifically, the results indicated that individuals working in jobs characterized by a higher degree of task interdependence were more likely to perceive work/family benefits as fair than were employees who worked in jobs with less task interdependence. Hypothesis 5 suggested that employees in organizations that have effective and well-developed procedures for maintaining productivity of all employees when work/family benefits are used view the benefits as more fair than employees in organizations that have less effective procedures. This hypothesis was not supported (β = .06, p < ns). Exploratory Analyses We conducted a set of exploratory analyses to examine the data for possible interactions. Specifically, it seemed feasible that personal and coworker benefit use might interact with productivity maintenance and task interdependence. The situational variables may have more of an impact if employees have used the benefits
— −.02 −.26 .20 −.07 .04 .16 .09 .15 .10 .18 .14 .18 .09 .11 .05 3.92 .56
1. WF Fairness 2. Education 3. Age 4. Race 5. Org tenure 6. FWA offered 7. FWA pers use 8. FWA co use 9. DCS offered 10. DCS pers use 11. DCS co use 12. Parent 13. Gender 14. Org size 15. Prod maint 16. Task interdep
Mean SD
NA NA
— .03 −.05 −.09 .13 −.07 .04 .05 .07 .05 .10 −.23 −.02 .00 .14
2
NA NA
— −.24 .50 .05 .10 −.01 −.18 −.01 −.11 −.22 −.13 −.16 −.10 .07
3
NA NA
— −.10 .01 .11 −.10 .14 .07 −.05 .05 .04 .09 −.04 −.27
4
NA NA
— .05 .04 .06 .05 .13 .11 −.10 −.08 .17 −.01 −.05
5
1.64 1.42
— .19 .55 .41 .05 .21 −.05 −.04 .12 .14 .02
6
.67 .88
— .22 −.02 .31 .08 .03 −.02 −.03 −.04 −.06
7
1.49 1.39
— .23 .12 .45 −.10 −.05 .11 .17 .01
8
1.24 1.23
— .20 .56 −.07 .10 .35 .11 −.01
9
.24 .59
— .21 .08 .06 .12 .00 −.13
10
1.03 1.19
— −.03 .04 .39 .08 −.04
11
NA NA
— −.03 .03 −.01 .02
12
Note. Underlined correlations are significant at p < .05. FWA = flexible work arrangements; DCS = dependent care supports.
1
Variable
TABLE 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations among Variables
NA NA
— .07 .11 −.07
13
4.15 2.10
— .01 −.10
14
3.35 .71
— .16
15
4.14 .65
—
16
462 PARKER AND ALLEN
WORK /FAMILY BENEFITS
463
TABLE 3 Multiple Regression Results Independent variables
B
SEB
β
Step 1: Demographic controls Education Age Race Organizational tenure Step 1 R 2
.01 −.11 .29 .01 (.09∗∗∗ )
.03 .04 .11 .01
.03 −.21∗∗ .17∗∗ .07
Step 2: Benefit variables FWA offered FWA personal use FWA coworker use DCS offered DCS personal use DCS coworker use
−.04 .11 .03 .02 −.01 .06
.03 .04 .03 .04 .06 .04
−.09 .17∗ .06 .04 −.01 .12
Step 2 1R 2 Step 3: Individual variables Parental status Gender Step 3 1R 2 Step 4: Situational variables Organization size Task interdependence Productivity maintenance Step 4 1R 2 Total R 2
(.05∗ ) .16 .19 (.03∗ )
.10 .07
−.01 .11 .05 (.02)
.02 .05 .05
.10 .16∗∗
−.03 .13∗ .06
.20∗∗∗
Note. N = 255. The regression weights and standard errors shown are for the final equation. Overall F = 3.89, p < .001. R 2 subtotals do not sum to total R 2 due to rounding. FWA = flexible work arrangements; DCS = dependent care supports. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
themselves or have been exposed to situations where coworkers have used the benefits. We ran eight moderated multiple-regression analyses with an additional step that included the interaction term between benefit use (FWA personal use, FWA coworker use, DCS personal use, and DCS coworker use) and the situational variable (productivity maintenance and task interdependence) after controlling for the demographic variables, benefit availability, individual variables, and situational variables. The significance of the change in R 2 at the final step was used to determine if moderation existed. The results did not reveal any significant interactions. We also thought the results concerning parental status warranted further examination. The zero-order correlation between parental status and work/family benefit
464
PARKER AND ALLEN
perceptions was significant (r = .14, p < .05); however, parental status was not significant in the regression equation after other variables were controlled. Our measure of parental status did not take into account the age of the employee’s children. Given that employee age was a significant correlate of work/family benefit fairness perceptions, we wondered if the age of the employee’s children might also be relevant. To examine this issue, we created a new 5-point variable reflecting the age of the employee’s children (5 or younger, 5–9, 10–14, 15–18, and over 18). Our thought was that parents of younger children would view work/family benefits more favorably than would parents of older children. The correlation between children’s age and work/family fairness perceptions was significant (r = −.36, p < .01), indicating that parents of older children perceived work/family benefits as less fair than did parents of younger children. Not surprisingly, the correlation between child age and employee age was also significant (r = .75, p < .01). To help determine if employee age and child age were both unique contributors to fairness perceptions, we ran another regression analysis with the child age variable in place of the parental status variable used previously. The results indicated that the age of the employee’s children related significantly to fairness perceptions (β = −.34, p < .01). In contrast, employee age was not significant (β = .04, ns). Thus, the results suggest that it is not so much employee age that is related to fairness perceptions, but the age of the employee’s children that is important. DISCUSSION At a time when an increasing number of organizations are implementing work/ family benefits to help employees balance their work and nonwork lives, it is imperative that fairness perceptions of such benefits be understood so as to minimize resentment among some employees, what has been referred to as “familyfriendly backlash.” Several key findings emerged from the study. General support involving the individual variables and work/family benefit fairness perceptions was found. Consistent with past studies (Greenberger et al., 1989; Kossek & Nichol, 1992) that demonstrated that females are more supportive of work/family benefits, we also found that females viewed work/family benefits as more fair than did males. The study also extends existing research regarding parental status and views of work/family benefits. Specifically, we found that parental status as defined by whether the individual was a parent or desired children in the future versus not a parent with no future plans for children was not related to fairness perceptions after controlling for other variables such as employee age. However, when we examined parental status as operationalized by age of the employee’s children, we found that it was highly related to work/family benefit fairness perceptions. The current study builds on the findings of Grover (1991), who suggested that parents rate parental leave more favorably than do nonparents. Our findings suggest that simply measuring parental status as parent/nonparent may not be sufficient for understanding reactions to work/family benefits. It is important to consider
WORK /FAMILY BENEFITS
465
the age of the employee’s children. These results support theory that suggests that individuals who stand to gain the most from work/family benefits are those who will view the benefits more positively (Grover). Parents of older children may stand to benefit less from family-friendly benefits as their children are more likely to be out of the home and living independently. Moreover, parents of older children may resent the fact that they had to balance work and family life without any of the benefits afforded to today’s employees with young families. As a whole, the situational variables explained little variance associated with work/family benefit fairness perceptions. There are several possible explanations as to why the situational variables were not related to fairness perceptions. Rationale for the situational hypotheses was based primarily on the idea that employees in small organizations and those in jobs involving a high degree of task interdependence were likely to be negatively affected by others who utilize work/family benefits. However, if one has not had experience with coworkers using these benefits, it is possible that fairness perceptions have not yet been affected. Perhaps for the hypothesized relations to exist, some members of the individual’s own work group must have used work/family benefits in the past, thereby creating the possibility that group members may have been negatively affected as a consequence of others’ utilization of work/family benefits. Indeed, the anecdotal reports illustrating family-friendly backlash often cite cases describing employees who are adversely impacted by another employee using a benefit (e.g., Evanstock, 1999; Seligman, 1999). Our post hoc moderation analyses tested this possible explanation. However, our measure of coworker use may have been too broad in that we assessed coworker use within the organization. Future studies should be designed to include the nature of the employee’s direct experience with the usage of work/family benefits by coworkers and the impact of coworker usage on the employee. Additionally, studies that examine how fairness perceptions change over time should be helpful to understanding situational influences. Another explanation for the null results concerning the situational variables is that employees may have one view regarding the fairness of work/family benefits in general and another view regarding the fairness of work/family benefits specific to their own organization. For example, an employee may generally view work/family benefits favorably, but may believe that these benefits may be less appropriate in work situations characterized by a high degree of task interdependence. The measure used in the present study assessed perceptions concerning the fairness of work/family benefits in general. Situational variables such as those investigated in the present study may be related more strongly to employee perceptions regarding the fairness of work/family benefits when perceptions are tied to the employee’s own organization. Future research is needed to examine fairness perceptions specific to the employee’s organization and general perceptions concerning the overall fairness of work/family benefits. The significant finding regarding task interdependence and fairness perceptions was surprising. There might be a third variable that explains this relation. Specifically, perhaps certain types of people select into jobs that require a high degree of task interdependence. That is, perhaps individuals who are relationship-oriented
466
PARKER AND ALLEN
seek jobs that require a greater degree of interdependent work. Individuals with such high needs for affiliation may view work/family benefits more favorably. Of course, future research is needed to test this speculative notion. The results also revealed that race related to fairness perceptions. Previous research has shown that minorities are more likely to perceive human resource policy programs related to diversity efforts as more fair than Whites (e.g., Arthur, Doverspike, & Fuentes, 1992). Because of their experiences with discrimination within organizations, minorities may generally be more receptive to benefit policies designed to help meet the professional needs of employees (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990). Another explanation may lie in the generally more collectivistic culture of minority members where greater reliance on extended kin systems and the importance of cooperation result in a stronger emphasis on obligations to the family (Hacket & Jackson, 1993; Lobel & Kossek, 1996; Patterson, 1996). These strong familial ties may cause minorities to view work/family benefits especially favorably. The personal use of FWA was also related to fairness perceptions. Individuals who used this type of benefit were more likely to have positive views of work/family benefits than individuals who did not use FWA. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that the option of full-time, flexibly scheduled work was rated as the most valuable benefit option by employees, ranking ahead of dependent-care issues (Rodgers, 1993). Since FWA are benefits that can be used by all employees, their use may be more likely to create positive perceptions regarding work/family benefits in general. The current investigation included some limitations that should be noted. Since the data were based on self-report measures collected at a single point in time, issues such as transient mood states, respondent consistency motifs or response styles, and spurious results due to common method bias are of concern (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). However, as noted by Podsakoff and Organ, demographic information, such as was the focus of several hypotheses in the present study, is generally less vulnerable to common method bias. Future research should attempt to identify additional individual variables that may account for variance in fairness perceptions. For example, as alluded to earlier, personality variables such as collectivism may be positively related to fairness perceptions. Collectivists are generally more concerned for others and the community, while individualists focus on the search for rewards and satisfaction of personal needs (Early, 1989; Parsons & Shils, 1951). As such, it may be that collectivists more readily appreciate the value of work/family benefits beyond their own personal gain. Another potentially interesting variable for future study is sex-role attitudes. It may be that individuals who hold more egalitarian views concerning the role of women and society perceive work/family benefits more favorably than individuals with more traditional views. Despite the limited results found in the present study for the situational variables, additional research examining other situational factors that may be related to fairness perceptions seems warranted. Variables such as the availability of other
WORK /FAMILY BENEFITS
467
benefits offered by the organization (e.g., medical and dental care and sick leave) may be related to attitudes regarding work/family benefits. All employees may more readily view work/family benefits favorably as long as they are not provided at the expense of other employee benefits. In conclusion, as the job responsibilities of many employees are increasing due to organizational turbulence, employees are likely to find work/family benefits helpful in fulfilling their work and personal responsibilities. To minimize backlash and foster an environment where employees have the freedom to use existing work/family benefits, it is important that organizations, as well as researchers, understand factors related to employees’ fairness perceptions. REFERENCES Arthur, W., Doverspike, D., & Fuentes, R. (1992). Recipients’ affective responses to affirmative action interventions: A cross-cultural perspective. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 229–243. Bailey, W. T. (1991). Fathers’ involvement in their children’s healthcare. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152, 289–293. Deutsch, F. M., Lussier, J. B., & Servis, L. J. (1993). Husbands at home: Predictors of paternal participation in child-care and housework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1154–1166. Early, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565–581. Evanstock, M. (1999). Women and children first. Working Women, 24(2), 28. Flynn, G. (1996). Backlash: Why single employees are angry. Personnel Journal, 75(9), 58. Glass, J., & Fujimoto, T. (1995). Employer characteristics and the provision of family responsive policies. Work and Occupations, 22, 380–411. Goldberg, W. A., Greenberger, E., Koch-Jones, J., O’Neil, R., & Hamill, S. (1989). Attractiveness of child care and related employer-supported benefits and policies to married and single parents. Child and Youth Quarterly, 18(1), 23–37. Greenberger, E., Goldberg, W. A., Hamill, S., O’Neil, R., & Payne, C. K. (1989). Contributions of a supportive work environment to parents’ well-being and orientation to work. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 755–783. Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64–86. Grover, S. L. (1991). Predicting the perceived fairness of parental leave policies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 247–255. 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, 271–288. Hacket, S., & Jackson, J. (1993). African-American extended kin systems. In H. McAdoo (Ed.), Family ethnicity (pp. 90–108). Newbury Park: Sage. Hall, D. T., & Parker, V. A. (1993). The role of workplace flexibility in managing diversity. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 5–18. Halpert, J. A., Wilson, M. L., & Hickman, J. L. (1993). Pregnancy as a source of bias in performance appraisals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 649–663. Harris, D. (1997). The fairness furor. Working Mother, September, 28–32. Higgins, C. A., & Duxbury, L. E. (1992). Work-family conflict: A comparison of dual-career and traditional-career men. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 389–411. Hyde, J. S. (1995). Women and maternity leave: empirical data and public policy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 299–313.
468
PARKER AND ALLEN
Hyde, J. S., Essex, M. J., & Horton, F. H. (1993). Fathers and parental leave. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 616–641. Jenner, L. (1994). Family-friendly backlash. Management Review, 7. Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–707. Kossek, E. E., & Nichol, V. (1992). The effects of on-site child care on employee attitudes and performance. Personnel Psychology, 45, 485–509. Lobel, S. A., & Kossek, E. E. (1996). Human resource strategies to support diversity in work and personal lifestyles: Beyond the “family friendly” organization. In E. E. Kossek & S. A. Lobel (Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the workplace (pp. 221– 243). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Patterson, J. M. (1996). Family research methods: Issues and strategies. In C. A. Heflinger & C. T. Nixon (Eds.), Families and the mental health system for children and adolescents: Policy, services, and research (Vol. 2, pp. 117–144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838–844. Pervin, L. A. (1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. Academy of Management Review, 14, 350–360. Picard, M. (1997). No kids? Get back to work! Training, 34(9) 33. Pleck, J. H. (1993). Are family-supportive employer policies relevant to men? In J. Hood (Ed.), Men, work, and family (pp. 217–237). Newbury Park: Sage. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. M. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. Rodgers, C. S. (1993). The flexible workplace: What have we learned? Human Resource Management, 31, 183–199. Rothausen, T. J., Gonzalez, J. A., Clarke, N. E., & O’Dell, L. L. (1998). Family-friendly backlashfact or fiction?: The case of organizations’ on-site child care centers. Personnel Psychology, 51, 685–706. Seligman, D. (1999). Who needs family-friendly companies. Forbes, 72. Smither, J. W., Millsap, R. E., Stoffey, R. W., Reilly, R. R., & Pearlman, K. (1996). An experimental test of the influence of selection procedures on fairness perceptions, attitudes about the organization, and job pursuit intentions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 297–318. Thomas, L., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work–family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15. 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, 392–415. Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180. Received: January 25, 2000; published online March 29, 2001
